amendments intend to declare animals as SENTIENT beings

[asal]

Running out of time to have your say.

These amendments intend to declare animals as SENTIENT beings. Don't be fooled, it's a token gesture, real agenda, PETA goal towards extinction of domestic animals.

 

https://engage.vic.gov.au/new-animal-welfare-act-victoria

[tdierikx]

Sentience in itself is not the issue here... anyone who works with or cares for animals knows they are sentient in the normal (read scientific) meaning of the word, and the POCTA Act in each state reflects this by essentially adopting the Five Domains model of animal welfare as the basic underpinning of said Act(s).

 

Where the problem arises is that the Animal Rights extremists have hijacked the term and their definition of it is VERY different to it's actual scientific meaning. AR extremists tend to use the fact of sentience as animal feelings being akin to human feelings and emotions... anthropomorphising at it's finest, if you will.

 

Oh... and this proposed Bill (and the supporting Regulations - which are even scarier) does not actually define sentience fully... so it's open to interpretation on so many levels it's scary...

 

As for the Regulations - which will underpin enforcement of the Act - they will comprise of the current POCTA Regulations AND POCTA Codes of Practice AND Australian Standards and Guidelines for Animal Welfare AND Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Currently, Codes of Practice and the Aus Standards guidelines are not mandatory or completely enforceable... this new Act will make them both under Regulations.

 

In order to make an informed submission to this consultation, one will need to read not only the draft Act (244 pages), but all of the current POCTA Regulations and Codes of Practice AND all of the Aus Standards and Guidelines AND the Aus Code for Animals for Scientific Purposes... I'm tipping not many will read all of that stuff, and will instead just focus on the overview documents that paint everything in a rosy light (when reality is far from that).

 

Reading the enforcement stuff, they are proposing some pretty substantial increases of Authorised Officers (read RSPCA) powers to enter your private dwelling, to seize and destroy your animals BEFORE any legal proceedings even occur, and numerous other opportunities to abuse their power over animal owners/carers.

 

This Bill is a bloody nightmare for all animal owners/carers... but a really big gift for the  AR nutters.

 

T.

[persephone]

On 16/01/2024 at 6:28 PM, tdierikx said:

AR extremists tend to use the fact of sentience as animal feelings being akin to human feelings and emotions... anthropomorphising at it's finest, if you will.

[tdierikx]

Let's not forget that NSW Labor have their own plans to reform our animal welfare legislation during this term of government too... fun times ahead... grrr!

 

T.

[_PL_]

POCTAA does need an overhaul. It's out of date imho. 
But it's always a worry when Govt messes with things (regardless of public submissions) and usually gets it wrong.   I don't see a great outcome.

[tdierikx]

15 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

POCTAA does need an overhaul. It's out of date imho. 
But it's always a worry when Govt messes with things (regardless of public submissions) and usually gets it wrong.   I don't see a great outcome.

 

I agree that our animal welfare legislation should be constantly reviewed and adjusted to meet better practices in animal welfare.

 

The problem arises when politicians react/legislate in response to what they call "community expectations".

 

Most of the pet owning public are completely unaware of the political processes that happen at regular intervals relating to animal related legislation. Consultation processes are not widely advertised generally, and it's usually only those who are politically active that take part in such consultations... and given that the AR (Animal Rights) movement are politically active in large numbers, their agendas are usually the loudest "voice" that is being heard.

 

Statistics: NSW has a pet ownership rate of around 60%. We have a state population of around 8 million, so around 4.8 million of us have a pet. There are around 3 million households in NSW, so around 2 million households have a pet.

 

Take the above statistics in relation to the last couple of NSW government inquiry consultations relating to pet related issues - the vet shortage inquiry, and the pound inquiry - the vet shortage inquiry got a total of 212 submissions, and the pound inquiry got 137 submissions and 379 responses to the online survey. The inquiry into aerial shooting of brumbies in Kosciuszko National Park got 165 full submissions, and around 400 "short" submissions (less than one page). Overall a pretty poor showing from our pet owning population, wouldn't you say? Most of the full submissions were done by organisations and groups with vested interests in the topics at hand - such as various councils reacting to the pound inquiry, and vets responding the the vet shortage inquiry. RSPCA always make submissions to any/all animal related inquiries, and are also included in committees tasked with developing any legislation relating to animal welfare.

 

Each state is different in how they apply information supplied by submissions, inquiry findings, etc. Queensland seems to run the submission process as a "courtesy", then do whatever they wanted anyway. Victoria don't seem to have paid much attention to industry based detailed submissions, and are going with "community expectations" (read myriad cloned individual submissions from AR group callouts to their memberships to make said submissions). NSW seem to be a bit of a mix of Qld/Vic tactics as to how they apply responses from inquiries etc to legislation, and look to be following the Victorian models proposed to date. South Australia not that long ago enacted some animal welfare legislation with NO public consultation at all.

 

When I went about talking to people, vets, etc about the NSW vet inquiry and the pound inquiry, asking them to make submissions... the overwhelming response was "I'm too busy". Well, I'm saying right now, that if you are "too busy" to sit down for a short amount of time to make a submission to a political process that may directly affect you adversely because those with a different agenda found that time to submit en masse, you can't really complain when it happens, can you?

 

Never in our history have pet owners and carers been more directly affected by the political process with regard to animal welfare legislation. Our parliaments have been infiltrated by AR ideologies - not only AJP, but the Greens as well - and these people are looking to change animal ownership in ways that none of us want, so please, please get involved when the opportunity arises, OK?

 

T.

[moosmum]

4 hours ago, tdierikx said:

 

I agree that our animal welfare legislation should be constantly reviewed and adjusted to meet better practices in animal welfare.

 

The problem arises when politicians react/legislate in response to what they call "community expectations".

