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

[Scottsmum]

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.

This (above).

Also this:

Sorry - some people just down right believe some really stupid stuff.

I'm all education and for a bit of nanny-state style enforcement. All dogs should be chipped before sale in NSW - anyone caught selling or owning an unchipped pet should be stung, NSW should go back to providing tags for registered dogs (or yearly rego - so you can alter the price in a few years if you do desex(??) so it's easier to visually ID a registered/non-registered dog. Vets should not be able to treat an animal which is not chipped - (ok maybe OTT) but so be it.

I come from a waste & recycling education background - telling people what you can and cant put in your bins / recycling bins & why.

I have seen some really amazing stuff over the years the good and the bad. You can educate people until you're blue in the face - you're still going to have people put the wrong things in the wrong bins and not give a shit. Then you're going to find the super amazing, well educated people who use re-usable items, compost, recycle & create almost zero waste - kind of similar to a lot of the DOLers.

Actually - the innovation curve comes to mind:

We're all on the curve - it's just a shame that we're talking real lives - not the latest iphone.

You can enforce until the cows come home - you'll still find people who dump rubbish or continue to do the wrong thing - with "oh I didnt know it was illegal" "Oh I didn't know where the tip was" "oh I can't afford the tip fee to get rid of it" "oh I ran out of time" - same story - "oh I thought she knew not to have sex with her brother -cause its gross" (can't believe I just typed that LOL) - "I was going to get her desexed but ran out of time/hand no money this week" "she really wanted to be a mummy" "I couldn't cut his balls off - it was too mean"

And you really will find people who genuinely dont know that what they're doing isn't the best thing for their pet. Some will be early adopters (as I have said - like a lot of DOLers) some will be laggards (like the people in the screen shot I added above).

Anyhow - that's my procrastinating ramble for the day. Off to see what else I can do instead of my uni assignment and job application.

[Steve]

By the way this is from the Victorian one

My link

Compulsory microchipping

All cats and dogs being registered with a Victorian local council for the first time must be microchipped prior to registration. You can be fined if you do not comply. In addition, councils have the power to require compulsory microchipping of all cats and dogs housed in their municipality. You should check with your local council as to what is required in your area.

All cats and dogs aged three months and over must be registered with the local council. Laws are already in place requiring microchipping of restricted breed dogs, and declared menacing or dangerous dogs. It is also a requirement to microchip all cats and dogs when they are sold or given away from pet shops, commercial breeders and pounds or shelters.

In the unusual event that the implantation of a microchip is likely to significantly prejudice the health of an animal, a supporting letter from a vet will exempt the owner from microchipping requirements."

So people who are not commercial breeders don't have to chip before sale - hard to see that someone would claim its an offence to buy an unchipped puppy in Victoria too isnt it?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

But in Victoria you cant advertise them for sale without a chip number .You can give them away without a chip though. No chance of data collection here.

Heaps of loop holes.

My link

[Dogdragon]

Steve there are penalties for the buyer if the buyer of a dog that has not been microchipped, fails to have the dog microchipped. There are local council penalties to them directly. This is not covered in the Companion Animals Act. Ill concede that these penalties are conditional.

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.

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

If person buys a dog un microchipped the onus is on them to do the following or face the above penalty if they don’t have it microchipped.

If you buy a cat or dog in NSW that is not microchipped, you should report this to a local council for investigation and further action, if appropriate.

https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/content/microchips

Obviously the new owner may or may not wish to report this but NOT reporting it is the issue, not whether its microchipped.

Steve wrote: By the way this is from the Victorian one

My link

Compulsory microchipping

All cats and dogs being registered with a Victorian local council for the first time must be microchipped prior to registration. You can be fined if you do not comply. In addition, councils have the power to require compulsory microchipping of all cats and dogs housed in their municipality. You should check with your local council as to what is required in your area.

All cats and dogs aged three months and over must be registered with the local council. Laws are already in place requiring microchipping of restricted breed dogs, and declared menacing or dangerous dogs. It is also a requirement to microchip all cats and dogs when they are sold or given away from pet shops, commercial breeders and pounds or shelters.

In the unusual event that the implantation of a microchip is likely to significantly prejudice the health of an animal, a supporting letter from a vet will exempt the owner from microchipping requirements."

