This author is no stranger to loving dogs, but thinks the proposed Code of Practice for their welfare goes too far. Photo: Supplied.
At first glance, the draft Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs in the ACT seems reasonable enough.
Owners must provide suitable accommodation for their dogs, adequate exercise, “environmental enrichment”, clean food and water bowls, adequate shelter, give dogs “three hours minimum” of human contact per day …
Wait, what?
I am a huge dog person – I grew up on a farm with five working dogs (kelpies) and three inside pet dogs (golden retrievers).
My father was always a soft touch when it came to our pets. He fashioned a shade cloth for the tray of his ute so the dogs could be sheltered during trips, he’d sneak the working dogs inside when it was cold (we lived in Walcha – snow was not a rarity when I was young) and whenever he’d dress a sheep he’d save some pretty nice cuts for them to eat.
But an actual law requiring owners or carers (I refuse to say “parents”) to provide their dogs with a minimum of three hours of contact a day is laughable and a reason why other parts of Australia should ridicule the ACT.
What form does this contact have to take? Does it have to be consecutive hours? Does a dog sharing its owner’s bed count?
Will workplaces be mandated to allow pets in the office? Given all the hoo-ha around working from home, surely then if an employer makes their employee come back into the office then they could be held accountable if poor Fido or Rex has to languish at home alone?
Who would be policing this? How? Will owners have to provide a logbook or photographic evidence that in fact human contact did occur each day? Would the dogs deemed to have not received the adequate amount of human contact hours be taken away? Where to?
The intent is good, but is it seriously the government’s job to monitor (and use taxpayer money for) this?
If the ACT really wants to recognise dogs as sentient beings (yes, it seriously does), how about putting in some measures that empower owners to actually give them good lives?
Release land block sizes that provide adequate yard space, or reduce the size of homes allowed to be built on those blocks (instead of allowing gutters to reach the fence-line).
This would provide the added bonus of giving kids a space to run around as well.
The government could also decide what it values more – the rights of pets and people or the rights of the environment? A perfect recent example is the utter confusion and backflips over the Point Hut Dog Exercise Area (hello, the perfect spot to give my dog its mandated exercise hours).
NSW recently passed laws making it illegal for breeders to have more than 20 female adult dogs (defined as being older than six months) on any premises.
(That government has admitted that’s a start. It still smells of puppy farming to me.)
In the ACT you have to get a special permit if you want to own more than four dogs, which at face value seems stronger, but there’s no upper limit on how many a person can keep.
There are elements of this draft proposal that will (hopefully) make it easier for enforcement to be carried out on those pet owners who are clearly abusing and mistreating their animals.
But if the government really wants to mandate a minimum human contact limit, then there needs to be a lot more information provided to the public about what this would look like.
The draft ‘Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs in the ACT‘ guide is open for consultation until 22 August.
