Imagine if a major animal welfare group wanted to ban pet ownership. They came out and said; “we want to ban pet ownership outright… some exceptions granted where we deem appropriate, but overall we don’t think people should be allowed free ownership of pets.”
Would you support their initiative? My guess is that if you’re a pet owner (especially one with a healthy cynicism for the wisdom of some of the programs animal welfare groups have implemented over the years) you would say no.
But what if I told you, that animal welfare groups are proposing just that? And that it has a lot of support in high places;
On the issue of granting licences for pet owners, Dr Wirth says while it hasn’t been adopted by either party as policy, it’s a work in progress.
“Absolutely, that’s one battle we haven’t won yet, it’s been RSPCA policy for at least forty years to my knowledge, we just haven’t won that round with the politicians yet. We will win of course.”
ABC News
Imagine having to get a licence to keep a dog, much like we do to drive a car.
That’s the law which veterinary surgeon and adviser to Dogs NSW Peter Higgins wants the State Government to adopt.
ABC News
The kind of system we have at the moment – dog registration – is just like car registration. Pretty much anyone can own a car if they’re willing to pay a fee. Those fees are used towards insurances and services for car users. It is the system of ‘approved until proven unfit’ – the licence may be revoked, but only if you do something wrong.
But a licence is different; a licence is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licencee to have something or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do without the licence. It makes the standard ‘illegal until proven fit’. It is illegal for anyone to drive a car on the road until they apply and get given an ‘exception’ – a car licence – which can be refused or revoked at any time, for a myriad of reasons.
What a pet ownership licence proposes is that pet ownership is illegal to everyone in the community unless they have a licence (an exception) granted.
The difference doesn’t sound like much, but it has huge implications for pet ownership in the future. Who decides who will make a ‘good enough’ pet owner to be granted an exception? With the basic ‘right’ to own a pet removed, pets become your ‘property’ only while Council deems you should be able to hold a licence.
What stops Councils deciding arbitrarily that pet ownership causes them too much trouble and just refusing to grant licences to whole segments of the community based on region or demographic? What other criteria could be added in; size/weight limits (‘you can only own a pet under 25kg), breed specific limitations (‘no bull breeds allowed’) or even stricter requirements overriding your veterinary relationship (‘this licence is granted under the condition you pet be desexed at three months of age’), or a income test (‘you can only own a pet if we think you can afford it, you have to earn $45k a year’).
By allowing pet licences to be developed, we will have given away any right the community has to own pets, and replaced it with the need to negotiate the privilege. Which might be fine as long as the system is never unfair, bureaucratic or misused. But anyone whose ever been turned down for an animal adoption knows the system isn’t always fair, anyone whose ever tried to collect a stray pet knows the system can be bureaucratic and anyone whose ever had to fight a council’s pet related decisions knows it is often misused.
We need to think these ideas through, even when they’re being pushed by animal welfare groups who claim to know what’s best for us. Becoming active in researching these new laws should be a priority of every pet owner who wants to be able to own pets in the future, as we all have to live with these changes.
See also; A right, not just a privilege. Why ‘dog ownership licences’ do everyone a disservice
Wow – I strongly disagree with this article. Tighter controls about who is qualified to look after companion animals would be a step in the right direction.
There are two parts of the problem of companion animal killing. One is the attitudes of the pounds and shelters – but the other is the “supply” of animals into pounds and shelters in the first place.
It sticking one’s head in the sand to deny that it’s the irresponsible animal owners that are the cause of the massive supply of animals (250,000 per year) onto death row in pounds and shelters.
In Australia we need a licence to drive a car. This shows a minimum capability has been attained and keeps our roads safer. It prevents unqualified people causing danger to others (I accept licenced drivers still have accidents but imagine the carnage if no-one needed a licence). Right now anyone can buy an animal – even those with no idea about animal welfare, training, nutrition, housing, etc. A licence would lift the bar and ensure that more people would have the knowledge required to live with a dog or cat.
As a dog trainer I see first hand that some people just don’t have the knowledge or commitment to be granted the “privelage” (not “the right”) to have a companion animal.
As a resuer I see the same people breeding their animals feeding pups weet-bix and milk (nearly killing them) and the council collecting them.
Low cost desexing is great but it isn’t going to stop some idiot grabbing a free cat from the RSPCA and dumping it when they want to go on holidays.
Many of the animals I see in pounds are “surrendered” because their owners didn’t know how to prevent unwanted behaviour developing in a dog (or could be bothered putting in the effort). It eventaually becomes too hard and the animal ends up losing its life.
As well as other aspects of the no-kill equation (most of which I agree with), greater control around who can own an animal is a must if we are to limit the supply chain and see a reduction of the killing.
I write pieces like this because I think it’s important that we think and not just react.
It’s easy to say,
‘people who give up their pets are BIG JERKS’
or ‘people who don’t train their pets are LAZY JERKS’
or ‘people who get the wrong pet are STUPID JERKS’
It’s easy to say, but not very accurate. People aren’t good or bad. People run the gauntlet from excellent all the way through to genuinely evil. There’s a huge spectrum of owner behaviours, some that work, others that don’t.
But judging people and calling them ‘jerks’ is not helping people. Judging people and calling them ‘jerks’ is not actually examining what is going wrong and looking for realistic solutions.
