1

SUBMISSION TO GOVERNMENT INQUIRY - RESTRICTED BREEDS & CANINES GENERALLY

NAAS congratulates the government on recognising the need to review “dog” laws. Our submission will be circulated to all Councils in the belief they will recognise the economic, environmental and ethical benefits of supporting at least some of our recommendations. These relate not only to the restricted breed laws but to the overall issue of animal welfare and the important role Councils can play if given the appropriate support by bipartisan governments. . Our organisation supports changing the current restricted (dangerous) breed laws to the far more appropriate, globally acknowledged “Calgary” model. The basis of this model is “punish the deed not the breed” and is recognised as being the most fair, workable and cost effective way of dealing with the problem of “dangerous” dogs. Our understanding is experts have provided detailed information in regard to this change so our emphasis is on related issues which we believe could and should be examined. Historically, several breeds have been labelled “dangerous” from time to time – German Shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers, Greyhounds and Blue Heelers - when some widely publicised adverse event has occurred. Yet as in the current debate, experience has shown that by far the vast majority of these breeds do not attack without severe provocation or unless deliberately trained to do so. Quite the reverse is the case. Sadly, what also happens is that various breeds become the “fashion” of the moment – often as the result of being used in a film or advert. Nothing illustrates the distressing consequences of this more than the Telstra ad. where a staffy is used to illustrate the ease of going to the letterbox for their products. The breeders would have been delighted of course, with little or no extra cost to them of the massive explosion of staffies being sold and with no concern for the resultant increase in impoundments of staffies. Even on a recent visit to a respected shelter I would estimate the number of staffies and staffy cross pets requiring rehousing to be about 8 to 1 despite there being a breed specific rescue scheme by the Staffordshire Terrier Association! In considering improvements to laws my hope is that our cliff face experiences and recommendations as to possible solutions will be taken into consideration and supported by Councils as well as governments. Many incidents brought to our attention indicate the need for far better education of the broader public, and especially of those who have little or no experience of being in close proximity to dogs. But this also applies to ALL breeders and shelters where more responsibility should be taken to ensure the characteristics and training of specific breeds and X’s is provided. Many who claim to love their pet still believe violent smacking, stick assault etc is the best training method rather than a better understanding of breed type behaviour and how to minimise adverse traits. E.g.

2

small breeds will often be aggressive towards large dogs out of fear and need reassurance and careful familiarisation rather than adding to their fear by violent chastisement. NAAS RECOMMENDATION 1 - CURRENT COSTLY ADVERSARIAL PROCESSES Courts do seem mostly to recognise the issue of “provocation” but the huge financial and emotional cost of getting through the Court could and should be prevented if the facts were established via a more civilised, less adversarial, less confrontational approach such as independent mediation. It is unjust and unreasonable that dog owners and of course Councils bear the unjustifiable costs of Court action and dogs and their owners the burden of blame in many incidents where in fact ignorant attitudes and human behaviour which provokes is at the heart of an attack and civilised discussion would minimise costs to Councils as well as owners rather than involving lawyers .

Dog on death row: Izzy granted a reprieve by the High Court Age Newspaper June 10, 2015 Michael Inman and Adam Cooper

Tania Isbester has taken her fight to save her dog Izzy to the High Court of Australia in Canberra. Photo: Melissa Adams

Australia's highest court has granted a stay of execution to a dog on death row in a historic ruling that has left a Melbourne council facing a legal bill of up to $600,000. But Knox City Council says it could yet convene a new panel to decide whether Izzy the Staffordshire bull terrier is put down. Izzy has been on death row since June 2013 after the council ordered it be put down for an attack that left a woman with a 1.5-centimetre finger laceration. Izzy's owner, Tania Isbester, fought the council's decision in the Victorian Court of Appeal and lost, but then took the case to the highest court in the land to save her dog's life, arguing that one of the members of the council's panel had been biased, thus denying the pet a fair hearing. The High Court – which had never before heard a case involving a dog on death row – on Wednesday unanimously upheld the appeal, finding the process had been contrary to natural justice because a panel member could be seen as biased. "The court found that a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that the respondent's employee might not have brought an impartial mind to the decision to destroy [Ms Isbester's] dog, because her role in the [court] proceedings gave her an interest that was incompatible with her involvement in the decision-making process of the panel," a High Court statement said. Ms Isbester was not in Canberra for the judgment, but told Fairfax Media of her joy at the decision. "That's amazing. I'm glad that common sense has prevailed," she said. "I teach my kids that if you believe in something, then you have to fight for it. "My motto is never give up, I'm really happy that I stuck it out."

