Dogs and Politics . . .

Queensland, AU : Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008

2009-06-14T20:19:00.000+10:00

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008

Reprinted as in force on 11 December 2008

Reprint No. 0A

Short title:
This Act may be cited as the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008.

2 Commencement

(1) The provisions of this Act, other than the following,commence on 1 July 2009-
. the provisions mentioned in subsection (2)
. section 227.
(2) The following provisions commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation-

Identification devices under Act

(1) A permanent identification device or PID means a microchip or other electronic device-
(a) capable of being permanently implanted in a cat or dog;
and
(b) designed to record information in a way that can be electronically retrieved.

(2) A prescribed permanent identification device or PPID means a PID that complies with the requirements prescribed under a regulation.

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, Chapter 2 Identification of cats and dogs, Part 1 Prescribed permanent identification devices. Reprint 0A effective 11 December 2008 Page 17.

(3) A registration device means a device to assist in identifying a cat or dog decided by resolution of a relevant local government for the cat or dog. Example of a registration device - a tag for the collar of a cat or dog

Chapter 2 Identification of cats and dogs Part 1 Prescribed permanent identification devices

Division 1 Obligation on supplier or owner of cat or dog

13 Supplier must ensure cat or dog is implanted

(1) A person must not, unless the person has a reasonable excuse, supply a cat or dog to anyone else if it is not implanted with a PID.

Note - A cat or dog that is less than 8 weeks old must not be implanted with a
PID. See section 24 (Age restriction for implanting PPID).
Maximum penalty-20 penalty units.

(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) for the defendant to prove - (a) there is a signed veterinary surgeon's certificate for the cat or dog stating that implanting it with a PPID is likely to be a serious risk to the health of the cat or dog;

or

[s 14]

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, Chapter 2 Identification of cats and dogs, Part 1 Prescribed permanent identification devices, Page 18 Reprint 0A effective 11 December 2008

(b) for a dog, the supply is to use it as-
(i) a government entity dog; or
(ii) a working dog; or
(iii) another class of dog prescribed under a regulation.

(3) In subsection (1) - cat or dog does not include a cat or dog held under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001.

14 Owner must ensure cat or dog is implanted

(1) A person who is or becomes an owner of a cat or dog that is not implanted with a PPID must ensure the cat or dog is implanted with a PPID before it is 12 weeks old unless the person has a reasonable excuse.

Note - A cat or dog that is more than 12 weeks old on the commencement of this section need not be implanted with a PPID unless it is supplied. See section 13 (Supplier must ensure cat or dog is implanted).
Maximum penalty-20 penalty units.

(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) for the defendant to prove-
(a) there is a signed veterinary surgeon's certificate for the cat or dog stating that implanting it with a PPID is likely to be a serious risk to the health of the cat or dog;
(b) for a dog, the ownership is to use it as-
(i) a government entity dog; or
(ii) a working dog; or
(iii) another class of dog prescribed under a regulation.

15 Notice of changed identifying information

(1) This section applies if identifying information for a cat or dog changes (the changed information).

[s 16]

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, Chapter 2 Identification of cats and dogs, Part 1 Prescribed permanent identification devices, Reprint 0A effective 11 December 2008 Page 19

(2) The owner of the cat or dog must, within 7 days, give notice of the change to the chief executive officer of the relevant local government unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
Maximum penalty-5 penalty units.

(3) The chief executive officer must, within 7 days after receiving the notice, ensure the information is updated in the appropriate register in a way that reflects the change.

16 Notice of changed PID information

(1) This section applies if PID information for a cat or dog changes (the changed information).

(2) The owner of the cat or dog must, within 7 days, give notice of the changed information to a licence holder unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
Maximum penalty-5 penalty units.
Note - The licence holder must electronically update the information within 7
days after receiving it. See section 36(2) (Licence holder's obligations). Division 2 Supplying PIDs

17 PID that is not PPID must not be supplied

A person must not supply a PID that is not a PPID. Maximum penalty-60 penalty units.

18 Seller must not supply PPID other than to authorised implanter

A seller must not supply a PPID to a person other than an authorised implanter.
Maximum penalty-20 penalty units.

[s 19]

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, Chapter 2 Identification of cats and dogs, Part 1 Prescribed permanent identification devices, Page 20 Reprint 0A effective 11 December 2008

19 Seller must give PID number to authorised implanter

A seller who supplies a PPID to an authorised implanter must, within 7 days after supplying it, give the implanter a notice stating the PID number for the PPID.
Maximum penalty-20 penalty units.

20 Seller must give PID number to licence holder

A seller who supplies a PPID to an authorised implanter must, within 7 days after supplying it, give to all licence holders a notice stating-

(a) the name and address of the implanter; and
(b) the PID number for the PPID.
Maximum penalty-20 penalty units.

