the government of Victoria has let dogs down

After all the promises and sweet talk, especially at the time of the rallies in protest at abominable puppy factory conditions, the government of our state has let us all down.

The suggested code for the running of breeding establishments is unsatisfactory.

 Here are a few of the problematic parts of the code, quoted from a RSPCA discussion:

• ‘Any method’ of euthanasia as long as it is humane.  Humane is not defined and ‘any method’ could include shooting or blunt trauma, causing incredible suffering.

• Breeding and rearing establishments are not required to have agreements with, and 24-hour access to, veterinary services.

• Breeders will be able to declare an animal fit for sale – not vets.

• Raised pens with wire floors are permitted for the housing of working dogs - wire is an unacceptable floor surface.

And in more detail, here:

Business hours and animal: staff ratios

• Under the revisions, staffed ‘business hours’ for breeding and rearing establishments have reduced from 12 to eight hours a day. This means that animals – often in vulnerable stages of pregnancy or birth - are left for 16 hours overnight (when they are most likely to give birth) with minimal staff present. During business hours, the ratio of staff to animals is 1:25, but outside of these hours, the ratio of carers to animals is proposed as 1:100 (formerly 1:50).
• The revised code also deems a mother with her litter, and litters under four months as equivalent to one animal over four months old. That could mean a breeder could have 80 mothers with litters under four months, another 10 breeding mothers without litters and 10 adult males and provide only one staff member for almost 500 animals, during non-business hours.

Veterinary care

• The requirement for vet checks at various stages of an animal’s life has reduced and vet checks to ensure animals are fit for breeding are no longer required before animals are bred from.
• Under the proposed revisions, breeders will be able to declare an animal fit for sale – rather than vets. Not only may breeders lack the appropriate qualifications to do this, but it may also mean that the animal and purchaser are not protected from post-sale welfare or return issues.
• Under the recommendations, a purchaser will not be able to return an animal for behavioural reasons more than three days after purchase – unscrupulous breeders and rearers will have little incentive to ensure their animals are behaviourally sound, before selling them.

Euthanasia

• The recommendations allow for ‘any method’ of euthanasia as long as it is humane. Humane is not defined and ‘any method’ could, in theory, include shooting or blunt trauma, causing incredible suffering.
• Euthanasia via barbiturate overdose carried out by a vet is only ‘preferred’, not required.
• The proposed legislation does not adequately ensure that breeding and rearing establishments have sufficient agreements with, and 24-hour access to, veterinary services, to be able to provide animals with prompt veterinary care, if required.

Breeding

• Breeding between second-generation related animals would be acceptable.
• There would be no maximum breeding age or period that an animal could be bred from, meaning these animals can potentially spend their entire lifetime confined to breeding establishments.
• Maximums litters numbers for females would be increased while males would have no maximum number.
• An individual animal with a heritable defect can continue to be bred from.

Husbandry standards

• Under the recommendations, some categories of puppies must not be left without food for more than 12 hours. But compliance with this recommendation will be extremely difficult during the 16 overnight hours, with staff ratios at 1:100, given all their other responsibilities as well.
• The feeding of raw offal is now permitted in conjunction with a complete worming program. While this recommendation might be more financially appealing to many breeders, it does not take into account the welfare issues associated with this diet.
• Standards and guidelines for retirement of animals have been weakened.
• Tethering is permitted (except for some categories of breeding females). RSPCA Victoria does not support tethering and advises against it.
• Provision for temperature regulation has been removed.
• Cats need only be fed once daily. We recommend that cats should be fed twice daily.

Working and guardian dogs (‘working dogs’)

• Working dog breeders have their own section and are exempt from many of the minimum standards and guidelines for non-working dogs in the current version.
• Raised pens with wire floors are permitted for the housing of working dogs. Wire is an unacceptable floor surface and there are poor welfare outcomes associated with it. The required dimensions of these pens are also too small.
• If working dogs are regarded as different to other animals under this code, the government needs to ensure that working dog codes of practice are developed which have these animals’ welfare as the key priority.

Please, if you are reading this in Australia, submit a written response to animal.welfare@depi.vic.gov.au 

You can read the draft legislation here:
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets/domestic-animal-businesses/breeding-and-rearing-businesses/breeding-and-rearing-code-review

We want Oscar's Law to be implemented fully

I'm feeling wrung out, because I've just watched all the video clips on the Oscar's Law site. It's a site devoted to the fight to abolish the cruel trade of puppy farming.

