Greens' Pet Crackdown- Media Release 20/12/10

[LouBon]

This out today from Chief Ministers Dept..........

"Greens' pet crackdown could worsen animal welfare"

Released 20/12/2010

Chief Minister Jon Stanhope believes new Green legislation proposed by Caroline Le Couteur MLA could make it more difficult to monitor the activities of unscrupulous pet breeders and traders looking to sell pets to ACT residents.

"Greens legislation tabled in the Assembly last week directly targets ACT pet shops in, an industry that is responsible for only 14% of pet sales and is already one of the most accountable and closely regulated sectors in the Territory," Mr Stanhope said.

"The Greens' proposal would create laws where dogs and cats for sale can only be sourced from animal shelters and must be removed from shops each night.

"Banning the shop sale of pets from reputable breeders would lead to a surge in the number of animals purchased through the internet, at markets and over the back fence. These are the channels where it is most difficult to monitor breeding and keeping conditions; to track, chip and desex animals; and to ensure appropriate advice on care and pet-owners obligations is provided. It is also the most difficult area to ensure customers can come back to the supplier if there are issue after sale or if they require advice.

"A permit is already required to keep a domestic pet entire to allow it to breed in the ACT. The Greens' proposal to create mandatory breeding licences is already in development in the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and is being developed with a mind to ensuring such a licence would not result in increases to the illegal breeding of animals.

"The Greens' proposal will have unintended consequences if introduced as proposed. The Animal Welfare Act is intended to be a general document that protects the welfare of all animals. Regulations and codes of practice operate under the Act which provide for the welfare of different types of animals. By seeking to legislate in detail for specific animals within the Act itself the Green's Bill effectively dilutes the broad protection the Act offers.

"On my request earlier this year the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has commenced a review of the voluntary Code of Practice for the Breeding and Sale of Animals (other than from saleyards) to include mandatory provisions. Separately Mary Porter MLA has referred to the Committee a draft Discussion Paper which examines complementary measures to foster improvements in the breeding, sale and keeping of pets.

"While Ms Le Couteur maintains that she has consulted with the sector I understand the Bill has come as a complete surprise to the majority of members on the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee - which includes representatives of the key animal welfare and industry organisations. The Greens' Bill seeks to address in a very partial manner the very issues to which the Committee is currently giving its expert attention as it reviews Code of Practice for the Breeding and Sale of Animals (other than from saleyards) and Mary Porter's draft discussion paper.

"The Greens' have thrown out a proposal that is poorly conceived and targeted, is the result of narrow consultation and has the potential to lead to worse conditions for the very animals it seeks to save, Mr Stanhope said.

Media Contact:

Kanchan Dutt 6205 8500 0401 563 532 [email protected]

Edited December 20, 2010 by LouBon

[Souff]

"While Ms Le Couteur maintains that she has consulted with the sector I understand the Bill has come as a complete surprise to the majority of members on the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee - which includes representatives of the key animal welfare and industry organisations. "

Would be very interesting to know how many registered breeders in the ACT were consulted by Ms le Couteur.

At least Mr Stanhope is awake and thinking. Let's hope that other ACT politicians are too.

[LouBon]

"Banning the shop sale of pets from reputable breeders would lead to a surge in the number of animals purchased through the internet, at markets and over the back fence."

What a joke. Stanhope obviously hasn't bothered to check where pet shop animals are sourced. It's my understanding that this legislation only refers to animals sold in pet shops, not through registered breeders.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

"Banning the shop sale of pets from reputable breeders would lead to a surge in the number of animals purchased through the internet, at markets and over the back fence."

What a joke. Stanhope obviously hasn't bothered to check where pet shop animals are sourced. It's my understanding that this legislation only refers to animals sold in pet shops, not through registered breeders.

The legislation also requires breeders already registered by DogsACT to go through another Government licensing program to be licenced as breeders and requires them to do things like supply a desexing certificate with the sale of puppies etc.

While I'm disappointed about the pet shop angle in the Chief Minister's press release, most of the rest of the bill falls into the category of onerous legislation that will force compliant people out and, given existing levels of funding for compliance intervention, let the non-compliant continue on their merry way.

[Diva]

While I'm disappointed about the pet shop angle in the Chief Minister's press release, most of the rest of the bill falls into the category of onerous legislation that will force compliant people out and, given existing levels of funding for compliance intervention, let the non-compliant continue on their merry way.

Agree entirely. If the exposure draft of the bill went through as is it would have a substantial and onerous effect on ACTCA reg breeders. Even as a non-breeder I can see that

I'm relieved it doesn't appear to have the support of the Govt.

