Rescue In Victoria

[vicdrg]

Victorian Dog Rescue has produced a Code for Rescue in Victoria, at present only relating to dogs. The draft Code has been endorsed by DRAV and has been sent in total to ten groups in Victoria to read and comment on the initial draft. When the comments have been taken into account it will be available to any other groups to comment. It will then be sent to all councils in Victoria, together with our sheet 'what a good pound does' that will soon be posted on the DRAV facebook page.

There is no mandatory code for rescue groups in Victoria. We have been successful in having community fostercare networks incorporated into the Domestic Animals Act and in the Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds. We now have access to a Section 84y so we no longer have to leave animals that cannot be vetworked initially to be killed. As more and more pounds are being opened to rescue in Victoria we are being asked to comment on which groups are the 'good guys'. Neither VicDRG nor DRAV wants this role, at this time, as being an arbiter of other groups.

The DRAV-prepared section 84y agreement is being widely used in Victoria for use with all groups and sets out that the group concerned will work to the 'highest' standard. This new Code is aimed at a minimum standard, as is the mandatory Government Code for shelters and pounds. It will enable council pounds to ask the right questions and make their own judgements. It is the next step forward. It should also be of assistance to new groups who ae uncertain of what are the expectations of operating with pounds.

CFC networks and other rescue groups are now seen in Victoria as a legitimate third arm of companion animal welfare but it is not a free for all and any group that acts like a cowboy affects us all so at least the basic rules need to be clear to all. It will then be up to the Councils to decide with whom they will deal.

DRAV is a closed group and does not seek new members, but it is composed of long-term experienced groups who are well aware of the problems that they have faced and will face. It is primarily a lobby and advocacy group for legitimate rescue, and is available to respond to problems and queries from 'new' groups seeking advice.

Edited July 20, 2013 by vicdrg

[Linda K]

actually according to DPI when having conversations with them earlier this year, rescue groups who have in their care 3 or more entire female dogs (possible if they have been taken into care and are pregnant so would be entire and if they are left to whelp), would then come under the code for breeding establishments, and would need to follow those guidelines. But good on you for taking this initiative

[Alkhe]

actually according to DPI when having conversations with them earlier this year, rescue groups who have in their care 3 or more entire female dogs (possible if they have been taken into care and are pregnant so would be entire and if they are left to whelp), would then come under the code for breeding establishments, and would need to follow those guidelines. But good on you for taking this initiative

When you say 'in their care', do you mean owned by the organisation, or is this related to where the animals are being housed? Ie, one foster carer with 3 entire females in their care is different to an organisation with 30 dogs that are physically housed in a number of carers' houses, 3 of which may be entire females housed in different locations.

Is this distinction not made?

[vicdrg]

actually according to DPI when having conversations with them earlier this year, rescue groups who have in their care 3 or more entire female dogs (possible if they have been taken into care and are pregnant so would be entire and if they are left to whelp), would then come under the code for breeding establishments, and would need to follow those guidelines. But good on you for taking this initiative

When you say 'in their care', do you mean owned by the organisation, or is this related to where the animals are being housed? Ie, one foster carer with 3 entire females in their care is different to an organisation with 30 dogs that are physically housed in a number of carers' houses, 3 of which may be entire females housed in different locations.

Is this distinction not made?

That's interesting Linda K because as one of the people looking at the welfare section of the Code that will cover puppy farmers I specifically asked this question at the meeting to discuss this and was told this would not be the case. I would have thought it would be extremely unusual for any cfc network to have in one household three pregnant dogs and if there were three different carers with three pregnant dogs it would not be any sort of issue.

[RuralPug]

actually according to DPI when having conversations with them earlier this year, rescue groups who have in their care 3 or more entire female dogs (possible if they have been taken into care and are pregnant so would be entire and if they are left to whelp), would then come under the code for breeding establishments, and would need to follow those guidelines. But good on you for taking this initiative

DPI needs to define "breeder". I cannot find a definition (outside of those registered as DAB which is a bit circular). If anyone else can, could you please point me to it. Nowhere can I find a definition that begins "Breeder means ... "

I cannot see why rescue groups with 3 or more entire females at one location should not be expected to follow the minimum breeder requirements of management plans, veterinarians on standby, record keeping etc.

[Linda K]

DPI at a meeting in June (when I was at a meeting to go over the amendments to the code before the 2nd public consultation phase) define a breeder as anyone who has 3 or more entire females of more than 9 months of age. Whether they have actually bred from them or not is irrelevant, or whether they are actually pregnant. The only exception to this are members of exempt organisations (eg members of Dogs VIC), who are allowed 9 entire females. People rearing animals also fall under the code, according to them - they made this very clear at the meeting that the whole point of this was to pick up people who were selling pups or kittens and were not applicable organisations, and to ensure that the buyer is protected, which was what was being demanded by the AR lobby groups.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Linda K

[Aphra]

If DRAV is a closed group and not seeking new members, then a more honest approach would be to send the proposed code of conduct to the councils DRAV members work with, making it clear that the code is one that DRAV members abide by, not an agreed code for all rescues in Victoria. Councils are then free to draw their own conclusions or ask their own questions about other groups. While DRAV clearly have a great deal more experience and credibility than something like NARGA, it is still disappointing that instead of a collaborative, grass-roots approach, the several hundred rescue groups in Australia are being represented without consultation.