Division 3 Implanting PIDs, Subdivision 1 General restriction

21 Only authorised implanter may implant PPID

A person, other than an authorised implanter, must not implant a PPID in a cat or dog.
Maximum penalty-100 penalty units.

Subdivision 2 Requirements for authorised implanters

22 PID that is not PPID must not be implanted

An authorised implanter must not implant a PID that is not a PPID
Maximum penalty-60 penalty units.

[s 23]

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, Chapter 2 Identification of cats and dogs, Part 1 Prescribed permanent identification devices, Reprint 0A effective 11 December 2008
PPID.

23 Requirements for PPID

Before an authorised implanter implants a PPID in a cat or dog, the authorised implanter must ensure the PPID-
(a) stores the PID number for the PID; and
(b) complies with the requirements prescribed under a regulation.
Maximum penalty-40 penalty units.

24 Minimum age for cat or dog to be implanted

(1) An authorised implanter must not implant a PPID in a cat or dog that is less than 8 weeks old unless the implanter has a reasonable excuse.
Maximum penalty-60 penalty units.

(2) It is a reasonable excuse if the cat or dog's owner advised the implanter that it was 8 weeks or older.

25 PID information must be given to licence holder

(1) This section applies to an authorised implanter who implants a PPID in a cat or dog.
(2) The authorised implanter must, within 7 days, give notice to a licence holder providing a PID registry service relating to the cat or dog stating -
(a) that it has been implanted with a PPID; and
(b) the PID information for the cat or dog.
Maximum penalty-20 penalty units.

Animal Liberation New South Wales

2009-03-16T10:22:00.002+11:00

"Keep your friends close, keep your enermies closer."
- Sun-Tzu
Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)

This could not be more true in the pure bred dog community now when it is under contant attack and with a passion not seen before. The animal rights groups use 'our' language to sell a false truth in order to get an end result.

We can fight back without even trying too hard.

We can send a silent message to those who support such groups in simply not supporting them through not purchasing their products or using their services.

We live in a world which offers countless options; choose someone else!

Here is a list of active supports of Animal Liberation New South Wales for you to actively boycott:

Dog Attacks On The Rise

2008-05-18T11:44:00.005+10:00

The Courier Mail reported the RSPCA has concerns about increase in dog attacks, on 28th April 2008 however I am not sure that too many people are fully aware of the Animals Local Law definition and what statistics are included.

[quote]

According to the Animals Local Law, attacks do not just refer to incidents involving bites, but when a dog rushes at a person or animal, causing fear.

Web screen capture of this story in the Courier Mail is located here.

[/quote]

This is a HUGE problem in the wording of this law because some people are just fearful of dogs, they have a phobia about dogs. Clearly these people should not be included in such stats and the law MUST be changed.

RSPCA Can't Make Up Its Mind

2008-05-18T10:35:00.003+10:00

It is not news for those who keep up with the hypocrisies of the RSPCA but this has got to take first prize.

Readers of THE LAND will know of a story which ran 12th May 2008 headed -

RSPCA ENTERS THE CLASSROOM TO SLAM PIG FARMERS

[quote]

The RSPCA has taken its activism into primary school class rooms in Brisbane, where students donned pink shirts in the lead up to Mothers' Day to tell the community that "pigs are mums too" and shouldn't be kept in sow stalls.

Read the full story here.

If this page does not show up for you, then take a look at the screen capture of this page located here.

[/quote]

Now for the hypocrisy part . . .

Anyone see A BLIND EYE on ABC Four Corners Television 21st June 2004? (Web screen capture is located here.)

Reading the transcript of this program clearly shows the RSPCA for what it is; an over funded, hypocritical organisation that has totally forgotten its very own charter and clearly has no idea of what it should be doing. Web screen capture of the transcript is located here.)

On one hand RSPCA slams pig farmers, on the other hand it turn a blind eye to the whole thing!

Is the RSPCA for welfare of animals or is the RSPCA an activist organisation?

The answer to both is ever so blatantly clear. The RSPCA IS and HAS been an activist organisation for many years now however the RSPCA plays the fence game in order to get funding from unsuspecting public not to use for the welfare of animals but to use for lobbying governments to further its animal rights causes.

I would encourage everyone to visit the ABC Four Corners Forum, (web screen capture located here) click on the A BLIND EYE link on the left hand side (web screen capture of this topic is located here) and add your comment about this hypocritical organisation which continues to mislead everyone from our law makers to the generous public that continue to open their pockets and hand over cash which the RSPCA misuse!

There are a number of other worth while threads on the left menu that may interest you also.

If you have any tip offs for the ABC Four Corners program about the RSPCA hypocrisy and double standards, go here or here and let Four Corners know about it.

