Submissions to the Citizens' Jury - Dog and Cat Management

Submissions to the Dog and Cat Jury have now closed.

Please find a full list of written submissions here. You can browse through the comments below to see what was discussed in the online forum.

A Citizens’ Jury has been called to look at how to reduce the number of unwanted pets that are put down in South Australia each year. More than 10,000 unwanted dogs and cats were euthanised in South Australia last year and the issue of cat and dog management has been of long-term interest to the community.

  • What further measures can be implemented to trialled to reduce these numbers? 

All comments have been provided to the Citizens' Jury.

Comments closed

Teri Kocbek

30 Jul 2015

The problem with mandating 24hr curfew of cats means unless the Government offers subsidies for 'enclosures' there will be a mass dump of cats - which is counterproductive in reducing feral cat populations. Also without the implementation of a sound and consistent - cat management plan - (that helps owners to become) - 'responsible' owners - feral cat populations will only continue to grow... Which effectively means more ..tax payers $.

anna tsykin > Teri Kocbek

30 Jul 2015

Any change must be introduced quite gradually. I think, we should aim for having a 24 hr curfiew a number of years in the future but start building up for it now.

Teri Kocbek > Teri Kocbek

30 Jul 2015

I thought that certain councils based their night curfews on the fact that cats mostly hunt during the night. And without the implementation of - 'responsible' ownership - nothing will improve.

Lyell Roocke

28 Jul 2015

The solution is simple. Register all genuine breeders and that all animals breed are registered, de-sexed and micro-chipped and recorded on a data base. No animals leave these premises unless the tasks mentioned are achieved. Anyone breaking the laws loses their rights to breed animals ever again. Any animal caught without being de-sexed or chipped should be automatically put down.
For persons to have to have a large dog to protect their property, proves that our punishment for criminals is pathetic.

anna tsykin > Lyell Roocke

30 Jul 2015

I don't think such harsh response is warranted. This could inadvertently penalise the most vulnerable people and result in many unnecessary death.

Teri Kocbek > Lyell Roocke

30 Jul 2015

Exactly Anna - but I do not know if most of the responses here have actually looked at the point of this community consultation or answered the actual question - they just want all cats dead - which resolves 'nothing'

Teri Kocbek > Lyell Roocke

30 Jul 2015

Plus since the proposals for mass culling of cats and 24hr curfew have suddenly appeared some people suddenly think they have the right to threaten owners who love their cats by shooting them and their cats. Wrong on so many levels. I really hope the Government asks them to Stop.

Teri Kocbek > Lyell Roocke

30 Jul 2015

Plus since the proposals for mass culling of cats and 24hr curfew have suddenly appeared some people suddenly think they have the right to threaten owners who love their cats OF shooting them and their cats. Wrong on so many levels. I really hope the Government asks them to Stop.

Michal Kinasz

23 Jul 2015

Responsibility for pets

Government has a strong immunity, owners do not care because they do not have to.
Unless new legislation specify who is responsible for what, things go back to norm as is now - nobody is responsible for anything.

Humane and proper pet management, the set of minimum duties and responsibilities of owners and government management must be specified.
Streets and beaches littered by dogs, and neither owners nor councils take responsibility.

With proper legislation, there will be no place for an excuse - "I did not know that my dog is crying for hours, I was at work; shopping; fishing" etc. This is a confirmation of negligence.
For dog attacks owners must take a full responsibility.

Wolves in nature have no need to bark whole day and night as our dogs do. They live in their natural environment.

City dwelling is not a natural environment for pets. Proper and acceptable environment is costly and time consuming. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-23/tough-times-lead-to-spike-in-pets-dumped-at-adelaide-shelters/6644038 Number of people classify ZOO as unnatural environment and it is cruel to animals. ZOO is a reasonable compromise as the environment is reasonably provided and definitely good professional care. Zoo serves an important purpose to society and it is costly to run. Pet care and environment must not be of any lower standard than that in ZOO.

The systemic (mass) dog negligence as we have at present is nothing but negligence by government.

Michal Kinasz

22 Jul 2015

Aim of new legislation

Swedes have no unwanted dogs, nor shelters nor RSPCA mass killings. It is possible.
We must aim to a total elimination of irresponsibility of government and owners.

The DCMB proposal fail to eliminate cruelty and negligence,. Their proposal is to keep and manage dog and cat problem to justify own existence. The proposal leaves a huge p provision for corruption to continue massive irresponsibility and cruelty to dogs and cats. The not for sale backyard breeding is ok by dcmb. All pets must be bred by professionals or to a professional standard. All cats must be disease free. And cats in particular are carriers of very dangerous diseases. http://messybeast.com/zoonoses.htm

At present the DCMB supports the pet problem including cruelty and negligence. Perhaps The elimination of pet problem must start with an elimination of RSPCA and DCMB as part of the problem.
There are voices that all pets must be bred by professionals and be registered and be in as close to natural environment as practical and be disease free. Not all are suitable for owning pets. In number of EU countries, the breeder makes a number of interviews to check if they are suitable and provide right environment for pet.
Since the DCMB refuse to propose legislation to eliminate cruelty and negligence and irresponsibility, than we must make such proposal! Total responsibility!

