|
|
|
|
|
|
Canine Control Council ( Comments by Barry Vickers President of the CCC(Q) on the Joint Press Statement in respect to the DPI Discussion Paper “solving the problem of unwanted cats and dogs” by: The Honourable Peter Beattie MP Premier and Minister for Trade and The Honourable Tim Mulherin MP Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries In July 2007 the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries released a Discussion Paper “managing unwanted cats and dogs”. This called for submissions from interested parties on a number of proposed measures to address the existing situation, such as:
Full details of the Discussion Paper can be found at: www.dpi.qld.gov.au/animalwelfare On 1 August the Canine Control Council ( CCC(Q) believes that the implementation options in the Discussion Paper unduly focus on regulatory approaches, approaches which when relied upon solely in the past have largely proven to be ineffective. Regrettably, regulation is likely to have most impact on responsible pet owners and to have little impact on non-responsible owners including those that already do not register their pets. There is a real risk that action taken by Government could lead to the discarding of even more pets by those who do not want to bear any additional costs such as for the de-sexing of pets or paying more for already de-sexed pets. CCC(Q) believes that action is needed to: • Ensure that potential pet owners are aware of all of the implications of owning a pet including the maintenance costs (in terms of money and time) and the importance of registration and animal identification. (Through public education). • Ensure appropriate pets are selected. (Through public education). • Ensuring that there are inexpensive, humane means of disposing of unwanted pets. (Through public education and targeted regulation). • Ensuring that cat owners comply with community expectations on animal housing and restraining. (Through public education and targeted regulation). • Ensure that lost pets can be readily identified and returned to their owners. (Through public education and targeted regulation). CCC(Q) endorses: • The State Government articulating the animal management outcomes it is seeking to achieve • The State Government supporting Local Governments in achieving the desired outcomes by adequately financing those animal management responsibilities imposed by the State Government (as an offset to these responsibilities being undertaken by the State Government itself). • The more effective use of public education especially a coordinated state-wide approach • Continued reliance on animal registration but only making it mandatory for both cats and dogs if it can be demonstrated as likely to be effective, and having it administered by Local Governments with the State implementing a state-wide standard of recording to ensure more effective data sharing. • The mandatory identification of pet cats and dogs by micro-chipping provided • That de-sexing of cats and dogs is mandatory where those animals are kept as pets. So too should de-sexing be mandatory in the case of unidentifiable and / or dangerous animals. • That exemption to compulsory de-sexing must apply where a particular purebred, pedigreed registered dog is to be used in a recognised future breeding program. It is essential that appropriate exemptions are granted to all involved in owning or breeding such as members of the CCC(Q), Feline Associations, and legitimate working/farm dogs where the maintenance of the gene pool is critical. • We would however draw to your attention the documented risks involved with early age de-sexing and we support the position of the AVA that this procedure not be carried out under 12 weeks of age. • In a “shelter” environment such as those operated by the AWL or RSPCA early age de-sexing may be appropriate as the puppies and kittens in their care are not “owned”- they are abandoned. In a clinical environment (private Veterinary Surgery) we believe that very few if any Veterinary Surgeons would perform early age de-sexing due to the high risk of litigation. • As most puppies and kittens would go to new homes at or about 8 weeks of age the responsibility of having those young “owned” companion animals desexed would therefore be the responsibility of the new owner. At present it would appear that the proposed implementation options appear to focus more on the roles of state and local governments rather than on the effective management of unwanted cats and dogs. The CCC(Q) would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to further investigate and discuss these important matters.” On the 8 August the Honourable Peter Beattie, Premier and Minister for Trade and the Honourable Tim Mulherin MP Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries released a joint press statement -details can be found on: www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=53352 The joint press statement indicated that: “The views of Queenslanders are now being analysed and this information will be used by Government to decide how best to make improvements to the management of cats and dogs across the State.” My concern is to ensure that responsible members of the community, and in particular CCC(Q) members, are not adversely affected by any future legislative changes. At this stage it is not clear how any new legislation be directed to those existing dog owners who do not comply with existing legislation? Also, how does the Government proposed to ensure that non complying people will comply in the future? For many years the CCC(Q) has operated a voluntary micro-chipping service for its members. The CCC(Q) arranges this service at a very reasonable charge and it is in this way we encourage all members to micro-chip their dogs. How does the Government propose to handle this in the future? While the joint press statement says “between 2002 and 2006 the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League were forced to kill more than 53,000 healthy cats” CCC(Q) has been unable to obtain information from local governments to establish the actual extent of this problem, the reasons for it and whether it is increasing or decreasing. It would be interesting to have access to data held by DPI&F on this matter. Further, no numbers are provided in respect to dogs. I believe that the number of pedigreed purebred registered dogs which would have been killed in this period or indeed any period would be exceedingly small. Most companion animal owners are responsible and care for their cats and dogs. Such responsible owners should not be subjected to “draconian” legislation. If there is to be such legislation it should be directed to those within our community who do not apply acceptable standards of animal care and welfare. Again, while the CCC(Q) does not oppose either a State wide registration or microchipping introduction, it cannot give unqualified support until it has access to reliable statistics on the problem, the causes have been established and it has had an opportunity to study and comment on the likely effectiveness of any proposed legislation. The proposal to introduce “mandatory de-sexing before the sale of all dogs and cats with exceptions for registered breeders, working dogs etc” is of great concern and CCC(Q) on behalf of all responsible dog breeders oppose its introduction based on the fact that: • De-sexing at a very young age is considered by many vets as not being in the best interests of puppies. Traditionally many puppies are sold at a reasonably early age thereby allowing the puppies to appropriately bond with their new owners thus reducing the likelihood of behavioural problems. CCC(Q) believes that early age de-sexing is harmful to a dog and cannot be performed before the sale if that sale occurs prior to the puppy reaching six months of age. CCC(Q) members are required to comply with the CCC(Q) Code of Ethics to “not to sell or transfer puppies under eight weeks of age”. • There is no definition of “registered breeder” in the Discussion Paper and our understanding is that local authority rules vary across the State and lack consistency thus causing confusion. Our solution would be to define all financial members of the CCC(Q) as registered breeders. The linking of cheaper registrations for pets for desexing may be beneficial and CCC(Q) fully supports all appropriate educational procedures, which are designed to lead to responsible pet ownership. It is regrettable that even though I have offered to assist the Government Minister Mulherin has not been able to meet with me to discuss how the problem of unwanted dogs might be solved. It would appear from recent discussions held with Dr Rick Symons DSC BVSc (Hons) MBA PhD MACVSc (Epidemiology, Animal Welfare) DALF General Manager, Animal Welfare Unit, Department of Primary Industries that the results of the Discussion Paper would not be made available to the CCC(Q). Should there be members of the community including of the CCC(Q) who have not made a submission to the DPI&F on the Discussion Paper and believe that they have concerns regarding how unwanted pets might be managed it is suggested that you make your views known now to your local Member of Parliament on the likely effectiveness of the various options in managing unwanted cats and dogs. Barry Vickers President Canine Control Council (
|
Click to return to |
bravenet.com
