Here We Go Again, This Time Sa's Turn?

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Microchipping is compulsory in quite a few states already - and, trust me, they seem to be having great difficulty enforcing it... *sigh*

T.

Yep. We've had a few interstate puppies that were sold to SA as microchipped. Only to find out at a subsequent vet visit that they weren't. Most of these were oodles.

So that would be an Australian consumer law fail? And maybe a federal fraud fail. At least there is something more tangible and black and white that whether or not the breeder dogs and puppies were being kept "humanely".

[RuralPug]

Those who want to read the final report:SA DOG & CAT pdfs and download the file labelled FINAL REPORT etc.

All those who made submissions are listed, but IMHO they only read one of the submissions and I bet most of you can work out which one it was too!

[Christina]

I think we need to do something in SA to be more in line with the Eastern States...

Compulsory micro chipping before a dog or cat can be rehomed for money or free, would be a start, and easy to enforce.

Not sure about compulsory desexing. But I'd like all dog owners to pass a licence test - a bit like the car learners permit - so they can demonstrate they know the basic rules/laws regards owning a dog. And if they then get caught ignoring the rules, they can have their licence to own revoked, and dog rehomed - depending on what rule they broke and how much trouble resulted.

Oh no we do not need any more rules or laws or to be like any other state.

I keep saying we have enough laws & rules to ensure animal welfare if they are used. What we seem to be getting is something like police states where owning or breeding pets is being treated like a criminal activety or a revenue raiser.

Many of the proposals are ridiculous, not conductive to good animal husbandry, a total invasion of peoples privacy, make no sense & will not make dogs & cats lives better or lessen the numbers in the pounds.

What it will do is make small dedicated registered hobby breeders give up & encourage large scale, government approved breeding business facilities.

What point is there in Dogs SA giving them access to their database ? The members aren't the biggest part of the problem by any scale. Puppy farms, pet shops & irresponsible members of the public are the main concern.

[Furkidsforever]

I will make some enquiries and let you know when and where it can be viewed.

The url is http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CTId=3&CId=276 and then select the Final Report pdf.

[Linda K]

yep, had a look at some interesting submissions last nght, mainly those from RSPCA, AWL, PeTA, Oscars Law, Deathrow pets (and on whose FB page the chairwoman of the panel is in fact not only member but contributor and sympathiser, and for those unfamiliar with the group, read their submission and you will see where they are coming from), Getting to Zero, and funnily enough Moorook (and had a laugh at the fact that Lola wants shelters to be exempt not only from any land taxes, rates etc but also have all utilities and other charges paid for by the tax payer too, and wants clean and suitable conditions for breeders to be housing animals in as well as adequate socialising, exercise etc - words fail me on that one) Having read those ones and then comparing those to their report, see they clearly went no further in looking at anything else at all, some of the committee report is almost plagiarism of those submissions. Not to mention all those figures being thrown around in those submissions, with no sources to back up the claims, and then they are used in the committee report. Would be almost funny if it was not so serious and scary for those in SA

[Leema]

For those interested, I wrote a blog post about how much the Select Committee report sucks here:

http://leemakennels.com/blog/dogs-and-politics/select-committee-sa-replicates-faulty-animal-welfare-legislation/

[yarracully]

I think we need to do something in SA to be more in line with the Eastern States...

Compulsory micro chipping before a dog or cat can be rehomed for money or free, would be a start, and easy to enforce.

Not sure about compulsory desexing. But I'd like all dog owners to pass a licence test - a bit like the car learners permit - so they can demonstrate they know the basic rules/laws regards owning a dog. And if they then get caught ignoring the rules, they can have their licence to own revoked, and dog rehomed - depending on what rule they broke and how much trouble resulted.

This has been law in NSW for over 13 years along with having to be over 8 weeks old, yet there are still those that sell/giveaway unchipped dogs and under-aged pups. Four different litters on one of our local Facebook sales pages today alone. Including one litter stating they want extra if you want your pup immunised.

[Steve]

In areas where there is a breeder licencing/ permit scheme are there less large scale commercial breeding or puppy farmers? Are there less accidental litters ? No. <Are there less puppies being bred and less dogs being dumped ? No

Take a look at the ACT data and you will see compulsory desexing has no impact on these things at all.

