Need a current update on this

[asal]

https://dogsaustralia.org.au/media/9570/a-forensic-view-of-puppy-breeding-in-australiav4.pdf

 

Last I looked none of the legislation has had any effect on the real supply flooding pounds

[tdierikx]

Funny how none of the legislation enacted over the past 10 years has seen any decrease in the homeless pets problem... in reality, it's actually increased.

 

Pounds, shelters, and rescues are all full to overflowing... but now the excuse is cost of living or the housing crisis. Funny how neither of those issues are stopping people from acquiring pets, but as soon as those pets become "inconvenient" to own... well... you can see the outcome.

 

Essentially what we have is a retention problem, and no-one seems to want to either acknowledge that, or address it.

 

Legislation is all well and good, but only when it's actually followed/enforced. It has been the law to microchip dogs (and cats) since around 1998 in NSW, yet very few ending up in pounds seem to have a chip. There is no data that measures the efficacy of any legislation enacted, but if you look only at the microchipping issue, the trend isn't all that hard to see, right?

 

The cat stray problem became so onerous for council pounds in NSW that the law was actually changed a while back to allow them to roam, so less would find their way into pounds... how well has that worked? The "community cat" issue has exploded for one...

 

What we seem to be forgetting when we call for government to "do something" about the issues we face with homeless pets nowadays, is that the only tool they have readily at their disposal is enacting legislation... but legislation only works if it is enforced, and that aspect needs a serious overhaul. Currently enforcement is only a reactive process, where the enforcement agencies rely on reports of issues already occurring before they can/will act. What is needed here is proactive enforcement so that issues are headed off before they compound, but that would also mean that those enforcement agencies would need greater powers to literally door-knock to check pet ownership matters... and no-one wants their privacy breached in that manner - especially when certain enforcement agencies have a "take no prisoners" attitude to their work.

 

There is a difference between animal management and animal cruelty prevention. Different agencies are tasked with each, and those agencies need to be kept separate. Local government (councils) are tasked with animal management, and RSPCA/AWL are tasked with cruelty prevention (in NSW). I think that some tweaks to animal management processes might actually be what is needed here, so we end up with a lesser workload for those tasked with cruelty prevention. If councils were able to door-knock to check registration status of pets, then maybe the result would be greater take-up of same. The nay-sayers will argue that dumpings/surrenders may increase if this were to happen, so we are at an impasse... *sigh*

 

Whatever the case, we need to be looking to head problems off before they occur, as continuing the reactive-only status quo isn't working.

 

T.