Here We Go Mandatory Desexing For All Pet Puppies.

[Souff]

I watched an RSPCA Rescue episode a couple of months ago which had been filmed in Liverpool western Sydney.

The inspector thought there was a dog on the premises which may have had its tail docked. She knocked on the door and there was no answer . Clearly there could not have been an act of cruelty in progress if no one was home.There was no screaming of a dog in agony coming from inside the home etc.

On camera she carried a ladder and set it up beside the house and on camera looked in the window and saw the dog.the dog did not show any signs of being injured or in distress in any way. Yet on she climbed into the home through a second floor window and entered the property when the owner was not at home - without a warrant.

She removed a dog which was around 8 months old with a shortened tail. If her assumption that it had been illegally docked was correct then clearly it had been docked months and months earlier. She wasnt sure how old the dog was and for all she knew the dog may have been over 1 year old [statute of limitations on animal cruelty cases] or had been born with a bob tail or it had been imported.

There was not one single solitary clue or explaination to show why she should have the ability to enter someone's home and remove their property without being invited in or without permission. She had the option of doing what the police can do if they suspect crimminal activity which is not endangering life - to apply for a warrant or she could have simply either returned when the owners were home or left a note for the owners to contact her to investigate the situation.

After she removed the dog she left a note for the owner to contact her when they returned home and took the dog to the shelter where it was X rayed and examined by the RSPCA vet.It was determined the dog had been docked.The dog was in excellent health and condition.

The owner contacted the RSPCA on her return home that evening. She told the inspector that the dog had been given to her as a gift by her Ex boyfriend at 8 weeks of age and it had already had its tail docked. As she no longer had any contact with the ex and he was travelling around Europe and she didnt know where he got it from she could not provide information on who had docked the dog.

The dog was returned to the owner the next day.

Now you dont have to be a genius to work out that if she did this on camera and didnt get the sack and that the RSPCA gave approval for the show to go to air that this is seen to be an acceptable practice.

Is this acceptable practice? If a police officer did this the owner could lodge a complaint and if they felt they were not being treated as they should be and the cops were covering each other to prevent further action being taken against an illegal entry and seizure without due process they can go to the ombudsman.

If a child may have been injured some month's previously by persons unknown could a cop or FACS officer climb in through a window without warrant and remove the child while the parents werent watching and take it off for an examination? Surely cops should have more not less powers to prevent and punish child abuse than an RSPCA officer should have.

There is something very radically wrong with this picture and yet everyone who watched that show saw it as no big deal. Must be just me because I would think if that happened to people I know that the owner would be on the 6 o clock news yelling about it. Society sees it as "good job RSPCA" - These are very strange times we live in.

Given the amount of false and vexatious complaints which are made is it posible that you can dob in your neighbour and tell them there is a docked dog or a debarked dog on the premises and have them illegally enter your home and remove it while you are out shopping before they ask any questions to see if the dog has been docked or debarked ,whether the correct procedure was completed and whether they may need to further investigate without a warrant?

Obviously they think they can and they think its something to brag about and strutt their stuff on TV.

This is power being abused. Blatantly.

All based on ALLEGATIONS and not a sniff of cruelty or pain in sight of the cameras.

The dog with the short tail might have been docked legally overseas ..... or it could have been born here with a natural bobtail .... or it could have already damaged the tail and had an amputation done (which has happened with a quite a few of the docked breed puppies).

Why not call the owner and ask first?

Written proof for both of the above short tail scenarios can be provided easily enough in most cases.

I didn't see the show mentioned but I hope some of the docked breed owners out there have taken up the matter with their local Member of Parliament.

Nobody's home should be broken into like that.

Souff

[Steve]

I watched an RSPCA Rescue episode a couple of months ago which had been filmed in Liverpool western Sydney.

The inspector thought there was a dog on the premises which may have had its tail docked. She knocked on the door and there was no answer . Clearly there could not have been an act of cruelty in progress if no one was home.There was no screaming of a dog in agony coming from inside the home etc.

On camera she carried a ladder and set it up beside the house and on camera looked in the window and saw the dog.the dog did not show any signs of being injured or in distress in any way. Yet on she climbed into the home through a second floor window and entered the property when the owner was not at home - without a warrant.

She removed a dog which was around 8 months old with a shortened tail. If her assumption that it had been illegally docked was correct then clearly it had been docked months and months earlier. She wasnt sure how old the dog was and for all she knew the dog may have been over 1 year old [statute of limitations on animal cruelty cases] or had been born with a bob tail or it had been imported.

