Breeding dogs Archives | Lawyers for Companion Animals https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/tag/breeding-dogs/ Animal Lawyer of Australia Sat, 08 Dec 2018 21:51:44 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/cropped-flavicon-32x32.png Breeding dogs Archives | Lawyers for Companion Animals https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/tag/breeding-dogs/ 32 32 Comment: I can’t get a rental because I own a dog. So now I’m homeless https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/comment-i-cant-get-a-rental-because-i-own-a-dog-so-now-im-homeless/ Mon, 10 Jul 2017 03:34:47 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=1476


Would you give up your dog if it meant you fared better in a rental application? (Supplied to SBS by author)

“Australia’s strict ‘no pet’ rental rules made me choose between having a permanent place to call home or having a dog. I chose my fox terrier”, writes Scarlett Harris, “and now I’m homeless.”

By Scarlett Harris

19 JUN 2017 – 11:35 AM  UPDATED 23 JUN 2017 – 7:04 PM

I’ve never had a problem finding a rental property. That was before I decided to be honest about having a dog when putting in an application to rent. In the past two months, since returning from an overseas trip, I’ve enquired about probably 100 rentals and share houses in Melbourne, and inspected around 15, only one of which was explicitly pet-friendly. It also happened to be a dive.

Right now, I am homeless. Luckily, I have savings and a support network of friends and family members who have offered to take me in. The rise of people sleeping rough with dogs in tow is austere and, now having first-hand experience, I can see how easily this can happen when the choice is between having four walls and a roof to call home and giving up a family member.

“These are adults who are having their life choices and choice of companion dictated to them by a landlord.”

Jennifer Duke, review editor at Domain.com, agrees, telling me that the lack of rentals that are pet-friendly results in “at some point, some pet owners [having to] make the decision between having a roof over their head and keeping their dog or cat. These are adults who are having their life choices and choice of companion dictated to them by a landlord.”

Laura, a digital content producer from Melbourne (who asked to have her last name omitted at the risk of damaging future housing prospects), feels this keenly. She had to vacate her current place when the landlords found out she had a cat. Though Laura says she had planned to ask them if she could get a cat a few months into her lease, initially the landlords “said it’s fine to have an animal, and sent us a pet clause to sign promising to have the place fumigated and cover any damage that may be caused by the animal, which we did”.

Despite it being a well-trained, elderly rescue cat, and the house having floorboards and no carpet, “[the landlords] came back and said [they] want to increase the bond by $1000 because we have a cat and didn’t disclose it”.

“I felt very uncomfortable and harassed,” she tells me. “We really were not given a proper explanation for the increase [and] the bond for our place is already way more than the standard four weeks’ rent, [so] I’m now looking for a new place to live.”

“There is a risk with having animals – some of them do cause damage. However, there’s also a risk with children and tenants themselves.”

Duke says she empathises with landlords who don’t allow pets. “There is a risk with having animals – some of them do cause damage. However, there’s also a risk with children and tenants themselves,” she says. But, as an animal-lover and foster-carer, Duke is very concerned by the alarming rate at which pets are dumped due to “difficulty accessing, and maintaining access to, appropriate housing”.

“If the rules didn’t force tenants to ‘ask for permission’ for a pet then… fewer renters would be hiding a cat or a dog,” Duke says. “There will always be some properties that aren’t suitable for animals or where bylaws don’t allow them, but in most other circumstances it doesn’t make sense that animals shouldn’t be allowed.”

Supportive housing is cheaper than chronic homelessness

Not only is it cheaper to provide permanent supportive housing to the homeless, new costings show, but the improvement to their lives is immeasurable.

Laura adds that the lack of pet-friendly landlords and a rental market that seems to be at boiling point. “It also makes you feel like the only way to get approved [as a pet-owner for a rental] is to lie.”

Animal Welfare League Queensland Strategic Director, Joy Verrinder, believes that “laws should be reformed to make it illegal for any body corporate or landlord to refuse a resident with a pet—as long as they can demonstrate they are a responsible owner”.

