For All The Unethical (But Responsible) Dog Owners ...

[RuralPug]

And the reason that legislation largely only applies to registered breeders is THAT IT IS NOT ENFORCED so therefore tends only to be self-enforced by law abiding persons or by persons belonging to an organisation which actively enforces legislation.

The numbers of dogs not microchipped before sale, sold before the minimum age, proscribed breeds openly bred and sold etc. etc. is still far too large due to lack of enforcement and apathy in the general public.

So the answer to the question how to make legislation apply to the ones who currently ignore it is to change the attitudes of the general public so that they will support the funding of enforcement of existing legislation AND be supportive of breeders and owners who put animal welfare first.

The sense of entitlement in the general public that they should be "allowed" to do what they like with their own dogs regardless of what is in the dogs' best interests and travel in motor cars at whatever speed they like regardless of danger to themselves and others needs to be changed. A lot of money and effort is being put into attempts to change the latter attitude and very little into the former.

I know that there are those who DO have their dogs' best interests at heart that will strongly dislike being "told what to do" as if they were the great unwashed that don't rate their pets' interests highly (in fact Willem in the first post seems to be expressing this view re being penalised for choosing to keep his dogs' entire) but I firmly believe that we should push for enforcement and attitude changes in spite of our hurt feelings. Once we, as a nation, have started to adopt attitudes towards dogs similar to those in Norway etc, then perhaps we can tweak the legislation - but not until then.

Edited May 18, 2016 by RuralPug

[Steve]

If we stick to the OP - Incentives via heavily reduced registration fees given for those who desex their dogs - No enforcement is required because it is not a legal requirement to have your dog desexed.

Clearly someone has decided that desexing is a good thing for management of canines and have built this reward - incentive system into the registration process.

No one really knows why it's state companion animal law that those who have a desexed animal will get a reduction except its always been done and obviously some people think that it will reduce the numbers of unwanted litters.

So because it's been done historically the knowledge of potential unintended consequences between then and now have changed .We know that many of the things thought to make animals more manageable via desexing have been shown to not be true and more potential adverse health impacts are known to occur via having the animal altered in this way.

Norway have determined taking out an animal's reproductive organs without being able to show medical reasons is cruel. It is written into their anti cruelty legislation and it is a criminal offence to have this done.

We have no tail docking,no ear cropping etc written into our cruelty laws to a point where in Victoria even if you get a dog docked somewhere that is able to be done legally you become a criminal with a huge penalty if you take it with a docked tail to a dog show!

We already know that mandatory desexing has no impact on numbers coming into pounds - clearly demonstrated via ACT stats before and after but also in numerous other places world wide where this has been introduced.

I understand that some here don't want to hear that desexing an animal for nothing more than preventing it from being able to reproduce is an act of cruelty and that many will throw back what about pyo or testicular cancer etc however, many do think it is cruel to do this .enough science and enough places and enough people think it is cruel to take out reproductive organs to warrant a re think .

Again I say what is the stated goal of offering an incentive to people to desex their dogs?

Is it that it keeps down aggression - proven by science to be untrue

Is it that it prevents unwanted litters - if it does by how much ? These days these unwanted litters still find homes. Rescue fight over pregnant dogs ,wont abort them and easily find homes for the puppies - breeders cant breed enough to fill the demand .BYB may have to reduce their prices but puppies are in high demand.

Is it that it prevents such high numbers coming into pounds - proven by studies to not work

Where do dogs in pounds come from - who is most responsible and how might we be able to change what has always been done to find realistic solutions to numbers in pounds?

The incentive program intimates that if you desex your dog you are a better more responsible dog owner when in fact all you have done is decide to desex to get the incentive or to not have the management issues of an entire dog. You can still let your dog run wild, bark all day and all night, not train it and make the rest of the neighbourhood wish it was gone but you get the incentive.

One of the goals of a registration system is to have all animals identified. This gives them a greater chance of getting back home, it means they will also be registered and if they cant stay with their family for what ever reason it enables data to be collected which will answer where do they come from and why and how can we realistically change things to try to prevent the problem of numbers in pounds.