So people who are not commercial breeders don't have to chip before sale - hard to see that someone would claim its an offence to buy an unchipped puppy in Victoria too isnt it?

Yeah, well, again the onus is on the individual to know what the law is……ignorance is no excuse. We hear that in the court room all the time……..

The VIC law provides that if you advertise a dog unless that advertisement contains the microchip number.

DOMESTIC ANIMALS ACT 1994 - SECT 12A

Dogs and cats must be permanently identified before sale or being given away

(1) The proprietor of a domestic animal business must not sell, or give away, a dog or cat unless the dog or cat has been implanted with a prescribed permanent identification device.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

S. 12A(2) inserted by No. 75/2011 s. 5.

(2) A person must not advertise, or cause to be advertised, a dog or cat for sale unless—

(a) the advertisement includes the unique number contained in the microchip contained in the prescribed permanent identification device implanted in the dog or cat; or

(b) the dog or cat is the subject of written veterinary advice that the health of the dog or cat is liable to be significantly prejudiced if it is implanted with a prescribed permanent identification device, in accordance with section 10D(2); or

© in the case of a registered domestic animal business, the advertisement includes the registered domestic animal business number and the name of the Council that issued the number.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/daa1994163/s12a.html

[Dogdragon]

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.

This (above).

Also this:

Sorry - some people just down right believe some really stupid stuff.

I'm all education and for a bit of nanny-state style enforcement. All dogs should be chipped before sale in NSW - anyone caught selling or owning an unchipped pet should be stung, NSW should go back to providing tags for registered dogs (or yearly rego - so you can alter the price in a few years if you do desex(??) so it's easier to visually ID a registered/non-registered dog. Vets should not be able to treat an animal which is not chipped - (ok maybe OTT) but so be it.

I come from a waste & recycling education background - telling people what you can and cant put in your bins / recycling bins & why.

I have seen some really amazing stuff over the years the good and the bad. You can educate people until you're blue in the face - you're still going to have people put the wrong things in the wrong bins and not give a shit. Then you're going to find the super amazing, well educated people who use re-usable items, compost, recycle & create almost zero waste - kind of similar to a lot of the DOLers.

Actually - the innovation curve comes to mind:

We're all on the curve - it's just a shame that we're talking real lives - not the latest iphone.

You can enforce until the cows come home - you'll still find people who dump rubbish or continue to do the wrong thing - with "oh I didnt know it was illegal" "Oh I didn't know where the tip was" "oh I can't afford the tip fee to get rid of it" "oh I ran out of time" - same story - "oh I thought she knew not to have sex with her brother -cause its gross" (can't believe I just typed that LOL) - "I was going to get her desexed but ran out of time/hand no money this week" "she really wanted to be a mummy" "I couldn't cut his balls off - it was too mean"

And you really will find people who genuinely dont know that what they're doing isn't the best thing for their pet. Some will be early adopters (as I have said - like a lot of DOLers) some will be laggards (like the people in the screen shot I added above).

Anyhow - that's my procrastinating ramble for the day. Off to see what else I can do instead of my uni assignment and job application.

Of course, nothing is absolute but your right.

[Steve]

Dogdragon - Yes there are penalties if an OWNER doesn't get their dog microchipped but it is not illegal for a person to purchase a dog which is not chipped. Its not smart and yes they should make sure they do but if the dog isnt chipped its not their illegal act or penalty

Think it through how could it be especially when you can buy a puppy out of state ?

If I buy a young pup in NSW not chipped the seller breaks the law - not me as long as I have it chipped before its 12 weeks old . If I buy an older dog thats not chipped as long as I take it and have it chipped I havent committed an offence.

The act sets the seller as responsible for the animal to be chipped at time of sale not the buyer.

Edited to ad there is a difference in between saying if you buy a pup thats not chipped you should report it and if you dont report it then you commit an offence.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

Steve there are penalties for the buyer if the buyer of a dog that has not been microchipped, fails to have the dog microchipped. There are local council penalties to them directly. This is not covered in the Companion Animals Act. Ill concede that these penalties are conditional.

Penalties for owners not microchipping their pet by 12 weeks of age is covered in the companion animals act .However, there is no part of any act including the companion animals act in NSW that makes it an offence with or without a penalty for buying a dog that's not chipped.

Again non microchipped dogs are not contraband.

