Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Experts in Wills, Trusts
& Estate Planning

Animal sales codified

By johnboy - 21 October 2013 19

george and orwell

Shane Rattenbury has announced a brave new world of animal sales regulation:

Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Shane Rattenbury, today announced that a new enforceable code of practice for the sale of animals will begin in the ACT on 21 October 2013.

“This new Animals Sales Code is an important milestone in animal welfare reform in the ACT. It is the first ACT animal welfare code that is mandatory and enforceable. It will improve the welfare of animals that are sold in the ACT,” Mr Rattenbury said.

“The Sales Code applies to anyone who sells animals including through pet shops, private backyards, markets, newspapers, and internet sales. It covers companion animals, produce animals such as backyard poultry, and live animals sold as food in restaurants and markets, such as fish.

“The Code will improve the conditions for animals in sales environments and help ensure that only appropriate sales are made by, for example:

— Requiring the seller to provide hygienic accommodation that meets the physical, behavioural and emotional needs of the animals (eg space that allows animals to move around freely, exercise and rest) and to provide adequate exercise to the animals (eg 30 min exercise per day for dogs);

— Requiring sellers to provide all buyers with written information about the care of the animal andfor commercial sellers to accept animals returned within three days of purchase;

— Requiring staff at commercial establishments to be experienced and knowledgeable in the care of the species of animals being sold;

— Restricting animal sales to buyers who are above the age of sixteen;

— Introducing record keeping requirements for anyone selling an animal for financial gain.

“The Sales Code is enforceable by RSPCA inspectors, Territory and Municipal Services Officers and Police. It can be enforced by a written warning, on the spot fines, or court imposed penalties of up to $14,000 for an individual.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
19 Responses to
Animal sales codified
MrBigEars 4:10 pm 21 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Pet sales are just going to get pushed underground. Word of mouth and secret internet sales will become the norm. I don’t think this will really benefit anybody, but will push up the price of pets across the board.

Budgie-smuggling?

SheepGroper 3:57 pm 21 Oct 13

rosscoact said :

point 2

TAMS rangers have domestic animal pickup according to their website. The phone number is there so perhaps you should be complaining about Canberra Connect giving you the wrong information?

“Business hours are between 9 am and 5 pm from Monday to Friday and 8:30 am to 4:30 pm on Saturday. DAS Rangers patrol and respond to complaints from the public seven days a week during DAS business hours, however don’t be surprised if you see a Ranger patrolling prohibited areas at any time of the day or night.

They didn’t last year when a large ( around a metre high at the shoulder ) neighbourhood dog was roaming the streets one weekend and being an agressive pest – he was barking and darting towards people as if to bite, he bailed up the unfortunate meals on wheels lady attending to a neighbour, preventing her from getting into her car. I phoned DAS and got a recorded message ( it was a weekend ) to call Canberra Connect instead, and CC said they couldn’t contact the rangers and suggested I catch the dog and either bring it to the RSPCA or keep it at my house until DAS opened up shop again on the next working day. Not wanting to get bitten and/or have my car damaged I let the matter go hoping the dog wouldn’t wander onto a nearby busy road and impotently cursed its irresponsible owner.

Wait – from your quoted text their business hours are over 6 days a week and their website states they respond 7 days a week during their business hours?

rosscoact 2:27 pm 21 Oct 13

point 2

TAMS rangers have domestic animal pickup according to their website. The phone number is there so perhaps you should be complaining about Canberra Connect giving you the wrong information?

“Business hours are between 9 am and 5 pm from Monday to Friday and 8:30 am to 4:30 pm on Saturday. DAS Rangers patrol and respond to complaints from the public seven days a week during DAS business hours, however don’t be surprised if you see a Ranger patrolling prohibited areas at any time of the day or night.

