Animal advocates are rumbling about the new ‘Greens supported’ companion animal welfare laws in the ACT as being some of the most important in the country. Those who dare question it, they say, are simply against good animal welfare policy, or are in league with the puppy farmers, or just want to see pets to continue to die in shelters. It’s just one big o’ conspiracy theory.
But what is the actual potential of the legislation in saving lives? To find out, first, we need to get familiar with the laws surrounding keeping domestic animals in the ACT already in existence.
The Domestic Animals Act 2000 requires that along with registration for cats and dogs;
While the Domestic Animals Regulation 2001, made under the Domestic Animals Act 2000 requires;
So we have laws which say you can’t keep an undesexed adult animal. We have laws which say you must apply for a a permit to breed. We have laws which mandate only very young animals can be sold undesexed (under 6 months for dogs and 3 months for cats) and that all pets must be microchipped before sale.
These are a lot of the laws that groups in other states are beavering away to enact as the ‘solution to pet overpopulation’ in their communities – how’s it worked out here?
Well, cat numbers have remained high, with ten years of mandatory desexing failing to decrease cat numbers;
“That figure has been growing, 5, 10, 15 per cent per annum over the last five years, so there’s a significant issue with regard to kitten desexing or cat desexing in Canberra”.
Michael Linke – ABC: RSPCA ACT overrun with kittens
And realising that there are genuine hurdles to desexing, and probably a not insignificant number of unowned cats, they have called for more support services.
“We need the Government to police the legislation that’s in place and we need them to work with the local veterinary community to try to make desexing more accessible.”
The conclusion that compulsory desexing does not reduce cat intakes mirrors a report by By Dr. Linda Marston, Dr. Pauleen Bennett, Vanessa Rohlf and Kate Mornement in 2008 which showed the following intake information for the ACT:
Corresponding data for cats show that the number of cats that were euthanised closely paralleled the number admitted.
There was a decreasing trend in cat admissions observed between 1997 and 2000, which was accompanied by a reduction in euthanasia (49.2% in 1997 1998 and 38.1% in 2000-2001).
Importantly, in 2001-2002, the year after the DAA (2000) legislation was introduced, the euthanasia rate jumped to 62%, although it decreased back to 36.3% in the subsequent year. This may indicate that a temporary increase in cat euthanasia is likely to follow the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation.
Since 2002, admissions have increased and the number of cats that are euthanised has increased accordingly, although not to quite the same extent. This is due to an increased number of cats being rehomed over the last two years. However, the proportion of cats’ euthanised has risen in recent years, perhaps because 474 feral cats were admitted in 2007. This is an 8% increase on 2006, when 440 feral animals were admitted (M.Linke, pers.comm.). Reclaim rates have remained relatively low compared to dogs.
While in the case of dogs,
(The graph shows) an overall decrease in the number of dogs admitted to shelters in the ACT each year for the past decade. This trend commenced two years before the introduction of the DAA (2000) legislation but was temporarily interrupted by a substantial increase in dog admissions which occurred just before the legislation was introduced.
In the first 18 months of implementation there was a dramatic decrease in admissions, but this has slowed somewhat since then. Generally, the patterns for rehoming and euthanasia parallel the admission data, although there was a spike in the number of dogs reclaimed in 2001-2002. This can be attributed to greater public awareness resulting from the publicity associated with the new legislation (M. Linke, pers.comm.). At this time there was also a reduction in the number of dogs rehomed, which mirrored the spike in reclaims. This is important data. Even though there were fewer dogs for potential adopters to choose from, the fact that numbers rehomed decreased may indicate that those available for adoption may not have been suitable to rehome.
Current euthanasia rates at the RSPCA (ACT) are about half the level they were in 1997-1998 i.e. decreasing from 26% in 1997-1998 to 13% in 2006-2007.
So the RSPCA ACT, who balance animals between their shelter and the major pound (DAS), have a euthanasia rate of around 13%,
“Our homing rate is based on the formula whereby animals put to sleep are divided by all animals received. Some animals that go to DAS are included in this number, but not all as in some cases the animal goes directly to DAS from our holding kennels and does not enter our computer system. DAS’s homing rate is also in the 90% range.”