3

But Ms Isbester's lawyer, Daniel Beecher, said the mother-of-three was disappointed not to be reunited with Izzy, and was concerned at the council's intention to re-start the process of destroying the dog. "There will be a new panel hearing all to decide whether or not a dog that caused a 1.5 centimetre scratch on a woman's finger should be destroyed," Mr Beecher said. "We find that particularly abhorrent considering the circumstances in which that scratch occurred is one where there were two dogs having a dog fight, the owner of the other dog put her hand into the malaise and she ended up with a 1.5 centimetre scratch that needed a Band-Aid. "It's reasonable to say, we think, that the scratch occurred by accident, not as an attack on the woman, and we've got a behaviour report that says that this dog [Izzy] is particularly affectionate to humans. Why the council is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill this dog is beyond me."

The court ordered the council to pay Mrs Isbester's legal fees. Knox mayor Peter Lockwood said the episode could leave the council with a bill of $600,000. "It's a lot of money," he said. "We've had costs awarded against us, so we have to pay the other side as well. It's heading around $600,000." Cr Lockwood said Izzy was currently being "well looked after" by the RSPCA. He said the council would decide within the next month whether to again try to have the dog destroyed. "I can't pre-judge it, we have to go through the process, hear the evidence, make sure there's a properly-constituted panel hearing it and go from there," he said. In a statement, the council said it had defended the case on the grounds of public safety. Ms Isbester was punished by a magistrate after Izzy and her two other dogs fought with the dog belonging to the other woman. One of Ms Isbester's dogs, Jock, was destroyed for causing a serious cut to the woman's finger. Mr Beecher said should the council decide to destroy Izzy, he would advise Ms Isbester to pursue legal action again. For now, he said, his client – who is also undergoing treatment for cancer – was a hero for standing up for what she believed. "This is a person who cares so much about her dog she has moved heaven and Earth to do what she thinks is right," he said.

Some Problems Under current laws, Councils and owners are spending thousands of dollars pursuing “the breed” as well as of course “the deed” – often in cases where “attitudes” as well as the current laws are the problem rather than the dog or owner. Examples include others similr to Izzy’s case where prosecutions by Councils of pet owners where the complainant has waved their hands aggressively and unnecessarily in front of a dog’s face, often accompanied by loud screams. Both actions being terrifying to a dog of course and resulting in a bite to the offending hand. In another case involving a very timid young pit bull, where there were conflicting claims by By laws officers, owner and complainant, the dog was left for hours on end on a running chain in a backyard and had little chance of socialisation much less stimulating activity. Whilst we were unable to establish the full facts, I personally spoke with several neighbours and it became obvious that the Bylaws officer was exaggerating the behaviour of the dog. It became clear that the actions of the By laws officers that went to the house to impound the dog had actually aggravated the dog - fearful rather than aggressive towards strangers. The owner having already paid out thousands and thousands of dollars fighting the Council appeared to me to be verging on suicidal at the time we met with her. There was little we could do to help at that time because “the law” said her dog was a “dangerous” breed and must therefore be killed. It was this particularly incident which prompted us to ensure the local Council was made aware of how unjust as well as unnecessarily costly the current laws are. Attacks by large dogs of smaller ones need to also be better understood as in several cases, the smaller dog has baited if not attacked the larger dog, usually out of fear , thus bringing the wrath of the larger normally inoffensive dog to retaliate but it is the owner of the larger dog who is prosecuted and the pet put down rather than warning the owners of smaller dogs who often show signs of this fear and aggression around larger dogs to keep their pet under their own control where there are large dogs.