If you require assistance during business hours regarding dog attacks, animal nuisance matters, dog registrations, replacement tags, exercise maps, keeper’s licence applications, injured animals, impounded dogs, lost/found animals or dogs for sale please call 13 22 81.”

and

The role of DAS
Domestic Animal Services (DAS) is the ACT Government business unit responsible for providing a range of animal control services to the residents of the ACT region, including:
administration and regulation of Domestic Animal Act 2000;
dog registration and the issuing of various licenses;
dealing with vicious dogs and dog attacks;
apprehending, impounding and caring for stray, roaming, injured and lost dogs;
investigating alleged animal nuisance issues;
management and operation of the DAS Shelter and impoundment facilities; and
urban animal management advice and education;
facilitating the DAS Volunteer program to ensure our dogs are exercised and better socialised; and
working with regional and interstate dog rescue groups to re-home as many suitable dogs as possible.
DAS is dedicated to providing a safe and friendly community for the people of Canberra and their pet dogs and cats by actively regulating the requirements of the Domestic Animals Act 2000. A priority of the team is reuniting families with their four legged friends as well as finding loving new homes for lost or unwanted dogs.
DAS works in co-operation with the RSPCA to ensure the welfare of domestic animals in the Territory. The DAS facilities at Mugga Lane, Symonston caters for dogs found roaming, straying or lost in the ACT. The RSCPA caters for dogs and all lost or found cats in the ACT.

Ghettosmurf87 2:25 pm 21 Oct 13

morticia said :

ghetto, your moral relativist education has lead you to believe that common sense and judgement is no longer a valuable asset for life, that you must rely on experts (ie government) for every part of your life and thinking otherwise you can’t justify your existence. Here is the basic question you need to answer for your mother, what do we do with roaming, potentially dangerous (or even non-dangerous) dogs here in the ACT? Has the ACT government absconed all responsiblity for public safety while still requiring strict registration and microchipping of pets? Can’t have it both ways? If you own a dog keep it under your control or be prepared to lose it.

Common sense is a wonderful thing, I just don’t believe many people actually exercise it. Especially not the “common” part of it, which is what I was pointing out. I.e, one persons “common sense” is not the same as another persons “common sense”.

Should the ACT government send out staff willy nilly whenever someone reports ANY dog on the loose? Poodles included? Could this possibly lead to a large waste of taxpayers money due to serial worry warts whose idea of dangerous is stepping out of their house?

Should ANY dog on the loose be deemed DANGEROUS? Where do you draw the line? What is the definition of dangerous? Is it your definition based on your own-preconceived notions and your own anxieties? Is it from a select list of breeds that have been demmed dangerous? Is it based on the size of the dog?

I am all for a bit of responsibility being placed on the owners of pets to ensure that they are properly secured and are not on the loose, to both their own and their owners detriment. But I do not agree that any old nelly on the side of the street is the right person to be making the judgement. They should report what they observe and then put a bit of trust in those told who one might hope have a reasonable idea of what does and does not require urgent intervention.

Much like we do with the police.

The police can’t attend every single report that gets phoned in, so we need to have a certain level of trust that they are making the right judgements.

If you genuinely think you know better than the people you called to report the dogs to, what is the basis for such an assertion?

IrishPete 2:19 pm 21 Oct 13

morticia said :

On this animal welfare topic, what about the welfare of Humans? You know, the ones who pay taxes and keep this government funded with our hard earned money so they can look after the parks, people our territory? I think Rattenbury forgot about us humans when he forced himself into his ministerial role.

Recently I had an incident near a public oval in the underpass/tunnel while walking with my kids. Two collared, terrier dogs were freely roaming the streets without their owner, they were tagged it appeared. We quietly passed them but one of them got a sniff and started following us, looking ready to attack, while the other watched. We got away up a slope so they didn’t bother, but I can see some small kids by themselves would have potentially been in trouble with these dogs. These were not poodles, they were some type of terrier breed with the huge jaws, looked like they could kill someone. Even non-dog people can tell the difference between a potentially dangerous dog and one that could be less dangerous. But no, the ACT government won’t let us use common sense any more, that’s not the socialist way.

So, I called the ACT government hotline and some droid on the phone tells me about Dog’s Rights in the ACT. Am I hearing correctly I thought?