“The decision should be based on the individual animal as their suitability will depend on many factors such as activity level of the animal and their owner, personality and training,” Verrinder says.

‘Sleepbus’ gives homeless people a comfortable place to sleep

There are over 100,000 homeless people in Australia. Entrepreneur, Simon Rowe was one of them 20 years ago, which is why he has designed a state of the art shelter facility which aims to end the rough sleeping arrangements that many homeless people face.

And if efforts to combat homelessness such as Sleepbus, a portable, short-term alternative to spending the night outside, allows four-legged companions, then why can’t rental properties?

The only thing that’s kept me going throughout these months of uncertainty is having my fox terrier by my side. No matter where I am, if she’s with me, I’m home. So why don’t landlords and real estate agents understand this?

At the time of writing, Scarlett was homeless. As of publication, Scarlett is still without a permanent home and has temporarily moved back in with her mum while she continues to look for a rental property.

Scarlett Harris is a freelance writer musing on femin- and other -isms. You can read her previously published work at her website, The Scarlett Woman, and follow her on Twitter @ScarlettEHarris. 

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/article/2017/06/19/comment-i-cant-get-rental-because-i-own-dog-so-now-im-homeless

]]> Pugs, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, Boston terriers: being crippled by cuteness https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/pugs-english-bulldogs-french-bulldogs-boston-terriers-being-crippled-by-cuteness/ Mon, 10 Jul 2017 02:55:43 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=1468

Julie Power |

 

IMAGE ABOVE: Foster Care Co-ordinator, Tim Moss, and vet, Jade Norris with a dog who has just had an operation to help his breathing. Photo: Janie Barrett

Julie Saunderson sees her family’s pets, a pug and two French bulldogs, as members of the family. But two, including a much loved bulldog called Daisy, suffered such agonising pain from problems typical of their breeds that the Faulconbridge family had to put them down after expensive vet treatment failed to fix the problems.

“Losing Daisy the way we did was the hardest thing ever,” she said. “It was like losing a child.”

Rachel English, of Camden, also “loves her furbaby [a three-year-old French bulldog Benny] to pieces,” but she wouldn’t buy another short-headed dog after watching him struggle to breathe day to day.

Typical of his breed and many other short-headed or brachycephalic dogs, Benny can’t walk more than a few minutes at a time. He suffers from sleep apnoea and shakes with pain from cervical deformities.

“I don’t think how they have been bred is humane: It is so unnatural for a dog to be so out of breath all the time, and have these back issues because they are so compressed,” said Ms English.

Her decision coincides with a backlash against these cute dogs. Experts say their flat faces, big eyes, little noses and ears –  bred by design to shorten their muzzles to make them appear non-threatening – appeal to us because they look like human babies.

Brachycephalic dogs include pugs, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, Boston terriers, Cavalier King Charles spaniels and shih tzus – very commonly seen in the handbags of the rich and famous.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pugs-english-bulldogs-french-bulldogs-boston-terriers-being-crippled-by-cuteness-20170629-gx0yis.html?btis

 

Related Articles

Why breeding bulldogs is borderline inhumane

 

]]> POLL: Call to RSPCA to reveal pound kill rate https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/923/ Sat, 06 Oct 2012 05:59:42 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=923 The Maitland Mercury

By SAM NORRIS

 

  • KILL RATES: RSPCA euthanasia rates at its pounds have come under fire.KILL RATES: RSPCA euthanasia rates at its pounds have come under fire.

The Society of Companion Animal Rescuers has backed calls for a televised debate about “kill rates” at RSPCA and council run pounds.

SoCares vice-president and Lower Hunter resident David Atwell said the RSPCA’s euthanasia rates for animals were too high.

“We want to know why there is discrepancy with what they can achieve and what we can in co-operation with the pounds,” he said.

“We would like to see this brought into an open, public discussion.”

State government figures show about half of all cats and dogs taken into the pounds statewide are destroyed each year when they can’t be placed in new homes.