4

In another incident, the owner of a 11 year old German Shepherd cross which had been well socialised and never shown any signs of aggression was in the kitchen making tea for a visitor with a 4 year old child in tow. Suddenly there were screams from the child and the mother coming from the lounge room. The dog had bitten the 4 yr old. The mother claimed to the Council there was no provocation and that the dog was dangerous. The owner, a sole parent, was unable to afford the legal cost of fighting impoundment and destruction by the Council. Three months later the owner of the dog learned via a neighbour that what had really happened was that the child had found nail scissors in the mother’s hand bag and had actually stabbed the dog in the side. In another incident, an elderly person was sitting on a park bench with two small, elderly dogs lay peacefully resting at his feet. A woman stopped to ask him directions to the children’s’ playground. One of her toddlers started stamping his foot on the sleeping dog’s outstretched paws and was bitten. The mother abused the old person but failed to reprimand or guide the child as regards unacceptable behaviour. These incidents illustrate the similar unjustness of some cases pursued by Councils where provocation is clearly the problem so our suggestions include below possible more reasonable and cost effective solutions. Elderly dog walkers especially, but others too regularly experience situations where uneducated children will scream and wave their arms as they run past dogs being walked often stirring up fear in otherwise docile dogs. Several cases brought to our notice indicate that By laws officers at times are exaggerating and “stacking” offences in order to justify a larger fine if not a prosecution. The convoluted, costly, adversarial nature of the Courts sometimes makes it difficult, if not too costly for defendants to prove what really happened. Councils as well as governments need to ensure that with the increased powers given to by laws officers in domestic animals issues , there is also more scrutiny and accountability of the role they play. It seems to be rare for issues (the truth) to be sorted out pre prosecution. One can only assume this is in order to justify their employment and the role they play. It is essential there is a better understanding of why we recommend independent mediation or dispute resolution as an essential first step. I.e. appointing independent trained mediators rather than lawyers BEFORE legal proceedings are commenced. This ensures the facts and truth are far more likely, more cost effectively and more humanely established. This is now recognised in Courts whereby opposing parties sign a stat dec pre court to confirm they have done everything possible to settle a dispute pre

Court yet does not seem to apply to taxpayer funded Councils and governments ! Perhaps the government could also put out all languages t.v. advertisements regarding behaviour around dogs since there is clearly a serious problem in this regard? Particularly sad is the increased number of people keeping dogs chained, caged or confined in boring back yards 24/7 as guard dogs. More education as regards the ease with which dogs can and are poisoned by intruders and the benefits of video surveillance including cost saving could be emphasised. Focussing on the cruelty in such cases just washes over perpetrators who didn’t adopt the pet for humane or companionship purposes. We also believe Councils could ensure clearer education of the down side of larger dogs to thus discourage not only so many being bought, but of course not so many being bred. NAAS RECOMMENDATION 2 - The insidious Problems Created By Oversupply Although the “no kill” rule is a huge improvement on previous short retention periods at shelters, promoting it without addressing and pointing to the problems of oversupply is merely fuelling the

5

problems for animals and increasing cost to Councils/taxpayers/ratepayers of subsidising the cruel, bottomless pit of rehousing unwanted pets. Increasingly too, oversupply and all the problems it contributes to is a serious environmental issue for a fragile ecology and planet . (Distribution of this submission is being sponsored by www.goinggreensolutions.com.au Their products are increasingly used by environmentally aware Councils, Schools and Victoria Market! Help save the planet - check out their range .) The role NAAS plays is limited to assisting low income people with desexing, microchipping and registration of pets adopted via “friends”, notice boards the internet etc. and euthanizing suffering animals. But we are regularly made aware of pensioners and others who cannot afford the cost of properly attending to e.g. arthritic and other long term problems and the pet suffers in silence while the owner claims to “love” it. NAAS believes support should be given to the establishing of auxiliaries attached to vets or Councils as is the case with e.g. hospitals and environmental issues.

Dog untreated after being hit by car The West Australian November 24, 2014, 5:39 pm A Ridgewood man was banned from owning an animal after his pet dog was hit by a car and he failed to provide medical treatment for 6 months. Andy Thanh Tiet was sentenced in Joondalup Magistrate's Court on Friday after pleading guilty to animal cruelty. RSPCA WA received a call about Chopper, a young brindle male Mastiff cross, saying the dog had been hit by a car and Mr Tiet had not sought treatment for him. An RSPCA inspector found Chopper was not able to bear weight on his left hind leg, was very slow and unsteady and had significant muscle wastage.

