New Dog And Cat Laws In South Australia

[Steve]

how many bitches in poor condition at time of mating even fall pregnant?

I dunno. How many past their breeding prime fall pregnant? How many way too young fall pregnant? And how many kept in filthy conditions manage to fall pregnant. Strays seem to have no problem...

They already have to have them checked and cleared for breeding every year so what is a check within 4 weeks of mating going to do that isn't already in place and regulated by the code ? They are already restricted on how old, how young how many litters and how will a vet know if when they go home they will live in filthy conditions?

The science tells us that a bitch in poor condition is far less likely to come on heat, fall pregnant. If you try to breed them back to back every season they will for a couple if they are in good nick but then take a break all on their own.

[Pjrt]

Ugh, none of this bullshit can or will be policed properly. None of it will make more than a token change to animal welfare. All it will do is put more pressure and expense on the great breeders doing everything well already. plus take away their rights to decide what they know is best for their dogs. And stop new hobby breeders coming into the world of pedigree dogs.

The only measureable outcome will be less hobby breeders with pedigree dogs and more factory farming of dogs in general, because the one running it as big business will be the only ones financially equipped to tick all the boxes.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

They already have to have them checked and cleared for breeding every year

I agree this ought to be enough. But we don't have that in place in SA yet.

[Steve]

No need to have it at all - its over servicing and changes nothing except sends the bad guys further under ground. If for some reason the bitch needs to see a vet in the middle of the year its O.K. because they only need it once a year just let her suffer till she comes on heat. Its already a criminal offence to not give vet treatments and you will be lucky for a vet to pick up 1 out of 500 that is a fail for breeding 2 weeks before they are due to be mated.

Every one they fail its a loss of a thousand bucks in vaccinations and microchips might even get a C section.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Steve

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Yes it depends on whether the vet is more interested in animal welfare or wallet welfare... Both kinds of vets are out there.

[Steve]

You cant blame vets if they know what is the science of the species and give the tick to things animal rights activists have told us is bad for them.

The chances that someone would take a bitch to a vet if they thought she wouldn't cut the grade is minimal.It would be a waste of time and money.

So if there are bitches at high risk of not passing the breeder is either going to opt out of the vet check and breed her anyway or bump her off and breed another one.

Where are all of these breeders who breed their girls when they are in poor condition to justify all of a sudden everyone having to do something they dont think is best practice for their girls? If in fact there is a need for girls to be vet checked by a vet so close to mating then how come its not something all people must do who want to have a litter?

[Pjrt]

Yes either leave people who breed dogs, to do the perfectly legal activity of breeding dogs, to their own devices and catch the pond scum by actually policing and enforcing animal welfare codes and acts.

Or subject every single person who breeds a dog to the same regulations. Everyone from the ANKC breeder, to the big box commercial breeder, to the guy who advertises his litter of shihtiwhattzitz on gumtree, to the farmers working dogs and everyone in between.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

If in fact there is a need for girls to be vet checked by a vet so close to mating then how come its not something all people must do who want to have a litter?

Are we still talking about the SA regs?

[Aphra]

I'd like new legislation to be based on evidence, current research and verifiable numbers, not mythology and replications of tired models of pet management which haven't changed in 60 years.

• Most owned pets (> 90%) are desexed. There are years of research validating this.
• The population of cats in pounds is maintained by unowned cats.
• Only the smallest percentage of the nation's pets end up in pounds and around 3/4 of them make it out alive, through reclamation or rehoming.
• There isn't an increasing epidemic of unwanted animals. National impound rates have been dropping steadily since around 2008.
• The biggest reason for pet surrenders to pounds is not being able to find rental housing that will take pets.
• If just 15% of people looking for a pet chose a rescue or pound pet, we'd pretty much stop the killing of healthy pets.
• Most people are already responsible pet owners - Australians collectively spend billions a year on looking after their pets and donating to animal charities.
• Puppy farms are an ill in, and of themselves, but they don't contribute significantly to the population of unwanted pets.
• We will always need pounds and shelters - just as we'll always need social services or gaols. Life isn't perfect.
• Mandatory desexing doesn't work - low-cost, easily accessed desexing does.

Instead of increasingly punitive and restrictive legislation which makes life harder for ordinary people, we need evidence-based legislation focused on the real issues. Those farmers living in the 79% of Queensland which is drought declared are not taking their dogs to the pound because they are irresponsible. They are doing it because they have had to sell or shoot their stock and can barely afford to feed heir kids. No amount of finger-wagging education about responsible ownership is going to change the fact it hasn't rained for a decade.

