What are Australia's animal cruelty laws?

Question

How do they deal with people who hurt animals?

I am animal lover!

Answer 1

RSPCA Australia steps in on ANY cruelty to animals - and will prosecute accordingly http://www.rspca.org.au

Answer 2

They can face prison or fined or community service

Answer 3

DEFINITIONS OF OFFENCES

The legislation relating to offences varies quite widely in detail in each State and Territory, but the general principles are very similar. The more recently reviewed Acts have very simplified wording that tends to encompass all events and allows the court the discretion to decide each case on an individual basis. For example, the Northern Territory Act states:

1. A person must not neglect or commit an act of cruelty on an animal.

2. A person in charge of an animal must:

a. Exercise reasonable care, control or supervision of the animal to maintain the animal's welfare and prevent the neglect of the animal or the commission of an act of cruelty on it;

b. If it is necessary for the animal's welfare, obtain veterinary treatment for it; and

c. If the animal is suffering, take reasonable action to alleviate the suffering.

3. In this section, “an act of cruelty” includes the following:

a. An act that causes an animal unnecessary suffering;

b. An act that causes an animal suffering and is unreasonable in the circumstances;

c. Treatment that is inhumane in the circumstances.


The Australian Capital Territory Act goes one stage further and not only has its own list of offences, but also has a clause which “ropes in” all the offences in other States.

Defined offence means:

An offence against this Act; or

An offence in relation to animal welfare under another Territory law or a Commonwealth or State law.


PROSCRIBED SURGICAL AND MEDICAL PROCEDURES

All Australian Animal Welfare Acts have a list of proscribed medical and surgical procedures. These are either totally prohibited or allowed under certain circumstances. Some of these procedures are allowed to be performed by registered veterinarians if they are in the interests of the welfare of the animal concerned. Other surgical procedures can be performed as part of normal farming practice, but only under regulated conditions.

Proscribed procedures in the NT Act which are common to most/all Australian Acts:

Cropping the ears of an animal.

Remove the voice of an animal (devocalisation).

Disable a bird by means of pinioning.

Remove the claws of an animal, other than the dewclaws of a dog less than five days old.

Dock the tail of an animal unless the animal is a dog less than five days old and the docking is performed in accordance with prescribed conditions.

Subject to the Veterinarians Act and Veterinarians Regulations, a veterinarian may perform a procedure referred to above if he/she is of the opinion that it is reasonable and necessary to do so. In the Regulations to this Act, the conditions are prescribed, for example:

Prescribed conditions relating to tail docking:

1. A person who docks the tail of a dog under the NT Act must perform the docking in appropriate hygienic conditions and in a manner that minimises suffering to the dog.

2. In a proceeding for an offence, onus of establishing the docking was performed in appropriate hygienic conditions and a manner that minimises suffering to the dog is on the person accused of the offence.

In my opinion, although this wording goes further than most other Australian Animal Welfare Acts, this is a political manoeuvre to avoid banning tail docking altogether and allows vets to perform the procedure if the are of the “opinion that it is reasonable and necessary to do so.” This would effectively negate most prosecutions.

The ACT Act goes a lot further and effectively bans tail docking altogether except for therapeutic or prophylactic reasons. It is the only Australian Animal Welfare Act to do this to date. Under this act, the following procedures can only be performed by a veterinarian and then only for a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose.

19A. Medical and surgical procedures—veterinary surgeons:

A veterinary surgeon must not, for a purpose other than a prophylactic or therapeutic purpose

a. Dock a dog’s tail; or

b. Crop a dog’s ear; or

c. Remove a dog’s ear; or

d. Remove a dog’s dew claws after 10 days after its birth; or

e. Perform a clitoridectomy on a dog; or

f. Perform a procedure prescribed under the regulations.

g. Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

In my opinion, the wording of this Act would also give a veterinarian with a good lawyer an escape clause under the “prophylactic” wording. Fortunately, over 90% of Australian veterinarians are against tail docking etc.

For those of you who are wondering why clitoridectomy is included, I am informed it was a practice sometimes performed on female greyhounds, whose clitoris becomes hypertrophied from the chronic use of virilizing anabolic steroids and protrudes from the vulva.

CODES OF CONDUCT

An effective way of updating and maintaining an animal Welfare act is with Codes of conduct that are enforceable under the Act concerned. Examples of Australian codes are:

The care and use of animals for scientific purposes; the use of animals from pounds in scientific research and teaching; the management and control of companion animals in the community; the management of companion animals in pounds and shelters; the development of new breeds of companion animals (genetic modification); the use of electric goads in farm animal species; the use of electric training collars in Companion animal species; horse agistment establishments; dog and cat breeding establishments; animal welfare in rural industry; animal welfare in intensive farming; transport of livestock; animal welfare in the management of saleyards; livestock and poultry slaughtering establishments; fishing; culling of native animals; control of feral animals; aerial shooting of animals; trapping and snaring of animals; commercial pest control; commercial keeping and display of animals; keeping of zoo animals; animal welfare in the racing industry; any other matter related to animal welfare.