PETA Setting Up In Australia

2008-05-07T19:32:00.003+10:00

PETA has had a presence in Australia for many years and it is just a matter of time before PETA makes the official announcement and adds PETA Australia web site to its list of countries.

petaaustralia.org is one of two domains registered by Dan Constantineau.

The details are as follows:

Domain ID:D15408700-LROR
Domain Name:PETAAUSTRALIA.ORG
Created On:16-Dec-1999 17:04:16 UTC
Last Updated On:21-Nov-2007 13:47:54 UTC
Expiration Date:16-Dec-2008 17:04:16 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-03221203
Registrant Name:Dan Constantineau
Registrant Organization:PETA Foundation
Registrant Street1:501 Front St
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Norfolk
Registrant State/Province:Virginia
Registrant Postal Code:23510
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.7576227382
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:
Admin ID:GODA-23221203
Admin Name:Dan Constantineau
Admin Organization:PETA Foundation
Admin Street1:501 Front St
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Norfolk
Admin State/Province:Virginia
Admin Postal Code:23510
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.7576227382
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:
Tech ID:GODA-13221203
Tech Name:Dan Constantineau
Tech Organization:PETA Foundation
Tech Street1:501 Front St
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Norfolk
Tech State/Province:Virginia
Tech Postal Code:23510
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.7576227382
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:
Name Server:NS-A.PNAP.NET
Name Server:NS-B.PNAP.NET
Name Server:NS2.HEDGEHOGHOSTING.NET
Name Server:NS1.HEDGEHOGHOSTING.NET
Name Server:NS-C.PNAP.NET
Name Server:NS-D.PNAP.NET
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Registrant:
PETA Foundation

501 Front St
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: PETAAUSTRALIA.COM
Created on: 02-Jun-03
Expires on: 16-Dec-08
Last Updated on: 21-Nov-07

Administrative Contact:
Constantineau, Dan dan_c@fsap.org
PETA Foundation
501 Front St
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
United States
(757) 622-7382

Technical Contact:
Constantineau, Dan dan_c@fsap.org
PETA Foundation
501 Front St
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
United States
(757) 622-7382

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.HEDGEHOGHOSTING.NET
NS2.HEDGEHOGHOSTING.NET
NS-A.PNAP.NET
NS-B.PNAP.NET
NS-C.PNAP.NET
NS-D.PNAP.NET

Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited

Presently both domains redirect to the main PETA site.

PETA In Australia

2008-05-04T13:35:00.009+10:00

I wonder how many Australians know who or what PETA is?

Or the sheer dogged determination PETA has to reach its well publicised goal of total animal liberation.

Watching the goings on of PETA in America for a few years, I am not at all surprised all PETA eyes are on Australia. PETA has its eyes and has had them there for some years, on the Australian Farmers and in particular the wool producers and mulesing.

Graphic, misleading tactics is at the very base of PETAs success. Using the overstated approach like this image, gets the kind of result PETA aims for. This graphic image on the right is one example of overstating the facts. To put this image in context, an image of a 'fly stricken' sheep needs to be next to it but you will NEVER see why certain things are done in any PETA campaign. But more about fly strike at the end.

Here is a Billboard rejected by Australia and rightly so!

So much so is PETA determined to stop mulesing on Australia sheep that is has been successful boycott campaign's around the world. The boycott began in America with the first major retailer, Abercrombie & Fitch, refusing to stock wool products that came from Australian sheep which had the mulesing procedure performed to prevent 'fly strike'. Soon after the success in America with Abercromie & Fitch PETA moved to other countries.

Benetton has resisted the pressures from PETA but sadly this can not be said of all retailers. The latest PETA victim is Hugo Boss. Hugo Boss put out a press statement saying

"HUGO BOSS disassociates itself from mulesing because it contravenes our corporate values … [and] has decided to phase out the use of wool from farms that perform mulesing—including clip mulesing. Should mulesing not have ended completely by 2010, HUGO BOSS will refuse to purchase wool material from farms that perform mulesing."

I guess Hugo Boss will continue to purchase Australian Wool until 2010, perhaps this was a clever Hugo Boss response to get PETA off of its back either way a 'cave in' is evident on the part Hugo Boss.

It is important, in a world full of choice in a world that truly is our 'oyster' we make a commitment to boycott Hugo Boss!

THE REALITY OF FLY STRIKE

Warning: The following images are very graphic and NOT manipulated but are included for educational purposes to understand why mulesing is the only way to ensure sheep do not suffer the agonising slow death while being eaten by maggots from the inside out.

This images shows fly strike flys laying maggots inside a sheep. These maggots will work their way further inside and eat the sheep to death from the inside out. An unspeakably agonising death which can be prevented by mulesing.

This images shows the maggots which were deposited by the flies, into the wool, working their way to the flesh of the sheep to begin eating their way into the sheep.

This image shows a lamb with fly strike that can no longer walk and is near death. Mulesing could have saved this poor lamb from this horrendous painful death.