[Tapua]

Just curious - is any of the micro chipping issues this policed? Generally my experience is if the vet finds a dog not micro chipped they happily microchip it and don't go down the avenue of perusing the person who sod the dog un-micro chipped. Regarding un-neutered dogs - all I can say is Europe has always been ahead of the rest of the world regarding the understanding and management of dogs in the community. I try to educate the puppy buyers about delaying the neutering until a dog is sexually mature. They are informed about the impact of early neutering on growth and the link between the increased incidence of HD due to early neutering. They are NAGGED to have fencing high enough the dog can't get over and low enough the dog can't get out and decent lockable gates. Pens with a secure floor & roof if the owner is off property but at the end of the day the choice is the owners what they do. IMO better to inform that to legislate.

[Papillon Kisses]

Just curious - is any of the micro chipping issues this policed? Generally my experience is if the vet finds a dog not micro chipped they happily microchip it and don't go down the avenue of perusing the person who sod the dog un-micro chipped.

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue will correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Papillon Kisses

[Steve]

Just curious - is any of the micro chipping issues this policed? Generally my experience is if the vet finds a dog not micro chipped they happily microchip it and don't go down the avenue of perusing the person who sod the dog un-micro chipped. Regarding un-neutered dogs - all I can say is Europe has always been ahead of the rest of the world regarding the understanding and management of dogs in the community. I try to educate the puppy buyers about delaying the neutering until a dog is sexually mature. They are informed about the impact of early neutering on growth and the link between the increased incidence of HD due to early neutering. They are NAGGED to have fencing high enough the dog can't get over and low enough the dog can't get out and decent lockable gates. Pens with a secure floor & roof if the owner is off property but at the end of the day the choice is the owners what they do. IMO better to inform that to legislate.

vets dont do any policing - theory is you cant ask em to do this or people will avoid visits to the vets. Only council can fine for not chipping and unless a buyer dobs em in its pretty hard to spot them

its why I think an incentive for buyers to purchase dogs already chipped would help

however, I cant see that its going to be possible for any real data collection due to the loop holes and until then none of us can factually say where dogs in pounds originate from.

[Steve]

Just curious - is any of the micro chipping issues this policed? Generally my experience is if the vet finds a dog not micro chipped they happily microchip it and don't go down the avenue of perusing the person who sod the dog un-micro chipped.

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue while be able to correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep true - an owner is fined if their dog is not chipped .

[Willem]

Just curious - is any of the micro chipping issues this policed? Generally my experience is if the vet finds a dog not micro chipped they happily microchip it and don't go down the avenue of perusing the person who sod the dog un-micro chipped.

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue while be able to correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep true - an owner is fined if their dog is not chipped .

yep, for our area the council can fine dog owners with unregistered dogs (which requires the chip number - no registration without chip number) with up to AU$ 2,200!

Eta: that's valid for any dog 6 month and older...if dogs are not registered after 6 month you will get a reminder first, next step is the fine...

Edited May 20, 2016 by Willem

[dog_fan]

Just curious - is any of the micro chipping issues this policed? Generally my experience is if the vet finds a dog not micro chipped they happily microchip it and don't go down the avenue of perusing the person who sod the dog un-micro chipped.

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue while be able to correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep true - an owner is fined if their dog is not chipped .

yep, for our area the council can fine dog owners with unregistered dogs (which requires the chip number - no registration without chip number) with up to AU$ 2,200!

And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work

[Willem]

Just curious - is any of the micro chipping issues this policed? Generally my experience is if the vet finds a dog not micro chipped they happily microchip it and don't go down the avenue of perusing the person who sod the dog un-micro chipped.

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue while be able to correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep true - an owner is fined if their dog is not chipped .

yep, for our area the council can fine dog owners with unregistered dogs (which requires the chip number - no registration without chip number) with up to AU$ 2,200!

And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work

For me the most important reason to register our dog is actually not to avoid punishment respectively fines, but to increase the chances that our dog can be found and safely returned if it would get missing so it is really more for the safety of the dog. I think it is also a requirement for getting membership in many dog clubs for obedience and agility training and the like.

Eta: ...maybe it has also something to do with the wide spread 'no worries... should be fine attitude' when people embarking on a dog ownership? ...it is good to be positive, but sometimes it is even better to consider possible consequences...