Agree to a licensing system which treats someone who owns an entire dog in their back yard the same as someone who owns 100 dogs is proven to lead to advantage large scale breeding establishments.

In Victoria it has led to some of the biggest large scale breeding establishments in the country.

We see no real statistics on where dogs come from which end up in pounds or why they are dumped. The minute you agree to a licencing system it hands over your rights as a dog owner to the government and they can change the rules at any time which is currently being evidenced in Victoria.

There are numerous documented potential negative health impacts when dogs are desexed at an early age and as a dog owner why on earth would you agree to not have the right to make informed decisions between you and your vet which you determine to be in the best interests of your dog? In case someone somewhere doesn't keep their dog confined [ which is already against the law] and there is an accidental back yard litter ??

Over regulation creates more problems and only those who do the right thing will comply anyway and then you give power to a qasi police force with no outside accountability to police them, give them more money and that will - do what? = more rather than less dogs suffering.

Mandatory microchippping - good idea creates a higher chance a dog will get back to its owner but we all know it wont be policed and it wont be complied with by those most likely to be causing a problem - and it doesn't change any of the stats of dogs being dumped and makes it more likely breeders will place dogs via pet shops and dealers than personally handle the sales.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Steve

[luvsdogs]

I'm waiting til the 9 months as well,

I would be quite happy to sign a council desexing contract and pay a refundable deposit and have that back when I desex, and those who don't claim it back perhaps it can be donated to shelters? I don't know what the answer is, obviously not everyone would be happy to do that, or could do that and this is purely coming from my position as someone who intends to desex our critter regardless. No idea what the answer is, but 12 week mandatory desex sounds absurd, plus the more you push something out and try quash it legally, the more it will head underground.

I had to pay a much higher council registration for Tilba because she wasn't desexed until 14 months old. I mentioned that I would be getting her desexed when older & was told I wouldn't get a refund, which I wasn't expecting anyway. I was also told that if I wanted to get a letter from the breeder to say that she was to be used as a breeder I would only have to pay the reduced fee.

[luvsdogs]

I think we need to do something in SA to be more in line with the Eastern States...

Compulsory micro chipping before a dog or cat can be rehomed for money or free, would be a start, and easy to enforce.

Not sure about compulsory desexing. But I'd like all dog owners to pass a licence test - a bit like the car learners permit - so they can demonstrate they know the basic rules/laws regards owning a dog. And if they then get caught ignoring the rules, they can have their licence to own revoked, and dog rehomed - depending on what rule they broke and how much trouble resulted.

This has been law in NSW for over 13 years along with having to be over 8 weeks old, yet there are still those that sell/giveaway unchipped dogs and under-aged pups. Four different litters on one of our local Facebook sales pages today alone. Including one litter stating they want extra if you want your pup immunised.

I had my 1st Border Collie micro-chipped when it first came in although at the time it wasn't compulsory for existing animals. Then in late 2000 my son brought home a 5 week, 5 day old pup from a work colleague. The whole litter was taken to work & given away to whoever wanted one. They weren't micro-chipped. When we took her to the vet for her 1st visit she was micro-chipped. We were asked if we wanted to pay a little extra to have her on an Australia wide registry, which we did. After being on here & with more knowledge I doubt that would have been available???

[Steph M]

I'm waiting til the 9 months as well,

I would be quite happy to sign a council desexing contract and pay a refundable deposit and have that back when I desex, and those who don't claim it back perhaps it can be donated to shelters? I don't know what the answer is, obviously not everyone would be happy to do that, or could do that and this is purely coming from my position as someone who intends to desex our critter regardless. No idea what the answer is, but 12 week mandatory desex sounds absurd, plus the more you push something out and try quash it legally, the more it will head underground.

I had to pay a much higher council registration for Tilba because she wasn't desexed until 14 months old. I mentioned that I would be getting her desexed when older & was told I wouldn't get a refund, which I wasn't expecting anyway. I was also told that if I wanted to get a letter from the breeder to say that she was to be used as a breeder I would only have to pay the reduced fee.