On the other hand, the truly irresponsible don't give a toss about your humane education or legislation, they're going to keep on dropping litters of half-starved puppies in the drop-bin. And wouldn't we rather they surrendered those puppies to the pound than abandoning them or leaving them to die?

We need:

• Compassionate intervention programs which help keep pets out of pounds and support owners to keep and care for their pets properly (vide Team Dog).
• Support for renters and the elderly to find appropriate, pet friendly housing.
• Better pounds focused on looking after pets, keeping them healthy, reuniting them with owners or finding them new homes. Pound reform would be the single most useful change we could make.
• Programs which encourage and reward people who adopt rescue or shelter pets (such as the year of free registration some Victorian councils offer rescue pets).
• Pet management programs which are created in consultation with the community so that responsible management of a community's pets is shared and rewarded. The Calgary model is a good example.
• Enforcement of existing laws rather creating new and unenforceable ones.
• TNR, at least for urban cats. Managed colonies reduce in size. Trapping and killing cats is neither humane nor effective at reducing numbers.
• Encourage ethical breeders (registered or not) to breed healthy, good-tempered pets for families.
• Pet friendly urban design.
• Evidence-based policy.
• Commercial dog breeding legislation which focuses on the real issues such as socialisation and staff/pet ratios rather than pettifogging details.

Just for a start.

If you want to read the evidence, this page keeps track of the research and the numbers.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tail-Piece-Animal-Rescue-Research-Advocacy-and-Discussion/202698576569651

[Tassie]

I'd like new legislation to be based on evidence, current research and verifiable numbers, not mythology and replications of tired models of pet management which haven't changed in 60 years.

• Most owned pets (> 90%) are desexed. There are years of research validating this.
• The population of cats in pounds is maintained by unowned cats.
• Only the smallest percentage of the nation's pets end up in pounds and around 3/4 of them make it out alive, through reclamation or rehoming.
• There isn't an increasing epidemic of unwanted animals. National impound rates have been dropping steadily since around 2008.
• The biggest reason for pet surrenders to pounds is not being able to find rental housing that will take pets.
• If just 15% of people looking for a pet chose a rescue or pound pet, we'd pretty much stop the killing of healthy pets.
• Most people are already responsible pet owners - Australians collectively spend billions a year on looking after their pets and donating to animal charities.
• Puppy farms are an ill in, and of themselves, but they don't contribute significantly to the population of unwanted pets.
• We will always need pounds and shelters - just as we'll always need social services or gaols. Life isn't perfect.
• Mandatory desexing doesn't work - low-cost, easily accessed desexing does.

Instead of increasingly punitive and restrictive legislation which makes life harder for ordinary people, we need evidence-based legislation focused on the real issues. Those farmers living in the 79% of Queensland which is drought declared are not taking their dogs to the pound because they are irresponsible. They are doing it because they have had to sell or shoot their stock and can barely afford to feed heir kids. No amount of finger-wagging education about responsible ownership is going to change the fact it hasn't rained for a decade.

On the other hand, the truly irresponsible don't give a toss about your humane education or legislation, they're going to keep on dropping litters of half-starved puppies in the drop-bin. And wouldn't we rather they surrendered those puppies to the pound than abandoning them or leaving them to die?

We need:

• Compassionate intervention programs which help keep pets out of pounds and support owners to keep and care for their pets properly (vide Team Dog).
• Support for renters and the elderly to find appropriate, pet friendly housing.
• Better pounds focused on looking after pets, keeping them healthy, reuniting them with owners or finding them new homes. Pound reform would be the single most useful change we could make.
• Programs which encourage and reward people who adopt rescue or shelter pets (such as the year of free registration some Victorian councils offer rescue pets).
• Pet management programs which are created in consultation with the community so that responsible management of a community's pets is shared and rewarded. The Calgary model is a good example.
• Enforcement of existing laws rather creating new and unenforceable ones.
• TNR, at least for urban cats. Managed colonies reduce in size. Trapping and killing cats is neither humane nor effective at reducing numbers.
• Encourage ethical breeders (registered or not) to breed healthy, good-tempered pets for families.
• Pet friendly urban design.
• Evidence-based policy.
• Commercial dog breeding legislation which focuses on the real issues such as socialisation and staff/pet ratios rather than pettifogging details.