Edited May 20, 2016 by Willem

[Dogdragon]

Dog Fan wrote:

And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work

It doesn’t prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place.

For example, terms such as ‘reasonable actions’, ‘reasonable access’ and ‘appropriate feed and water’ are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed.

We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can’t just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this.

What we are seeing now is

• Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits.

• Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance.

• High rates of impounding and euthanasia.

• And more

and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility.

As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation.

There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance:

• All dog breeders to be licensed

• Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information

• Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement

This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act

[Willem]

Dog Fan wrote:

And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work

It doesn’t prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place.

For example, terms such as ‘reasonable actions’, ‘reasonable access’ and ‘appropriate feed and water’ are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed.

We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can’t just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this.

What we are seeing now is

• Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits.

• Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance.

• High rates of impounding and euthanasia.

• And more

and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility.

As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation.

There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance:

• All dog breeders to be licensed

• Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information

• Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement

This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act

...so the current desexing strategy is in place because it doesn't work thus protecting the sensible economy associated with the pet industry, while at the same time it gives the impression the authorities are doing something to address the pound issues and overpopulation?

[Steve]

Dog Fan wrote:

And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place.

For example, terms such as 'reasonable actions', 'reasonable access' and 'appropriate feed and water' are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed.

Not true - terms such as reasonable actions, reasonable access and appropriate feed and water are not pertinent to legislation surrounding registration and identification.

To suggest that in NSW the current legislation for for identification and registration of cats and dogs is lacking in detail or not there in the first place is rubbish.

Looks to me that it shows that legislation and threats of punishment alone don't work for a very large number in our community

[Steve]

Dog Fan wrote:

And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place.

For example, terms such as 'reasonable actions', 'reasonable access' and 'appropriate feed and water' are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed.

We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can't just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this.

What we are seeing now is

• Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits.

• Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance.

• High rates of impounding and euthanasia.

• And more

and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility.

As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation.

There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance:

• All dog breeders to be licensed

• Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information

• Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement

This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act

Everyone in NSW who breeds a dog and has it microchipped post 1st July 2016 will have a breeder number .They are not calling it a licence but a registration number and it is part of the microchipping information

Licences have been ruled out in NSW and so has any suggestion that vets will be expected to report.

[moosmum]

Dog Fan wrote:

And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work

It doesn’t prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place.

For example, terms such as ‘reasonable actions’, ‘reasonable access’ and ‘appropriate feed and water’ are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed.

We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can’t just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this.

What we are seeing now is

• Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits.

• Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance.

• High rates of impounding and euthanasia.

• And more

and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility.

As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation.

There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance:

• All dog breeders to be licensed

• Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information

• Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement

This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act

...so the current desexing strategy is in place because it doesn't work thus protecting the sensible economy associated with the pet industry, while at the same time it gives the impression the authorities are doing something to address the pound issues and overpopulation?

Nah, obviously the devils in the detail.

No one can be trusted to be responsible.

So we license and set out every last detail of breeder protocol to be followed. No more reasonable action, reasonable access or appropriate feed and water. Tell 'em how many litres per kilo over 24 hours. The details of any reasonable action, exactly what an approved enclosure looks like and punish any deviation. Make it a strictly regulated, licensed industry so puppy farms will be a thing of the past. (not)

So we all know what responsibility looks like. We will finaly understand dogs. And none would dare to deviate.

Sorry. I still say very short sighted. I can almost guarantee that within a single human generation 'pet' dogs would be almost non existent. Problem solved.

Well meaning maybe, but very little understanding of any real value behind the partnership between man and dogs or how to preserve that. It is NOT by taking responsibility from Man and placing it with government, informed by 'industry leaders'.

Edited May 20, 2016 by moosmum

[Simply Grand]

Dog Fan wrote:

And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place.

For example, terms such as 'reasonable actions', 'reasonable access' and 'appropriate feed and water' are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed.

Not true - terms such as reasonable actions, reasonable access and appropriate feed and water are not pertinent to legislation surrounding registration and identification.

To suggest that in NSW the current legislation for for identification and registration of cats and dogs is lacking in detail or not there in the first place is rubbish.

Looks to me that it shows that legislation and threats of punishment alone don't work for a very large number in our community

Exactly. The rules are very clear. Just not enforced so people who don't care or don't know don't bother.