6

Chopper was taken to the nearest vet for immediate pain relief and was later transferred to RSPCA where he received a full orthopaedic examination. The dog was also underweight. Mr Tiet told the inspector Chopper had been hit by a car six months earlier and while the dog had been taken to a vet, he could not afford the surgery. The treating vet said Chopper had suffered an acute painful traumatic which caused fractures in his left hip and damage to his right hock. Chopper was hit by a car and did not get treatment for six months. As well as being banned from owning an animal for 10 years, Mr Tiet was ordered to serve 120 hours of community service. RSPCA WA chief executive David Van Ooran said to organisation was pleased with the outcome and that receiving the maximum community service penalty sent a strong message to animal owners that such negligence would not be tolerated. "Left untreated, the injured progressed to a chronic pain state, with resultant severe immobility and postural changes," the vet said. “People need to be aware of their responsibilities as a pet owner, as there are consequences if you do not uphold them," he said. “It is an offence to deny any animal vet treatment. If you cannot afford vet treatment you should investigate all options including help from welfare agencies or perhaps making payment plan arrangements with the vet."

Laws needed and the role of councils Many pets are still sold via the internet, notice boards etc. un desexed, un microchipped and unregistered. Not only are breeders in uneven competition with shelters who do the right thing in this way but it is impossible to know where animals being dumped at shelters when passed their “used by” date have really come from.

It was, is and has always been incomprehensible why Councils/ratepayers subsidise show breeders and other breeders with a reduced registration fee for un desexed animals! One only has to go to any shelter to realise many needing new homes are pure bred or first cross. In fact, personally, I’m at a loss why its seen as reasonable to subsidise any aspect of oversupply. NAAS recommends that Councils urgently reverse this policy. Shelters just do not have the resources to genuinely check out new owners and their constant claim they find plenty of good homes is counterproductive. While Councils could and should be empowered to prosecute genuine cases of cruelty, there are many more cases where pets are suffering unacceptable violence, boredom, neglect, degenerative problems and overeating which do not seem to hit the radar of those making such claims. The increasingly excessively high cost of monthly worming, flea control and feeding isn’t always realised by those adopting pets. We believe the huge push by some shelters to encourage seniors and other low income people to adopt pets is misguided and should be replaced by a campaign to stop so many pets getting here in the first place.

7

NAAS RECOMMENDATION 3 The cruelty in puppy farms is fortunately receiving widespread publicity – but what about all the other lesser known cruel breeders contributing to oversupply - including of cats?

Where were Council bylaws officers? Where were all the local “animal lovers for so long? Acknowledgement : Goulburn Post 16 Aug 2014

This story so illustrates the need for LOCAL auxiliaries Ask yourself WHY did things get to this terrible state before anyone acted? RSPCA claims its because they need more funding. The fact is bye laws were being broken and the Council not policing local issues in the way a locally active auxiliary can.

UNHEALTHY: Cats were found in “putrid and nauseating” conditions on a Taralga district property, according to the RSPCA. Brenda Joy Meredith, 58, formerly of Laggan Rd and now of Wagga Wagga, pleaded guilty in Goulburn Local Court last Wednesday to the charges. She was charged with one count of animal cruelty, eight of failing to provide medical treatment to the animals and one of failing to provide sufficient food.

RSPCA inspectors described the scene as “nauseating” and “cruel” when, acting on a complaint, they

visited the property in February, 2013.They arrived to find no one home but 10 long haired cats in a small

cage in an open garage. “They were matted and filthy, sneezing and snuffing, their eyes weeping and eyes

fused shut with pus,” court facts stated.

The Persian and Himalayan cats had been forced to stand in “months’ worth of faeces, kitty litter trays were

overflowing and water containers were green, slimy and contaminated with urine. A further seven cats were

found in cages at the back of the property, also kept in “disgusting, cruel conditions,” according to

inspectors.