The Department of the Environment and Primary Industries have reopened comment on the revised breeding and rearing code. It would be well worth rescues reading and responding. I strongly recommend reading the Regulatory Impact Statement to see where this proposed code has come from. Comment is open until August 14.

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets/domestic-animal-businesses/breeding-and-rearing-businesses/breeding-and-rearing-code-review

[vicdrg]

If DRAV is a closed group and not seeking new members, then a more honest approach would be to send the proposed code of conduct to the councils DRAV members work with, making it clear that the code is one that DRAV members abide by, not an agreed code for all rescues in Victoria. Councils are then free to draw their own conclusions or ask their own questions about other groups. While DRAV clearly have a great deal more experience and credibility than something like NARGA, it is still disappointing that instead of a collaborative, grass-roots approach, the several hundred rescue groups in Australia are being represented without consultation.

The Department of the Environment and Primary Industries have reopened comment on the revised breeding and rearing code. It would be well worth rescues reading and responding. I strongly recommend reading the Regulatory Impact Statement to see where this proposed code has come from. Comment is open until August 14.

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets/domestic-animal-businesses/breeding-and-rearing-businesses/breeding-and-rearing-code-review

Absolutely agree Aphra and that is what we will be doing. We will be presenting this as a Code endorsed by DRAV members and with the numbers of groups consulted given, and it is then up to the Councils to act as they choose. As said it is the first step and aimed particularly at Councils who have never dealt with rescue before.

If you have the time to consult all rescue groups in Victoria and produce an amended version for Councils that you present on behalf of other groups we wish you well, and also the same to those aiming for an Australia-wide Code.

By the way you were the only group originally asked to the initial consultation that did not reply!!

[Aphra]

I've looked through all of our email and Facebook messages and can't find the invitation. So we do apologise, we'd happily have commented.

By the way you were the only group originally asked to the initial consultation that did not reply!!

[RuralPug]

DPI at a meeting in June (when I was at a meeting to go over the amendments to the code before the 2nd public consultation phase) define a breeder as anyone who has 3 or more entire females of more than 9 months of age. Whether they have actually bred from them or not is irrelevant, or whether they are actually pregnant. The only exception to this are members of exempt organisations (eg members of Dogs VIC), who are allowed 9 entire females. People rearing animals also fall under the code, according to them - they made this very clear at the meeting that the whole point of this was to pick up people who were selling pups or kittens and were not applicable organisations, and to ensure that the buyer is protected, which was what was being demanded by the AR lobby groups.

Thanks Linda, I'm sure they did give that definition at the meeting, but my point is they have not defined the word in the Code, nor is it defined in the Act.

I'm including that lack in my response, with a suggested definition.

[Linda K]

don't think that is going to save anyone though - as far as they are concerned, if there is an entire animal registered at your address, then that potentially makes you a breeder - they made it clear they will be looking at council registrations to pick up those who have 3 or more females and aren't members of a group, irrespective whether those people may or may not ever breed with those. Such is the push that the AR zealots have now thrust upon us. Whether people choose to go for the ignore or the technicality that they do not actually define the word breeder would be an interesting legal challenge however think many individuals or rescue groups would not have the funds to back such a challenge. The fact though that rescue groups who have litters then will at some stage be offering such pups or kittens up for sale does mean they fall under a rearing establishment as well under the code, so certainly is something to be aware of - better to be covered in the first place than have to try and fight a technicality.

Be thankful I suppose we do not have the SA committee in charge of this that says 1 entire animal makes you a breeder, and wants every person who has one to register for a breeding licence - good way to have all that info on a data base somewhere that other groups can hack for their own use, not to mention someone thinking, well I have a licence so why not thinking and even more litters.

Also note that only the code has been updated for the 2nd consultation, the RIS is unchanged since it was first issued in April

[RuralPug]

The definition I am suggesting includes a clause that says where contraceptive methods are demonstrated to be in use for all undesexed adult females then the females may not be considered entire.

If accepted, this will enable responsible owners who do not wish to desex from being defined as breeders. Or so I hope.

Irresponsible owners I don't care about.

[mita]

DPI needs to define "breeder". I cannot find a definition (outside of those registered as DAB which is a bit circular). If anyone else can, could you please point me to it. Nowhere can I find a definition that begins "Breeder means ... "

I

You're right. Many pieces of codes of behaviour start off with a Glossary of Terms... like saying, 'In this code, X will mean abc'.

Sounds pedantic but everything hangs on exactly who & what a code is covering.

I think it's crucial in any Australian code relating to rescue to define who a 'breeder' is.... & also any sub-sets, like 'registered breeder'. Same with other relevant terms.

Edited July 26, 2013 by mita