There was not one single solitary clue or explaination to show why she should have the ability to enter someone's home and remove their property without being invited in or without permission. She had the option of doing what the police can do if they suspect crimminal activity which is not endangering life - to apply for a warrant or she could have simply either returned when the owners were home or left a note for the owners to contact her to investigate the situation.

After she removed the dog she left a note for the owner to contact her when they returned home and took the dog to the shelter where it was X rayed and examined by the RSPCA vet.It was determined the dog had been docked.The dog was in excellent health and condition.

The owner contacted the RSPCA on her return home that evening. She told the inspector that the dog had been given to her as a gift by her Ex boyfriend at 8 weeks of age and it had already had its tail docked. As she no longer had any contact with the ex and he was travelling around Europe and she didnt know where he got it from she could not provide information on who had docked the dog.

The dog was returned to the owner the next day.

Now you dont have to be a genius to work out that if she did this on camera and didnt get the sack and that the RSPCA gave approval for the show to go to air that this is seen to be an acceptable practice.

Is this acceptable practice? If a police officer did this the owner could lodge a complaint and if they felt they were not being treated as they should be and the cops were covering each other to prevent further action being taken against an illegal entry and seizure without due process they can go to the ombudsman.

If a child may have been injured some month's previously by persons unknown could a cop or FACS officer climb in through a window without warrant and remove the child while the parents werent watching and take it off for an examination? Surely cops should have more not less powers to prevent and punish child abuse than an RSPCA officer should have.

There is something very radically wrong with this picture and yet everyone who watched that show saw it as no big deal. Must be just me because I would think if that happened to people I know that the owner would be on the 6 o clock news yelling about it. Society sees it as "good job RSPCA" - These are very strange times we live in.

Given the amount of false and vexatious complaints which are made is it posible that you can dob in your neighbour and tell them there is a docked dog or a debarked dog on the premises and have them illegally enter your home and remove it while you are out shopping before they ask any questions to see if the dog has been docked or debarked ,whether the correct procedure was completed and whether they may need to further investigate without a warrant?

Obviously they think they can and they think its something to brag about and strutt their stuff on TV.

This is power being abused. Blatantly.

All based on ALLEGATIONS and not a sniff of cruelty or pain in sight of the cameras.

The dog with the short tail might have been docked legally overseas ..... or it could have been born here with a natural bobtail .... or it could have already damaged the tail and had an amputation done (which has happened with a quite a few of the docked breed puppies).

Why not call the owner and ask first?

Written proof for both of the above short tail scenarios can be provided easily enough in most cases.

I didn't see the show mentioned but I hope some of the docked breed owners out there have taken up the matter with their local Member of Parliament.

Nobody's home should be broken into like that.

Souff

Un believeable really isnt it? Considering we havent heard anyone in the poo over it and it was there for everyone to see I think perhaps anyone who owns an animal should take serious steps to secure and protect their property.Though I dont have an idea of how if locking you dog inside your home when you go shopping isnt enough todo that. We should all be aware of the fact that as this can happen this org has more power over anyone who happens to own an animal or be in control of an animal than any other agency in this country.

[OSoSwift]

I did see this show and I do remember they gave the young Bracy breed dog a GA to xray it's tail. I am quite sure a sedation or even just holding it would have sufficed!

I was thinking at the time I hope nothing goes wrong with the GA. If that was my dog I would have been on the rampage.

As mentioned how dare they take a perfectly healthy dog with no evidence of pain off to have a GA just to see if the dogs tail

was docked. They could have spoken to the owner and sorted it BEFORE the GA etc.

The behaviour from the RSPCA was over the top and not required and only done as a publicity stunt. The average Joe Public would have been to caught up in the "oh noes a nasty person cut off the dogs tail" instead of thinking about the invasion of privacy.

[Souff]

I did see this show and I do remember they gave the young Bracy breed dog a GA to xray it's tail. I am quite sure a sedation or even just holding it would have sufficed!

I was thinking at the time I hope nothing goes wrong with the GA. If that was my dog I would have been on the rampage.

As mentioned how dare they take a perfectly healthy dog with no evidence of pain off to have a GA just to see if the dogs tail

was docked. They could have spoken to the owner and sorted it BEFORE the GA etc.

The behaviour from the RSPCA was over the top and not required and only done as a publicity stunt. The average Joe Public would have been to caught up in the "oh noes a nasty person cut off the dogs tail" instead of thinking about the invasion of privacy.