Answer 4

we love all animals, most of em taste like chicken.

Answer 5

Australia have largest number of dogs in the world per capita. Unfortunately it does not mean than Australians love dogs more than others. Conversely, the dog complaints are the most frequent of all complaints, all despite a common knowledge that such complaints are a 100% waste of time.
Here are a few real life facts.
It is legal to be irresponsible dog owner.
Police is not allowed to attend to dog problems.
The only sure way to stop chronically crying, neglected dog is to kill one secretly. Government refuse to legislate an acceptable alternative!
The legislation does not require owners to do anything positive to dog, nor defines one's duties and responsibilities.
Rules and regulations and procedures in place ensure that dogs continue to suffer a long time, people continue to suffer a peace disruption, that it is impossible to prove the dog negligence.
RSPCA contrary to it's name mission, is interested in creation of unwanted puppies in backyard puppy-farms and in systemic mass killing of many thousands of dogs in each state. The organisation along with DCMB demand government to pay millions of dollars to fund own existence and both advise government in such a way that there is plenty of unwanted dogs what justify their existence.
The dogs are in 100% dependent on people. Yet law allows total disregard to dog's needs. Wrong dogs are in wrong places and many dog owners are absolutely unfit to keep dogs. They include mentally affected people, old and demented as well as busy people leaving dogs to guard their homes. Government knows what are the dog's needs and despite of that allow total lawlessness.
Dogs on the beaches do chase running people, bite them, bark excessively, defecate and owner refuse to pick up. In rare cases of council officer present, the bad owner refuse to cooperate and tell the inspector to p..... off.
Routinely the guard industrial dogs escape through the poor fencing and chase people walking by.
The call to RSPCA is always ignored with an excuse that legislation does not give them power to act. The legislation they support and advise minister.
Most (perhaps more than 90%) dogs are wrongly chosen, and not cared properly and are not trained for basic life among humans. Most dogs do sit in the window all their natural life and bark at people walking by. Most dogs are locked in prisons called small backyard even when their natural environment is a large open farm with lots of animals to chase. Going to work for more than 10 hours and for a few days of holiday and leaving dog alone is a norm in Australia. Crying dog a whole night is nothing unusual. Councils not only have no attended phone all night, but they refuse to act any time.

In a word or two, there is despite millions of dollars of public money wasted in each state, there is absolutely lawlessness in regard to dog laws and management. The largest number of dogs and total disregard to dogs needs unfortunately does mean that the dogs there is mass cruelty by negligence to almost all dogs. Parliamentarians when presented with the situation, presented with a good examples of dog care and dog laws like in Sweden, they play stupid or ignore. It may mean that ignorant people make decisions about dogs. It may also mean that all politicians actually have a pleasure in suffering dogs a result of their policy of dog cruelty by negligence.
It's an excerpt from a blog Swedish dog breeding law http://staffy-bull-terrier.niceboard.com/t46103-swedish-dog-breeding-laws#713418
"WILL NEUTERING STOP OVER POPULATION AND ANIMALS IN RESCUE?Sweden does not have a dog roaming problem, nor does it have dog overpopulation or lots of rescue animals in kennels. Yet we are constantly told by the neuter everything crowd, that it is the un-neutered dogs that are causing the problem. over 95% of all domestic dogs in Sweden are not neutered.

Sweden has VERY strict animal laws, and therefore they have minimal problems with pet overpopulation. In my opinion the top two contributors to the problem (besides lack of education ) is:

1. Pet Stores

2. Backstreet Breeders.

In Sweden those two problems have been resolved by:

1. You are not (nor have ever been) allowed to sell cats or dogs in pet stores. That is left to certified breeders ONLY. That way the spur-of-the-moment purchases of dogs and cats are eliminated. It also means that the buyer is scrutinized before being allowed to buy any pet.

2. Only CERTIFIED breeders are allowed to breed. There are extremely strict laws with hefty fines if not followed, regarding dog breeding.

The breeder is financially responsible for the health of the pup for it's first 3 years. That completely eliminates backyard breeders and puppy-farms that breed for profit, not health. Under these circumstances It would no longer be financially viable or feasible to breed.

I believe that places like the UK and America, should take note. Instead of mutilating tiny puppies, and affecting the behaviour and health of their immature pets, they should demand stronger breeding laws.