Michal Kinasz

21 Jul 2015

RSPCA

This organization kills tens of thousands of dogs in each state every year. Killing is not prevention of cruelty!
It is good if you employ the best nanny to care for your children, and the best teacher, best nutritionist, best coach and best psychologist, best mentor. Surely the best clothes, best food and best overall care. It is a wonderful idea, if the neighbor will pay for that. If you had to pay, than it is not so good.
The RSPCA is same “wise” coach-adviser to government. They developed the most expensive so called humane way of euthanasia to unwanted dogs. They do it at your expense. What they do themselves?
They have power and privilege to advise the government on dog management policy. Currently the policy is the more backyard puppies the better. The better for them when they reach their hands to government to get grant to manage unwanted dogs. Excuse me, it is Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Is supporting policy which leads to lots of unwanted dogs and killing them a humane prevention of cruelty?
Estimated half a million of dogs in Adelaide have been neglected. Only a few owners do care very properly some reasonably etc. The point is that there is no policy that all dog owners must take full responsibility for their dogs and fulfill their duties everyday. Where is the RSPCA that this is going on for so long. So many dogs have been neglected all their lives. RSPCA should be charged for mass dog and cat cruelty!

Jo Black

20 Jul 2015

I thought the question was "how do we reduce the number of cats/dogs ending up in shelters" but all I can see below are opinions that suggest pro breeding and the culling of all cats. Maybe this should have been better advertised so that the community was aware of it because it seems only one biased group has responded and the 'actual' question not really addressed.
In regards to cats - cats were introduced over 200 years ago and yet the Gov. has so far neglected to implement sound cat management plans - In place of poisoning cats and therefore native animals - resources would be better spent on for eg. implementing - 'Responsible' ownership - education - desexing - identification + breeder regulation - key - to beginning to reduce the feral cat population along with reducing the number of cats ending up in shelters. This is one initiative that there is no room for self interest - what are we leaving our children and future Australia..

Michal Kinasz > Jo Black

21 Jul 2015

Not everyone is just pro irresponsible breeding. If you read my or others propositions, we are pro responsibility.
Otherwise, surely, you are right that so far there were no real management plans. Cats not only kill native animals but they also spread very harmful diseases like toxoplasmosis and many others. http://messybeast.com/zoonoses.htm ; It's enough when the neighbor's cat deposits poo in the sandpit and your child plays in it. It leads to mental problems too.
I stress Jo, that we should ask the government for a proper, professional management of dogs and cats. I assure you that Sweden have done it successfully, they have no unwanted dogs at all. We can do this same.

Jo Black > Jo Black

21 Jul 2015

I forgot to mention anti dogs too - the question was - "How do we reduce the no. of cats and dogs being euthanized in shelters".....and as I mentioned above - the most effective cat management plan is - Responsible ownership - Education + and the promotion and requirement of - desexing + identification and Strict Breeder regulation. I am not too sure how Australia would react to culling all our cats and dogs - I don't think that one would go down very well Michal especially considering that Poison does not know how to discriminate - I thought you guys were pro native species.?

Jo Black > Jo Black

24 Jul 2015

Also until - 'responsible' ownership is implemented feral cat populations will only continue to grow and culling therefore.. useless.

Michal Kinasz

20 Jul 2015

Why we must take care of dogs?

Dogs are totally in 100% dependent in all their needs on humans.
Well, we must satisfy all their needs.

We must not forget that they are carnivorous and aggressive creates, so we must take responsibility and protect other fellow humans and animals.

They are a social – pack animals, so they must not be kept in isolation. In nature, the wolf will not feel well nor survive a solitary life. Humans keep evolving and live in concrete caves with doors locked when we go to work and the dog suffers being left lonely and in very small space, and nothing to hunt or to explore. It is cruel.

Traditional Aboriginal life is much more natural and their dogs are free to come and go and wonder around. It's all ok but our life in cities make it very unnatural for dogs to live and be happy. Our life is very remote from natural environment of wolf in nature. Therefore to start with, the cities are not normally a good environment for keeping dogs. But if someone desire to keep a dog than one must satisfy it's natural instincts and provide close to natural environment. This is concept foreign to many dog owners who simply do not care. Many owners keep a single dog in a small yard, never take for a walk and to socialize with other dogs. Other dogs take their owners for a walk and this one is kept in prison life long. Or the owner goes for a holiday and dog cries lonely for days. It's wrong to be cruel on animal that depend on us in 100%.

Jo Black > Michal Kinasz

21 Jul 2015

Culling dogs is not the solution.?? The question is - "How do we reduce the no. of cats and dogs at risk in shelters". Not sure how Australia would feel about culling all their dogs Michal...