Mr Atwell said by working with Muswellbrook and Wyong pounds SoCares had reduced their kill rates to 12 per cent for cats and dogs compared to 21 per cent at Cessnock.

Mr Atwell said the rate used to be better when the pound was at Kurri Kurri where SoCares had access.

“We don’t have access to Cessnock or Maitland since the services were contracted to RSPCA,” he said.

“Crowding can happen in the peak periods but the rescue groups try to accommodate for that by putting dogs out in foster care.”

Animal rights lawyer Anna Greenaway recently provided information to SBS program Insight for an episode aired last week which highlighted kill rates occurring in council pounds and shelters around Australia.

The lawyer hoped the show would make the public more aware of the large numbers of companion animals being killed each year.

“I think the RSPCA also needs to be more transparent with the rescue groups they work with and I would like to know how many animals they released to rescue groups last year,” she said.

RSPCA chief executive officer Steve Coleman defended its kill rates on Insight.

“Because of our open door policy, we take in animals that are sick, injured, abused, neglected and unwanted,” he said.

He said a number of these animals were deemed dangerous or it would be downright cruel for them to be kept alive.

Showing 17 comments

  • wisekat

    I support a televised debate on this issue. It is about time the high kill rates by the RSPCA were brought out into the open.

    (Edited by a moderator)

  • Fionak61

    Any animal that can be saved should be, it’s not their fault humans are such selfish people who breed and discard dogs and cats as if they’re just an old pair of shoes they no longer want.

    (Edited by a moderator)

  • DMA

    The RSPCA simply has to do better if they truly claim that their core business is for the care & welfare of animals. Overall their kill rate for dogs alone is 44%, as published in the NSW Govt Companion Animal Taskforce report back in May, whilst the state’s pound system has a kill rate of 28%. One of the reasons for this is many pounds cooperate with local community rescue groups whereas the RSPCA doesn’t (especially here in Rutherford).

    Another reason is the RSPCA’s notorious behavioural test. It is very complicated and very strict. It accounts for why a large number of animals are euthanised by the RSPCA whereas the state’s pounds and rescue groups don’t use it. Indeed neither Muswellbrook, Singleton and Wyong pounds don’t use it; Port Stephens pound uses a simple five point test; and Gosofrd pound uses a heavily modified version, of the RSPCA, which hardly resembles the original. Meanwhile all these pounds have a lower kill ratio than the RSPCA.

    All this and more means that the RSPCA has a lot of questions to answer, especially in light that they raise millions of dollars from the public under the impression that this organisation claims that: “We will never give up on TJ and other animals like him.” Yet as the kill rate figures demonstrate, they give up on over 7000 dogs every year according to the NSW govt published figures. Similarly the RSPCA makes millions of dollars every year from council impounding contracts. Again the RSPCA has thus a contractual requirement and a duty of care towards the ratepayers who would expect far more dogs and cats saved than is otherwise the case.

    (Edited by a moderator)

  • Bec

    To me the RSPCA is all about money. My boy was one of lucky ones to be saved by a rescue group, he was not in great shape back then of what these people did to him, I know he would have been killed by the RSPCA, but with time and lots of love he is a happy dog.

    (Edited by a moderator)

  • Anne Greenaway

    Why was did the RSPCA tender for the Kurri Kurri facility when it’s it’s animal holding facility at Rutherford was overflowing? Why did the money from the Cessnock council contract go to fund a shop at Tuggerah?
    Were Cessnock ratepayers ever consulted about this? Did they approve?

    When will RSPCA NSW start working with animal rescue groups in the Hunter Region?

  • Kate

    the RSPCA are quite wealthy enough to offer very cheap desexing. to stop the senseless breeding, hence the high kill rate. People just don’t realise by letting their dogs and cats breed unnecessarily it is very irresponsible and cruel. This would solve a majority of the problem- its not rocket science.!!!!