Dog Rights #1, he tells me the ACT government does not discriminate between different breeds of dogs and he won’t consider these dogs dangerous unless they are actually proven to be dangerous. So much for trusting common sense, not allowed in a socialist society I suppose.

Dogs Rights #2, he then advised me the ACT does not have a dog pickup service for stray or roaming dogs, and that if I really wanted to I’d have to contain the dogs myself and a ranger can come to pick them up from my backyard. Even if he wanted to, he couldn’t ask a ranger to even check or pickup the dogs. So whats the point of tagging and registering these dogs if we can’t do anything about roaming dogs? Gallagher needs to answer this. Do we wait for them to maul or kill some kids first and then jail the owner, is that what tags are really for?

So as I see it, the ACT government is not concerned about our personal safety, citizens must now save themselves and do dog wrangling just to protect their children, while the ACT government spend our money on unnecessary legal cases all over the place. This annoys me Mr Rattenbury.

I take initiative to advise the ACT government that two potentially dangerous dogs are roaming the suburb close to where children play and they simply throw me the book on Human Rights for Dogs in the ACT, we can’t do anything about it, you are discriminating against dog breeds, please don’t hurt the dogs feelings. Is this for real? Are we becoming so politically correct and extreme that we put animal rights ahead of human safety? What is Rattenbug thinking when he introduces such extreme laws?

I see another Rattenbug news story today with more Animal Sales reform from the minister, obviously thinking he represents animals and not humans anymore. The greens seem to take their ideaology from the humanist manifesto, they protect the environment and animals at all costs, but neglect the higher order species like us humans. Labor should put a stop to this immediately and kick Rattenbug out, because I’m pissed my taxes are not going to essential services like this, instead to pet projects for Barr and Corbell.

That’s why this government is a joke and Rattenbury is probably to blame to pushing them over the line during the last election with his extreme views, they certaintly weren’t the preferred party after vote counting.

Sounds like you were given bad advice on the phone. Stray dogs will be impounded. But it also sounds like you may have asked the wrong question – did you say something like “there were these dangerous dogs, I know they were dangerous because Alan Jones said so, and I want you to come around and take them away forever”. Maybe if you had simply said “there were a couple of dogs straying and menacing me” you might have got a different response.

Shane Rattenbury has been minister for TAMS for a year. The attitude you described from the person on the phone sounds like a much more entrenched culture.

I have a bull-terrier cross, she’s huge and she licks. She hates other dogs, but at nearly 10 years old now, I can honestly say there has never been the slightest concern over her behaviour to humans, of any size or shape or familiarity.

IP

Erg0 1:54 pm 21 Oct 13

morticia said :

ghetto, your moral relativist education has lead you to believe that common sense and judgement is no longer a valuable asset for life, that you must rely on experts (ie government) for every part of your life and thinking otherwise you can’t justify your existence. Here is the basic question you need to answer for your mother, what do we do with roaming, potentially dangerous (or even non-dangerous) dogs here in the ACT? Has the ACT government absconed all responsiblity for public safety while still requiring strict registration and microchipping of pets? Can’t have it both ways? If you own a dog keep it under your control or be prepared to lose it.

So, in summary, the government should stay out of the way and allow you to rely on your own common sense. Until you don’t want to handle something yourself, at which point they should swoop in like Superman to resolve the problem.

SheepGroper 1:40 pm 21 Oct 13

Good luck getting all the staff at Pet’s Paradise to “be experienced and knowledgeable in the care of the species of animals being sold” given some of the advice I’ve heard.

morticia 1:29 pm 21 Oct 13

PostalGeek, just check with Rattenbug or Gallagher, I’m sure they can spend a little more of your taxpayer funds to write up yet another human rights legislation act, even if it’s for dogs.

Postalgeek 1:10 pm 21 Oct 13

morticia said :

I take initiative to advise the ACT government that two potentially dangerous dogs are roaming the suburb close to where children play and they simply throw me the book on Human Rights for Dogs in the ACT

Is there an ISBN number for that book?