So if we are to use an incentive program to encourage desirable behaviour by breeders and owners whilst at the same time educating everyone that microchipping is a responsible behaviour a preferable incentive would be to provide a lower registration fee to those who purchase the animal when it is chipped before they get it.

[BlaznHotAussies]

I think the general public just doesn't care.

Just in the past few days I've seen so many people selling & buying puppies whether they're microchipped & vaccinated or not. Despite it being ILLEGAL to sell puppies without microchips. And even when they're told about it they don't want to know.

And apparently registered breeders are the ones who don't care about their dogs and it's just about the money

[Steve]

I think the general public just doesn't care.

Just in the past few days I've seen so many people selling & buying puppies whether they're microchipped & vaccinated or not. Despite it being ILLEGAL to sell puppies without microchips. And even when they're told about it they don't want to know.

And apparently registered breeders are the ones who don't care about their dogs and it's just about the money

But its not illegal to BUY a puppy not microchipped - and no incentive for doing so - its not part of the push in how to find a responsible breeder etc - no one comes around to check if you have a dog in your yard that's not chipped or registered - why should they care?

How do we make them more aware and care?

Edited May 18, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

I think the general public just doesn't care.

Just in the past few days I've seen so many people selling & buying puppies whether they're microchipped & vaccinated or not. Despite it being ILLEGAL to sell puppies without microchips. And even when they're told about it they don't want to know.

And apparently registered breeders are the ones who don't care about their dogs and it's just about the money

Have you reported them?

[BlaznHotAussies]

I think the general public just doesn't care.

Just in the past few days I've seen so many people selling & buying puppies whether they're microchipped & vaccinated or not. Despite it being ILLEGAL to sell puppies without microchips. And even when they're told about it they don't want to know.

And apparently registered breeders are the ones who don't care about their dogs and it's just about the money

Have you reported them?

No...who do you report to & what information do I need?

[Steve]

I think the general public just doesn't care.

Just in the past few days I've seen so many people selling & buying puppies whether they're microchipped & vaccinated or not. Despite it being ILLEGAL to sell puppies without microchips. And even when they're told about it they don't want to know.

And apparently registered breeders are the ones who don't care about their dogs and it's just about the money

Have you reported them?

No...who do you report to & what information do I need?

Im not sure of the exact laws re chipping and puppy sales in WA but your local council is first stop. You will need as much info as possible to help them identify them and get them

Edited May 19, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

Would appear in WA the breeder doesnt have to chip prior to sale

My link

[BlaznHotAussies]

I think the general public just doesn't care.

Just in the past few days I've seen so many people selling & buying puppies whether they're microchipped & vaccinated or not. Despite it being ILLEGAL to sell puppies without microchips. And even when they're told about it they don't want to know.

And apparently registered breeders are the ones who don't care about their dogs and it's just about the money

Have you reported them?

No...who do you report to & what information do I need?

Im not sure of the exact laws re chipping and puppy sales in WA but your local council is first stop. You will need as much info as possible to help them identify them and get them

Ahh. So their local council? (They're not local to me)

And interesting I thought I read the other day info from a microchipper that they have to be done before leaving the breeder... Will have to try find it again & re-read.

[Willem]

makes me think that the idea with the dog lotto might not be so bad at all to promote microchipping - subsidise the first draws so it becomes really attractive, keep the payouts reasonable (many smaller payouts instead of one big to increase the chances of a win)....the microchip number is the ticket...easy to setup, and all the owners without registration would miss out...

wrt post #228: Steve's summary hit the nail!

[Steve]

makes me think that the idea with the dog lotto might not be so bad at all to promote microchipping - subsidise the first draws so it becomes really attractive, keep the payouts reasonable (many smaller payouts instead of one big to increase the chances of a win)....the microchip number is the ticket...easy to setup, and all the owners without registration would miss out...

wrt post #228: Steve's summary hit the nail!