8

Dirt floors covered in cardboard placed on top of stinking, wet faeces, which in turn was buried in a deep

layer of animal waste. “There was no area the cats could stand to avoid the squalor,” facts stated. Inspectors said the animals couldn’t scratch themselves because large areas of their coats were heavily

matted. The cats were also suffering conjunctivitis, flea infestation, ear and eye infections, dental disease,

ring worm, dermatitis and severe malnutrition. One had died.

Officers left contact details but returned the next day to find them in the same place. They seized the

animals, which were being used for breeding purposes, and treated them at the RSPCA’s Yagoona animal

shelter. One was so matted it could hardly move, court facts stated.

Ms Meredith surrendered the cats to the RSPCA, after saying she didn’t see a problem with the way they

had been housed. The animals were separated into breeding groups, with most of the females pregnant. Ms

Meredith admitted she didn’t know what she’d do with the kittens. She worked as a shearer’s cook and

said her brother-in-law had been giving them food and water during the week but he wouldn’t touch litter

trays. She told the RSPCA she had returned on weekends over the three-week period. But inspectors

believed faeces had accumulated over months.

The only micro-chipped animal was returned to the owner who was “horrified” by its condition. The

RSPCA’s chief inspector, David O’Shanassy told the Post it was among the worst cases of the 15,000

reports the RSPCA received every year.“It’s deeply concerning that these things are happening and we’d

encourage anyone with information or suspicions of animal cruelty to report them because obviously, as in

this case, there were significant animal welfare issues,” he said.“This was someone looking to breed animals

and with that goes an obligation to provide treatment when it is needed.”

NATIONAL ANIMAL AID RECOMMENDATION : No mention of the need to restrict

breeding of domestic animals, or the lack of monitoring by Council. Laws are needed to

minimise ALL breeding of Pets ! Councils need to ensure compliance.

Positive political policies which recognise the need to change laws should ensure the onus is on all breeders and those disposing of animals via internet sites, Trading Papers, markets, pet shops and any other means of transfer of pets PRE the new owners for:

micro chipping, registering and de sexing or paid up voucher pre disposal – whether free or sold and by whatever means. This rule of law should not only be applied to all domestic animals – cats, horses, rabbits, mice as well as dogs but just as importantly – properly monitored and enforced by Local Councils. Currently it is left to independent, under resourced groups like NAAS to pick up backyard breeders from notice boards and other indirect means and why we hope to extend our services to all areas. This change to the laws nationally would bring irresponsible pet owners as well as commercial breeders in

line with animal shelters, create fairer competition, put the onus on those who allow their pets to breed,

lessen the problems of oversupply, benefit the environment and be cost effective for Councils/ratepayers.

It would also ensure those who use and abuse animals for breeding then dump at shelters or

elsewhere when their use by date is reached can be traced and made accountable.

If this was instituted and monitored more appropriately by Councils, the savings to taxpayers and ratepayers would be substantial and a far better use of financial resources than pursuing innocent pets and hapless owners through Courts for minor offences as is currently the norm. taxpayers/ratepayers subsidise the hidden cruelty and ultimate consequences of out of date out of touch laws, puppy farms, backyard breeders and show animal breeders.