You have to get a car licence, not because the government wants to assign some kind of ‘worthy’ tag to certain people, but because it’s really, really fucking dangerous to drive a car without basic training. It’s the same reason you have to have a licence for a forklift, or a boat, or use high explosives.
But the issues we’re proposing to fix with a pet licence are less like driving a car and more like parenting. Because parenting reflects the spectrum of behaviours, the long term commitment and ongoing investment needed to be successful.
Some parents have kids too early and are underprepared. Some parents have kids when they already have a busy work life and struggle to juggle time. Some parents are self-centred and probably shouldn’t have had kids at all. Some parents are good humoured and with an enquiring mind and go on to be super successful, making their kids success their lives.
But mostly, people don’t know what kind of parent they’re going to be until they are one.
To say that a ‘pet test’ could make good pet owners is as ridiculous as to suggest that a ‘parent test’ could make everyone good parents. Most pet owners could probably identify that a pet should be fed ‘at least once a day’, but it doesn’t tell them how to react when the dog has eaten all the irrigation, pulled off the screen door and knocked over their kid. Most pet owners could identify that they need to ‘register their pet with council’, but it doesn’t tell them what to do when the cat starts biting and using the couch as a toilet.
And do you know what? All the while we keep on saying ‘only JERKS would consider giving up their pet’ and ‘we need a pet licence to get all the JERKS’ we’re not going to get the chance to actually effect these people for the better. Because, overwhelmingly, they’re not jerks, they’re just people. People who struggle with the demands of parenting. And the demands of pet ownership.
When you get pregnant you are propelled into a world of support and resources. Your midwife gives you a showbag full of phone numbers and courses and websites. Your doctor asks you important questions about your health and preparation. And after your baby comes, you are allocated to a ‘mothers group’ of people with babies the same age, and have someone come to your house to check everything is going well.
It is an awesome system. It would be super awesome to have the same kinds of resources for new pet parents (and I think rescue groups, on the whole do a great job at this). Does it stop child abuse? Nope. Does it mean every child has the perfect life/parents? Nope. Because genuine jerks do exist.
But Would this system of building parent knowledge be more effective if every wanna-be parent had to first a be granted a licence?
Of course not.
We need to move beyond judging people and start working on programs that actually help them be better pet parents.
I do agree with all of the above. But maybe when pounds allow a pet to be adopted, they could give the hopeful new owner a rough guide on such things as How big this animal is likely to grow, advice on where to find help in training (dog obedience classes etc) and the best food for it. It should come with an information sheet like you get from the vet after your pet has an operation.
First up, great site with lots of info and opinions.
Next up,
Yeah I agree Paul. Having worked in shelters and council for years, they are Jerks and yeah I will judge because it’s all this PC crap not helping. The same jerks Paul is talking about I have seen with my own eyes, in their own house whilst picking up dogs for council. A few quotes for all to judge… ‘can’t be bothered with it anymore’ ‘just take the fuckin’ thing’ ‘stupid fucking c%&t of a thing anyway’
I guess it depends which socioeconomic you are talking about – oh sorry,I am judging again.
Oh and they are shit parents too. Struggling with no demands of parenting because the kids are left to parent themselves.
Licences for animals won’t ever work anyhow. It just won’t.
I will also judge that there are amazing people out there working their arses off to try and help sort out this horrible mess, and hundreds of thousands of responsible and loving pet owners who would cringe at what I have to put up with day in day out.
Keep up the good fight everyone
I think this is where we get confused. There are jerks. They don’t pay their bills. They drive without a licence. They beat their kids. And they treat their pets badly. They are why shelters will always exist. It is our job to take and protect pets from these people. It is unrealistic to think some initiative of ‘animal control’ could solve these issues. They’re much bigger than pet ownership.
What is unhelpful is when we try to punish all pet owners to target these jerks. Pet licences are redundant for most (the good owners) and ineffective for genuinely bad (the jerks).
The guys in the middle are where we can have the most effect. Helping disadvantaged owners keep their pets. Helping new owners access good advice and support. Helping pet owners when the pet/owner bond had broken down, to find a new home for their animal. Helping the public choose the adoption option.
Helping. Not judging.
hear hear on the helping. We (everyone on the same wavelength as me at work, and our out of work associates) bend over backwards to help – all owners, good, bad, indifferent, rich, poor or in the ‘middle’. The options I personally go through with people on request for surrender is exhausting. Some take up and think about the advice, some even act on it and ‘give it another go’ But most put the whole situation in the too hard basket and hand them over. It usually comes back to time, effort and/or money. And it is all socioeconomic groups doing it. 6 figure salaries can mean long hours and bored dogs jump and dig to get out for self socialisation. In these situations some people STILL can’t or don’t want to trial dog walking or doggy day care or fix fencing – again. The bond is not even there, never was.
I have paid for and transported disadvantaged people to the vets to get desexing and vaccinations and microchips in my own time, and have a stockpile of pamphlets and printouts to internet links so I know where you are coming from completely.
It is not unrealistic to think initiatives within animal control cannot help – it is an entire community thought process which has to be encapsulated – like elements of the NKE, employment and retention of compassionate animal staff.
So i reserve my right to judge whilst I help.
…and not all council staff are jerks :P