Report Of The Nsw Taskforce On Companion Animal Welfare

[Aphra]

I don't see much here which will really do anything to save lives. Just more legislation and more petty regulations. A wasted opportunity to really make a difference.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Companion%20Animals%20Taskforce%20-%20Report%20to%20Ministers.pdf

[tdierikx]

Some of the recommendations wouldn't be necessary if the powers that be would effectively police the current laws and regulations.

Typical "solution" - throw more regulations and laws into the mix that will only negatively affect responsible pet owners... *sigh*

T.

[Tralee]

55 pages.

I'll have a look on the holidays.

I didn't see anything on supporting, assisting, facilitating or developing the rescuing of dogs.

[Jed]

More numpty laws which wont make a blind bit of difference but will really disadvantage the people who are doing the right thing.

And yet more registered breeders will toddle off if they have to pay a $350 annual licensing fee.

Ah, governments.

[Steve]

So the question would appear to be - in those places where yearly regos are the law is there less dog attacks and is there less animals being bumped off?

In areas where there is a breeder licencing/ permit scheme are there less large scale commercial breeding or puppy farmers?

Are there less puppies being bred and less dogs being dumped ?

One would think if they are presenting this as a solution that they would have the comparison figures to back up their position - anyone seen them?

[melzawelza]

So the question would appear to be - in those places where yearly regos are the law is there less dog attacks and is there less animals being bumped off?

In areas where there is a breeder licencing/ permit scheme are there less large scale commercial breeding or puppy farmers?

Are there less puppies being bred and less dogs being dumped ?

One would think if they are presenting this as a solution that they would have the comparison figures to back up their position - anyone seen them?

At the Australian Institute of Animal Management conference in October last year, Andrew Cornwall did a presentation re: the taskforce. One of the AMO's asked what measures the Gov't was going to put in place to actually measure the effects of these proposed legislative changes, to see whether they actually make a difference, good or bad. He gave a faffy politician answer that essentially said there would be no such measurements of success whatsoever. The president of AIAM brought that up quite a few times during the four days about just how sad it is that Gov't makes legislation that us AMO's are supposed to police, without talking to us and without putting ways to measure it's effectiveness in place.

[Steve]

Well it would appear to me just from what I hear on the news that there are just as many dog attacks in Victoria as there are in NSW and they have a yearly registration.

There is a constant barrage of reported raids and puppy farmer activity which come from Victoria and their licence /permit system has done nothing more than enable large scale commercial kennels to flourish and the impound and kill rates are around the same as they are in NSW.

There is no evidence that yearly registrations leads to better rather than worse updating of data on the register. Many of the dogs which have life time registration in NSW have it because the person who sells them the dog has to change the details on the registry.

That enables their council to follow up and ensure they have paid their rego .Many of them would have never registered their dogs unless that happened in fact where it still doesn't happen there are dogs on the chip register which are not registered with their council.

If the person selling the dog cant be bothered the chip details are never changed and many of the dogs are never registered unless the seller's council comes after them and wants them to register the dogs. What a simple process it would be to write an automatic reminder to go out if a dog on the chip register isnt registered with council within the required time frame.

Now the big moan is that when people move they don't update their details and the data on the registry shows that their dogs live in the same place. People who dont update this info are people who place no importance on the dog's details remaining current because they dont care if the dog is lost and they cant be located.There are penalties in place if they dont but they dont care.

Right now every one can change the details on that council registry free of charge without fear that if they do that they will have to pay money every year to keep their dog and yet they risk a fine and losing their dog if they dont change the details so why would anyone come to the conclusion that these people will be more likely to update their details if they have to pay every year to re register their dogs? Right now there appears to be no benefit if the details are not changed but if this came in the reward for not changing the details is not paying the rego fee every year .That puts people who would ordinarily change the details but who dont have the desire or the means to pay to register their dogs every year potentially in the pool of people who dont change the details so the there is more data not updated rather than less.

We are also told that if people have to pay to register their dogs each year that there will be less dog attacks. How ? We already know drop kicks who are irresponsible with their dogs have little respect for the law and are un likely to be compliant anyway - these people are less likely not more likely to change data and pay the yearly fees.

[Rysup]

Here here Steve!!

[Steve]

Then we get to the breeder stuff.