  • tortikat

    Congratulations to Ms Grenaway. I most certainly support a debate on the RSPCA.
    The RSPCA is neglecting its duty of care, and it should be investigated.
    I would like to ask Steve Coleman a few questions myself, such as “What do you do with all the donations Steve?

  • wisekat

    It’s ‘Be Kind to Animals Week’ excellent time to bring up the issue of the mass killings at the RSPCA. Steve Coleman, you have a lot of explaining to do. Bring on the debate!!!

  • christy

     Why is the government using tax payers’ funding on a business and a high kill business at that.  I hope this funding is extended to the
    other small struggling non kill rescues. Government should also not be involved
    in a company that obviously has serious operational and organisational flaws. What
    diligence has the government done before
    extending public funding to this organisation?

    (Edited by a moderator)

  • Tlouisn

    Come on RSPCA, what have you got to hide? All the people who donate so much money deserve the truth

  • RSPCA could quite easily reduce kill rates, they get enough money in donations and support. It’s time to fight for NO KILL

  • Doggiedayout

    I watched the SBS debate.  Few points I noted were: It was stated that a meeting between rescue groups and RSPCA Rutherford went no where – it was insinuated that the rescue groups did not ‘get back’ to them.
    It would be interesting to hear from these rescue groups to ascertain their side of the story, or was there just a total breakdown in the communications between said groups?

    The RSPCA criteria to euthanise a dog they deem not suitable for rehoming is so harsh it is unbelievable.  These dogs are ‘terrified’ – take them away from the cages and the constant barking and whining of the other terrified dogs and you would in all but a very few circumstance, have a totally acceptable animal for rehoming.
    Each dog should be assessed, other facilities are able to do same on a lot less funding, this then provides a good description of the dog for promotion and a far better chance of adotption.

    I realise that RSPCA have a lot of other animals issues in our inhumane society, but let’s get this right please.

    (Edited by a moderator)

  • David Atwell

    David Atwell here from SoCares. I was at the Rutherford meeting in August of last year. The claim by Mr Coleman about the rescue groups not getting back to the RSPCA is wrong. At the meeting Mr Coleman asked us for contact details from our representatives in order to conduct further negotiations. Our legal representative, who was at this meeting on behalf of SoCares & Dog Rescue Newcastle, handed Mr Coleman, in response to his request, their business card to ensure that he personally had the contact details according to his wishes on the very night of the original meeting. Furthermore all the people representing the rescue groups at that meeting also signed a “roll call” leaving behind our respective email address. And this is despite the fact that the RSPCA already had several contact details as I had to forward these contact details onto the RSPCA prior to the meeting.

    So, as far as SoCares & Dog Rescue Newcastle are concerned, we fulfilled our obligation to ensure that the request by Steve Coleman had been meet. Consequenitally it was the rescue groups who didn’t hear back from the RSPCA, for the next step of arranging these negotiations, and not as claimed on the SBS Insight Program.

    Far more importantly, at the original meeting on 24 August 2011, I offered to the RSPCA that the rescue groups take cats & dogs from Rutherford under the same conditions that takes place at every council run pound throughout the state. This means that any group with a Clause 16d can take a companion animal into foster care.

    A Clause 16d is “certificate” which has been authorised by the NSW govt as part of a process whereby rescue groups, who have obtained their Clause 16d, can turn up at a pound & claim a cat or dog. It forms a key part of the Companion Animal Regulations, which is attached to the NSW Companion Animals Act, & therefore has the full weight of the Act behind it. Basically a Clause 16d wavers most of the fees, which a general member of the public would have to pay if adopting an animal from a pound, apart from the cost of the microchip (which is generally charged at the wholesale price).

    Although there is no actual legal demand for a council to be forced to release an animal to a rescue group with a Clause 16d, it is within the “spirit” of the law for councils to oblige themselves to cooperate with rescue groups, according to the Companion Animal Regulations, as well as their legal requirement to do so under Section 64 para 5 of the Companion Animals Act where it states:

    “Before destroying a seized or surrendered animal as authorised by subsection (1), it is the duty of the council concerned to consider whether there is an alternative action to that of destroying the animal and (if practicable) to adopt any such alternative.”

