No to Caps on Pet Numbers - Yes to More Shelters sign now

Petition as to Matters Which Need to be Addressed & Included

In Bundaberg Regional Council (Australia)s

New Local Animal Control Laws


1) DO NOT HIDE BEHIND EXCUSES SUCH AS "THE WIDE BAY BURNETT REGIONAL PLAN DOESN'T PERMIT/SEEM TO PERMIT THIS, SO WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE WHOLE ISSUE." EVERY BYLAW, PLAN AND EVEN STATE STATUE IS WRITTEN BY HUMANS AND ENACTED BY HUMANS. HUMANS MADE THESE PLANS, BYLAWS, ETC., SO HUMANS CAN CHANGE THEM. THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO 'HIDE BEHIND THE REGIONAL PLAN' ETC.

Too often, prejudice and/or assumpions are 'justified' by statements (whether said/written or simply belived and not stated) to the effect that "Yes you have a good petition by I'm bound by the Regional Plan (etc.) which says it can't be done." It's not the Regional Plan at all which says this. It is the bias of the person interpreting the Plan. It is incredible how someone who doesn't wish to authorise something manages to "find" that the Regional Plan/etc. doesn;t quite authorise that very thing.

But is that the proper interpretation of the Regional Plan (etc)?

The Regional Plan (etc.) is nothing without humans to interpret it. Some Plans (etc.) are ambigious or vague. Even clear Plans (etc.) can be interpreted more expansively than narrow prejudice would "appear to allow".

There must be no hiding behind statements (etc) such ass "Yes a good suggestion but the Regional Plan (etc.) doesn't permit us to make such a determination / to allow that degree of flexibility / to promote a humane pluralist society by taking that course of action."


2) SET THE MANDATORY CAT&DOG REGISTRATION AGES TO COINCIDE WITH THE AGE AT WHICH AN AVERAGE VET CAN DESEX THESE ANIMALS.

One of the purposes of the Animal Management (Cat & Dog) Act 2008 Qld is to encourage the voluntary desexing/neutering of animals. Registration fees for desexed animals will be/are lower than for unneutered animals. However in Bundaberg, there is currently this anomaly. The mandatory registration age for dogs&cats is (in cats at least) two months younger than the age at which an average vet will desex them. Owners are forced to pay the unneutered rate on first registering their young animal, even when they intend to desex it in a few months time. This is a disincentive to desex the animals in their first year. This anomaly needs to be addressed so that the age for mandatory registration is aligned with the age at which an average vet will desex that species of animal. This will promote the purposes of the Animal Management (Cat & Dog) Act 2008 Qld.


3) RECOGNISE THAT MICROCHIPPING HAS SUPERSEDED LOCAL COUNCIL ANIMAL REGISTRATION & HENCE REDUCE LOCAL COUNCIL ANIMAL REGISTRATION FEES TO ADMIN COST RECOVERY ONLY.

In the past, the local council registration of animals was central to the control of these animals. Eg: Registration of local dogs gave them a tag which enabled them to be reunited with owners when lost. Microchipping has ended this era. Microchipped animals have their details recorded in databases; these databases superseding the old council animal registers. Local pound fees/charges cover the costs of holding lost/wandering/confiscated animals until claimed or otherwise resolved. Fines are also usually payable. What continued role does registration play? It is not cost recovery for roaming (etc) animal return, it is not the means to reunite lost pets with owners. It is simply a local tax, a revenue stream for councils. It has nothing to do with animal control. Nor does it have any bearing on the aims of the Animal Management (Cat & Dog) Act 2008 Qld.

Hence animal registration fees should be reduced to roughly admin cost recovery only levels. Councils can still charge more for an unnetuered animal (in line with the aims of the Animal Management (Cat & Dog) Act 2008 Qld) but the fee for a neutered animal should be minimal and nominal.


4) JUST AS THERE IS A CONCESSION FOR DESEXING ANIMALS, THERE SHOULD BE A SIMILAR CONCESSION FOR ADOPTING A STRAY ANIMAL.

This petition defines a stray animal in this way:

A homeless domestic animal typically living in a (semi) urban area or a farm environment rather than a wilderness area. Macquarie Dictionary defines stray as a domestic animal found wandering at large or without an owner.


In previous decades, stray animals were seen as nuisance to be enuthasised. Modern trends in animal welfare increasingly respect the strays right-to-life and so promote rehabilitation and adoption.


This petition defines an adopted animal as an:

Animal not purchased from a breeder; may still be purchased from a shelter or free to good home.


In view of modern trends in animal welfare, adoption of animals (particularly stray animals) should be encouraged by local councils and higher governments. For example, owners of adopted stray animals could be given an abatement or discount of registration fees on these animals.


5) LET PET OWNERS SET THEIR OWN LIMITS; THEY ARE STILL GOVERNED BY RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO ANIMAL WELFARE.