How odd. I guess the problem is the people who don't register, with anything like this the more you legislate the more things are driven underground.

[Jed]

In some shires in Vic the pup must be desexed. Frankston for 1. In Dingley, if you don't want to desex the dog you can join Vicdogs (lots of money for Vicdogs) providing the pup is purebred.

I wonder if these laws are actually legal. Dr. Harry Corbett is fighting Frankston re the desexing laws.

[Steve]

State laws take precendence and the local shire cannot make laws which are harder than state laws - because it means that one person in a state in one shire is more restricted and discriminated against than another in the same state - so what has happened in Victoria in this regard [desexing] is illegal - some of these councils have given exemption to MDBA members even though MDBA is not an applicable organisation in that state - yet.

What this mob are after is to make it a state law and if they get that then it will be legal.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

State laws take precendence and the local shire cannot make laws which are harder than state laws - because it means that one person in a state in one shire is more restricted and discriminated against than another in the same state - so what has happened in Victoria in this regard [desexing] is illegal - some of these councils have given exemption to MDBA members even though MDBA is not an applicable organisation in that state - yet.

What this mob are after is to make it a state law and if they get that then it will be legal.

I don't think this is right - not in SA anyway.

Depending where you live - you can burn rubbish on your place - or not. Own more than two dogs, or not. Have horses or not. Have chooks or not. Build a granny flat - or not. Put solar panels on your front verandah or not. Park a car in the street - or not. etc etc.

[Christina]

State laws take precendence and the local shire cannot make laws which are harder than state laws - because it means that one person in a state in one shire is more restricted and discriminated against than another in the same state - so what has happened in Victoria in this regard [desexing] is illegal - some of these councils have given exemption to MDBA members even though MDBA is not an applicable organisation in that state - yet.

What this mob are after is to make it a state law and if they get that then it will be legal.

I don't think this is right - not in SA anyway.

Depending where you live - you can burn rubbish on your place - or not. Own more than two dogs, or not. Have horses or not. Have chooks or not. Build a granny flat - or not. Put solar panels on your front verandah or not. Park a car in the street - or not. etc etc.

This is correct & thank goodness. At least we can choose to live in an area that suits our needs & is suited to them. Awful if it was all the same.

Backyard burning is not ok in suburbia but very handy in the country. Keeping 10 dogs is not ok in a suburban house with neighbours close but is fine on acreage & roosters in suburbia would drive everyone crazy.

I like SA organised the way it is & hope it doesn't change. It seems sensible to adapt the rules to suit the environment rather than just have a rule regardless of any sense.

[temperamentfirst]

[Quote: About 64 per cent of dogs and most cats with a permanent home are desexed.

In evidence to the committee, RSPCA Australia said pet owners who refused to desex their animals should have to pay an extra fee of $20 to $30 to become a registered breeder to combat backyard breeding.

The RSPCA also called for all dogs and cats to be desexed before 12 weeks of age unless their owner planned to breed them.

Any owner who did not desex their pet would have to register as a breeder even if they had no immediate plans to breed.

The Dog and Cat Management Board supported compulsory desexing and microchipping. Quote]

I find these points ludicrous. I'm not against desexing my dogs but will not early desex because of allowing for proper developement. I would think this would open the gates for joe public to think they had a "right" to now indiscriminately breed their non-pedigree dogs after paying the small extra fee on their council registration.

What do you think? all of this on top of the NSW Companion Animal taskforce paper.

Interesting that the new head of RSPCA SA was until recently the CEO of AWL NSW and a key pusher of the proposals of the CAT!!

[Steve]

State laws take precendence and the local shire cannot make laws which are harder than state laws - because it means that one person in a state in one shire is more restricted and discriminated against than another in the same state - so what has happened in Victoria in this regard [desexing] is illegal - some of these councils have given exemption to MDBA members even though MDBA is not an applicable organisation in that state - yet.

What this mob are after is to make it a state law and if they get that then it will be legal.

I don't think this is right - not in SA anyway.

Depending where you live - you can burn rubbish on your place - or not. Own more than two dogs, or not. Have horses or not. Have chooks or not. Build a granny flat - or not. Put solar panels on your front verandah or not. Park a car in the street - or not. etc etc.