    To me that indicates that the Act is refering to the Clause 16d even though it doesn’t specifically mention it in detail (please note that this has never been legally tested nor has it been set out in the “guidelines” – it is, though, my learned opinion).

    Quintessentially neither the Act or the Regulations excuse the RSPCA run pounds from observing Section 64 quoted above (BTW Section 64A states the same requirement for surrenders) nor from not allowing rescue groups, who have a Clause 16d, from taking an animal from an RSPCA run pound. It maybe a different story from a private RSPCA shelter, such as Yagoona (ie Sydney), but not from somewhere such as Rutherford which has four council pounds located therein (Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, & Cessnock).

  • Vinfimoult

    Shared a Page: Justice4Max.
    This page is open to those in rescue, and to community members concerned by RSPCA NSW’s appallingly high kill rates for its shelter animals. We aim to encourage community awareness of the issues, and to push RSPCA to reform its practices.

    (Edited by a moderator)

  • rescue

    SoCares is certainly not the only rescue who has helped to get the kill rate down at these pounds. Credit where credit is due, we have all played a part. This has not been achieved single handedly.

    (Edited by a moderator)

  • Tulipflower6

    If they have nothing to hide why not show us, like most organisations you can catogorise what they do. I except that animals are put down if they are sick, injured, abused, neglected: Catergorises these, but i bet most kills::: fit into the unwanted category and that is what people see as being unacceptable these animals should be given a chance and if the RSPCA wont be transparent send your money else where.

  • SMRRVR

    I support a televised debate on how many defenceless children are abused….now that would be worthwhile.
    And then something done to help them…

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/372535/poll-call-to-rspca-to-reveal-pound-kill-rate/?cs=171

]]> Too many companion animals are put to sleep each year by overstretched rescue groups https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/too-many-companion-animals-are-put-to-sleep-each-year-by-overstretched-rescue-groups/ Sat, 06 Oct 2012 05:54:42 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=917 TORY Shepherd has a recipe to help drive down the shocking number of companion animals put to sleep each year.

Too many companion animals are put to sleep each year by overstretched rescue groups

  • Tory Shepherd
  • adelaidenow
  • September 24, 2012 9:30PM

 

English bulldog

It is not as easy as you’d think to work out why the RSPCA’s ‘kill rate’ for companion animals is so high with oversupply, negligent owners, mistakes, feral animals and stretched resources all being part of the equation. Picture: Thinkstock Source: Supplied

———-

MY childhood dog, Neddy, had manky bald bits and he’d scoot across the lawn on his bum whenever we had company.

He was partial to trying to have sex with inappropriate things. But we could dress him up and he’d sigh with martyred forbearance and let us photograph him.

Our cats were called Soft and Stupid, and Hard and Hairy.

Now we have Sangio, and even thinking of him dying makes me ache (though after last week I hesitate to use the words “dog” and “love” in the same sentence).

He’s a little crazy, a little too clever. When I write at home he lies across my feet and when we go away without him he takes days to forgive us.

When he was younger he’d get so excited to see us, or visitors, that he’d lose control of his bladder.

This unfortunately generally coincided with the moment at which he was jumping up on them, so several people have been victims of this firehose-like spraying. It’s a sign of affection, of course.

Most of us love our pets and treat them like part of the family. But animals are an industry, so selfishness and profit creep in.

The RSPCA kills tens of thousands of pets each year; around a third of the dogs it gets, most of the cats, and almost half of the “other” animals.

It’s not as easy as you’d think to work out why the “kill rate” is so high. It’s partly oversupply, combined with negligent owners, mistakes, all those feral cats and stretched resources in shelters some think may be a little too quick on the kill switch.

We don’t have all the answers. But here are a few things we should do:

1). Stop puppy farms. Stop ruthless, cold-hearted, bastard, backyard breeders who have no concern for the conditions in which they keep their breeding machines.