[Jed]

Banning the shop sale of pets from reputable breeders

That would have to be the oxymoron of the decade.

The legislation will drive more good breeders out, but make no difference to others.

[whippets]

This is the kind of "greens" crap that got them submarined in the Victorian election. We got a taste of their stupid policies when they got their foot in the door at the federal election but the liberals in Vic organised their preferences so the greens didn't stand a chance. Onya Ted

[DEATHROWPETS.net]

From

Caroline Le Couteur, ACT Greens MLA

"Hi everyone.

I’ve been following the discussions on the forum about the Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which I’ve put out as an exposure draft for community comment.

I’d like to just offer a couple of brief comments in response to some of the concerns raised here, which I hope will be helpful.

Firstly, I’m very open to hearing feedback and suggestions on the bill. It’s certainly not true that the draft was timed to avoid receiving feedback. I asked for feedback by 22 February 2011 which gave 10 weeks for comments – but if you need more time please just let me know. The reason it is an exposure draft is so that we can hear suggestions before we decide how we might proceed with the bill. We’ve tried to reach as many people as possible to provide them with a copy of the bill. I urge anyone interested to put in a submission. They will certainly be read and considered. We’re making a genuine effort to improve things in a tricky area and want to work with everyone who is involved in the issues.

Secondly, I want to emphasise that the intent of this legislation is not to make life difficult for good breeders, or to stop the breeding of animals, or to stop people owning pets. We’re trying to address the problem of bad breeders who don’t comply with decent standards, as well as ongoing problems with abandonment, mistreatment and euthanizing of animals etc. So, as well as breeder registration, the bill covers a whole range of areas – desexing, microchipping, advertising, selling, cruelty provisions etc. The provisions are supposed to work together, hopefully to address the problems at the various levels (eg if someone still breeds without getting a license, they are still restricted in being able to advertise, because they wouldn’t have a permit number to display with the ad).

I would hope that the majority of breeders – who are good, legitimate breeders - see advantages in the proposals in the legislation. We’re trying to set up a system where it is only the good breeders who can do things like breed, advertise, and sell. And hopefully the minority of bad breeders - the ‘puppy farmers’ - can no longer be part of the industry.

Lastly, on the issue of desexing, which has had some discussion in this thread, I would point out that the draft bill proposes desexing of cats and dogs only if they are of desexing age under ACT laws (6 months for dogs). So, no desexing of animals earlier than is already legally permitted (and we understand that the appropriate desexing age remains an area of contention). If they’re younger than the legal age, the animals must be sold with a ‘desexing voucher’. Certainly there are some tricky issues with this and we’re looking at how exemptions might work - for example where the dogs/cats are sold to someone outside the ACT, or are for breeding/showing. These are the kinds of things we’re working through, and submissions will be helpful.

I’d ask that you please have a close look at the proposals and, if you think some changes should be made to meet the goals I’ve outlined, let me know your suggestions.

For those who have not seen the bill or the accompanying material, the bill can be found here: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ed/db_40359/current/pdf/db_40359.pdf

And the consultation material on the bill can be found here: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/es/db_40363/current/pdf/db_40363.pdf

Best regards,

Caroline Le Couteur, ACT Greens MLA"

[poodlefan]

"While Ms Le Couteur maintains that she has consulted with the sector I understand the Bill has come as a complete surprise to the majority of members on the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee - which includes representatives of the key animal welfare and industry organisations. "

Would be very interesting to know how many registered breeders in the ACT were consulted by Ms le Couteur.

At least Mr Stanhope is awake and thinking. Let's hope that other ACT politicians are too.

I can tell you. None. We're working on that right now though.

No point in being able to have a license to keep a dog entire here when the Greens' bill makes it illegal for a breeder to sell ANY pup entire. It would be the death of ACT bred pups in one dog generation. I'm sure that would make some animal rights groups very happy.

Dogs ACT is responding to the draft Bill.

[erinonthefarm]

Is there a way to to add to mandatory microchipping of puppies and kittens, with breeders details as a secondary contact after the puppies are homed. In addition to that, breeders share responsibility for welfare of their puppies and kittens by legislation so that first port of call for a surrender is the breeder?

Then of course many of the BYB types would chose to have those PTS, but at their expense, this may be a "hassle" and an unwanted expense, or fine the breeder as well as the owner for unclaimed microchipped animals.