It was an unacceptable abuse of power, but to whom can you report it?

No ombudsman to handle this!

[OSoSwift]

I did see this show and I do remember they gave the young Bracy breed dog a GA to xray it's tail. I am quite sure a sedation or even just holding it would have sufficed!

I was thinking at the time I hope nothing goes wrong with the GA. If that was my dog I would have been on the rampage.

As mentioned how dare they take a perfectly healthy dog with no evidence of pain off to have a GA just to see if the dogs tail

was docked. They could have spoken to the owner and sorted it BEFORE the GA etc.

The behaviour from the RSPCA was over the top and not required and only done as a publicity stunt. The average Joe Public would have been to caught up in the "oh noes a nasty person cut off the dogs tail" instead of thinking about the invasion of privacy.

It was an unacceptable abuse of power, but to whom can you report it?

No ombudsman to handle this!

No-one which is the problem.

[Dracdog]

A few years ago I went to an interview for an Animal Management position with a Local Council and was told that as part of the job I would be able to enter a persons home to take an animal if there was even a hint of cruelty suspected or if the animal was a nusince. So it is not just the RSPCA that can do it. They also said that if an animal was found wandering and picked up they would try to contact the owners but if the dog, cat or what ever was not collected within 3 days then it belonged to the Council and was either rehomed, sent to the RSPCA or the University.

[pikespooches]

What bothers me the most about domestic pets in Australia is that over 100,000 of them are euthanised every year, not because they are sick, bad, or dangerous - but because they are unwanted.

Yet there are so many more being deliberately and accidentally bred to add to this amount. None of it makes sense to me.

Desexing really is the only thing that can stop this.

I sadly doubt, laws or not, that I will ever see this society getting to the point where we stop euthanising good animals simply because we have over-bred.

The BIGGEST problem is people making impulse and uninformed choices, choosing the wrong animal for their circumstances.

Be it exercise, training, or grooming requirements you have to choose the dog that fits the bill for your abilities, and circumstances, choose a high maintenance breed when you would be suited better to an easy care low activity breed and you are inviting either heartache or simply dissatisfaction. All too hard, dog ends up in the pound or shelter.

People also need to realise that not everyone including themselves will be a suitable and succesful dog owner so they may need to forget the cute puppy in the yard vision.

Well here's 6 of them http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=211031

and this infuriates me i cannot believe any ethical rescue would allow bitches to whelp

This is a hard one for people to get into their heads. I personally desex any rescue bitch known to be or suspected to be in whelp. But I have in the past, whilst still learning about rescue allowed bitches to whelp. I lost some puppies as their mums were in poor condition some were ok etc but I can't now let unwanted unplanned puppies that never asked to exist come into the world nor put that pressure on the mums who may either be a puppy herself or have had countless litters. To me the rescue is the rescue of the female dog she is the most important one to consider. I have desexed in ALL stages of pregnancy even a few days prior to whelping all with success. To add we do not know the genetic health of either parent nor the potential of the puppies or that of their temperament and suitability as a pet. All rescue unknown heritage puppies can be cute but they do grow into adult dogs of varying temperaments and types.

If however they have been born into the pound or similar I will save them as they are on earth now, if I can of course.

If other choose to allow the dog to whelp that is their decision. Whether it is right or not I do not know but I know what I feel I can live with.

[pikespooches]

I watched an RSPCA Rescue episode a couple of months ago which had been filmed in Liverpool western Sydney.

The inspector thought there was a dog on the premises which may have had its tail docked. She knocked on the door and there was no answer . Clearly there could not have been an act of cruelty in progress if no one was home.There was no screaming of a dog in agony coming from inside the home etc.

On camera she carried a ladder and set it up beside the house and on camera looked in the window and saw the dog.the dog did not show any signs of being injured or in distress in any way. Yet on she climbed into the home through a second floor window and entered the property when the owner was not at home - without a warrant.

She removed a dog which was around 8 months old with a shortened tail. If her assumption that it had been illegally docked was correct then clearly it had been docked months and months earlier. She wasnt sure how old the dog was and for all she knew the dog may have been over 1 year old [statute of limitations on animal cruelty cases] or had been born with a bob tail or it had been imported.

There was not one single solitary clue or explaination to show why she should have the ability to enter someone's home and remove their property without being invited in or without permission. She had the option of doing what the police can do if they suspect crimminal activity which is not endangering life - to apply for a warrant or she could have simply either returned when the owners were home or left a note for the owners to contact her to investigate the situation.