No difference between a breeder who breeds one litter a year and one that breeds 100

They want AWL and RSPCA to have full access to the registry details

They dont want any organisations members to be given any exemptions

They want all of the guidelines made laws - these are the really stupid things such as having to feed every pup out of its own bowl , not putting a litter tray in the same room as a water bowl etc

They want a licence for anyone who has a litter

And they want everyone who wants to breed a dog to have a cert 11 in animal studies.

So right now in NSW breeders can register their dogs once in their life time and they can breed a dog without a licence fee.

they are out in the open because they do these things. Bring in yearly licence fees and all the rest of it and one of a couple of things will happen = small breeders will chuck it in because they cant afford it , breeders will breed more to get back their investment and again commercial breeders do it easier.Supply and demand hasnt been impacted so stop small breeders and more big breeders flourish. The rotten ones or the ones who decide to break the laws will dig in deep and be harder to spot.

More dogs in big breeding establishment , more dogs in dodgy outback breeding sheds and no positive impact on dogs suffering or on impound numbers.

[Aphra]

It's infuriating. There is NO empirical evidence that any of the recommendations they propose are going to influence the numbers of animals dying in pounds. NO evidence that they will stop large scale commercial dog breeding. NO evidence that they will reduce dog bite statistics. None of the suggested measures have made any difference whatsoever wherever they have been implemented.

On the other hand there is real evidence that different approaches, such as the Calgary model, DO make a difference.

It's lazy, old fashioned, sloppy thinking, influenced by the big organizations who are looking to increase their sphere of influence in the face of community pressure to do better.

It seems to me typical of the kind of ill-considered, poorly researched, hidebound thinking which seems to be so prevalent in animal welfare policy.

If you've been doing the same things for a hundred years and nothing much has changed, doing the same thing all over again with bigger penalties is surely the definition of lunacy.

[Steve]

People in this state have made decisions on how many dogs they will own based on a once only lifetime fee. Its not fair to ask them to now accept fees yearly which wasnt in the mix when they made that decision -stupid.

[~Anne~]

They won't be able to enforce registration anymore than their current capacity to enforce it. The lifetime registration idea fails in NSW because it isn't backed up. Those who own unregistered dogs will still own unregistered dogs regardless of how often the fee is charged.

Edited March 28, 2013 by ~Anne~

[moosmum]

I think lifetime regos currently in place will be allowed to run their course.

Have read it once through,briefly.

Most of these ideas ,on their own,will sound fair and reasonable to the average pet owner concerned with animal welfare

(though most will likely remain blissfully unaware until its passed and the rest will of course ignore it.)So there is a good chance much of this will get through.

Obviously,the govt. is going to figure increased fees will help police these measures. The panel has stated the over whelming sentiment was that Companion animal welfare is a whole community issue- but can't seem to get the idea that such stringent regulation will take it a huge leap away from community and further into corporate hands.

As for exemptions - Even if you can get them this time around,Inevitably,there will be a community expectation of the same rules for all.Anyone hoping to stand alone would be heavily scrutinized and criticized.

The K.Cs are just one of many much more vocal groups and I can't see any thing changing unless they can change that.

[mita]

On the other hand there is real evidence that different approaches, such as the Calgary model, DO make a difference.

poorly researched,

Yes. There's extensive research that would shed light on the very problems they say they're trying to overcome. And examples of other systems' approaches and their evaluation.

I looked up who were represented on the TaskFforce. The Chairperson was a Member of Parliament.... which makes it essentially a political document, not an independently sourced report.

It means the final report represents what was politically wanted in the first place. Not necessarily the input from independent members of that Task Force.

I always treat with not much regard a report that was not independently sourced.

Edited March 28, 2013 by mita

[tdierikx]

If the money raised by slugging responsible dog owners with a yearly fee is channeled back into policing those who aren't responsible, that would be something - does it say how the extra funds are going to be used?

T.

[moosmum]

Oh yes, some good ideas....but the whole thing is far too unwieldy and I doubt there will be any left after administration.

I can't imagine the LOT getting through.....

It amounts to a nightmare for breeders that will ensure dog breeding becomes a profit based enterprise financing welfare to clean up a new black market pandemonium.Those who aren't responsible owners will do all they can to keep off any register and distance themselves from responsibility.

At least,thats how I'm seeing it ATM. I hope I'll feel different after I've got over my indigestion from the initial read.

A manual and one off owners license to keep companion animals is starting to look most attractive opposed to this.

[Tempus Fugit]

Silly me.

I thought lifetime registration was brought in as a rational economic measure because the administrative burden and cost of collecting annual fees plus chasing up non-payers exceeded revenue from the fees. It is tough enough for councils to get people to pay their parking fines.