Progressive local government areas, such as Los Angelos USA, have adopted the view that most pet owners know the limits of their time and resources. Thus it is better to leave caps on animal numbers to be set by individual pet owners, rather than pass this task legislatures and bureaucrats. It is important to remember that all pet owners are covered by relevant state and federal laws relating to animal welfare. Owners who have truly exceeded their limits will be dealt with under these laws by bodies (such as the RSPCA) authorized to police such laws.

There may be a role for local councils to limit/restrict the keeping of certain types of animals in limited circumstances. For instance, keeping of chronically noisy animals (such as roosters) may be prohibited for persons living on blocks of less than a given size. However such restrictions should be severely limited in number. They should focus not on the animal per se but instead on preventing negative neighbourhood impacts from noise, smell and any genuine danger from the animal.


6) CREATE LOCAL LAWS THAT RECOGNISE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SANCTUARIES, SHELTERS AND COMMERCIAL ANIMAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND WHICH RECOGNISE THE RIGHT OF SANCTUARIES & SHELTERS TO EXIST AND OPERATE.

This petition uses the following definitions of sanctuary, shelter and commercial animal establishment.


Sanctuary:

An animal refuge establishment providing resident animals with right to be cared for life.

A sanctuary can be formal (ie operated as a not-for-profit enterprise by a registered charitable organisation) or informal (eg a concerned citizen/household who desexes a number of local strays and subsequently adopts them).


Shelter:

A temporary refuge/home for animals, providing accommodation whilst attempting to adopt out or ethanaise/kill excess animals


Commercial animal establishment:

The keeping of animals for purposes chiefly concerned with generating revenue from the animals. The animals are not kept in their own right but for their output; eg a poultry farm (hens kept for production of eggs/meat/breeding stock), a cattery (cats kept for breeding and/or areas operated as for-profit cat boarding facilities), a professional animal training facility (eg racehorse stables). The establishment may operate at hobby business level or on more substantial scale.

Local councils, such as Bundaberg Regional Council, need local laws which distinguish between sanctuaries, shelters and commercial animal establishments. One regulatory regime will not cover all three. Would you regulate a foster parents home in the same way one regulates a commercial motel? No. Whilst the two appear superficially similar ie they both provide accommodation they have entirely different goals, entirely different consumers and entirely different means of support. This same distinction needs to be recognised between sanctuaries and shelters on one hand and commercial animal establishments on the other.

In particular, local laws need to recognise that whilst commercial animal establishments generate are businesses that are operated chiefly to generate revenue, sanctuaries and shelters are the opposite. They rely on donations and limited cost recovery such as when a shelter charges a fee to the adoptor of one of its animals. Sanctuaries and shelters can not pay the same fees and imposts (such as for licenses, approvals and so forth) as commercial animal establishments. Sanctuaries and shelters need their own schedule of fees and charges; in view of their severely limited financial resources, their fees (etc) should be minimized at admin cost recovery levels.

For example: In Queensland, the RSPCA is exempted from cat & dog registration requirements. Provided their animals are microchipped, sanctuaries and shelters generally should be exempted from cat & dog registration fees. Or perhaps councils could develop a blanket registration process whereby a sanctuary/shelter can register a number of animals for the same price as a single animal in ordinary domestic circumstances.

Likewise, sanctuaries and shelters cannot afford the same kennel/cattery conditions as would be offered by (eg) a commercial cattery or kennel. Conditions in shelters and sanctuaries must meet the requirements of state/federal legislation regarding animal welfare. But this is different to requiring shelters and sanctuaries to be as luxurious as a comparable establishment run for commercial purposes. Sanctuaries and shelters cannot afford to provide such conditions; but this does not mean they cannot provide sound healthy conditions for their animals. Councils must draft local laws in such a way that the two issues sound conditions vs commercial conditions are not confused or mistaken for each other.

Also: In view of modern trends in animal welfare, local councils should legislate for a prove why this shelter/sanctuary should not exist approach rather than the current justify why we should let a given shelter/sanctuary remain attitude. Liscencing fees for such establishments should be nominal and (preferably) one off. Requirements for licensing must focus on whether the operators can meet legislated state/federal animal welfare standards and whether any negative impacts on neighbours (eg smell or noise) can be mitigated such as to allow sober and sensible modes of living (the common law standard).


7) RECOGNISE THAT COMPANION ANIMALS PROVIDE A VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION TO A PROGRESSIVE VIBRANT HEALTHY CIVIL SOCIETY.

They are not a frivolity/indulgence that government "allows" people to have, on sufferance.

They are not merely a second-rate stand-in that lonley people have "until they can find a life partner".

The world need to show more compassion for companion animals, particularly those who are considered strays, and for their carers. Let's make Bundaberg a world leader in upholding the rights of shelters/sanctauries, particularly by encouraging local residents who foster/adopt strays.

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook
OR

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Shoutbox

Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook
OR

If you already have an account please sign in

Comment

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Goal
0 / 50

Latest Signatures

No one has signed this petition yet

Information

Margret DanielBy:
SportIn:
Petition target:
Bundaberg Regional Council

Tags

No tags

Share

Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title

Widgets