After she removed the dog she left a note for the owner to contact her when they returned home and took the dog to the shelter where it was X rayed and examined by the RSPCA vet.It was determined the dog had been docked.The dog was in excellent health and condition.

The owner contacted the RSPCA on her return home that evening. She told the inspector that the dog had been given to her as a gift by her Ex boyfriend at 8 weeks of age and it had already had its tail docked. As she no longer had any contact with the ex and he was travelling around Europe and she didnt know where he got it from she could not provide information on who had docked the dog.

The dog was returned to the owner the next day.

Now you dont have to be a genius to work out that if she did this on camera and didnt get the sack and that the RSPCA gave approval for the show to go to air that this is seen to be an acceptable practice.

Is this acceptable practice? If a police officer did this the owner could lodge a complaint and if they felt they were not being treated as they should be and the cops were covering each other to prevent further action being taken against an illegal entry and seizure without due process they can go to the ombudsman.

If a child may have been injured some month's previously by persons unknown could a cop or FACS officer climb in through a window without warrant and remove the child while the parents werent watching and take it off for an examination? Surely cops should have more not less powers to prevent and punish child abuse than an RSPCA officer should have.

There is something very radically wrong with this picture and yet everyone who watched that show saw it as no big deal. Must be just me because I would think if that happened to people I know that the owner would be on the 6 o clock news yelling about it. Society sees it as "good job RSPCA" - These are very strange times we live in.

Given the amount of false and vexatious complaints which are made is it posible that you can dob in your neighbour and tell them there is a docked dog or a debarked dog on the premises and have them illegally enter your home and remove it while you are out shopping before they ask any questions to see if the dog has been docked or debarked ,whether the correct procedure was completed and whether they may need to further investigate without a warrant?

Obviously they think they can and they think its something to brag about and strutt their stuff on TV.

This is an invasion of privacy in the least!!! To be aired on national TV.

A bit like haning out the dirty laundry isn't it!

[fluffybutt]

Mandatory desexing cannot be across the board as I started to try and do this almost 20 years ago but found that my breed has adverse re-action to asnaesthic(SP) at an early age and the vet decided that it was too risky as we lost puppies I tried again later thinking their may be progress in the procedure but we still found losing too many puppies was not on Puppies are precious little lives and I will not put them at risk It should be my decision or the new owner

[Souff]

Mandatory desexing cannot be across the board as I started to try and do this almost 20 years ago but found that my breed has adverse re-action to asnaesthic(SP) at an early age and the vet decided that it was too risky as we lost puppies I tried again later thinking their may be progress in the procedure but we still found losing too many puppies was not on Puppies are precious little lives and I will not put them at risk It should be my decision or the new owner

Very true. Adverse reaction to anaesthetic happens and has obviously not been taken into account by the Greens politicians calling for mandatory desexing.

Such dogs will be in the minority but I believe that they deserve to live and if we know that dogs from these lines dont take anaesthetic well, we should not be exposing them to anaesthetic if there is an alternative situation for them. I am speaking from personal experience and was standing next to the vet in emergency C-section operations only to see the problem that he was having keeping her alive - as an adult - after she reacted badly to the anaesthetic. Had she been anaesthetised as a young pup I don't think she would have stood a chance.

As I have said many, many times before "blanket legislation" (one rule for all dogs) can never work. Nature has too many imperfections and too many variations for any legislation like this to be able to be applied safely across all dogs.

In short, such legislation is UNWORKABLE and anyone sending in submissions against this proposed legislation would be wise to mention this.

Souff

[Alyosha]

Yep Steve and Souff that is unlawful. That TV show is ridiculous. And I do agree that there is no ombudsman etc to oversee professional behaviour. They don't have more powers than police, but may lack the legal grounding or knowledge in some cases to utilise their powers lawfully and effectively. Anyone recall the koala fiasco?

The problem is, it's up to the victim of such behaviour to kick up about it. If people don't complain about things like that, they will continue. The only recourse people have is lodging a criminal or civil complaint against the individual inspector. Civil action can be limited by financial constraints as well.

There won't be any further scrutiny placed upong the laws that they operate under unless people publicly question them.

[Rusky]

So where is the evididence of what happened to these dogs? A couple of hundred is hardly worth punishing every dog over in case it has an accidental litter isnt it?

I disagree, it is thousands Australia wide, the stats were way off previously on this topic ...so now a couple of hundred ... not 22.