Just for a start.

If you want to read the evidence, this page keeps track of the research and the numbers.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tail-Piece-Animal-Rescue-Research-Advocacy-and-Discussion/202698576569651

Wow! What a wonderful, thoughtful analysis. Thanks you.

[Diana R]

could we agree on requiring the breeder to make sure all the puppies are micro-chipped before they can be rehomed... ?

Yep definitely but unless its enforced only the good guys will do it. Then again even if it is enforced there will still be lots that dont do it.

This^ and tweaking our chip databases so that breeding and ownership histories are stored in the dog's file and can be traced, so that both owners and breeders can be held accountable for the outcomes of the dogs that they are involved with.

If you look at companion animal welfare and management models worldwide, the ones based on outcomes (rather than prohibitive regs that try and dictate conditions) are the most effective, but it needs to be coupled with accountability. Some countries achieve that by mandating public liability and health insurance (so that insurance companies come knocking if a breeder is consistently putting out unhealthy or temperamentally unsound pups, or an owner is consistently managing their dogs in ways that result in high levels of risk to the dog or someone else), and some do it through legislation (so an owner get nailed if their dog attacks, or a breeder gets nailed if they sell unhealthy puppies). The consistent components of these systems are that everyone who has been responsible for that dog is traceable and accountable, and rules are based on the outcomes, not on some preconceived ideas about what makes a 'good' or 'bad' breeder.

In the case of the 300 bitch strong puppy farm pumping out pet puppies that no person in their right mind would condone, you put outcome-based welfare assessments in place and enforce them - for example, the breeding dogs MUST be physically healthy (and you can define that somewhat objectively and much better than we currently have in POCTA, but that would be the place to start), and have personable temperaments that reflect what a good pet dog should be (not easy to do ATM, but even something like some standards that the dogs must meet during vet checks and a simple amicability test would be a starting place), and the puppies produced must be healthy (vacc'd, chipped, free from communicable diseases and any inherited diseases that are known about and able to be screened for etc.) and be temperamentally suited to the role they will be fulfilling. IMO, make the hurdles reflective of the purpose that the dogs are produced for, and leave it to the breeders to determine how best to meet those goals for the dogs they have, the owners they sell to and the situation they are in.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

the community working party is handing their recommendations in on Wed evening.

There was a discussion about it on Matt and Dave this morning and I was amazed that they were completely unaware of the problems. Puppy farms were not discussed at all. They talked a lot about mandatory desexing but not the pros and cons.

Best thing out of this mornings discussion was talking about dogs and tenancies ie that dogs should be allowed in rentals and retirement homes.

Matt or Dave thought we could just "encourage" landlords to be more lenient - as if that's working now.

Doggy custody battles in relationship breakdowns were also discussed but with no resolution apart from Matt and Dave being unable to take it seriously.

They spend hours letting Mr Pyne nanny state us and getting away with it and they would not even listen to the problems dog owners face.

THere was some discussion of dog owners taking over new fenced playgrounds for disabled children. That seemed very poor. Hence me thinkinng that dog owners ought to pass some sort of test so they can't pretend they don't know that some people are frightened of dogs and playgrounds are not good places for off lead dog exercise. Tho I admit my dog gets so much reward from foraging in the playground that I have to put her on lead when we're near it.

;

[AMuse]

After a total of 5 full sitting days for our Citizens' Jury of 35 ordinary and randomly chosen South Australians, calling evidence and listening to many people who have expertise in the various aspects of the issues that form a part of this (most of which this forum has been covering), carefully sifting through the evidence, doing our own research and spending considerable time developing and refining our recommendations, we finally presented our report to Minister Ian Hunter last night at Parliament House.

You can view the report here: http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/decisions/citizens-jury-dog-and-cat-management/about and I'd encourage you to do so. I've also uploaded the summary with this post.

It is a product of 'group think' and that group included people who don't own and never have owned pets, from all walks of life and circumstances - chosen randomly to statistically represent the South Australian population. Personally, I think that not only is it pretty good (albeit perhaps not perfect) but that it is truly 'saleable' within our community and palatable politically.

