In 2016 the Victorian Government introduced the heralded “puppy farm and pet shops bill” this was introduced as the legislation to end puppy farming. While no one would argue that they didn’t want to see an end to dogs and cats bred in appalling conditions, it was clear and to this day remains clear this legislation was not going to stop these operations.
It is now apparent the overall intention was to reduce breeding outright. It was to restrict the ability of people to buy well bred family raised puppies and kittens, intended or not, to stop breeders keeping their older animals into retirement fertile or not. In the words of the then Chief Veterinary Officer, “breeders should just euthanise the older animals to make room for younger ones “. His response when he was questioned on how breeders would reduce their numbers in order to be able to continue breeding to maintain genetic diversity by keeping younger dogs. This statement has certainly stuck with me since that meeting. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing and it became apparent that the legislation and motive was not about welfare or to improve welfare at all, was legislation to run the governments animals rights agenda.
The legislation went to a Parliamentary Inquiry which made 18 recommendations including:
- That the government withdraw the current bill and immediately establish a stakeholder group of industry, municipal and community representatives to consult on the drafting of a new bill – this was not undertaken.
- That the government exempt certain domestic animal hobby breeders from compliance with the proposed legislation – was not followed.
- That the government abandon the 10 fertile female limits proposed in the Domestic Animals (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Amendment bill 2016 – was not followed.
Then with a second version of the legislation being released it appeared the government was trying to meet some of the recommendations of the Inquiry including breeders registered with applicable organisations were granted the ability to keep up to 10 fertile females without needing ministerial approval. This sounded fair and reasonable and would enable breeders to maintain their breeding programs, especially those that may have multiple breeds. The Government introduced the Pet Exchange Register, but this still made breeders register even though the Inquiry recommendations stated this was over reaching. Again we realised it was to enable tracing of breeders, despite the fact the breeding associations governing the breeders were already doing this. Although there were no big win’s with this second version, breeders were happy with the concessions, but we still thought this would not go anywhere near improving welfare. People doing the wrong thing would continue to do so and it was only overregulating those already highly regulated registered breeders, and there are inconsistencies, for example, racing dogs being exempt in most cases which no one could explain.
This is where the devil in the detail enters. While breeders were celebrating the concessions given after the Inquiry the Victorian Government then went and did the unthinkable, they quietly decided to make changes to the planning laws that would reduce breeding and the peoples’ ability to own animals. The change would allow for the 10 fertile females to be abolished by Local Councils and the changes were made under the disguise of a consultation labelled “2018 planning reforms for animal industries” with the main heading in the consultation being “ Low-risk planning permit process for low-density, mobile, outdoor pig and poultry farms.” That shouldn’t affect dog, cat or other animal breeders – right? Why would anyone breeding companion animals feel changes contained in the consultation would affect them?
Well these amendments completely changed the ball game. It became necessary to obtain a change of land use on the following overlays if you own more than two animals and you want to breed: “Low density residential, Mixed use, Township, Residential growth, General residential, and Neighbourhood residential”. It is no longer, two fertile dogs or two fertile cats, plus other animals. It now states a maximum of 5 animals per property – not 5 cats and 5 dogs – 5 animals, total! For those people that had 5 dogs and let’s say 2 cats before the changes, the law then provided for numbers to be broken down into individual species. Now, people are being forced to get rid of some animals, with some Councils suggesting euthanising animals as suggested by the Victorian Chief Veterinary Officer all those years before.
What exactly does this mean? Let’s work through the problems with these examples:
You have 2 dogs so you can breed them with no need to change your land use. Some could argue, the people with the two dogs are the ones the initial “puppy farm” legislation was heralded to regulate as they continuously breed with those 2 dogs to produce puppies to sell with likely little to no health testing. They are more likely to then move the dogs on, (abandon, re-home, surrender, etc) when they are no longer useful and they will start again.
Meanwhile, if you have over 2, and remember they don’t have to be fertile to be included in the count, and you want to breed them, you have to apply for a planning permit to change your land use. Firstly this land use change comes with a large fee, and there have been several Councils that have refused the applications. When people have questioned the difference between an application for a planning permit and an excess dog permit, there has been relative silence, even no answers from Animal Welfare Victoria, the Planning Department or the Local Councils now happily instituting and profiting from the change. Let me explain the difference: in order to apply for an excess animal permit you are required to provide all your personal details along with evidence to support your case, including things such as, feeding regimes and methods, housing, general welfare records including all veterinary work, the Council contact neighbours for any objections (and we all know how that goes) and the difference with that to a planning permit – a larger amount of revenue! This also forces breeders to build kennels instead of having their dogs in their houses. Gone are the days of that 2016 Bill’s major slogan – “Puppies in the home.”
We need to act now to ensure our rights to keep animals, and for our breeders to continue breeding healthy well-adjusted puppies and kittens. We need to stop Animal Rights being the voice that our governments bend over to. Everything we do with animals should be welfare based not based on numbers, it is not a one fits all scenario.
The previous Victorian Planning ministers (yes plural) have been contacted on many occasions and refuse to meet with anyone, and this year Victorians will embark on yet another review of the Domestic Animals Act – which in my opinion holds some very scary prospects. Don’t fall into the traps of the attractive politicians that now seem to be the faces of the AR parties. The ones that would make you believe they are just there to protect animals. It’s not true. They are there as they want to see an end to animal ownership.
I am not sure I am ready for a life where animals don’t play a huge part. Are you? Because it is certainly a very possible outcome with the current climate in this country.
By: Kylie Gilbert – Animal Care Australia Dog Representative. Originally published: March 2023 ACE Newsletter.