I aggree with others, there are inherent problems with making more rules which make it harder for registered breeders while the puppy mills and BYB continue business as usual, however my suggestion is something registered breeders have already adopted and making the rest somewhat accountable for their creations may make it less appealing.

Maybe if newspapers and other advertising media cannot accept advertisments from unregistered breeders, and the sale of puppies and kittens from pet shops is banned?

I am not an ACt resident, but I think its great this topic is on the agenda for pollies, hopefully it becomes workable.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Banning the shop sale of pets from reputable breeders

How many "reputable" breeders sell their pets in petshops anyway? I thought selling puppies to or through a petshop makes the breeder disreputable.

[Curlybert]

I can tell you. None. We're working on that right now though.

No point in being able to have a license to keep a dog entire here when the Greens' bill makes it illegal for a breeder to sell ANY pup entire. It would be the death of ACT bred pups in one dog generation. I'm sure that would make some animal rights groups very happy.

Dogs ACT is responding to the draft Bill.

Be fair. Ms Le Couteur acknowledges that it's an exposure draft and that there are issues that need to be further addressed:

"If they’re younger than the legal age, the animals must be sold with a ‘desexing voucher’. Certainly there are some tricky issues with this and we’re looking at how exemptions might work - for example where the dogs/cats are sold to someone outside the ACT, or are for breeding/showing. These are the kinds of things we’re working through, and submissions will be helpful."

[poodlefan]

I can tell you. None. We're working on that right now though.

No point in being able to have a license to keep a dog entire here when the Greens' bill makes it illegal for a breeder to sell ANY pup entire. It would be the death of ACT bred pups in one dog generation. I'm sure that would make some animal rights groups very happy.

Dogs ACT is responding to the draft Bill.

Be fair. Ms Le Couteur acknowledges that it's an exposure draft and that there are issues that need to be further addressed:

"If they’re younger than the legal age, the animals must be sold with a ‘desexing voucher’. Certainly there are some tricky issues with this and we’re looking at how exemptions might work - for example where the dogs/cats are sold to someone outside the ACT, or are for breeding/showing. These are the kinds of things we’re working through, and submissions will be helpful."

It's a pity she didn't consult more widely to address some of those issues before publishing it. She might have ended up with an exposure draft that met a better reception from govt. As it stands, its scaring the crap out of quite a few people.

I don't know how some of these issues are "being worked through" but its certainly not being done by actively consulting with the organisation that represents quite a few dog breeders.

Edited January 14, 2011 by poodlefan

[Raelene]

I think that one great first step would be for current legislation to be enforced. Any legislation is only as good as it's enforcement. All dogs are supposed to be microchipped and desexed (by 6mths unless it has an entire permit). Enforcement of this would be a good first step. And to do that some more funds for rangers from the Govt would go a LONG way to helping.

I have seen the outcomes of too many irresponsible dog owners and breeders (including backyard and registered) in the rescue world. I have also seen HORRENDOUS conditions with someone who was regarded as a reputable and well thought of breeder/showy - landed at her place by accident when hubby responded to an ad for car parts.

There are a lot of backyard breeders that have purebred dogs that have been purchased from breeders (often as pets) but have "champion bloodlines" and so are worth breeding or putting over the neighbours dog (who may be another breed). Surely breeders see this? I am really surprised that the breeders don't protect their bloodlines and dogs more by ensuring that there pet puppies are desexed as soon as acceptable for the breed type and before breeding age and any mature dogs are desexed before being sold as pets. I know there are a responsible portion who have desexing contracts or desex before sale, but there are a lot of others who sell undesexed full stop (ie. there is a cavalier for sale on the board at work, entire male 4 or 5 years from memory, just finished it's show ring career, located in ACT - not desexed could equal perfect for "oodle" breeding I'd think. I have let them know that dogs over 6mths are supposed to be desexed at point of sale as they also have another older pup on the market).

I think it is good that there is this discussion. It is needed and there is a lot to work through to really make it work well, but it has to be better than present. FAR too many dogs ending up needing help, yes more crossbreeds than purebreds, but there is a good smattering of both.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Raelene

[Alyosha]

From

Caroline Le Couteur, ACT Greens MLA

... So, as well as breeder registration, the bill covers a whole range of areas – desexing, microchipping, advertising, selling, cruelty provisions etc.

There is already breeder registration, with the ACTCA. Is there a need to create further legislation that responsible breeders have to pay to comply with? Because I'm pretty certain the irresponsible won't comply anyway. Seeing as there is lack of resources within the ACT to regulate the domestic animal legislation which already exists (including cruelty legislation), who will enforce a new Act?