2). Stop pet shops from selling animals. Only properly licensed and trained breeders, who know the mum and dad, who know all the circumstances of the animals’ lives, should be allowed to sell those lives. And they should be encouraged to vet the people.

3). No pet should be allowed without education to go with it. Puppy school should be mandatory, to socialise the dog and the owner. And all cat owners should be taught about how to stop their cats killing native animals and should pay to spay.

4). All pets should be microchipped, with the owner to bear the cost. If you can’t afford the education and the microchip, you can’t afford the pet. Regulations right now are a patchwork across the states.

5). We need to work out what to do about feral cats. It’s these, not owned cats, who create the bulk of the problems for the shelters.

6). Help those people who find new homes for pets.

We need to stop the oversupply of animals, the profiteering, the unthinking “impulse buying” of pets, and this slaughter of often healthy animals.

As Michelle Williamson of Pet Rescue (a not-for-profit which finds permanent homes for homeless animals) will tell SBS’s Insight tonight: “(What) we want to see an end to is killing, which is killing for convenience, killing for space, killing because we haven’t got time or we don’t want to invest in rehabilitation.”

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/too-many-companion-animals-are-put-to-sleep-each-year-by-overstretched-rescue-groups/story-fn34ojzj-1226480419833

]]> Challenge to RSPCA goes unanswered https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/challenge-to-rspca-goes-unanswered/ Sat, 06 Oct 2012 05:43:21 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=905

Companion Animal lawyer Anne Greenaway’s challenge to a televised debate has not been answered by RSPCA chief executive officer Steve Coleman yet.

The Daily Liberal contacted Mr Coleman’s office Tuesday and was informed he was on leave and unable to make a comment.

Ms Greenaway’s challenge has been meet with mixed emotions by readers who have expressed their varied opinions on the Daily Liberal website.

A recent poll on the website indicated 94.2 per cent of readers were in favour of Steve Coleman answering allegations of engaging in “misleading and deceptive conduct”.

The debate continues three days later in the comment section under the October 2 story, State debate proposed for RSPCA on Animal Kill Rates.

 

http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/379491/challenge-to-rspca-goes-unanswered/?cs=112

]]> Companion Animals Taskforce – Lack of Transparency concerns https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/companion-animals-taskforce-lack-of-transparency-concerns/ Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:25:46 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=855

]]> DEATH TOLL A POUND OF PAIN https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/death-toll-a-pound-of-pain/ Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:06:54 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=770 Daily Liberal

LISA MINNER
05 Jul, 2012 04:00 AM
ABOUT 50,000 cats and dogs are euthanised in NSW annually so Dubbo-based lawyer for Companion Animals, Anne Greenaway, is demanding more pets to be desexed and is calling for backyard breeders to be licensed and regulated.She said the kill rate could be reduced by breeders and pet owners desexing their litters.“People don’t appreciate the connection between backyard breeding and not desexing their animals and the high animal euthanasia rates,’’ she said.“Go check out some of the local noticeboards around town – there’s a never-ending supply of dogs and cats for sale – or free to good home.“Too many cats and dogs are seen as disposable commodities that can be thrown away when the puppy or kitten phase is over, rather than a commitment for the life of the animal.”http://static.lifeislocal.com.au/multimedia/images/full/1986641.jpg

Melanie Hancock and her daughter Liz with their blue cattle dog, Scrappy. Mrs Hancock drove to Port Macquarie to adopt Scrappy from a dog rescue group. the four-year-old dog is now a much-loved member of the family. Photo: AMY MCINTYRE

The Dubbo City Council’s 2011 figures (January to December) reveal 225 cats and 41 dogs were killed at the Dubbo City Animal Shelter.

The combined NSW RSPCAs saw 13,031 cats and 8209 dogs killed. The rest of the euthanised animals came from other (council) pounds and shelters within the state.

She said people mistakenly believed that if animals end up at the pound the RSPCA will find them a good home, which was not always the case.

