New Laws In Sa

[flame ryder]

Sooo yeah I just read this on someone's FB status. Can anyone confirm if this is indeed true or a load of tripe? Also for the record I do not agree with this, but I'd be interested to hear others views on this...

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

yes, they haven't passed it yet.

exceptions for breeders and working dogs

Not good enough - gotta write my local rep and the RSPCA

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-14/desexing-pets-compulsory-dogs-cats-in-south-australia/6853240

It will apply for new pets and there will be exemptions for breeders and working dogs on farms.

The South Australian Government said the change was based on the findings of a citizens' jury which urged that more effort be made to reduce the number of animals put down annually.

Estimates are that about 10,000 animals a year are euthanased.

Compulsory desexing has support from the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League and the state's Dog and Cat Management Board.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[LisaCC]

Will there be exemptions for DogsSA members?

This isn't even the main reason my dog's intact but as an example...

I'm in NSW, but I am sure there are people in SA like me who aren't breeders, but are newbies to showing who have intact dogs.

Or just too bad so sad, no more new people, breeders only or show in neuter only?

Edited October 14, 2015 by LisaCC

[_PL_]

The Citizen's Jury report.

http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/decisions/citizens-jury-dog-and-cat-management/about

[_PL_]

The Jury recommends that the State Government legislates the compulsory desexing of dogs and cats for future

generations of all dogs and cats from an implementation date to be determined with appropriate exemptions. The

Jury requests this recommendation be implemented as soon as practicable and determined with stakeholders and

government.

Central to the Jury’s recommendation is that desexing is to occur at/or prior to the point of sale of dogs and cats,

with appropriate exemptions to be determined by Government in collaboration with industry and expert veterinary

opinion. These exemptions could include veterinary exemptions (health & growth of animal), breeder exemptions,

SA police, Security and working dog exemptions to name a few.

The Jury does not support the implementation of compulsory desexing for the existing population of dogs and cats,

but strongly supports the State Government to continue in its promotional activities to encourage the community

to consider desexing their pets. The Jury calls for a review on the effectiveness of compulsory desexing at a time

frame to be determined by the Dog & Cat Management Board.

[flame ryder]

Ok so I just saw it on the news...so I guess it's true

I have had many dogs over my lifetime, all of them different and wonderful in their each individual way, a lot of them were mutts or crossbreeds. Only 1 of them has been from a registered breeder. So looking at my 3 beautiful dogs sitting at my feet who I love dearly...if this rule had come in say 10 years ago, only 1 of my dogs would exist. I have never been without a dog. As we all know dogs live short lives compared to us. Then there are the accidents, snake bites and illnesses that all take them too soon. I have this sad vision of a future without dogs for some people...maybe even me.

There are many questions...

Would one need to add themselves to a very,very,very long waiting list from a breeder for a puppy?

Would registered breeders then cash in on the supply=demand that would come with this forcing up the prices of dogs, so they may be out of reach financially for some people?

Who decides what ages dogs need to be de-sexed? With the re-search I've done it seems to be better for the health of the dog (especially large breed males) to get it done after they turn 1 or even as old as 2 depending on who you talk to.

For cats yeah...they wander, it's pretty hard to keep a cat contained. But dogs are pretty easy.

Why should responsible dog owners pay the price for all those who are not!!

ETA All my dogs except my first dog (30 years ago) has been de-sexed. I totally believe in having it done but making it mandatory is what bothers me.

Edited October 14, 2015 by flame ryder

[Dame Aussie]

I don't like this at all.

[moosmum]

Why, oh why is every one so shocked and suprised?!

This is inevitable while dog people chose to make welfare and irresponsible owners the priority with out with out teaching the value of DOGS. Of all types.

And the value that a RESPONSIBLE breeder can bring to the community no matter the pedigree status.

The K.Cs may have a huge influx of sub standard, no intention of following protocol breeders joining their ranks.

That will re-inforce and increase any critism aimed at the K.Cs.

Back yard breeders out, whos next in line?

Do Wonders for the breeds!

And another step closer to commercialized breeding.

Edited October 14, 2015 by moosmum

[tdierikx]

Still just a case of enacting new legislation when they still aren't enforcing current legislation... not going to work any better than the current stuff... *sigh*

Then again, better to be seen "doing something", rather than actually doing something...

T.