Sounds good except there is so much legislation around raffles, lottery etc that its a hard ask. to get anyone that motivated. A charity would be required to run it might be able to convince them its a good fundraiser.

[Dogdragon]

Simply Grand wrote

But we already have legislation around lots of things (microchipping, breeders permits, registration, age of sale) and it isn't fixing the issues because it isn't enforced. More unenforced legislation won't change anything either.

Education and changing the attitudes and will of the majority works two fold - 1. in changing people's behaviours; and 2. in changing political will and pressure on governments to spend resources on enforcing the legislation we already have.

Those two things are what changed things with regard to slavery and the rights of women, and are why rates of things like drink driving and smoking rates, and racism, actually have reduced, not just a dictatorial government putting in new legislation without the will of the majority behind it.

Says who? The current legislation is not working in its present form, even if the laws were enforced they are not adequate. Currently there is talk on making it an offence for landlords to refuse pet owners rental options.

Actually SG whats changing the things I mentioned is legislation. Drink drive – higher penalties for doing it which includes jail, just a month ago I was in the local court where a man was sentenced to 2 years for his 3rd offence. Despite huge costs in education programs.

Womens rights, too many changes in legislation to list but its all there for you to look up yourself. You can start here

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/advancing-women-s-rights-and-gender-equality

Smoking, increase taxes, increasing the cost, plain packaging and a number of other legislative changes. Despite huge costs in education programs.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-plain

Racism – Legislation changes to the Anti Discrimination Act, Aboriginal people were not even allowed to vote until 17 December 1965, the Elections Act Amendment Act was passed and came into force on 1 February 1966. This Act extended voting rights to all Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland.

So in many cases we need to amend legislation to protect the rights of others because a lot of people are self-centered and dont give a damn about anyone/thing but themselves.

Willem wrote

I think asal refers to the low percentage (maybe 15%) registered breeders contribute to the overall dog population - they feel the whole heat of the current legislations despite that their impact on the pound problem is minimal (due to the numbers and due to their way doing their business, interaction with potential buyers etc.). At the moment it seems that the legislation has only consequences for the registered breeders, hence the big question is how to make these legislations work for all the other breeders that provide the other 85%?

That’s just it……it cant in its current form can it?

Steve wrote

But its not illegal to BUY a puppy not microchipped - and no incentive for doing so

Yes is is illegal, in NSW anyways,

In NSW, all cats and dogs, other than exempt cats and dogs, must be microchipped by 12 weeks of age or before being sold or given away, whichever happens first.

If you fail to have your cat or dog microchipped when required to do so, you may be issued with a fixed penalty notice for $165 or a court may award a maximum penalty of up to $880. Where your dog is a restricted dog or a declared dangerous dog you may by issued with a fixed penalty notice for $1,320 or a court may award a maximum penalty of $5,500.

https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/public/dogs-and-cats/information-for-the-community/microchipping-registration

At the end of the day all we have in terms of stat on dogs in pounds are numbers. We really can discount the reasons why people SAY they have to surrender them………People will lie to make it sound more palatable for the receiver.

[Steve]

Simply Grand wrote

But we already have legislation around lots of things (microchipping, breeders permits, registration, age of sale) and it isn't fixing the issues because it isn't enforced. More unenforced legislation won't change anything either.

Education and changing the attitudes and will of the majority works two fold - 1. in changing people's behaviours; and 2. in changing political will and pressure on governments to spend resources on enforcing the legislation we already have.

Those two things are what changed things with regard to slavery and the rights of women, and are why rates of things like drink driving and smoking rates, and racism, actually have reduced, not just a dictatorial government putting in new legislation without the will of the majority behind it.

Says who? The current legislation is not working in its present form, even if the laws were enforced they are not adequate. Currently there is talk on making it an offence for landlords to refuse pet owners rental options.

Actually SG whats changing the things I mentioned is legislation. Drink drive – higher penalties for doing it which includes jail, just a month ago I was in the local court where a man was sentenced to 2 years for his 3rd offence. Despite huge costs in education programs.