As far as I can tell, this won't even put a dent in the business of the large NSW puppy farmer that sells through the markets within the Territory boundary. So if it can't counteract one of the most obvious and embarrassing examples of blatant puppy farm trade in the ACT, how will it stop any other unethical "breeder" with half a brain?

[SkySoaringMagpie]

There is already breeder registration, with the ACTCA. Is there a need to create further legislation that responsible breeders have to pay to comply with? Because I'm pretty certain the irresponsible won't comply anyway. Seeing as there is lack of resources within the ACT to regulate the domestic animal legislation which already exists (including cruelty legislation), who will enforce a new Act?

As far as I can tell, this won't even put a dent in the business of the large NSW puppy farmer that sells through the markets within the Territory boundary. So if it can't counteract one of the most obvious and embarrassing examples of blatant puppy farm trade in the ACT, how will it stop any other unethical "breeder" with half a brain?

Agree. A better strategy would be to lobby the Government to better resource compliance with existing laws. I also agree that if you could fix the markets problem that would be an excellent start. Perhaps the Greens could lobby the market owners/committee to refuse access to people selling companion animals. If that fails, perhaps team up with the local RPSCA on a "don't buy your puppy from a market" campaign.

[Raelene]

ACTCA is not government.

There are more "registered breeders" than those covered in ANKC registered bodies, there are others in organisations like the MDBA for example. They all have a code of ethics but no laws. You can be kicked out but they can't prosecute/hand out fines/ensure compliance.

Wouldn't there have to be laws legislated - same for all people that want to breed - to make it fair across the board and to give them something to prosecute those that aren't complying? Unfortunately in doing this, it will put more pressure on those that are doing the right thing which doesn't seem fair. Of course enforcement/lack of resources to do so is paramount and that the part that they need to consider before trying to create more laws.

Again unfortunately, I think there are way more irresponsible breeders than responsible ones, which is a shame. (Note: that there are even current ones registered with DogsACT (listed on their ad) with adult dogs that are being sold undesexed which is against current legislation - so just being a member of the ACTCA is not going to make people come to the party).

I don't think that there are many puppy farmers in the confines of the ACT borders, I think probably just on all of them are in NSW - so these laws won't change anything there. However it would help with the copious numbers of backyard breeders that turn out their little money making oodles, staffords, jack russells, etc. I guess it would be pie in the sky to see less bred, so less dumped pig dog types and working dogs (which find it harder to find homes). Over Christmas on my road I saw signs on one side saying purebred cattle dog pups $100 and on the other Free Kelpie Pups. Sigh....... is desexing so hard?

It would be great if microchips recorded the breeder (I asked for this the first time they took submissions for the change of the NSW CAR one but it didn't happen). It would be a good way of recording who is turning out lots of puppies and also identify a breeder if in the future the dog becomes homeless, etc.

R

Edited January 14, 2011 by Raelene

[shortstep]

I think this bill will wipe out 'good' dog breeders in ACT.

I asked recently how many breeders had got a license on the Gold Coast? So many people are promoting this as the way to go, yet no one answered the question. Is this because even though they are promoting this, they have no idea or because the number is very low and they did not want to say that? I would like to see some of these new (localized) breeder license laws play out for a few years before even thinking of putting them in place state wide or across the country.

The damage this will do to 'good ' breeders would be unfixable if too many are driven off. If part of the goal is having enough caring breeders who have the dogs needed to breed physically and mentally healthy pets, then this bill will not make that happen. In fact I see this bill as promoting puppy farms as they are the only ones that will want to breed under this sorts of government interference.

However if the real goal is to end dog private home breeding programs in ACT then I think the Greens have found a way to do that without coming right out and saying that to the public.

I also do not think this will have any impact on BYBs who never pay attention to the laws anyway. The large puppy farms will already be complying to all licensing laws and will have no problem adjusting to this law.

On another topic, am I reading this correctly, that for evey pup placed the breeder has to pay a vet for a voucher for desexing?

We are talking in the thousands maybe several thousand paid out per litter to a vet for doing desexing on dogs they may never even see.

Do the vets get to keep the money paid for the desexing vouchers when the new owners never show up to use it?

Why should the vets in ACT make $300-500 on every pup sold in ACT even if they do not do the surgery?

Or does the breeder get a refund if after 1 year it is not used buy the new owner?

Will the breeder get a signed document from the vet stating the Dog X Microchip number XXX was desexed?

Can the breeders get vouchers for vets outside of ACT to do the desex?

Edited January 14, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

ACTCA is not government.