Michal Kinasz > Michal Kinasz

21 Jul 2015

With whom you argue? What you like and what you propose? Please be clear.
If you dislike, say it clearly, and propose clearly your solution.
If you read carefully my proposal than you will see that you have no argument with me.
I intend to post another vision how to not just reduce but to eliminate the unwanted dogs and cats.
It seems that you argue without reading first what I propose.
For now, just imagine, if the dogs and cats by law present real and high value. Would you abandon your valuable dog or cat? What value? Make an effort and contact Australian Customs, or Royal Society for the Blind, and ask them how much is worth well bred, well trained and well cared for dog. This is very real value. Some may argue that it is too high, some also argue that hair dresser is too expensive. It cost what it takes.
Wait until I post another view on the subject.
Thanks

Michal Kinasz

19 Jul 2015

3/3
Dog crying for hours and day by day and year by year. The council has no knowledge about it, neither owner that his dog cries – he is away... The dogs chasing you on the beach, or giving you a fright when you walk nearby. The dogs in car poking head through the window on on back pack and bark on anything that moves. They can give you a serious fright when you drive nearby or ride a bicycle. It could be dangerous. This is all total lack of responsibility. Now the police must have duty to attend when they are called, that a particular dog cries for half an hour and assuming 30min response time, than legally dog would be subjected to an hour of crying due to negligence of some sort. The owner would have to defend self from an accusation of negligence and try hard to convince authorities that one is capable to care. When goes to work, the dog must have companion, care and be ok being alone. Nobody would complain, because dogs will be ok.
The proposed new rules of dog attack are also wrong. We may tell something or everything to owner to obey. But what if the dog attack anyway? Perhaps much better approach is that government suggest not to keep certain breeds, but in case of dog attack, the owner to be defacto guilty of negligence. Than owner would have a hard time to prove that one have done everything reasonably possible to prevent it.
We must not forget, that dogs depend on us in 100%, therefore we must be responsible for them at all times.

Teri Kocbek

18 Jul 2015

In brief - The issues that need to be addressed, in relation to the cats/dogs that are ending up in shelters (@ risk) in this state - include – no. 1). - Lost cats/dogs – ‘Unidentified’ - (ending up in shelters @ risk) – Solution = 'Identification’ and – no. 2).- ’Overbreeding’ + the ‘unwanted’ – cats/kittens + dogs/puppies – (‘surrendered’ to shelters @ risk) – Solution = ‘desexing’ and breeder ‘regulation’.
A Government initiative focused on -1/. ‘Educating’ owners, en masse, on the importance of becoming responsible owners = responsible communities = responsible S.A. – 2/. Identification’- (as long as restrictive policy in some councils determining how many cats/dogs owners can own eg. 2.cat policy, is dropped.) 3/. Strict breeder regulation and accessible -‘desexing’ services made available to ‘all’ owners and therefore ‘all’ animals. - eg.-*A finance service offered by the Government that pays the ‘upfront’ costs of vetting services.- (owner pays back via instalments) - (Vetpay finance - already exists but only caters for accounts above -$300.00.) - If the Government were to make available - ‘finance’ that covers accounts below $300.00 – Owners could access ‘finance’ for becoming -‘responsible’ owners along with access - General (illness + injury) vetting’ services – below $300.00 and vet their pets.-
- Responsible ownership = responsible communities = responsible S.A.

Jo Black > Teri Kocbek

20 Jul 2015

'Responsible' ownership is the answer and in alignment with community expectation. This is one initiative that the entire state needs participate in - anyone who doesn't is only contributing to the problem. Community pressure will play a bigger and bigger role as time goes on . I hear they are now planning on culling cats to save native species and yet Poison does not discriminate - Poison = dead native species. I really wish the Government would focus on implementing - Responsible ownership if the objective is to begin to resolve this issue...

Matthew Ridgeway

18 Jul 2015

The answer is:
1. Licensing to own a pet, which requires compulsory education programs.

2. Approved containment systems to ensure animal and community safety.

3. Animal registrations and micro chips to bring accountability to animal control issues.

4. Clear and precise laws that can be enforced to ensure community peace and harmony regarding animal noise, waste and control issues.

5.Off leash areas to be out of bounds for children and for them to be fenced off to tennis court fence heights.

6. Stray animal laws to be pro-actively enforced and stray caught to have very high penalty associated with them. Community and pet safety is paramount.

The needs to be rules that have very severe consequences if they are not obeyed. This is a deterrent on slack animal control efforts by pet owners. Animal control operatives could do a better job with better laws and rules.

Better laws WILL REDUCE the amount of euthanasia over time and make our communities happier ones.

Pet ownership is a responsibility greater than you home boundaries and your own family. Being mindful of this will make one aware of these concepts above.

Michal Kinasz

18 Jul 2015

2/3
It's easy to solve the dog problem in Australia.
Surely you've seen and like the blind people guide dog. Ask the association how much such a dog cost to provide one to the client? The dog must be of suitable breed, not too aggressive, nor very placid, dog must be trained not only for the job but not to chase the “girls” nor jump on your chest if you happen to meet the blind etc. Such a dog does not bite the heel of postman etc. Ask the breeders what they do to those dogs that they are so useful and pleasant to watch? Ask yourself, what they do unnecessary? They could save money and deliver plenty of cheap dogs to blind clients. No blind person would accept such a dog. Same principles should apply to all city dogs. ALL dog or rather owners.
If the dog is bred by professionals only, and trained and cared for properly it would cost say $10 000. Would you pay so much for the puppy just because your grandson wants a puppy for Christmas, and then the dog in few weeks time end up in RSPCA cue to be killed? Or found wondering on the streets? Or a $5000 for well bred cat, run through by car at night? It would not happen. Because the dog would have real value.
Why now they are so cheap? Would you go for a holiday around Australia with family with a car that you purchased for $50 ? Not likely. Same is with dogs. Or if you paid so much money for a dog, how likely it was that you neglect it and neighbors reported and nspector question your ability to care for one properly?