This image shows the maggots eating away the flesh of a sheep. Once again mulesing would have prevented this from happening.

This images clearly shows the screw worms (maggots) left behind by flies, eating away animal flesh. I can not even imagine the pain and suffering this animal is going through.

It really begs the question why PETA wants to see animals suffer by stopping a procedure that can stop the suffering?

Knox City Council Tougher Dog Laws

2008-04-21T18:40:00.003+10:00

Those dog owner in the Knox City Council area need to write to respond to Knox Leader call for emails asking if dog laws should get tougher.

Read on for details.

On April 15th, 2008 Knox Leader reported -

"RSPCA state president Hugh Wirth said amendments to pet laws in December made it much easier for councils to investigate and press charges following dog attacks in public areas.

"There are no roadblocks now to prosecuting public dog attacks. We expect local councils to do what is needed," Dr Wirth said.

"If the Knox community, or any other community for that matter, feels their municipality is not doing their job, they need to go to the state ombudsman," he added.

But Dr Wirth said the amendments did nothing for incidents in private homes that account for about 80 per cent of dog attacks.

He said the attack epidemic was an issue that refused to go away."

The question Knox Leader posed to its readers -

"Do you think the laws should get tighter still? Email us at knox@leader newspapers.com.au."

The Art of Killing a Cat

2008-04-20T17:22:00.003+10:00

Ref:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,15974144-2902,00.html

If the URL above does not work for you, please visit Dogs and Politics Google Groups here for a .pdf Web Page Capture of the Herald-Sun news piece.

Although this is 'old' news now, going back to 2005, it is important to note what contribution Dr. Hugh Wirth (President of the RSPCA made on the subject of this unacceptable piece of art.

NIL!

ZIPPO!

NONE!

NOTHING!

A few words which come from his Little Book of Standard Responses, is all the artist, the Melbourne International Film Festival and the organises get for giving this hideous film the green light to screen as scheduled.

The total lack of back bone on the RSPCA behave is unequivocally unacceptable in the case of this film yet the RSPCA has time, money and resources to 'chase' such ridiculous issues as early age de-sexing, breed specific legislation, tail docking and other inflated and very much imaginary problems that only in the minds of Dr. Hugh Wirth and the whole Animal Rights movement.

The piece doesn't say a great deal for the Melbourne City Council either nor for the former Premier Steve Bracks (but thank the good Lord above, he is now gone from office).

More concerning is the fact that clearly one of two things stopped the RSPCA from taking a much stronger stand and ultimately shutting down this particular film;

The legislation did not give the RSPCA the power it needed to stop the screening of the film
The film in question was in the TOO HARD BASKET

In either case the RSPCA should NOT be getting its way with the Government when it comes to drafting new legislation or updating existing legislation. Clearly the RSPCA does NOT show it has the ability to address "TRUE" cruelty issues but rather 'invents' problems on those things it knows can win.

All too sad for the animals, when the very organisation set up to protect them has lost its way in the heat of the political moment to have totally forgotten its own Charter.

City of Casey

2008-04-16T20:16:00.005+10:00

City of Casey Contact Details

Telephone: 03 9705 5200
Facsimile: 03 9704 9544

TTY: 9705 5568
TIS: 131 450 (Translating and Interpreting Services)

P.O. Box 1000
Narre Warren
Victoria 3805

Email: caseycc@casey.vic.gov.au
Web Site: http://www.casey.vic.gov.au

Customer Service Centres

Cranbourne - Centro Shopping Centre

Narre Warren - Magid Drive

Narre Warren South - Amberly Park Shopping Centre

Big Brother IS Watching

2008-04-15T19:33:00.007+10:00

The whole micro chip idea sounds so warm and fuzzy, absolutely the only solution if your dog should go missing but have you considered the down side to these invasive little pieces of technology?

The above are but two examples and one of many strong enough arguments NOT to microchip your dog. Unfortunately the law makers do not listen to the evidence but rather give in to the political pressure from vested interest groups such as the RSPCA, all too quickly.
Effective 1st May 2008 no council in Victoria will register your dog unless it is micro chipped under the requirements of legislation. This means all dogs 3 months or older seeking to be registered for the first time MUST be micro chipped.
The second and equally as strong an argument is the fact the BIG BROTHER knows where you are at all times. You move, you notify to update your contact details for your dog/s and BINGO, 'they' know where you are.
Keeping dogs safe has always been a matter of education.
Micro chipping only works for the animals that are micro chipped not for those that are not and so the big question remains HOW DOES MANDATORY MICRO CHIPPING ADDRESS THE SO CALLED PROBLEM OF HOMELESS DOGS?
Perhaps a bigger question is WHY IS MICRO CHIPPING WRITTEN INTO LEGISLATION?
Big Brother IS watching!