Deeds Posted January 10, 2023 Share Posted January 10, 2023 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-11/dog-theft-increasing-will-new-laws-help/101841858 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 (edited) ABSOLUTELY, more and more new laws will be just as effective as the ones that say ALL PUPPIES AND KITTENS MUST be microchipped. I read somewhere its believed less than 30% are microchipped on the figures of unchipped that end up in pounds and rescues. so well at least 30% of the population obey that law after what is it? Over 20 years since it was drafted and passed? Or am i just being cynical? https://www.rspcaqld.org.au/news-and-events/news/microchip-your-pet-before-the-holidays Edited January 11, 2023 by asal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 the reason the ANKC litter notices NO LONGER have the name and address of the owner for over 30 ? or is it 40 years ago now? Is because when the police arrested a chap with mums and pups in the back, on the seat was a copy of DOGS, with rings around the breeds he was going to steal, the ones with the cross through the ring were already now in his vehicle. Not a new problem folks. Although today its more oodles on the sights now instead of purebreds 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 Interesting that SA decided that introducing a new law that maybe has higher financial penalty, but lower jail time than the current law that covers theft of anything else... Only a few months ago, the SA state government introduced a swathe of new animal legislation without going through ANY public consultation processes... legislation that had roots firmly based in animal rights ideology. Is this how we want our laws to be decided... in backroom deals with extremists and no public consultation, or consultation with experts in the field of animal use, welfare, and ownership? The animal rights movement has had over 40 years to refine and remediate their words to give the impression that they are all about the care and protection of all animal species... but the reality is that the end goal is for there to be NO human-animal interaction whatsoever. Slowly chipping away at the established status by implementing small changes to legislation bit by bit is the current tactic. Recent legislation in NSW, for example, had the noble goal of improving rehoming rates (and reducing kill rates) in pounds and shelters. Sounds great, right? Make sure that less animals die in pounds. However, there has been a flow on effect on the rescue "industry"... they are now grossly swamped by the numbers of animals pounds are now reluctant to euthanaise for fear of being branded "killers". Animals that are completely unsuitable for rehoming without extensive rehabilitation for issues that make them dangerous to the public are now being "offered" to rescue simply to satisfy this new legislation. The onus and responsibility for these animals now falls to the rescue industry to deal with, rather than any government department that should be the responsible party... basically, the problem has been outsourced to an industry that is ill-equipped to deal with the workload, but is having their altruism played upon in order to fob off that responsibility. Interesting to note that RSPCA NSW quickly decided to get out of any running of pounds in NSW once this new legislation was passed. Also, they are NOT subject to any of the new legislation when it comes to offering animals to rescue rather than killing them... so they still get to keep their status as the shelter system with the highest kill rates in the land... go figure! The answer to the problem created in NSW is NOT to simply throw more money at rescue groups to "help" them deal with the new problems, as is now being touted by the animal rights groups that had the new legislation passed - after completely ignoring industry body advice that this current problem would be the actual outcome if that legislation was passed. The simple reason this legislation was passed is purely financial by the way... government at local and state level are now effectively absolved of actually taking any responsibility for the homeless animal problem - of course they were going to pass such legislation, regardless the fallout to another industry sector... duhhh! Rescue is a completely unregulated industry, and any government funding of same should also come with regulation and accountability... but unfortunately I don't see this being explored as those that created the problem seek to minimise it's impact. The loser in the end is any animal that finds itself in "the system"... I suppose the moral of the story is to be VERY careful what you "wish" for... T. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 3 hours ago, tdierikx said: Recent legislation in NSW, for example, had the noble goal of improving rehoming rates (and reducing kill rates) in pounds and shelters. Sounds great, right? Make sure that less animals die in pounds. However, there has been a flow on effect on the rescue "industry"... they are now grossly swamped by the numbers of animals pounds are now reluctant to euthanaise for fear of being branded "killers". Animals that are completely unsuitable for rehoming without extensive rehabilitation for issues that make them dangerous to the public are now being "offered" to rescue simply to satisfy this new legislation. The onus and responsibility for these animals now falls to the rescue industry to deal with, rather than any government department that should be the responsible party... basically, the problem has been outsourced to an industry that is ill-equipped to deal with the workload, but is having their altruism played upon in order to fob off that responsibility. This is true. Pounds/councils are under increased scrutiny to lower euthanasia rates and genuinely scared about backlash stemming from social media and the public. Ironically society don't actually want these dogs out and about but get very upset if the pound PTS or rescue can't/won't take them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 so right. friend took a dog from the local pound, tried to kill his other pets and the neighbours sheep. learned very fast why it has ended up in the pound. yep its back at the pound 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 Falling dog prices will do more to reduce theft than any legislation 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 I don't know about that. Yes to an extent but the long term missing dog posts on FB that don't get returned home seem to be majority purebreds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now