[asal]

Yep Steve and Souff that is unlawful. That TV show is ridiculous. And I do agree that there is no ombudsman etc to oversee professional behaviour. They don't have more powers than police, but may lack the legal grounding or knowledge in some cases to utilise their powers lawfully and effectively. Anyone recall the koala fiasco?

The problem is, it's up to the victim of such behaviour to kick up about it. If people don't complain about things like that, they will continue. The only recourse people have is lodging a criminal or civil complaint against the individual inspector. Civil action can be limited by financial constraints as well.

There won't be any further scrutiny placed upong the laws that they operate under unless people publicly question them.

trouble is, the mugs who do are simply sticking their heads up for the chopping block.

all it elicits is would never have happend i u were innocent, the total favourite, where these smoke theres fire.

n make a fuss and your "hysterical"

n who takes any notice of anyone "hysterical"?

theres been a lot of "victims" over the decades and its always asumed the victim is guilty unless proven innocent .

even judy guard pleaded guilty , amazing the magistrate refused to accept the plea, isnt it?

[asal]

I did see this show and I do remember they gave the young Bracy breed dog a GA to xray it's tail. I am quite sure a sedation or even just holding it would have sufficed!

I was thinking at the time I hope nothing goes wrong with the GA. If that was my dog I would have been on the rampage.

As mentioned how dare they take a perfectly healthy dog with no evidence of pain off to have a GA just to see if the dogs tail

was docked. They could have spoken to the owner and sorted it BEFORE the GA etc.

The behaviour from the RSPCA was over the top and not required and only done as a publicity stunt. The average Joe Public would have been to caught up in the "oh noes a nasty person cut off the dogs tail" instead of thinking about the invasion of privacy.

OR THAT THE DOG COULD HAVE DIED under the anesethic, all done without the owners knowledge or CONSENT. no vet can do that but the rspca can and will and DOES.

[asal]

So Souff you have just shown that although RSPCA Inspectors in NSW have some powers under the POCTA, which police have as well.

Police then have additional powers under the same Act, as defined by LEPRA.

You have failed to note how you allege that this equates to RSPCA having more power than police. It's showing the opposite.

And in addition, regarding the feed bills issue, from http://www.rspca-act.org.au/about-us/

We will prepare 300,000 meals for companion animals; 500,000 feeds for native birds and mammals.

Geez. half a million meals huh? Sounds pretty cheap to me. Especially with highly specialised diets involved...

I have it in writing from the minister for agriculture.

all an inspector has to do is "form the opinion" to this little gem "(2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may exercise a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant or if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that:"

SO all an inspector has to do is "form the opinion" n their in like flynnn.

I rest my case.

Edited December 24, 2010 by asal

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Yep Steve and Souff that is unlawful. That TV show is ridiculous. And I do agree that there is no ombudsman etc to oversee professional behaviour. They don't have more powers than police, but may lack the legal grounding or knowledge in some cases to utilise their powers lawfully and effectively. Anyone recall the koala fiasco?

The problem is, it's up to the victim of such behaviour to kick up about it. If people don't complain about things like that, they will continue. The only recourse people have is lodging a criminal or civil complaint against the individual inspector. Civil action can be limited by financial constraints as well.

There won't be any further scrutiny placed upong the laws that they operate under unless people publicly question them.

that is why there are petitions being signed. the petitions ask for the establishment of a transparent external appeals process for all states and territories rspca's.

[OSoSwift]

I did see this show and I do remember they gave the young Bracy breed dog a GA to xray it's tail. I am quite sure a sedation or even just holding it would have sufficed!

I was thinking at the time I hope nothing goes wrong with the GA. If that was my dog I would have been on the rampage.

As mentioned how dare they take a perfectly healthy dog with no evidence of pain off to have a GA just to see if the dogs tail

was docked. They could have spoken to the owner and sorted it BEFORE the GA etc.

The behaviour from the RSPCA was over the top and not required and only done as a publicity stunt. The average Joe Public would have been to caught up in the "oh noes a nasty person cut off the dogs tail" instead of thinking about the invasion of privacy.

OR THAT THE DOG COULD HAVE DIED under the anesethic, all done without the owners knowledge or CONSENT. no vet can do that but the rspca can and will and DOES.

Yep ASAL that is exactly what I was getting at. The dog could have died from the GA for something that didn't need it and without the owners permission. If they had of waited until they had spoken to the owner the owner would have told them the dog had had it's tail docked.