Still, I suppose farmers will remain exempt for their 'working' dogs, so people will still be able to buy cheap puppies at the farm gate or through shop window ads in country towns.

[indigirl]

Wow just read everything and I think it will mean I will have to give up breeding. My dogs all live in the house do it would mean constructing kennels I would never use, plusI'd have to put in a septic system? That would surely cost me a fortune. As well as a continuous supply ofwater to said kennels .. Lovely way to throw money away when you live in an arid area. How do they expect small hobby breeders such as myself to afford this??

[Diva]

Put in a submission to the process and explain why it will mean the demise of small breeders, and why that is a bad thing. Write to your local member of parliament and the relevant Minister/s

The politicians probably dont know small dedicated breeders even exist, so tell them, and let them know you care enough for it to affect your vote.

Even a one page letter is worth the effort.

[Steve]

1: A breeder licensing system should be established and the Companion Animals Register should be updated to capture breeder license information for each animal record. (CA Report p.6).

There is no need to introduce a licencing system for breeders to be able to accomplish this outcome.

Micro chip laws state the animal has to be chipped when it is sold or when it is 12 weeks old.All you need to do is ensure the animal has to be chipped first and foremost into the breeders name and address with no exemptions. All that takes is a simple small admission to the chip forms.

The system is already in place why not tweak it rather than complicate it and make it harder to police and more costly?

Recommendation 2: The Animal Welfare Code of Practice - Breeding Dogs and Cats should be revised to ensure that the existing guidelines it contains become enforceable standards. (CA Report p.8)

Not only are many of the guidelines not based on science, they are impossible to police.Many of them are not suited to small hobby breeders and or some breeds. This would advantage large scale commercial breeders and disadvantage small hobby breeders - with those who keep animals is poor conditions even more likely to go underground to avoid detection. People who own a few dogs which live as part of the family which they occasionally breed cannot be expected to treat their animals under the same conditions as someone who has 100 dogs. You end up with small breeders finding it all too hard because they are motivated by love of a breed and their dogs or passion not money ,and with more people investing more money needing to breed more dogs to pay for it . Until you make a distinction between a hobby breeder and a large scale commercial breeder you will continue to advantage large scale breeders with over regulation and all you do is create more scoff laws.

Recommendation 3: Relevant animal welfare codes of practice should be amended to require the sellers of cats and dogs to display an animal's microchip number (or the license number of the breeder of an animal) in all advertisements, and at point of sale in the case of pet shops, markets and fairs. (CA Report p.9)

Small scale breeders need to advertise their individual puppies more than large scale breeders as large scale breeders advertise their businesses where it is known puppies are available or they sell in bulk to pet shops and dealers. Small scale breeders also need to advertise their puppies when they are born- weeks before home time to ensure they find homes for the pups.If we have to have a chip number to advertise this means we cant advertise until the puppies are older and have been chipped.It increases the risk that puppies will not be sold until much later than is ideal for them to be in their new homes. Larger scale commercial breeders are advantaged over small hobby breeders as they can more readily afford any licences and later or no advertising of individual puppies. Also there is no evidence that this system is working in Victoria or the Gold Coast where it has already been introduced. Breeders are still advertising with no numbers and no one is policing it - because its virtually impossible to police. Current laws say all puppies have to be chipped at point of sale.Police the laws we have.

Recommendation 8: The Companion Animals Act should be amended to require cats and dogs to be registered on an annual basis. (CA Report p.16)

The number of animals which are currently registered is due in part to breeders who follow the current laws and microchip their puppies and change them into the new owner's name.Council are then able to follow up to ensure they are registered at 6 months. Information on the data base which is out of date is largely due to people who move and don't update their details which they can do for free. If they don't change their details for free and without fear that they will have to pay a fee yearly they will be less likely to do so when changing their details means council knows where they are and they have to pay a yearly fee which they may avoid if they don't change them? I'm assuming that yearly registrations will be less than they are now and in line with other states which have a yearly fee.With extra administration costs,and more costs required to police them surely its a much more viable solution to simply put up the current fees a little,and police the laws and issue fines for the laws we already have.

Yearly registrations have not proven in states where these exist to cut down on dangerous dogs or to give a greater compliance or impound numbers.

Many people now have dogs which they made decisions on owning based on a once only registration fee if this becomes a yearly fee there is an increased probability that some of these dogs will be surrendered as the families may not be able to find the yearly fees.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Steve