 

Most of the pet owning public are completely unaware of the political processes that happen at regular intervals relating to animal related legislation. Consultation processes are not widely advertised generally, and it's usually only those who are politically active that take part in such consultations... and given that the AR (Animal Rights) movement are politically active in large numbers, their agendas are usually the loudest "voice" that is being heard.

 

 

 

Never in our history have pet owners and carers been more directly affected by the political process with regard to animal welfare legislation. Our parliaments have been infiltrated by AR ideologies - not only AJP, but the Greens as well - and these people are looking to change animal ownership in ways that none of us want, so please, please get involved when the opportunity arises, OK?

 

T.

I don't think that will change until there is a body to represent the general pet owning public, made up of same. Seems we pay for registration, but get little benefit ourselves from the processes. I believe if we are to pay for registration fees that assist with animal management, that must in fairness include real and informed (and Informing) representation of just what these fees are supporting. A portion of any fees collected should be used to support inform and educate the public on such matters, and encourage participation for real effective ability of response by the pet owning public. Responsibility can't be effective while its not presented either to or by those its expected from.

Much more effective solutions to problems are out there- But as you have pointed out,  their isn't effectively representation.

Ie, I believe instead of discouraging breeding  through high fees for entire dogs, they could include genetic testing of all entires through Embark( for the extensive and inclusive range of genetic conditions tested for, and the research it funds) this automatically fosters greater understanding of risks or benefits associated with breeding that animal, and the responsibilities that might go with it.

The results could be tied to microchip details and  be made available to any purchaser of pups/dogs. 

I have 100% confidence that such a move would  revolutionize responsible dog breeding,  management and community responsibility.

Fees could also fund the running of a site similar to DOL, but for all pet owners and interests where links to upcoming legislative debates, research results etc must be posted, and can be effectively debated before enactment.

A single national microchip data base, community forum and information hub, plus mandatory D.N.A testing of entire dogs where results are made available to prospective buyers could combine with sales pages for buyers and assist with financing. 

The community must be more involved. This gives them the tools to take responsibility. Not just for breeding that takes place, but for buyers as well.

There is always risk, those who can demonstrate they have done all they can humanly do to avoid it, should not be penalized.

 

Edited January 19 by moosmum

[asal]

i was warning members of the ANKC as early as 1990 that ANKC need to get politicly active to counter the PETA threat.  Even more so when an RSPCA member working for jacki Lambi mp. that she had received a letter asking her to get all family and friends to join and vote in coming AGM as the writer was aware the membership was being stacked by PETA members to ensure the next 2000 election would complete the election of sufficient PETA members to the board to complete the control of RSPCA board.  It is pretty obvious this was achieved by the changes to becoming RSPCA inc , although the changes were already in progress as PETA members had began being elected at the previous agm's already.

 

Last year was the first time the now DOGS NSW woke up and sent out how to vote info for a state election realising the proliferation of AJP and greens was going to end pet ownership the legislations they has been getting past was just about the point of no return.

 

so much so PETA rep in Victoria had boasted on a radio program she anticipated "the extinction of domestic cats and dog's in this generation"

 

did not elaborate if she meant the human or cat and dog generation?

 

if the election being called before the second vote had not ceased the passage of the proposed legislation that females were allowed only two litters and all males could not be bred from after age 7, it would certainly been extinction within 15 to 20 years

Edited January 18 by asal

[moosmum]

We are closer than most realize. I think the changes I have proposed are essential, asap,  if we are to have any chance of avoiding that future.

With changes being proposed and enacted, the quality of the dogs we have to select from as pet owners is going to be so impacted any value to had will be in terminal decline.

Embark provides COI, breed breakdown and tests for over 200 genetic conditions and more and more as they become available. Maybe not always 100% accurate, but the best available atm.

So called solutions so far are all restrictive/constrictive. They don't provide better abilities of response.

Edited January 19 by moosmum

[tdierikx]

3 hours ago, moosmum said:

So called solutions so far are all restrictive/constrictive. They don't provide better abilities of response.

 

This is because those in power are doing deals with AR groups (and/or Greens/AJP political parties) in order to get other legislation passed... the dirty nature of our political system at it's finest... *sigh*

 

Animal Care Australia do represent general pet owners as well as industry groups, breeders, and businesses... and we also have Facebook groups designed to alert members to upcoming or current political consultation processes. The Facebook groups allow for any member to have their say and provide input to our submissions, and/or get advice on how to make their own submissions. Maybe if more people joined and participated we could all help each other? Worth considering, don't you think? Supporter membership is only $10 a year... and you can access the Facebook groups to participate in and get updates on upcoming stuff.

 

T.

[moosmum]

Happy to do that, Thanks T.

Enjoyed your link too.

While they do represent all stake holders, there needs to be clearer incentive or direction for people to support that. At the moment, most pet owners are happy to sign these petitions in support of legislation they have no real understanding of, under the impression its not going to impact them, only improve practices. Blissfully unaware of broader repercussions. 

But there  still needs to be not only provision, but an expectation on,  all owners to support a genuinely representative body. Tying to a national data base/chip org. creates that expectation, and that those services and knowledge provided be used as part of responsible pet ownership.

 

If the information provided by Embark (or similar, if shown to be more useful)  is expected for all entire dogs and provided as a matter of course, those unplanned litters with unknown parentage and no real purpose are  going to be far less appealing. Esp. when people doing the right thing are made aware of things they never knew they should.

Edited January 19 by moosmum

[moosmum]

On 19/01/2024 at 2:37 PM, tdierikx said:

 

Maybe if more people joined and participated we could all help each other? Worth considering, don't you think? Supporter membership is only $10 a year... and you can access the Facebook groups to participate in and get updates on upcoming stuff.

 

T.

Happy to say 'Done' T.