[Willem]

IMO it is one of those laws that make the negative impacts less qualified dog owners have on society and environment easier to handle, but it won't raise the qualification of dog owners (or people who want to become a dog owner). And the later one is IMO the real problem. So instead of making de-sexing mandatory I would prefer introducing measures like dog licenses (you need also a license to drive a car, or owning a gun etc.) and making obedience classes mandatory to raise the awareness of dog owners wrt their responsibility. However, I understand that those measures are far more complicated to follow up, likely more costly, will require more bureaucracy and thus harder to sell to the public.

[Steve]

And as usual the majority of the people lie down and allow a minority to impact so much on their basic rights without any more than a small moan on facebook and forums.

Why would a government introduce laws which have proven not to work and not to make even the slightest difference in other places its been introduced? It doesn't impact at all not one little bit on dumpage rates.

Why would dog owners allow a government to take away their right to make their own informed choices with their own property ? Why would people who live in one state simply give up their right to engage in a legal hobby in their homes and have free enjoyment of their property?

Governments don't give a toss about the dogs or the future for dogs all they care about is management and getting votes.

And we sit back and say "Oh bugger" and fall in line.

We wont even discuss - who gets them and how exemptions are handed out. Dogs SA gets more members and vets get more money but the idiots who dont give a toss about laws or regs or dogs do what they always do - whatever the hell they want.

Make it harder for small people to breed a dog and easier for bigger commercial breeders to keep down any competition.

Do they forget that breeding dogs including cross bred dogs is still a legal activity.

[Steve]

IMO it is one of those laws that make the negative impacts less qualified dog owners have on society and environment easier to handle, but it won't raise the qualification of dog owners (or people who want to become a dog owner). And the later one is IMO the real problem. So instead of making de-sexing mandatory I would prefer introducing measures like dog licenses (you need also a license to drive a car, or owning a gun etc.) and making obedience classes mandatory to raise the awareness of dog owners wrt their responsibility. However, I understand that those measures are far more complicated to follow up, likely more costly, will require more bureaucracy and thus harder to sell to the public.

People dont register their dogs now - why would making people have a licence make it any different? Those who do the wrong thing still do the wrong thing and the ones who do really really wrong things go underground so they dont get caught and do even more really really wrong things.

They dont enforce leash laws, registrations, microchipping or any other laws how are they going to be able to enforce laws to make you get your dog desexed. When it gets to court and you refuse to pay a fine because you choose not to give your dog a procedure that you feel is bad for its health do they have the ability to make it stick?

Does any one know of anyone anywhere who has ever been fined for not desexing their dog - and if I were fined today and choose not to tomorrow could they just keep on fining me? Is not desexing a dog negligent or cruel?

People who are irresponsible with their dogs will still get dogs, dogs will still be dumped and its just another thing dogs owners no longer have a right to do with and for their dogs.

[Christina]

the idiots who dont give a toss about laws or regs or dogs do what they always do - whatever the hell they want.

Make it harder for small people to breed a dog and easier for bigger commercial breeders to keep down any competition.

Do they forget that breeding dogs including cross bred dogs is still a legal activity.

The above concerns me the most however I do wonder how any of the proposed laws can make some people caring, responsible owners who look after their dogs properly, we can't even make some people look after their children properly.

Re the complulsary desexing although not popular with everyone I can see the point in introducing it for pet dogs, although the age its done at should be extended for larger breeds.

It does stop unwanted pregnancy & litters & can make it more convenient & easier for pet owners to manage their pets. For male dogs it can help in preventing humping, marking, escaping & wandering & hunting down bitches on heat & for female dogs it makes it cleaner & less likely to attract males to the property as well as obviously not being able to get pregnant.

Although many people on here say they manage entire pets fine this is not the larger population who are mostly not so capable or understanding of dog habits & behaviour.

The amount of healthy dogs & cats in the pounds that are euthanised is a disgrace in a so called pet loving country & makes me feel sick. Desexing may help reduce this although it will never save them all.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Christina

[Steve]

the idiots who dont give a toss about laws or regs or dogs do what they always do - whatever the hell they want.

Make it harder for small people to breed a dog and easier for bigger commercial breeders to keep down any competition.

Do they forget that breeding dogs including cross bred dogs is still a legal activity.

The above concerns me the most however I do wonder how any of the proposed laws can make some people caring, responsible owners who look after their dogs properly, we can't even make some people look after their children properly.

Re the complulsary desexing although not popular with everyone I can see the point in introducing it for pet dogs, although the age its done at should be extended for larger breeds.

It does stop unwanted pregnancy & litters & can make it more convenient & easier for pet owners to manage their pets. For male dogs it can help in preventing humping, marking, escaping & wandering & hunting down bitches on heat & for female dogs it makes it cleaner & less likely to attract males to the property as well as obviously not being able to get pregnant.