Michal Kinasz

17 Jul 2015

1/3
Would you prefer the dog on leash or off leash bite you when you walk/run on the beach or in park?
Well, the current rules are a total nonsense.
The council tells you that within certain times dog must be on leash on the beach...
Or you prefer that desexed dog bite you? Surely, the commonsense dictate us that the responsibility is that count rather than senseless rules. Council inspector have told me that there are many irresponsible owners and when inspector approaches one, to give an instruction or intervene, the owner sends him....
This and many other incidents with dogs and cats would drastically change for better if all dogs and cats would have to be registered and the label to be readable from 5-10m distance. Than you could report or make a photo or inspector could easily identify the dog which attack you or harass or the owner fail to pic up behind.

How many mentally ill and addicts, senile and otherwise incapable to care for dog/cat people actually owns them? Who checks their suitability? In many countries mainly in Europe (not UK unfortunately) have quite a good dog rules. The owner is carefully chosen for suitability. Sweden is leading in the world. They for example have no unwanted dogs at all, RSPCA does not kill dogs there because there aren't any. http://staffy-bull-terrier.niceboard.com/t46103-swedish-dog-breeding-laws#713418 ; [short excerpt from this blog] Sweden does not have a dog roaming problem, nor does it have dog overpopulation

Kylie Christison

15 Jul 2015

I am concerned about the blanket compulsory desexing of dogs for a number of reasons. Firstly the proven health issues of early desexing and its impacts on cancers and joint growth particularly in large breed dogs. I have both an entire bitch and and entire male at home (I am successfully able to separate them so there is no unplanned pregnancy) who I show in the conformation ring (I am not a registered breeder) and under a blanket rule without consideration for membership of Dogs SA and work we do with our dogs this would have a major impact.

I already pay an increased fee for registration with the local council as my dogs are not desexed.

I consider that the sledge hammer approach to this will only catch those people who actually do the right thing in the whole and can be identified like members of Dogs SA and those that actually do register their dogs and train them and do all the work you should when being a responsible dog owner. How does this deal with the "backyard breeders" who are not doing the right thing with no health testing and don't consider the best interest of animals at all and are only interested in dollars. These are the people that need to be controlled and legislated creating a "designer breed" that they attest removes any health issues when in fact it creates bigger ones. I have seen many of these closely who are put down at relatively young ages with major structural issues and pain these poor animals go through.

Kylie Christison > Kylie Christison

15 Jul 2015

Responsible registered breeders carefully select their puppy buyers and if there are issues assist in re-homing them to suitable homes so you do not often see these dogs in the pound. As a part of a breed with a National rescue we have been very successful in re-homing many dogs that we see advertised on gum tree etc to be a part of forever families

Sue McKay

11 Jul 2015

The question is how to reduce the number of cats and dogs being euthanised each year. I can't speak for cat ownership, I don't own any, there are others out there far better equipped to debate that issue than me, but I do own dogs, both desexed and entire. I do not breed, but I do show my entire dogs. Compulsory desexing would put at risk my love for showcasing my breed of choice. My dogs are all microchipped and trained. I'm an obedience instructor and continually educate myself to better train my dogs and others. It is my belief that ignorance in dog ownership causes problems, therefore, if you want to make anything compulsory for pet ownership make it education. Start in schools and teach children the right and wrong way to behave around animals and how to look after them. Offer free seminars for pet owners on responsible pet ownership, encourage owners to train their dogs. Give people the honest facts about the cost of responsible dog ownership. Education and information of humans will go a long way toward improving the life of our beloved animals.

Anne-Marie Curran > Sue McKay

13 Jul 2015

Absolutely agree with your comments Sue.

Matthew Ridgeway > Sue McKay

18 Jul 2015

I believe 100% that the laws regarding pet ownership need to be more engaging and have consequences that are effective in controlling animal issues in our communities. It is too easy to get a pet! It is too easy to dump a pet! It is too easy to create a nuisance with your pet. It is too easy to neglect your pet and so on.
The situation is this. We have absolutely society keeping pet ad hocand creating mayhem for the pets themselves, neighbours and family and the government, who are the very people maintaining the staus quo. Yes, we can all speak about education but it will not happen until we introduce licenses to keep pets, and containment systems that are designed to keep certain pets safely in our communities, and laws that are black and white and well enforced.
There area massive amount of responisble pet owners in our communities, but probably a whole lot more that are totally slack and irresponsible. I also declare that our governments have been the wort offenders in this issue as they have not learned or progresses in introducing laws that are effective and conditions suited to the task of keeping animals in our communities.
Both people and animals need to be respected in this issue equally. The worse case is eternally rearing up its ugly head and that is people being attacked by pets, and animals suffering atthe hands of people. This must certainly stop. There are roughly about thirty to fourty rules that can be introduced into law that will bring about the much neede