9

Animal rescue agencies do a great job of rehousing but have neither the resources nor the will to really check on the welfare of pets already placed = just one of several important roles local auxiliaries can play.. There is no way of knowing if a person adopting a pet is a violent alcoholic, schizophrenic, cruel vivisectionist or in other ways unsuitable. There are many more reasons why more must be done to establish independent animal welfare auxiliaries at the local level which go beyond the work of rehousing where all the focus currently is, rather than preventing so many getting here in the first place, and minimising suffering and neglect when they do have a “home”. Pouring more and more taxpayers’ money into the bottomless pit of the RSPCA resolves nothing as regards oversupply and all the resulting neglect and cruelty. Constant claims their frequent failures to monitor or prevent cruel practices is due to lack of resources and lack of manpower, do not hold water. Unlike the Lost Dogs Home which is actively involved in addressing the issues of oversupply and co-operate with independent groups working to alleviate suffering, the RSPCA is utterly failing to publicly support the need for restrictions and penalties on breeding. Their adverse response to independent self funding auxiliaries in all Shires is symptomatic of a business organisation afraid of losing public funding, not one concerned to maximise the benefits to animals. One would think they would welcome self funding auxiliaries if lack of funds were really the problem yet the opposite is the case – they actively oppose them rather than co-operate. The problems for pet owners and animals in each area are diverse, usually hidden and certainly not addressed until active, independent animal welfare groups expose them or diligent Councils (there are a few) pick the problem up. False claims by rescue services they find plenty of “good” homes and have policies of “no kill” create a smokescreen around the problems resulting from oversupply including excessive suffering of many pets, out of control costs to Councils and devastation for the environment. Fighting the problem from only the “rescue” end – rather than tackling the root cause – indiscriminate, uncontrolled breeding is costing ratepayers/ taxpayers. As with so many other things these days, oversupply has led to a throw away mentality – cast off like last year’s fashion. Who do you suppose is paying for desexing all the cats the RSPCA and Lost Dogs home were forced to give away free due to oversupply? Its naïve as well as cruel to believe all have good homes when many Councils are clamping down on cats. These feel good claims also lull Councils, the public and politicians into believing there is no problem, when in fact the reverse is the effect. The real solutions are not getting the support they need especially much stricter monitoring and penalties on breeders. NAAS RECOMMENDATION 4 and RELATED ISSUES The need for bipartisan solutions. The Labor Party has already shown itself to be concerned, compassionate and more swift to act in well publicised cases of cruelty. But there is still only a patchwork approach to the broader issue of animal welfare. Needless to say there is a broad range of animal welfare issues which currently come under a number of Ministers’ portfolios with a complex mix of animal rights and the rights of businesses. Clearly there is a serious conflict of interest for various Ministers to have these included in their portfolio. It is unreasonable to leave these issues to the Department of Agriculture. The lack of accountability of animals used in experiments has worsened with the demise of independent members and genuine monitoring of Science Ethics Committees . (ABC Report) .

10

The following is just one of many examples of the disposability of pets – and our taxes being wasted on unethical and unnecessary use of sentient beings in animal experiments.

In an experiment carried out at the University of Sydney, eleven adult cats underwent highly invasive surgical procedures that included the removal of part of the skull as well as bilateral cervical sympathectomy (intentionally cutting the nerve supply to parts of the head and eyes). During the experiments the cats’ heads were restrained in a stereotaxic device and the animals received muscle relaxants in addition to a general anesthetic. At the end of the experiment each cat was killed and the brain removed and studied. The researchers in their study make no mention of any relevance this research may have to humans. The study does not provide any evidence to show that the information obtained from the killing of these 11 cats will lead to cures for people (or even animals, for that matter) The experiment was funded by a substantial grant by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Australian Research Council (ARC) - both taxpayer funded federal organisations. In the years 2010-2011 statistics reveal 2308 cats were used for experimentation purposes in NSW and VIC alone. Prior to its demise, the Australian Democrats party, via Andrew Bartlett, proposed a Private Members Bill

relating to the need to establish an independent Animal Welfare Ethics Commission as is the case in

other civilised countries.

NAAS believes there should be bipartisan support for such a proposal. We emphatically endorse the

value and need for totally independent body to replace the hodge podge of hit and miss

“over(under)sight” approach currently adopted.

11

NAAS believes it would not only be in the best interests of our long suffering animals but would be the most cost effective solution to ensuring an appropriate, compassionate, cost effective, environmentally significant and just approach to the variety of issues surrounding animal welfare. Although NAAS is a comparatively new group our Committee members engage in extensive research, are extremely well informed, and are long term animal welfare volunteers. We hope to play an increasing role in addressing the issue of oversupply by publicising our low cost desexing service more widely and the need for volunteer auxiliaries attached to Councils or vets to assist with other veterinary costs etc.

We enthusiastically look forward to your positive comments and “like” us on

facebook!

How could any animal live in these conditions? Yahoo7 April 16, 2015, 8:39 pm

Shocking pictures reveal the horrendous conditions in which three cats were forced to live, leading to animal cruelty charges for the Adelaide owner. The RSPCA says it currently has four similar cases before the courts. The RSPCA revealed images of the southern suburbs home on Thursday in which three cats had been living among piles of rubbish and using litter trays overflowing with faeces. The organisation seized the three cats in September last year and found they were in poor physical condition with high temperatures, flea-allergy dermatitis and significant respiratory issues.