Although many people on here say they manage entire pets fine this is not the larger population who are mostly not so capable or understanding of dog habits & behaviour.

The amount of healthy dogs & cats in the pounds that are euthanised is a disgrace in a so called pet loving country & makes me feel sick. Desexing may help reduce this although it will never save them all.

Yes Christina but it removes the choice .If I am responsible and dont want to do this to my dog because I believe its what is best for my dog why should I or my dog have to do as we are told in case someone somewhere lets their dog have puppies when they shouldnt?

It takes away our rights to manage our dogs as we feel is best for them - just because we think only purebred dogs should be bred doesnt mean we can remove every body's rights or ensure we only get to have rights if we want to join a state CC!

[Willem]

...maybe a little bit off topic, but:

I read through some vet information about all the advantages of de-sexing. On websites where vets or government organizations promote de-sexing, they often highlight the medical / health benefits, e.g. that it will reduce or even eliminate the risk of some cancers in female dogs. While from a medical point of view this is true for removed organs (there might be other side effects), I still have the feeling that it is more about 'convenience' and less about the dog's health. For me it is hard to understand why such a major surgery (at least for female dogs) is so heavily promoted and should become even mandatory in some states while on the other side tail docking is illegal in Australia (not that I want to cut my dog's tail off :)).

Edited October 14, 2015 by Willem

[Steve]

...maybe a little bit off topic, but:

I read through some vet information about all the advantages of de-sexing. On websites where vets or government organizations promote de-sexing, they often highlight the medical / health benefits, e.g. that it will reduce or even eliminate the risk of some cancers in female dogs. While from a medical point of view this is true for removed organs (there might be other side effects), I still have the feeling that it is more about 'convenience' and less about the dog's health. For me it is hard to understand why such a major surgery (at least for female dogs) is so heavily promoted and should become even mandatory in some states while on the other side tail docking is illegal in Australia (not that I want to cut my dog's tail off :)).

Yes male dogs dont get testicular cancer if they dont have testicles and females dont get ovarian cancer or uterine cancer if they take out their uterus but what about the huge higher incidence of HD in male dogs that have been neutered early, shorter life spans, bone cancers ,heart problems etc.

My argument is based on the fact that we are all happy to weep for a male child that has no testicles and we know how badly that will impact on his growth and health - if we take away a young girls estrogen we all know this creates other problems but because its easier management for dogs thats O.K. - but its not O.K. for my dogs.

If it were really all about preventing puppies why not a vasectomy and tubal tie off ?

[Willem]

...wrt vasectomy: some interesting reading here My link ...makes you thinking why one measure is favored over the other...

[denali]

I dont like this at all and will be very disappointed if the other states follow.

Though i m pretty safe to assume QLD wont because it doesn't like to follow anything (daylight savings etc.)

Desexing is illegal in Norway, and they do not have the issues we do.

I would much rather this than mandatory desexing!

I dont see why everyone has to suffer because of idiots who fail to manage (not letting them mate) or train (not letting them hump or mark) their dogs correctly.

Plus no one is going to care about the extra registration, those who flaunt the law now will continue to do so.. Their money is better spent elsewhere, but of course they would never admit that the laws they have dont work to begin with.

[Steve]

...wrt vasectomy: some interesting reading here My link ...makes you thinking why one measure is favored over the other...

Because its about the management rather than the prevention of offspring. For some owners having the lot cut out is best because the boys dont get horny as much, dont raom, and the girls dont make a mess - its about the owner and society not whats best for dogs.

By the way thats fair enough if someone wants to desex a girl so she doesnt make a mess every 6 months thats their choice but Ive other ways of managing that and I prefer not to have it done and I dont think dog owners should just shrug off losing their rights and I dont think government should be so quick to keep dwindling them away without any evidence that it will bring their stated goals.

[Steve]

I dont like this at all and will be very disappointed if the other states follow.

Though i m pretty safe to assume QLD wont because it doesn't like to follow anything (daylight savings etc.)

Desexing is illegal in Norway, and they do not have the issues we do.

I would much rather this than mandatory desexing!

I dont see why everyone has to suffer because of idiots who fail to manage (not letting them mate) or train (not letting them hump or mark) their dogs correctly.

Plus no one is going to care about the extra registration, those who flaunt the law now will continue to do so.. Their money is better spent elsewhere, but of course they would never admit that the laws they have dont work to begin with.

Yep we have some breeder members who live in Norway and we often chat about how in Norway it is considered cruel to desex and here its pushed because some loonies have decided it will solve all of our problems and dogs being dumped will just stop. What a joke.