There are more "registered breeders" than those covered in ANKC registered bodies, there are others in organisations like the MDBA for example. They all have a code of ethics but no laws. You can be kicked out but they can't prosecute/hand out fines/ensure compliance.

Wouldn't there have to be laws legislated - same for all people that want to breed - to make it fair across the board and to give them something to prosecute those that aren't complying? Unfortunately in doing this, it will put more pressure on those that are doing the right thing which doesn't seem fair. Of course enforcement/lack of resources to do so is paramount and that the part that they need to consider before trying to create more laws.

Again unfortunately, I think there are way more irresponsible breeders than responsible ones, which is a shame. (Note: that there are even current ones registered with DogsACT (listed on their ad) with adult dogs that are being sold undesexed which is against current legislation - so just being a member of the ACTCA is not going to make people come to the party).

I don't think that there are many puppy farmers in the confines of the ACT borders, I think probably just on all of them are in NSW - so these laws won't change anything there. However it would help with the copious numbers of backyard breeders that turn out their little money making oodles, staffords, jack russells, etc. I guess it would be pie in the sky to see less bred, so less dumped pig dog types and working dogs (which find it harder to find homes). Over Christmas on my road I saw signs on one side saying purebred cattle dog pups $100 and on the other Free Kelpie Pups. Sigh....... is desexing so hard?

It would be great if microchips recorded the breeder (I asked for this the first time they took submissions for the change of the NSW CAR one but it didn't happen). It would be a good way of recording who is turning out lots of puppies and also identify a breeder if in the future the dog becomes homeless, etc.R

So how many puppies is too many for a breeder to have turned out? What exactly do you want done to the breeder where the micropchips showed they have turned out too many pups?

Have you ever met a breeder you respected? If so can you discribe them?

Edited January 14, 2011 by shortstep

[SkySoaringMagpie]

ACTCA is not government.

Governments partner with professional/sporting/recreational bodies all the time to regulate behaviour.

There are more "registered breeders" than those covered in ANKC registered bodies, there are others in organisations like the MDBA for example. They all have a code of ethics but no laws. You can be kicked out but they can't prosecute/hand out fines/ensure compliance.

Infringement notices and prosecutions are not the only ways to improve compliance. That is what is troubling to me about this debate, there doesn't seem to be a willingness to identify the real problem and then tailor the solution. It's "there oughta be a law!" thinking which is the kind of thing I expect from talkback radio, not from the Greens. Alyosha and I have both mentioned the over the border PFers - I consider them a major part of the problem. How is this going to stop them?

Wouldn't there have to be laws legislated - same for all people that want to breed - to make it fair across the board and to give them something to prosecute those that aren't complying? Unfortunately in this, it will put more pressure on those that are doing the right thing which isn't fair.

Again unfortunately, I think there are way more irresponsible breeders than responsible ones, which is a shame.

What are you basing that view on? I think there are more responsible breeders than irresponsible in the ACT if by breeder you mean someone who is not a BYBer. I am on a committee position with the ACT Hound Club so know all the registered Hound breeders in the ACT and surrounds. While I haven't seen in everyone's backyard, overall they are very responsible people - certainly the good outweigh the bad. We have some really awesome breeders in the ACT, and I suspect part of that is because it's a public service/university town. Most are well educated and spend time improving their knowledge about their hobby.

If you mean BYBers as well, at the moment, in order to keep an entire animal you are supposed to either pay a steep registration fee to the Government or demonstrate your membership of relevant bodies, including the ACTCA. Enforcement of that law - which is certainly not sufficiently enforced right now - should have an impact on the number of unwanted mixed breed dogs winding up in shelters. So, how about suggesting the Government put more resources into following up on unregistered intact dogs and provide free desexing for welfare recipients?

People are pretty wary. We can see a future where a breeder who gives their pups a great start in life is fined or prosecuted for having a run a centimeter smaller than mandated, or keeping an older bitch as a companion rather than selling her even tho' it puts the breeder over the limit for bitches allowed on the property. All the while the puppy farmers over the border will continue to churn out SWFs and sell them into the Canberra market without being touched. The fact remains that ACT regulators are NOT handing out fines and ensuring compliance sufficiently with existing laws so we are not ready from a policy development perspective to go throwing more regulation out there. There is no evidence I can see that we can fund the regime that is being proposed even if I thought it was a good idea (and I don't).

In short, more unfunded regulation is not the only answer to social problems, something I would have thought the Greens understood better than most. And as social problems go, the situation in the ACT for dogs is not a priority when you consider it against some of the other social problems besetting the ACT.