-

- The RSPCA has revealed details of an animal cruelty case in which three cats were living in squalor.

- The owner recently pleaded guilty and was fined $500 for failing to provide appropriate and adequate living conditions for the three cats. Chief inspector Andrea Lewis said over the past 12 months the RSPCA had received more than 1000 reports or concerns about inappropriate living conditions for animals and currently had four other cases similar to the recent prosecution before the courts.

(NAAS comment: Still no mention of the need or ways to minimise so many pets being born)

12

-

-

- "Sadly, RSPCA Inspectors and rescue officers are faced with conditions similar to those in

this case on a regular basis," Ms Lewis said.

SUPPLEMENTARY TO EARLIER SUBMISSION TO GOVERNMENT INQUIRY INTO

DOG LAWS

Following on the response to our earlier submission from some quarters, on behalf of NAAS I am writing to correct a mistaken impression that our recommendations, if adopted, would wipe out the pet population! This misinterpretation relates to our belief that pre disposal, all domestic animals. Including horses, should be registered, microchipped and desexed or paid traceable desexing voucher provided. The benefit from Councils’ point of view, apart from financial, as well as ensuring oversupply is addressed, with all its costly, cruel consequences, is that Councils’ own records would then enable By Laws officers to more readily check where undesexed animals are via registration records This is already the case for registered pets. This would hopefully minimise incidents like the following and already sent to you in our submission as well as minimising puppy farm issues. Obviously this record also indicates if the animal has been desexed, including at renewal time. If they are used for breeding purposes this is more easily checked by By Laws officers again – as is already the case by responsible Councils. Currently, registered shelters and a number of registered, ethical breeders, already undertake these vital steps. It would not mean that owner/breeders could not transfer an undesexed animal. Rather it would ensure the responsibility and cost is shifted to the breeder rather than to taxpayer/ratepayer funded shelters. Also that the “source” could be traced/checked. A far better use of By Laws officers’ time and Councils’ resources. Because of the hidden, extensive number of backyard breeders, puppy farms etc not made to take responsibility, ethical ones are fighting a losing battle. Why should taxpayers have subside these “businesses?” See following article re SA shelter.

SA animal shelter operator given bond

By Margaret Scheikowski

November 17, 2014, 4:15 pm

SA animal shelter operator given bond - Yahoo7

Never in a million years would Lola McLachlan have thought she'd be in

court admitting to keeping animals in squalid conditions that included

maggots being present in rotting meat.

The 66-year-old has saved thousands of animals from death over the two decades since she

established the Moorook Animal Shelter in South Australia's Riverland.

But on Monday in the Adelaide Magistrates Court, she was placed on a two-year-good

behaviour bond after pleading guilty to failing to provide animals with appropriate living

conditions between January 1 and March 6, 2013.

Magistrate David Whittle was shown RSPCA photos depicting general rubbish, rotting food

with maggots, dead animals, excessive urine and faeces in enclosures, and some with no

bedding or dirty water.

She previously had led a blameless life devoted to animals, but the shelter conditions

deteriorated when her partner became ill, then died of cancer, and she had to get a casual job

at the age of 64.

Her lawyer, Anthony Allen, said she became overwhelmed with the situation she was facing,

saying "there was a degree of disorganisation and emotional fragility".

"Never in a million years would she have thought she would be before this court pleading

guilty to the charge she has pleaded to before your honour," he said.

The magistrate said McLachlan had provided an outstanding service to animals, many which

would have been destroyed but for her.

The shelter became a "final port of call" for many people in the Riverland and for local

councils which could no longer keep the animals.

A team of volunteers helped clean up the property after the RSPCA visit and continued to

help out, meaning the animals continued to be provided with the appropriate care.

The magistrate rejected an application not to record a conviction against McLachlan, saying

the offence went on for a significant period of time.

While he was sympathetic to her circumstances at the time, Mr Whittle said she should have

called out for help from her many supporters.

At the time of the RSPCA visit there were 121 dogs on the property.

Conditions of her bond include that RSPCA inspectors will supervise care of the animals for

two years and that by May 2015, the shelter will have a maximum of 60 animals.

Respectfully, Patti Farnell, Project Co-Ordinator