The main thrust of our recommendations is that if we want to reduce the number of companion animals that are euthanased each year in SA (currently in excess of 10,000 but probably more like 15,000) then we need to change societal culture so that responsible pet ownership becomes the social norm and those who aren't responsible owners become social pariahs. Part of responsible ownership also then becomes the identification and updating of the details of dogs and cats so that it makes them easier to return to their owners and the reduction in unwanted litters through compulsory desexing of companion animals at an appropriate age and with appropriate exemptions for animal health reasons, breeding purposes and other valid requirements.

I do hope that you might now get behind the report and make sure that the minister and the government are held to its implementation. Ian Hunter guaranteed to us at the start of the process that he would lay the report before the Cabinet and the Parliament unedited and he confirmed this last night. He also undertook to report back to the jury (hence the public) on his plans for implementation or any reasons why he would not accept any of our recommendations.

Happy reading. I'll look forward to seeing your comments!

Edited August 13, 2015 by AMuse

[AMuse]

Good coverage from the ABC this morning too: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-13/mandatory-desexing-recommended-by-citizen-jury-in-sa/6693236

[AMuse]

Also on the RSPCA's FB site:

[ness]

A hugely mixed bag of recommendations - there are some that are certainly worth supporting but seriously no idea where logical prevails to suggest a push for compulsory desexing. I am all for making sure people are responsible and for educating people but if we are going to require that then surely we can then leave people to their own judgement on keeping an entire animal.

There was still such a level of misinformation and logic presented in the final recommendation paper. Makes you wonder about the true value of a citizen's jury.

Edited August 13, 2015 by ness

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I looked at the at a glance which suggests all abandoned or unwanted pets get rehomed via pet shop.

I completely disagree with this. No puppy or dog should be in a pet shop unless being supervised by a human who is dedicated to that job. Ie socialisation and rehome via rescues. Where is the rescue system in this?

Also desex should not be compulsory. It's not good for bone development if you want a sport dog or you have a larger breed. But it only suggests the puppy should be desexed before sale which would mean 8 weeks.

I will have to read the big report now.

[AMuse]

I looked at the at a glance which suggests all abandoned or unwanted pets get rehomed via pet shop.

I completely disagree with this. No puppy or dog should be in a pet shop unless being supervised by a human who is dedicated to that job. Ie socialisation and rehome via rescues. Where is the rescue system in this?

Also desex should not be compulsory. It's not good for bone development if you want a sport dog or you have a larger breed. But it only suggests the puppy should be desexed before sale which would mean 8 weeks.

I will have to read the big report now.

Not rehomed by a pet shop but rather, as Pet Barn and Pet Stock do now, rehoming days run in conjunction with RSPCA and AWL.

[AMuse]

I looked at the at a glance which suggests all abandoned or unwanted pets get rehomed via pet shop.

I completely disagree with this. No puppy or dog should be in a pet shop unless being supervised by a human who is dedicated to that job. Ie socialisation and rehome via rescues. Where is the rescue system in this?

Also desex should not be compulsory. It's not good for bone development if you want a sport dog or you have a larger breed. But it only suggests the puppy should be desexed before sale which would mean 8 weeks.

I will have to read the big report now.

Also the recommendations are (after much seeking of vetinary opinion) are that cats should not be sold until they are 1kg in weight and that this is a perfect time for a cat to be desexed. We recognise that this is not going to apply for dogs. My own dog came to us at 10 weeks and as not desexed until 6 months - on vet advice. Mine is a small breed and this is suitable but the Jury also realised that larger breeds especially require more time for development before desexing is indicated. The report therefore only recommends desexing of cats before sale or transfer and not dogs but suggests that a time frame be established for the desexing of dogs based on the longest recommended time frames. There will be exemptions to this on the obvious grounds of requirement to breed and animal health as well as some specialised needs for working dogs etc.

[ness]

The report actually says:

"Central to the Jury's recommendation is that desexing is to occur at/or prior to the point of sale of dogs and cats".

It then goes onto mention exceptions but makes it pretty clear that they are talking about point of sale for both dogs and cats and that an exception will be required if you don't wish to. I am a huge supporter of having desexed pets but my latest dog will not be desexed until she is closer to 2 years and my previous bitch was 14 months. They are a medium sized breed purchased from registered breeders who I do not intend on breeding from but prefer to wait for health reasons as they compete in performance sports.

I also wonder why the RSPCA have to get involved in the registration side of things. Seems to be a double up when there are already organisations which look after and encourage responsible breeding like Dogs SA.

Edited August 13, 2015 by ness