This is correct & thank goodness. At least we can choose to live in an area that suits our needs & is suited to them. Awful if it was all the same.

Backyard burning is not ok in suburbia but very handy in the country. Keeping 10 dogs is not ok in a suburban house with neighbours close but is fine on acreage & roosters in suburbia would drive everyone crazy.

I like SA organised the way it is & hope it doesn't change. It seems sensible to adapt the rules to suit the environment rather than just have a rule regardless of any sense.

Local governments can make local laws considered necessary for the good government of their districts. Laws can only be made when authorised by the Local Government Act 1995 or other written laws but cannot be inconsistent with any State or Federal law. Which is why there is a push on to make it all state law, for those who live in shires where there is mandatory desexing and the state laws do not have mandatory desexing do you know of any person who has been fined for not having their dog desexed AND if there were fined for not having their dog desexed and they didnt desex would they be fined over and over again for not having their dog desexed? Would their dog be taken from them because they refuse to desex it etc ?

By the way the pending referendum is asking for local councils to be recognised by the constitution because at the moment they are not and Since the Constitution is the basis of our laws and it does not recognise "local government", it means that no local council anywhere in Australia has legal standing.

In NSW there was a period where some shires were pushing their right to restrict how many dogs a person can have on their property and that was challenged because under state law there is no restriction. Currently some state laws cover things like vaccinating breeding animals yearly but if they were not state law no council could introduce that and because state law only mentions breeding animals they can never try to make people vaccinate animals which are not used for breeding.

The point Im trying to make is where dogs are concerned your council can say anything they want but if it is inconsistent with state or federal law it means nothing - thus the heavy try at making it state law.

[Tempus Fugit]

State laws take precendence and the local shire cannot make laws which are harder than state laws - because it means that one person in a state in one shire is more restricted and discriminated against than another in the same state - so what has happened in Victoria in this regard [desexing] is illegal - some of these councils have given exemption to MDBA members even though MDBA is not an applicable organisation in that state - yet.

What this mob are after is to make it a state law and if they get that then it will be legal.

I don't think this is right - not in SA anyway.

Depending where you live - you can burn rubbish on your place - or not. Own more than two dogs, or not. Have horses or not. Have chooks or not. Build a granny flat - or not. Put solar panels on your front verandah or not. Park a car in the street - or not. etc etc.

This is correct & thank goodness. At least we can choose to live in an area that suits our needs & is suited to them. Awful if it was all the same.

Backyard burning is not ok in suburbia but very handy in the country. Keeping 10 dogs is not ok in a suburban house with neighbours close but is fine on acreage & roosters in suburbia would drive everyone crazy.

I like SA organised the way it is & hope it doesn't change. It seems sensible to adapt the rules to suit the environment rather than just have a rule regardless of any sense.

Local governments can make local laws considered necessary for the good government of their districts. Laws can only be made when authorised by the Local Government Act 1995 or other written laws but cannot be inconsistent with any State or Federal law. Which is why there is a push on to make it all state law, for those who live in shires where there is mandatory desexing and the state laws do not have mandatory desexing do you know of any person who has been fined for not having their dog desexed AND if there were fined for not having their dog desexed and they didnt desex would they be fined over and over again for not having their dog desexed? Would their dog be taken from them because they refuse to desex it etc ?

By the way the pending referendum is asking for local councils to be recognised by the constitution because at the moment they are not and Since the Constitution is the basis of our laws and it does not recognise "local government", it means that no local council anywhere in Australia has legal standing.

In NSW there was a period where some shires were pushing their right to restrict how many dogs a person can have on their property and that was challenged because under state law there is no restriction. Currently some state laws cover things like vaccinating breeding animals yearly but if they were not state law no council could introduce that and because state law only mentions breeding animals they can never try to make people vaccinate animals which are not used for breeding.

The point Im trying to make is where dogs are concerned your council can say anything they want but if it is inconsistent with state or federal law it means nothing - thus the heavy try at making it state law.

I thought the Queensland Local Government Act allowed councils to make their own 'local laws' and therefore for example, any council could enact BSL on whatever breeds they liked?