Today I attended the Oscar's Law rally on the steps of the Victorian Parliament.

After listening to the speakers, I gathered that there has been a law passed in Victoria, but there have not been any prosecutions. (I'm not entirely sure I've got that right, but I did understand from all speakers that the government has not followed up on their promises with either money or resources.)

When I forced myself to watch the videos, I was disappointed to realise that we haven't ended the conditions in which dogs are starving to death, dying of preventable cancers, going insane, suffering endlessly.

I thought the suggestion in the following clip sounded helpful  - that puppies should have to come with certification that says the breeding facility has been inspected by the RSPCA and is suitable and humane.

WARNING: the video segment is very sad and disturbing.



Here are a few photos from the rally:

the story of Oscar

With all the publicity lately about the push to bring in a law to protect dogs from cruel treatment in puppy farms - Oscar's Law - I looked around to find why the law is named after Oscar.

Warning - I cried when I read it. But Oscar WAS rescued.

In the report on Oscar, Debra Tranter, his saviour, says that she now realises that many of us can't cope with confronting images of suffering dogs and that we need to have hope that change can happen:

Tranter had been running Prisoners for Profit, an anti-puppy factory campaign that “bombarded people with horrific images”, which she now believes were too confronting.

“With Oscar’s Law, I feel I need to reach ordinary people with dogs, not necessarily dog people. I want it to be positive and empowering,” she says.

“Oscar’s Law aims to abolish puppy factory-farming and the selling of dogs in pet shops, but it’s not about showing negative images all the time and making it seem hopeless,” she explains. Tranter believes success will come from enabling consumers to make informed choices, so people know that if they buy from a pet shop, their money will keep dogs in those sheds.

I don't know Penny's breeder and can only hope we have not supported a puppy farmer. But as far as we know, she came from a suburban home in Melbourne, from a breeder known to our vet. (We bought her from the vet.)

dogs as commodities

I was speaking yesterday to another dog owner about the horrors of puppy farming. He seemed a little defensive, replying that his dog was a wonderful companion, with a great temperament, even though the dog had come from a pet shop. (For brevity's sake let's call his dog Ben.)

A surprising reaction at first, but on second thoughts I understood where he was coming from. The anti-dog-farming movement needs to get the message out that it's not only the puppies we are concerned about. I said to him, 'Yes, but Ben's mother is possibly suffering agonies as we speak. Ben is sitting here on his comfortable armchair while his mother perhaps lies cold and lonely in a concrete pen, thrown enough food each day to keep her alive, possibly ill but well enough to live until her next litter is delivered.'

I hope I made a difference to his thinking. I didn't realise until I went to the rally last Sunday that there is an issue with legal puppy farms, because of the lack of regulation to protect the 'livestock'. I had thought it was only the illegal puppy farms that were problematic.

In view of the problems here in Victoria, I thought it was timely to get an email from the new vet who is blogging at Fully Vetted (taking over from Dr Patty Khuly). She wrote about the fact that Pet Sellers in Michigan in the US may have to guarantee the health of animals they sell. In her discussion she quoted an article from dvm360

Pet owners in Michigan may soon have the opportunity to “return” sick or diseased animals to their place of purchase if proposed legislation passes.

Senate Bill 547, introduced Aug. 24 and immediately referred to the committee on regulatory reform, would apply only to dogs and cats sold from pet shops, breeders or other places where pets are sold for profit.

According to legislation, pet owners may return an animal for full price, exchange the animal for one of equal value, or be reimbursed for any veterinary expenses as long as they don’t exceed the original purchase price of the animal. If the animal dies, the owner is entitled to a replacement plus reimbursement of veterinary fees, as long as they don’t exceed the original purchase price, or a full refund, according to legislation.

If passed, the law would apply when a veterinarian states in writing that the animal displayed symptoms of a contagious or infectious disease 30 days from purchase and that the disease or illness existed at the time of sale or when a veterinarian states in writing that the dog or cat has died or is sick from a hereditary or congenital defect.

I have mixed feelings about this legislation. Dogs aren't commodities. But perhaps this kind of legislation might bring puppy farmers out from the shadows into the light.

On the news the other night a puppy farmer was interviewed and her attitude to the dogs in her 'care' was horrifying. She does appear for a moment in this Sunrise News clip. (I can't see any way to avoid the advertisement before the clip - sorry.)