Anne-Marie Curran

10 Jul 2015

My interest is in Pedigree dogs and I have been involved in the canine fancy in excess of 35 years as a registered breeder, exhibitor and championship show judge. I have owned 3 breeds of pedigree dogs over that period and always honored my responsibility as an ethical breeder aiming for breed improvements. In the last 10 years I have bred 5 litters. Each puppy that I have sold has been supported by myself and more recently I have included a desexing contract whereby I refund an amount of money once proof of desexing is provided, but I stipulate that desexing must not occur before the pup turns 6 months of age. All breeders registered with Dogs SA must follow a Code of Practice and all pups registered must be microchipped, so clearly these proposed requirements are not unfamiliar to Dogs SA registered breeders.
What I see as a real issue with the proposed legislative changes is that Registered Dogs SA breeders are being lumped in with those who breed commercially (Puppy Farmers) who mostly breed crossbreeds of unknown parentage and potentially vulnerable to health issues that either shorten their lives and/or cost buyers large amounts of money for veterinary care. More and more, breed clubs are researching and emphasising hereditary disease control in their respective breeds by way of cardiac, opthalmic, orthopaedic and other screening. Many pedigree breeds are relatively free of hereditary disease which is a clear advantage.

Michal Kinasz > Anne-Marie Curran

17 Jul 2015

3/3
Dog crying for hours and day by day and year by year. The council has no knowledge about it, neither owner that his dog cries – he is away... The dogs chasing you on the beach, or giving you a fright when you walk nearby. The dogs in car poking head through the window on on back pack and bark on anything that moves. They can give you a serious fright when you drive nearby or ride a bicycle. It could be dangerous. This is all total lack of responsibility. Now the police must have duty to attend when they are called, that a particular dog cries for half an hour and assuming 30min response time, than legally dog would be subjected to an hour of crying due to negligence of some sort. The owner would have to defend self from an accusation of negligence and try hard to convince authorities that one is capable to care. When goes to work, the dog must have companion, care and be ok being alone. Nobody would complain, because dogs will be ok.
The proposed new rules of dog attack are also wrong. We may tell something or everything to owner to obey. But what if the dog attack anyway? Perhaps much better approach is that government suggest not to keep certain breeds, but in case of dog attack, the owner to be defacto guilty of negligence. Than owner would have a hard time to prove that one have done everything reasonably possible to prevent it.
We must not forget, that dogs depend on us in 100%, therefore we must be responsible for them at all times.

David Mussared

30 Jun 2015

I am the chair of a Landcare Group which has spent more than 15 years protecting and enhancing habitat for native wildlife (including the nationally endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot) in the Adelaide Hills.

All of the many sites we work on (and probably all other conservation sites in the Adelaide Hills) are routinely visited by numerous roaming pet cats, which day and night hunt and kill the very species we are trying to protect, and which undermine the volunteer effort and public money which goes into such projects. Note that these are mostly loved, owned, pet cats (often wearing collars) - not feral cats.

These cats are also at risk themselves from dogs, cars and other dangers (including other cats).

In my opinion no endangered species program in the Adelaide Hills (or other conservation areas within a kilometre of settlement) can hope to be successful until roaming pet cats are contained.

I would like to see the Jury consider the issue of legislation which requires cats to be confined to their owners properties (like dogs) at all times - as well as compulsory micro-chipping, sterilisation and paid registration.

Matthew Ridgeway > David Mussared

18 Jul 2015

Are you saying that approved animal enclosures would make your job easier? Should that not be introduced into law don't you think. Zoos keep their animals contained... how hard can it be?

Dale Sutton

27 Jun 2015

I agree with Louise Woods. I think that all cats and dogs should be desexed, microchipped and registered. Unless you are a registered breeder, you should pay a very hefty yearly registration fee for each non-desexed dog or cat.

State Government is responsible for animal management, and needs to take the onus away from councils to create bylaws to manage pets. Ensure consistency by having laws that are state-wide.

Shelley Hayward

26 Jun 2015

I am a registered Breeder of Ragdolls. All my kittens are desexed and microchipped before they leave for there forever homes NO EXCEPTIONS this is common practice for 98% of all registered breeders. Mandatory desexing and microchipping is a MUST in order to stop or control backyard breeders and puppy farms. Ive seen some raise the question of the cost of purebred animals being so much more. Just to give an example a backyard breeder will try sell you a ragdoll kitten for $450-$600 with no vet work. You have no guarantee you have a ragdoll at all and most likely not. You will then be required to vaccinated that kitten three times at $35 each vaccination at a minimum, you then have the consult fee for each one of those visits approx $50 - $80 each visit. Plus microchipping which they could do whilst being vaccinated or desexed another $35. Desexing then costing the new pet owner $100-$270 depending on clinic, age and sex of the kitten. Purchasing puppies and kittens with all vet work completed is actually way more cheaper then buying the supposed cheap kitten.
Desexing these animals is also a much healthier option. No Pymetra, no cancers, no toxemia etcc. ALL cats should live indoors with there families or have a safe enclosure outdoors where they can lay in the sun. Letting your cats outdoors should not be aloud. Its much safer for them to be indoors, wont be exposed to many diseases that are common in cats, no fighting with other animals, and the wildlife would be safer