I would have been beyond furious

[Souff]

I did see this show and I do remember they gave the young Bracy breed dog a GA to xray it's tail. I am quite sure a sedation or even just holding it would have sufficed!

I was thinking at the time I hope nothing goes wrong with the GA. If that was my dog I would have been on the rampage.

As mentioned how dare they take a perfectly healthy dog with no evidence of pain off to have a GA just to see if the dogs tail

was docked. They could have spoken to the owner and sorted it BEFORE the GA etc.

The behaviour from the RSPCA was over the top and not required and only done as a publicity stunt. The average Joe Public would have been to caught up in the "oh noes a nasty person cut off the dogs tail" instead of thinking about the invasion of privacy.

OR THAT THE DOG COULD HAVE DIED under the anesethic, all done without the owners knowledge or CONSENT. no vet can do that but the rspca can and will and DOES.

Asal,

I know it is Christmas morn and I wasnt going to comment today, but you have raised several important points there, in regard to our vets needing owners consent give a general anaesthetic and pointing out the risks of GA.

There are also quite a few dogs out there in different breeds with natural bobtails, short tails that they were BORN with, many of which look just like a docked tail.

Owners have to produce veterinary proof that the dog has in fact got a natural short tail before they can be exhibited etc. and owners of new pups are given a copy of the veterinary certificate so that they can ward off the questions of accusers.

Yet their bobtailed dog can be safely in its own home and be removed by an RSPCA officer who has unlawfully broken into the home, and then be subjected to an unnecessary general anesthetic - all to satisfy somebody's suspicions.

My Christmas wish is that somebody will better educate RSPCA officers in regard to these matters and that the lure of being on camera is not as strong as considering the real health of the dog.

Dogs dont die because they have a short tail, nor are they in pain, but they can most certainly die under anaesthetic.

Christmas wishes to all - and I hope everyone can better educate themselves as to all the variations in the dog world and keep all our beautiful dogs safe and respect them for what they are.

Souff

[espinay2]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12...9244.htm

Proposed animal laws 'smart': RSPCA

Updated 6 hours 38 minutes ago

• Map: Canberra 2600
  
• Related Story: Greens push to toughen animal welfare laws
  

The RSPCA is backing a draft bill that would make the ACT's animal welfare laws the toughest in the nation.

The draft bill was introduced to the Assembly yesterday by the Greens and would enforce all dogs and cats to be desexed at the point of sale.

Other measures include tighter restrictions for pet shops and higher fines for animal cruelty.

The Chief Executive of the ACT RSPCA Michael Linke says desexing animals at the point of sale would make a significant impact.

"The law in the ACT is to have a cat desexed at 12 weeks of age or a dog desexed at 6 months of age, the problem is that pet shops, newspaper sales, the internet sales are selling these animals younger than that," he said.

"So there's a loophole...this type of legislation will guarantee that we have legislation in Canberra with teeth that will stop the influx of animals here at the RSPCA."

Another proposal is to ban pet shops from displaying kittens and puppies in the front window, and prohibiting children from buying pets.

Mr Linke says he's been advocating for many of the measures outlined in the draft bill for years , and he's urging all sides of politics to support it.

"We'll be lobbying strenuously with the Chief Minister and his cabinet as well as the Liberal Party to see that smart legislation like this does get carriage and gets passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly," he said.

"It's laws that we need in Canberra, it's not going to negatively affect anybody. It's positive, good sense legislation and I'm hoping it gets tripartisan support."

Just a note in case it hasn't been mentioned or heard previously. Just before Xmas I heard a radio report (ABC 666) that the ACT Govt would not be supporting the Greens bill. They apparently are working on their own which they plan to introduce in the new year.......time to get busy folks.

[espinay2]

Here is the report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/20/3097901.htm

Stanhope rejects Greens animal welfare reform

Updated Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:56pm AEDT

Jon Stanhope says the Government will introduce its own changes to animal welfare laws. (ABC News)

The ACT Government has indicated it will not be supporting a Greens push for tougher animal welfare laws.

Under the proposal, pet shops would be banned from putting animals in their windows and selling to children.

Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says the Government is already reviewing the laws and plans to put forward its own changes next year.

He says the Greens' proposal goes too far and could lead to more people buying pets on the black market.

"There's very high degrees of regulation and transparency in relation to sales through pet shops," he said.

"The pet sales that are of greater concern are those that are done irregularly, those that are done over the backyard fence, those that are done at markets, those that are done over the Internet.

"It's those dogs that we believe are at greater risk of being ill-treated, of not being kept in conditions they should be."