In NSW, the Companion Animals Amendment (Rehoming Animals) Bill 2021 – passed by into law on 4th March 2022 – would have, and has had, far-reaching effects that may not have been foreseen when it was introduced and debated in parliament.
This amendment basically means that all animals in council pounds deemed suitable for rehoming must be offered to at least 2 rescue/rehoming organisations before the pound can consider euthanising them.
The first noticeable outcome that I have personally seen is a rise in the number of new rescue/rehoming organisations in the ‘industry’. While this may seem like a good thing on the surface, one needs to fully consider how those new groups are operating. Rehoming animals is not as simple as just taking them from a pound and finding the first person you can to adopt them. If it were that simple, pounds would be rehoming animals easily, and there would be no need for the new legislation.
Broadly speaking, the ‘rescue industry’ is not bound by any effective oversight. The Office of Local Government (OLG) has a list of approved rehoming organisations that has seen at least 17 new entries since this new legislation passed 8 months ago. There were also 8 groups who either no longer operate, or have chosen not to renew their approval applications. This ‘approval’ is basically the removal of the requirement for animals to be desexed or registered with council for up to 12 months while they are in the care of the rehoming organisation – but both of those things must still be done prior to, or at the time of, transfer of an animal to a new owner – with some annual records reported.
Of course there are MANY more rescue/rehoming groups operating than those reflected in the OLG list of 92 (at the time of this article). None of those unlisted are subject to ANY oversight or annual records as those on the list are. There is effectively NO record of where the animals go, how long they are in care, whether they have had the required vet checks or registrations completed, and in some cases even whether they were/are microchipped or desexed before rehoming to an interested party.
I decided to ring a few of the pounds in Sydney – those who actually had a phone number to call and didn’t just go to a voicemail telling people to email for an appointment. All that had an actual person answer told me that they have a mass mailing list of rescues that they send notification of animals to, and that those lists extend to many others beyond those approved rescues listed with the OLG. One pound staff member even went so far as to state that they would release animals to non-approved rescues that are ‘borrowing’ the approved organisations’ registration and desexing exemptions. The pounds are determined to move animals out as quickly as possible. To me, it very much looks like pounds (at least those that I spoke to) are loathe to keep animals on site, that probably would be better off having a quick and dignified end, in order to avoid any backlash for doing so – even though that may actually be the right thing to do for some animals.
I also called a few of my contacts in the rescue field – those I have known for years and trust are doing the very best for animals that come into their care. The overriding issue that they all complained about was that they are regularly being swamped with offers of animals with severe medical or behavioural issues. Issues that will be time-consuming and costly to rehabilitate the animal to a point where it may be safe to rehome. This is NOT what rescues are meant to be there to do – to take in all the animals that government departments can’t be bothered finding a workable solution for, and effectively outsourcing that problem to an industry that is not actually equipped to do any better.
Funnily enough, the three LARGEST rehoming organisations in NSW are exempt from having to consider taking in animals offered from pounds – and one of those organisations also seems to have stepped back from their pound operations in regional/rural areas since the legislation was passed. One can only draw their own conclusions as to why that may be, as nothing explaining the move has been forthcoming from the organisation.
We also have the compounding issue of the sheer numbers of pets being surrendered for various reasons – most notably reported being the rental crisis issue. Rescues and shelters are FULL to overflowing even before they are then asked to take on more animals from the pounds, and the pressure can be overwhelming when you know what will be the fate of those animals if you can’t find room for them. Less experienced rescues/rescuers may not yet fully understand how much work can be needed, how long an animal will need to be in care, or how to effectively match an animal with a prospective new home. They continue to take on more than they can adequately cope with, and corners may get cut, resulting in poorer outcomes for those animals they had all the best intentions of ‘saving’.
In summary, while the legislation was introduced with noble intentions, the outcome is proving to be fraught with issues that will need addressing sooner rather than later. Simply throwing money at rescues without having an oversight framework as to how those rescues operate is NOT the answer. There needs to be a concerted educational push so that the general public understand that pets are not disposable items, rental tenancy laws need to be adjusted to automatically allow pets (this is under review now), and the rescue industry needs to have some form of oversight into how the various players operate so as to maximise the welfare outcomes for all animals caught up in this mess.
By: Tracey Dierikx — Animal Care Australia Exhibited Animals Representative. Originally published: December 2022 ACE Newsletter.