tony fitzpatrick

26 Jun 2015

Cull all stray cats and dogs 3 km away from any country town. Capture all stray cats that are seen on the streets and put on local government websites enough information to identify the cat so that their owners can identify them. Keep on the website for 3 weeks then put them to sleep. Likewise the same for dogs. Current dog registration should go partly toward this unpleasant task, cats will have to be registered and equally the same funds will be made available for the removal of stray animals. For those owners who do not register their cats and let them stray, they neither care for their 'pet' or the environment and if they do not register their animal they should not have the right of keeping one. Similarly, micro chip all animals and at the time of micro chipping the animal owner is to be identified. Should the animal be sold or lost immediate notification needs to be given so that responsibility of the animal is passed on to the new owner or if lost the owner is given notice as soon as the animal is found. Should an animal be found, the owner is to be given 5 days to notify authorities after which they will be fined and advised of the animal being caught. Animal 'ownership' is a right and animals deserve looking after. Equally, native or wild fauna or other domestic animals also have the right to live and not be mauled, killed or injured by un controlled domestic cats or dogs. Controversial? Yes but we need to stop this uncontrolled pest(s) destroying our environments.

Teri Kocbek > tony fitzpatrick

27 Jun 2015

The Question was - How do we reduce the number of cats/dogs being - euthanized - Not Euthanize them all - so what was the point to your response.? Death is not the answer to anything.

tony fitzpatrick > tony fitzpatrick

27 Jun 2015

yes I suppose it looks distorted. My point is that too many people see animals as their play thing and a right to own without any of the responsibility it entails. All animals deserve the right to live but our feral cat and dog problem limits the abilities of native fauna to do so, don't they have rights too? Start now and it will still take another 10 or more years to fix, at the moment too many people are sitting on their hands while saying they are doing something and the animal rights groups are killing our native fauna. For example we have lost too many birds in our backyard to feral cats, who stood up for them when their life was ended? They are dead from a very unpleasant experience?

Bernice Wuttke > tony fitzpatrick

27 Jun 2015

cont...according to the Council requirements to alleviate the problem with the OWNERS. If this is the case of continual disregard for the betterment of the dog, these owners should be banned from having pets. They have shown that they are irresponsible!

Bernice Wuttke > tony fitzpatrick

27 Jun 2015

cont...according to the Council requirements to alleviate the problem with the OWNERS. If this is the case of continual disregard for the betterment of the dog, these owners should be banned from having pets. They have shown that they are irresponsible!

Bernice Wuttke > tony fitzpatrick

27 Jun 2015

Sorry about the 2 above posts, these were not supposed to be on here. - Gremlins!

Teri Kocbek > tony fitzpatrick

28 Jun 2015

and I apologise if I sounded abrupt - I just know there are much better solutions than the euthanasia of many of our state's much loved cats and dogs. With the right implementation of measures to help owners to become - responsible owners, the number of wandering, lost and stray cats for eg. can begin to be reduced. There is a much bigger picture to consider and the are solutions are there.

Teri Kocbek > tony fitzpatrick

28 Jun 2015

ps. and thank God for Animal Rights groups - bringing such important issues to the forefront.

tony fitzpatrick > tony fitzpatrick

29 Jun 2015

All is good. But something needs to be done to protect our native fauna. They are at risk literally, we will never see feral cats and dogs at risk of being extinct... but if we do that will mean something effective has been done. Unfortunately, too many domestic cats and dogs are reproducing and destroying native fauna, making owners responsible, desexing when young and clearly proving ownership via registration and micro chipping. Animal lovers should prove their true colours and pay the small fees involved otherwise euthanasia is unfortunately necessary in the short term for long term success of both our domestic pets and our native fauna.

Teri Kocbek > tony fitzpatrick

30 Jun 2015

I hear you to a degree on the point of fauna but the reality is that owners need to be educated and many owners are low income earners and did not necessarily choose and purchase their cats/dogs - many owners 'rescued'- their pets due to the cat/dog issues that exist in their communities. If a finance service (low rate) was for eg implemented - that covers the upfront costs of vetting services - owners pay back over-time, could enable all owners and therefore all animals access to vetting services.

Teri Kocbek > tony fitzpatrick

30 Jun 2015

Plus Breeder regulation - key - and as time goes on (when the penny drops - due to ongoing education) - Community pressure will also play a key role.