Ms Greenaway said the RSPCA pounds and shelters are burdened with an unnecessary excess with the shame laying squarely at the feet of irresponsible owners and unethical breeders.

The lawyer said she believed breeders who do not desex their animals fall into three categories- ethical purebred breeders who are selective about who they supply to, puppy farmers who do not care what happens to the animals after they have made a quick buck and those “who probably do care” but are not seeing the long-term effects of the breeding cycle they perpetuate.

Decrease Text Size
]]> Animal laws go too far https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/animal-laws-go-too-far/ Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:28:31 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=719 Weekly Times Now

February 8, 2012

LEGISLATION to deal with puppy farms casts too wide a net, writes CHRIS McLENNAN

Even the smallest towns will have a hastily scrawled sign stuck to the inside of a cafe or garage window with that familiar introduction “Free to good home”.

They are about as common as the roster for the weekly fire truck run, or the footy team list that coaches freshen up each Thursday in the winter.

They are not exclusive to the country and are just as obvious at the entrance to the suburban supermarket.

The neighbour’s tomcat has jumped the fence again, an eager dog has been seduced by its instincts.

More pups, more kittens. Cute when young but uncontrollable in any number.

Three weeks ago those familiar signs were basically outlawed.

No one has been busted yet for putting one up but the authorities have tracked a pit bull seller on the internet.

“Sorry, it was a mistake,” he told them.

Sure thing.

Consider the widow down the road with probably her last companion in life, the cat that keeps her lap warm over the long winters but dallies with the tom in the spring.

She doesn’t want the litter and the shop has always been helpful with a little notice in the window.

The widow is now a crook.

Opinions differ about her criminality depending on who you talk to.

The laws may allow some latitude about the inclusion of microchip details for free pets but there is no such luck on the microchips, they are compulsory.

Before our widow gives away her kittens, she must also hand over the microchip certificate.

Registered animal breeders and operators of animal shelters have little sympathy for these accidents of nature. If the widow doesn’t want to pay the $20-$30 to microchip each kitten before she can give them away, she should have at least de-sexed the mother.

Out on the farms, dog breeders are worried about new rules about such things as concrete floors on runs without having to think about the additional cost of travelling to vets for microchips.

Many working dog breeders are a transient lot, moving from farm to farm.

“Our dogs are mainly bred by working people on stations,” one Kelpie breeder told us.

It makes more sense for the regulations to include some allowance for relocatable yards rather than fixed pens.

Working dog breeders also defend their use of tattoos rather than microchips and point to the multi-generational records held by their breed organisations.

Once they receive some help with the adoption of a formal code of ethics there seems little practical reason the breed organisations cannot be afforded the same recognition as Dogs Victoria in these new laws.

Very few people believe new laws are not needed.

Puppy farms are a horror.

People need to be responsible for their pets.

But perhaps an amnesty is not such a bad idea until the community is better educated.

It also make sense to consider an exemption for working dogs as other states have done.

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/02/08/440001_opinion-news.html

 

]]> NSW COMPANION ANIMAL TASKFORCE (update 19 March 2012) https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/nsw-companion-animal-taskforce-update-19-march-2012/ Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:03:27 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=694 Please note a generic submission in response to the Discussion Paper can be found here
http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/generic-submission-response-to-companion-animals-taskforce-discussion-paper/ 

1494—COMPANION ANIMAL TASKFORCE

Ms Clover Moore to the Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast—

  1. How many times has the Companion Animal Taskforce met?
  2. Were all members present, and if not, which were not?
  3. Were minutes take at meetings?
  4. If not, why not?
  5. Will the Taskforce conduct any consultation to develop its promised Discussion Paper?
  6. If so, who with?
  7. When is a Discussion Paper by the Taskforce expected to be released?
  8. Which animal welfare⁄ protection⁄ rights groups and other organisations will the Taskforce send the Discussion Paper to and specifically ask for a submission?
  9. How will the Discussion Paper be publicised to ensure a wide range of views and experiences are involved in the process to develop recommendations?
  10. Will there be public hearings?
  11. Will submissions be publically available?
  12. Will the taskforce provide a response to submissions?