Michael Linke – DOL forums April 2010
These impressive dog figures could be attributed directly to this legislation, except that is not the conclusion drawn by the by the Marston report:
The ACT experience has also shown that the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation may affect the euthanasia rate of dogs, although this may also be explained by other initiatives put in place by the two shelters in this region in the past decade. It does not appear to have affected the euthanasia rate for cats. The numbers of kittens admitted has not decreased and the admission rate of feral cats has increased. This observation could be attributed to the following factors:
1) The reduction in shelter admissions of dogs resulted from a pre-existing trend and the temporary increase in admission rates resulted from the introduction of the legislation.
2) The large numbers of stray kittens admitted to the RSPCA in the last two years suggests that mandatory desexing is not targeting the source of the cats admitted. This hypothesis is supported by the increase in the number of feral kittens admitted (M.Linke, pers.comm).
3) The reduction in dog euthanasia rates may be due to better rehoming practices and greater commitment to maintaining the health and well-being of the animals impounded.
Both governmental and welfare agencies stressed that the introduction of mandatory desexing without appropriate resources made the legislation virtually unenforceable.
So that is where we are in the ACT – where are we looking at going?
(RSPCA ACT) CEO Michael Linke says thousands of animals are offered for sale in classifieds and on the internet each year in Canberra.
He says 5,000 animals were listed in the classifieds of one local publication in 2009.
…..“It’s just making a mockery of the laws in place in Canberra where we have compulsory microchipping, compulsory desexing and licences available for breeders.”
“The laws are good, we’re got some of the strongest animal welfare laws in Australia … but there is no policing, there is no follow-up,” he said.
Pet laws need policing – ABC
Enforcement has always proven to be an issue with these kinds of laws, not only because cat laws are largely unenforcable, but because funding this enforcement becomes a major issue for local council. If you have a council with animal laws that aren’t being enforced and add more laws, the result is simply more laws not being enforced.
But despite this experience, more laws is where they’re planning on going anyway. In December last year, the Greens supported bill in question, was introduced into the ACT Assembly with the backing of the RSPCA. The bill would:
Having recognised these kinds of laws are ineffective in targeting cats, and the low rate of euthanasia for dogs… not to mention ongoing problems with enforcement, it seems these small and incremental changes seem to be based on hype and politics, rather than a genuine desire to improve animal welfare outcomes.
From the Australian Companion Animal Council:
“Experience has shown that an over-reliance on a purely regulatory response to animal management issues results in disappointing outcomes for both the animals and the people who care about them. This is particularly the case when the underlying drivers are not well understood as is the case with shelter overpopulation.”
We know what the solutions are to eliminating the killing of animals in animal shelters. None of these proven solutions have been based on a creative new laws punishing the community, or incrementally enacting more and more draconian legislation targeting owners and their animals. Almost despite their laws – thanks to innovative animal sheltering and the setting of No Kill goals – shelter animals in the ACT are probably safer here than anywhere else in the country. And yet the ‘punishment-based’ thinking is so entrenched, that animal advocates still champion the idea that the public is the problem, that their community will buck the trend and create an utopian set of laws, that will drive them to No Kill.
There seems to be an overwhelming focus on emotions, rather than solid deliverables in this ‘Greens’ legislation debate. Polarising and branding people as ‘for the animals’ or simply ‘profit motivated’ depending on whether they support, or question, the effectiveness of these new laws. While it can make for exciting advocacy, popular politics and satisfying opportunities to sling mud at the pet industry… seems none of these pastimes are based on improving animal outcomes, or getting pets out of shelters alive.
The legislation in the ACT is already incredibly restrictive and largely unenforced, which would surely leave anyone asking; could improving services to help the community comply and improved enforcement of existing legislation, be more effective that pumping even more resources into shiny new laws?
That’s no conspiracy – it’s simply common sense.