Sally Johnson > tony fitzpatrick

30 Jun 2015

Breeders registered with DogsSA are heavily controlled and we have a strict Code Of Ethics we must abide by. Adding more onus on registered breeders is not going to stop the backyard breeders selling puppies and kittens from the back of their car or putting them in Pet Shops. The Canine Association already requires us to Microchip all puppies and all litters must be registered and pedigrees issued to new owners. We keep all puppies until they are 3 months old, but we do not agree with desexing puppies that young. Essential hormones must be present to allow for a healthy growth
so we recommend to our buyers they neuter no earlier than 6 months. We will also take back any dog we have bred (and a few we didn't) if the owners can no longer care for them. Being a dog breeder is a privilege and giving our buyers a happy health tested puppy is what we try to achieve

Matthew Ridgeway > tony fitzpatrick

18 Jul 2015

As representatives of the pet breeding community, you should not begrudge your responsibilities nor moan about more rules. The more you do for your clients and the community, the more responsible and objective you appear. You business will not suffer and the costs are passed on to your clients. Your clients will understand your position and earn you respect of the community.

Teri Kocbek > tony fitzpatrick

18 Jul 2015

Also has anyone ever considered btw that culling feral cats is in fact detrimental to native species. Poison does not know how to distinguish between feral, domesticated or native animals.
And yes in the end it is about the 'community'- community = long term sustainability of industry and also - responsible ownership = responsible communities = responsible S.A.

tony fitzpatrick > tony fitzpatrick

19 Jul 2015

And thus that is why nothing is being done. Be accountable. Owning or 'loving' a cat or dog has responsibilities. You are responsible for looking after that cat or dog. If you cannot read or afford a license, microchip or to desex that animal you cannot have an animal. If you want something enough be responsible and save money/learn how to look after an animal /be responsible as you are now accountable for that animals actions. Like us register it, take a plastic bag when you take it for a walk on a lead. It is not a right regardless of income or intelligence you are accountable to that animal to look after it properly. It is time people took on the responsibilities of responsible animal ownership and were intelligent enough to look after the environment with responsible animal management. Isn't that what this is all about? Our native species are being decimated by the so called 'love of certain animals'. Come on, look at what is happening around us. Next minute people will decry killing cane toads, who are the hopping versions of feral cats and dogs but that is not the case because toads are not cute?! Cuteness doesn't mean innocence, . Heavy penalties for backyard breeders, more promotion of licensed breeders and heavy fines for those who choose to break the law and breed these cute feral pests or let their 'pets' stray and breed or kill uncontrollably. Action is now needed.

Teri Kocbek

26 Jun 2015

The email or site to send further comment on the dog and cat management is not working. Due today at 5pm and cant get through.

Teri Kocbek > Teri Kocbek

30 Jun 2015

will use email.

Jenny Deans

26 Jun 2015

On behalf of the Sturt Upper Reaches Landcare Group: The Sturt Upper Reaches Landcare Group supports the proposal of mandatory desexing of cats and dogs, with the exception of registered breeders. We would hope this would help to diminish the impact on local wildlife populations, in conjunction with containment, as part of responsible pet keeping, particularly on the urban fringes and Hills zones.

Maz Ellis

24 Jun 2015

With recent media attention on the greyhound racing industry, I believe the Dog and Cat Management Act regarding greyhounds, needs revising. Greyhounds are massively overbred, as evidenced by the industry's own statistics. The industry is self regulating, and as such, records of each dog are not kept. Of the thousands that are bred, very few are adopted as pets. Many just disappear? In an effort to increase public acceptance of greyhounds as pets, the Board could make a huge difference by removing the muzzling laws for pet greyhounds. They are a placid dog and deserve the right to be like all other dogs. Muzzling should only be applied for any individual dog deemed dangerous. Greyhounds certainly do not fit this description.

Sophie Eden > Maz Ellis

25 Jun 2015

Absolutely agreed. I would like to see leashing laws applied the same way for retired/non-racing greyhounds, so they are treated as any other breed and any other sighthound. Breed specific legislation has been shown not to be effective. The leash and muzzling laws put off prospective adopters of a calm, gentle breed. Which is in the bottom 10% for aggression.

Bernice Wuttke > Maz Ellis

27 Jun 2015

Very much in agreeance with Sophie's comments. BSL targets dogs that do not need not to be. Any dog can bite, even the little fluffy lap dogs, only difference is that the larger ones of any breed can cause more severe injuries. In many cases the problem of aggressive dogs is the person holding the lead!

Bernice Wuttke > Maz Ellis

27 Jun 2015

Very much in agreeance with Sophie's comments. BSL targets dogs that do not need not to be. Any dog can bite, even the little fluffy lap dogs, only difference is that the larger ones of any breed can cause more severe injuries. In many cases the problem of aggressive dogs is the person holding the lead!

Maz Ellis > Maz Ellis

05 Jul 2015

Victoria is currently reviewing it's muzzling laws regarding greyhounds. Queensland has already changed their laws, allowing pet greyhounds to be muzzle free. I believe it's time for South Australia to end the discrimination faced by greyhounds.

Matthew Ridgeway > Maz Ellis

18 Jul 2015

The bigger the dog, the bigger the risk. I admit though, I still don't want to be chomped by a little yapper either. Muzzle all dogs? Equality rules then. What is the cost of keeping pets in our communities.Public safety in my mind is paramount!

Maz Ellis > Maz Ellis

21 Jul 2015

If dogs have been trained and socialized, there should be no issue. From my own experience, I have found "little fluffies" to have been the most aggressive while walking my own dog? A friend of mine's muzzled greyhound was attacked by an off leash, unmuzzled dog while walking. She was unable to defend herself and quite badly injured. Greyhounds are a very placid breed and deserve to be treated like any other dog.