Womens rights, too many changes in legislation to list but its all there for you to look up yourself. You can start here

https://www.humanrig...gender-equality

Smoking, increase taxes, increasing the cost, plain packaging and a number of other legislative changes. Despite huge costs in education programs.

http://www.health.go...t/tobacco-plain

Racism – Legislation changes to the Anti Discrimination Act, Aboriginal people were not even allowed to vote until 17 December 1965, the Elections Act Amendment Act was passed and came into force on 1 February 1966. This Act extended voting rights to all Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland.

So in many cases we need to amend legislation to protect the rights of others because a lot of people are self-centered and dont give a damn about anyone/thing but themselves.

Willem wrote

I think asal refers to the low percentage (maybe 15%) registered breeders contribute to the overall dog population - they feel the whole heat of the current legislations despite that their impact on the pound problem is minimal (due to the numbers and due to their way doing their business, interaction with potential buyers etc.). At the moment it seems that the legislation has only consequences for the registered breeders, hence the big question is how to make these legislations work for all the other breeders that provide the other 85%?

That's just it……it cant in its current form can it?

Steve wrote

But its not illegal to BUY a puppy not microchipped - and no incentive for doing so

Yes is is illegal, in NSW anyways,

In NSW, all cats and dogs, other than exempt cats and dogs, must be microchipped by 12 weeks of age or before being sold or given away, whichever happens first.

If you fail to have your cat or dog microchipped when required to do so, you may be issued with a fixed penalty notice for $165 or a court may award a maximum penalty of up to $880. Where your dog is a restricted dog or a declared dangerous dog you may by issued with a fixed penalty notice for $1,320 or a court may award a maximum penalty of $5,500.

https://www.olg.nsw....ng-registration

At the end of the day all we have in terms of stat on dogs in pounds are numbers. We really can discount the reasons why people SAY they have to surrender them………People will lie to make it sound more palatable for the receiver.

Can you direct me to the legislation in the companion animals act in NSW where it is an offence with penalties for the buyer for purchasing a dog that's not chipped.

As far as Im aware the onus is on the breeder with legislation to fine them if they dont comply - its also on the seller to change ownership details.

Once you own it then it has to be chipped before its 12 weeks but no penalty for the buyer for purchasing a dog thats not chipped no matter how old it is.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

Companion animals act NSW

My link

COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 8

Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

8 Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

(1) A companion animal must be identified as required by the regulations from the time the animal is 12 weeks old.

(2) A

companion animal

must not be sold unless it has been identified as required by the regulations (even if it is less than 12 weeks old when it is sold).

(3)

The owner

of an animal is guilty of an offence if it is not identified in accordance with subsection (1).

(4) A person who

sells

an animal in contravention of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Steve

[Simply Grand]

But Dogdragon, legislation doesn't get introduced or changed without there being political will to do so. And political will comes from there being support for something from the majority of the public.

Do you really think the laws around smoking would have gone through if the majority of the public protested them?

Would laws around racial discrimination have changed if the majority of those people with the right to vote didn't want it?

Why are laws around the sale of alcohol so cautious compared to laws around prescription and illicit drugs when alcohol causes just as many problems and just as much cost to the country? Because the majority don't want that.

And those are laws that are enforced to a higher extent than companion animal laws are because the public is happy to have public money spent on enforcing them. People can see that having and enforcing these laws benefits everyone.

Convincing people to agree with large amounts of public money being spent on enforcing companion animal laws is a much tougher sell because it doesn't impact on everyone, and what we are talking about in this thread is ultimately about the welfare of animals, not tax paying, voting humans.

[_PL_]

Norway have determined taking out an animal's reproductive organs without being able to show medical reasons is cruel. It is written into their anti cruelty legislation and it is a criminal offence to have this done.

We have no tail docking,no ear cropping etc written into our cruelty laws to a point where in Victoria even if you get a dog docked somewhere that is able to be done legally you become a criminal with a huge penalty if you take it with a docked tail to a dog show!

Norway is a great example of legislation gone stupid. Whatever your or my views are on desexing, it's ridiculous.