Answer—

I provide the following details in response to your questions:

  1. The Taskforce has met on four occasions since August 2011.
  2. All members have been present at the meetings, with the exception of the Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers whose representative was unable to attend two meetings, and the Pet Industry Association of Australia whose representative was unable to attend one meeting.
  3. Yes.
  4. See answer to 3.
  5. Consultation on the Taskforce’s areas of inquiry will be conducted as part of the forthcoming discussion paper submission process.
  6. The general public will be consulted through the submission process.
  7. The discussion paper is expected to be released in the first half of 2012.
  8. All interested animal welfare⁄protection⁄rights groups are encouraged to make a submission when the discussion paper is released.
  9. Notices advising of the release of the discussion paper will be placed in metropolitan newspapers and the Government Gazette. Minister Hodgkinson and I will also issue a media release advising of the discussion paper’s release and promote the discussion paper at relevant events. The Taskforce Chair, Mr Andrew Cornwell MP has also indicated that he will publicise the discussion paper at various targeted events. The discussion paper will be available on the Division of Local Government website.
  10. No.
  11. Submissions may be made publicly available, unless individuals specifically indicate that they do not want their submission made public.
  12. No. Submissions will be considered by the Taskforce in preparing its final report to Government.

 

Question asked on 14 February 2012 (session 55-1) and published in Questions & Answers Paper No. 65.
Answer received on 6 March 2012 and printed in Questions & Answers Paper No. 71.

 

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/la/qala.nsf/18101dc36b638302ca257146007ee41a/74efa98aeab96e14ca2579a4001fd4b3?OpenDocument

]]> The sadness of knowing https://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/the-sadness-of-knowing/ Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:10:34 +0000 http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/?p=691 Examiner

| February 16, 2012

The sadness of knowing

Penny Eims

Editorial

 

As most of my regular readers know, I like to use photos from Petfinder.com when I do not have a photo for a story.

My hope in using these photos is that it will bring a touch of added publicity to a homeless dog who is waiting for their own family.

Earlier this week, I had one of those moments where the gravity of a situation hits you.

I know that there are thousands upon thousands of dogs waiting for a home, but when I linked up to Petfinder to find a photo, I came upon one rescue’s listings.

There were literally pages of dogs on this one rescue’s list.

From one rescue.

These are the dogs who are “safe”.

When we see these continual pleas for a rescue to step forward and save a death row dog, the harsh reality is that many of the rescues have stepped up, time and again, in months (or years) past and those dogs who have been saved are still there.

Still waiting.

There are so many dogs available for adoption – it is overwhelming – discouraging – devastating.

It is one of those things that you “know”, but sometimes you forget. I “know” there are thousands of dogs waiting – but for some reason, on that day, the enormity of the situation really struck me.

I had a thought in the midst of my sorrow.

My first thought was “I pray my readers circulate the dog rescue stories as heavily as they do the ‘dog will die’ stories”.

I hope that my readers realize that safe is just the first piece of the puzzle.

My second thought was an idea. We are a passionate group here – like minded animal lovers who want to see every dog in a loving home.

But we are in a fish bowl – it is hard to get beyond our little circle.

When we have a dog saved story (such as Brownie the Chocolate Labrador and Juno, the German shepherd) – it would be fabulous if readers who are local to the area that the dogs are located (in their new rescue) would print the story out and take it somewhere to be posted.

Grocery stores, pet stores, veterinary offices – somewhere beyond our happy circle of readers.

Somewhere that local residents can see the amazing dogs who are available for adoption right in their own town.

I’m not sure how to change the desperate situation that dogs face – spay/neuter and adopt are the two obvious choices.

But somehow we have to reach beyond our circle if we are to make a change.

The beautiful dog featured in the photo which accompanies this story is Traveler. He is available through Labs and Buddies in California.

http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-national/the-sadness-of-knowing

]]>