Gail Manson

24 Jun 2015

I agree with the above comments on compulsory de-sexing, micro-chipping etc of all companion dogs & cats. I DO want to protest about the suggested fee of $350 to re-claim a dog that has been picked up for straying. This means people will no longer claim their animals & the shelters will be over burdened with dogs & cats that could have been returned home. Things do happen like contractors leaving gates open & sometimes dogs are pretty good at escaping & it can take a few goes to find out the fencing system that works. Maybe the heavier fines could apply to serial offenders who do nothing to alleviate the situation. The council staff get to know who they are. I volunteer at the Hahndorf Interim Animal Shelter & we can see that this would be a disaster.

Bernice Wuttke > Gail Manson

27 Jun 2015

$350 for re-claiming a dog is not acceptable to me either. On hearing this, my first thought was, as per Gail has mentioned regarding the contractors etc that leave gates open!! Furthermore, when we re-homed our first dog, we came to find that she was a fence jumper. We were able to get her back promptly in the area and then contained our yard to stop her jumjping the fence. I agree that serial offenders of loose dogs need to be dealt with accor

Bernice Wuttke > Gail Manson

27 Jun 2015

cont...according to the Council requirements to alleviate the problem with the OWNERS. If this is the case of continual disregard for the betterment of the dog, these owners should be banned from having pets. They have shown that they are irresponsible!

Edward Bugess

23 Jun 2015

I believe that all cats and dogs should be registered and microchipped. No dog or cat should be sold unless it is microchipped first. There are still too many animals being euthanised in SA because they are unwanted. This may help control this horrible problem.
The only dogs and cats that should not be desexed are those owned by registered breeders who must conform to strict health and well being guidelines.
The other major problem is the absurd variation in the different council's rules. The rules for dogs and cats should be consistent Councils like Salisbury are too restrictive regarding dogs off lead, especially in parks where there are few if any people. Port Adelaide Enfield have far better rules regarding dogs off lead.
There should not be great increases in fines as I feel that the fines are too high already.

Maxine Chalinor

22 Jun 2015

I do beleive that most pet owners are responsible people. There are several cats in this household, all desexed and microchipped. The cost of this though is not in the budget of many and perhaps this is something that should be looked at, a governemnt subsidy on desexing and chipping. I am concerned though that too tight of regulations could end up with the demise of the 'moggy' and we all end up with pure bred, expensive models that rarely have the personality of a good old moggy. No doubt that this would also put a pet out of the reach of many budgets. Too often government regulations hit the responsible people hard and those who offend, just keep on offending.

Michal Kinasz > Maxine Chalinor

21 Jul 2015

RSPCA fraud

This organisation kills tens of thousands of dogs in each state every year. Killing is not prevention of cruelty!
It is good if you employ the best nanny to care for your children, and the best teacher, best nutritionist, best coach and best psychologist, best mentor. Surely the best clothes, best food and best overall care. It is a wonderful idea, if the neighbour will pay for that. If you had to pay, than it is not so good.
The RSPCA is same “wise” coach-adviser to government. They developed the most expensive so called humane way of euthanasia to unwanted dogs. They do it at your expense. What they do themselves?
They have power and privilege to advise the government on dog management policy. Currently the policy is the more backyard puppies the better. The better for them when they reach their hands to government to get grant to manage unwanted dogs. Excuse me, it is Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Is supporting policy which leads to lots of unwanted dogs and killing them a humane prevention of cruelty?
Estimated half a million of dogs in Adelaide have been neglected. Only a few owners do care very properly some reasonably etc. The point is that there is no policy that all dog owners must take full responsibility for their dogs and fulfill their duties everyday. Where is the RSPCA that this is going on for so long. So many dogs have been neglected all their lives. RSPCA should be charged for mass dog and cat cruelty!

Michal Kinasz > Maxine Chalinor

21 Jul 2015

RSPCA

This organization kills tens of thousands of dogs in each state every year. Killing is not prevention of cruelty!
It is good if you employ the best nanny to care for your children, and the best teacher, best nutritionist, best coach and best psychologist, best mentor. Surely the best clothes, best food and best overall care. It is a wonderful idea, if the neighbor will pay for that. If you had to pay, than it is not so good.
The RSPCA is same “wise” coach-adviser to government. They developed the most expensive so called humane way of euthanasia to unwanted dogs. They do it at your expense. What they do themselves?
They have power and privilege to advise the government on dog management policy. Currently the policy is the more backyard puppies the better. The better for them when they reach their hands to government to get grant to manage unwanted dogs. Excuse me, it is Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Is supporting policy which leads to lots of unwanted dogs and killing them a humane prevention of cruelty?
Estimated half a million of dogs in Adelaide have been neglected. Only a few owners do care very properly some reasonably etc. The point is that there is no policy that all dog owners must take full responsibility for their dogs and fulfil their duties everyday. Where is the RSPCA that this is going on for so long. So many dogs have been neglected all their lives. RSPCA should be charged for mass dog and cat cruelty!