Docking and ear cropping .. not my field but when docking was still legal I saw BYB botched jobs that were nasty. Was it supposed to be done by a vet under anaesthetic like desexing is?

[Steve]

If ear cropping and tail docking de barking are done by a vet none of them impact on the long term health of the dog .Im not advocating any of them.

Im saying that in Australia we advocate for an animal's sexual organs to be removed for the purpose of easier management.

Whether a vet performs any of the operations could have been legislated so not relevant to the debate but the whole wide world decided that taking a puppy's tail off was an act of cruelty - it is written into criminal cruelty laws and considered a very serious offence.

It was argued Tails were docked in most breeds in case the dog got a tail injury. It was outlawed because it was a just in case procedure which altered the dog to aid the human manage it better. you have to go through all kinds of stress and trauma to a point where you can have your dog debarked

Yet we consider that taking out organs which produce hormones that will impact on the long term health of the dog proven to at the least take time off its longevity is O.K.. Just in case the dog gets some cancers some cancers even though the potential risk of more cancers after desexing is more common. Just in case we have an unwanted litter We put them through a general anesthetic, watch them suffer the pain post operation much much greater than a debark or tail dock and pretend that removing testosterone and estrogen wont have any adverse long term health effects for any mammal.

I believe desexing a dog is cruel and that Norway is correct sooner or later the rest of the world will catch up. I am not happy that people are pressured into having these operations done without being educated on the possible pros and cons. Just because its done to death in the USA and its been pushed here doesnt mean we should have to be politically correct and go with the flow . Its cuel. If its about unwanted litters and operating on dogs for our own management requirements is O.K. then why don't we do vasectomies and tubals ?

Edited May 19, 2016 by Steve

[Willem]

That's another very comprehensive study clearly disclosing the increased health risks due to desexing and the increased behavioural issues:

http://www.caninesports.com/uploads/1/5/3/1/15319800/vizsla_javma_study.pdfMy link

quote:

Logistic regression analysis revealed that the odds of gonadectomized Vizslas having behavioral problems (fear of storms, separation anxiety, fear of noises, fear of gunfire, timidity, excitability, submissive urination, aggression, hyperactivity, and fear biting) after gonadectomy were significantly (P = 0.035) higher than the odds for sexually intact dogs...

If dogs shows anxiety, nowadays owners often claim that the dog was badly treated in the past - considering the above the only 'bad treatment' the dog might have encountered might be just that he had been desexed.

wrt different desexing strategies in different developed countries:

It’s actually only Australia and the US where desexing is so heavily promoted as the silver bullet for all kind of problems (overpopulation, health issues, behavioural problems). While not all European countries adopt Norway's stricter legislation regarding desexing, the numbers of desexed dogs in these countries are much lower (e.g. in Sweden only 7% of the dogs are desexed). Despite the higher rates of entire dogs, it seems that these countries don't have the same problems wrt overfilled pounds and straying dogs.

There is enough scientific evidence rebutting the claims of the desexing lobby that dogs would be healthier and that desexing is a reliable cure for behavioural problems, hence these arguments backfire heavily. That leaves the argument for addressing overpopulation, but how strong is this argument considering the experience in other developed countries really?...and if this problem is really so huge, why are all the other competitive options (vasectomy, tubal ligation) not offered as an alternative?

It is hard to see how the current strategy is in the best interest of dogs and owners.

[Dogdragon]

Steve wrote:

Companion animals act NSW

My link

COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 8

Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

8 Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

(1) A companion animal must be identified as required by the regulations from the time the animal is 12 weeks old.

(2) A companion animal must not be sold unless it has been identified as required by the regulations (even if it is less than 12 weeks old when it is sold).

(3) The owner of an animal is guilty of an offence if it is not identified in accordance with subsection (1).

(4) A person who sells an animal in contravention of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

Ok Steve, Im glad you edited the part of your post that say there are no penalties for the sale of unmicrochipped dogs under the age of 12 weeks. There absolutely is.

For those people that have been mislead by your comments let me break it down for them.

Section 8 of the Act http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s8.html in its entirety.

COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 8

Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

8 Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

(1) A companion animal must be identified as required by the regulations from the time the animal is 12 weeks old.

(2) A companion animal must not be sold unless it has been identified as required by the regulations (even if it is less than 12 weeks old when it is sold).

(3) The owner of an animal is guilty of an offence if it is not identified in accordance with subsection (1).

Maximum penalty:

(a) 8 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog, or

(b) 50 penalty units in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog.

(4) A person who sells an animal in contravention of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a) 8 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog, or

(b) 50 penalty units in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog.

(5) The regulations may change the age from which a companion animal is required to be identified under subsection (1) from 12 weeks to any other age (either generally for all companion animals or for a particular kind or class of companion animal).

Note : The term sell extends to the transfer of ownership by any means, including by gift. This section requires an animal to be identified before it is sold no matter what the age of the animal when it is sold.

Section 2 (2) A companion animal must not be sold unless it has been identified as required by the regulations (even if it is less than 12 weeks old when it is sold).

Section 4 relating to section 2 (4) A person who sells an animal in contravention of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a) 8 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog, or

(b) 50 penalty units in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog.

Clearly it is an offence to sell a dog un microchipped and clearly there are penalties for the seller if they do. It surprises me that given your inference in this thread that you have some sort of role in an advisory capacity, and have full access to the entire Act that you cherry pick it and disseminate false and misleading information to others who may take this information and run with it.

Simply Grand wrote:

But Dogdragon, legislation doesn't get introduced or changed without there being political will to do so. And political will comes from there being support for something from the majority of the public.

Do you really think the laws around smoking would have gone through if the majority of the public protested them?

Would laws around racial discrimination have changed if the majority of those people with the right to vote didn't want it?

Why are laws around the sale of alcohol so cautious compared to laws around prescription and illicit drugs when alcohol causes just as many problems and just as much cost to the country? Because the majority don't want that.

And those are laws that are enforced to a higher extent than companion animal laws are because the public is happy to have public money spent on enforcing them. People can see that having and enforcing these laws benefits everyone.

Convincing people to agree with large amounts of public money being spent on enforcing companion animal laws is a much tougher sell because it doesn't impact on everyone, and what we are talking about in this thread is ultimately about the welfare of animals, not tax paying, voting humans.

Absolutely, not disagreeing with anything here SG. Education should not be the only tool here as others have suggested but rather, used as a catalyst for change (legislative). This is my stance. Of course legislation doesnt change without support…….....

An example: a few years back Clover Moore tried to have legislation changed to stop pet shops selling live animals. It didn't get up.

Personally I think this is a positive step in reducing some of the dogs ending up in shelters. It stops impulse buying of puppies. The pet barn only sells animals from the RSPCA. This is positive in my view.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Dogdragon

[Steve]

Steve wrote:

Companion animals act NSW

My link

COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 8

Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

8 Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

(1) A companion animal must be identified as required by the regulations from the time the animal is 12 weeks old.

(2) A companion animal must not be sold unless it has been identified as required by the regulations (even if it is less than 12 weeks old when it is sold).

(3) The owner of an animal is guilty of an offence if it is not identified in accordance with subsection (1).

(4) A person who sells an animal in contravention of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

Ok Steve, I’m glad you edited the part of your post that say there are no penalties for the sale of unmicrochipped dogs under the age of 12 weeks. There absolutely is.

For those people that have been mislead by your comments let me break it down for them.

Section 8 of the Act http://www.austlii.e...1998174/s8.html in its entirety.

COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 8

Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

8 Identification required from 12 weeks of age and before sale

(1) A companion animal must be identified as required by the regulations from the time the animal is 12 weeks old.

(2) A companion animal must not be sold unless it has been identified as required by the regulations (even if it is less than 12 weeks old when it is sold).

(3) The owner of an animal is guilty of an offence if it is not identified in accordance with subsection (1).

Maximum penalty:

(a) 8 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog, or

(b) 50 penalty units in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog.

(4) A person who sells an animal in contravention of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a) 8 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog, or

(b) 50 penalty units in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog.

(5) The regulations may change the age from which a companion animal is required to be identified under subsection (1) from 12 weeks to any other age (either generally for all companion animals or for a particular kind or class of companion animal).

Note : The term “sell” extends to the transfer of ownership by any means, including by gift. This section requires an animal to be identified before it is sold no matter what the age of the animal when it is sold.

Section 2 (2) A companion animal must not be sold unless it has been identified as required by the regulations (even if it is less than 12 weeks old when it is sold).

Section 4 relating to section 2 (4) A person who sells an animal in contravention of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a) 8 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog, or

(b) 50 penalty units in the case of a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog.

Clearly it is an offence to sell a dog un microchipped and clearly there are penalties for the seller if they do. It surprises me that given your inference in this thread that you have some sort of role in an advisory capacity, and have full access to the entire Act that you cherry pick it and disseminate false and misleading information to others who may take this information and run with it.

Simply Grand wrote:

But Dogdragon, legislation doesn't get introduced or changed without there being political will to do so. And political will comes from there being support for something from the majority of the public.

Do you really think the laws around smoking would have gone through if the majority of the public protested them?

Would laws around racial discrimination have changed if the majority of those people with the right to vote didn't want it?

Why are laws around the sale of alcohol so cautious compared to laws around prescription and illicit drugs when alcohol causes just as many problems and just as much cost to the country? Because the majority don't want that.

And those are laws that are enforced to a higher extent than companion animal laws are because the public is happy to have public money spent on enforcing them. People can see that having and enforcing these laws benefits everyone.

Convincing people to agree with large amounts of public money being spent on enforcing companion animal laws is a much tougher sell because it doesn't impact on everyone, and what we are talking about in this thread is ultimately about the welfare of animals, not tax paying, voting humans.

Absolutely, not disagreeing with anything here SG. Education should not be the only tool here as others have suggested but rather, used as a catalyst for change (legislative). This is my stance. Of course legislation doesn’t change without support…….....

An example: a few years back Clover Moore tried to have legislation changed to stop pet shops selling live animals. It didn't get up.

Personally I think this is a positive step in reducing some of the dogs ending up in shelters. It stops impulse buying of puppies. The pet barn only sells animals from the RSPCA. This is positive in my view.

Im not that sure what you mean

At no time did I say nor did I edit out any part of a post which said that there were no penalties for selling an un microchipped dog in NSW . I did say that it was not illegal in WA if thats what you are referring to and its not edited its still there.

I did say that it was not an offence for someone to purchase an un microchipped dog in NSW nor can I see that it is an offence to purchase an unchipped dog anywhere in Australia

Now Im more than happy to stand corrected if you can show me where there are penalties issued to someone who BUYS an unchipped pet .

I can see where there is a penalty for selling one , I can see where there is a penalty for owning one over a certain age which is not chipped.

However, if someone purchase an 8 week old puppy that is not microchipped as the buyer I cannot see where they are breaking the law.

Dog dragon said quote It surprises me that given your inference in this thread that you have some sort of role in an advisory capacity, and have full access to the entire Act that you cherry pick it and disseminate false and misleading information to others who may take this information and run with it.

If you can show me the false and misleading information or examples of where I have cherry picked I'm happy to correct it However, this discussion is not just about NSW so if you mean what I said in post 233 and 234 regarding the WA situation perhaps there is a misunderstanding and your accusation of cherry picking and giving false information of me is unwarranted. If you can provide evidence of a buyer committing an offence by purchasing an unchipped dog Im all ears.

The fact as I know it is that it is not illegal to purchase an animal that is not microchipped anywhere in this country and there is no penalty attached to that. At no time have a said or remotely suggested that it is not illegal for a breeder/seller in NSW to sell a puppy which is not chipped.

I believe that at this time legislation covers the sale of unchipped dogs with penalties for the seller in some states not in others.

Thus why I think providing louder education and incentives to the buyer would see buyers refusing to buy unless they were chipped. Un microchipped puppies are not contraband.