But seriously, living in a socialist society, you’re expected to assume the responsibilities of social ownership, making you an irresponsible socialist owner who’s stood by and allowed community-owned dogs to roam the streets. Irresponsible socialist owners like you who let your socially owned dogs roam the streets in packs and potentially maul small socialist children make me sick. This is why we need tougher socialist dog laws preventing people like you from socially owning dogs.

wildturkeycanoe 1:09 pm 21 Oct 13

Ok, I am outraged. Say I want to sell some of my backyard guppies, or a chook. I have to provide the new owner with a written report about how emotionally stable they are??!!
This WILL at first glance apply to ANYONE selling a pet from home. Put an ad on a website and I guess they have the right to come and inspect your animals living quarters. This is rubbish. What if my fish are considered as having a stress condition because there isn’t enough room in the tank for them? Well, that’s because they bred and I’m trying to sell them to make room. What if my budgies seem disheveled in the heat whilst I have a customer looking at them? Bugger if I’m making a written report if I want to sell a chicken, but also stuffed if I don’t because it’s a maximum $14,000 fine!!
Pet sales are just going to get pushed underground. Word of mouth and secret internet sales will become the norm. I don’t think this will really benefit anybody, but will push up the price of pets across the board.

morticia 1:09 pm 21 Oct 13

ghetto, your moral relativist education has lead you to believe that common sense and judgement is no longer a valuable asset for life, that you must rely on experts (ie government) for every part of your life and thinking otherwise you can’t justify your existence. Here is the basic question you need to answer for your mother, what do we do with roaming, potentially dangerous (or even non-dangerous) dogs here in the ACT? Has the ACT government absconed all responsiblity for public safety while still requiring strict registration and microchipping of pets? Can’t have it both ways? If you own a dog keep it under your control or be prepared to lose it.

Ghettosmurf87 1:00 pm 21 Oct 13

Morticia, judging by your hysteria, common sense is not a strong suit.

What expertise do you have to determine whether a dog is a “dangerous breed”? I felt threatened becuase they existed? I know some people, like my mother, that are pertrified of dogs in general. She would probably be of the opinion that any dog was dangerous, but she knows enough to realise that this isn’t a rational thought process and that it is her that is the issue, not the dogs.

And what are you going on about regarding the election results from the last ACT election? The Liberal Party (86032) had a massive 41 more votes than the Labor Party (85991) at the 2012 local election. This is barely any difference at all and hardly a good basis to claim that the ACT population “preferred” one major over the other. However, when you add in the 23773 votes that the Greens received, it would be quite credible to say that a Labor/Greens coalition was a clearly preferred option with some 23742 more votes than the Liberal Party. Not Labor’s fault that there is no National Party in the ACT with which the Libs can form a coalition here.

poetix 12:36 pm 21 Oct 13

#2. So nothing happened to you, but because the dogs that didn’t bite weren’t poodles, you feel aggrieved?

Those kelpies look just a little more intelligent, somehow.

morticia 12:14 pm 21 Oct 13

On this animal welfare topic, what about the welfare of Humans? You know, the ones who pay taxes and keep this government funded with our hard earned money so they can look after the parks, people our territory? I think Rattenbury forgot about us humans when he forced himself into his ministerial role.

Recently I had an incident near a public oval in the underpass/tunnel while walking with my kids. Two collared, terrier dogs were freely roaming the streets without their owner, they were tagged it appeared. We quietly passed them but one of them got a sniff and started following us, looking ready to attack, while the other watched. We got away up a slope so they didn’t bother, but I can see some small kids by themselves would have potentially been in trouble with these dogs. These were not poodles, they were some type of terrier breed with the huge jaws, looked like they could kill someone. Even non-dog people can tell the difference between a potentially dangerous dog and one that could be less dangerous. But no, the ACT government won’t let us use common sense any more, that’s not the socialist way.

So, I called the ACT government hotline and some droid on the phone tells me about Dog’s Rights in the ACT. Am I hearing correctly I thought?

Dog Rights #1, he tells me the ACT government does not discriminate between different breeds of dogs and he won’t consider these dogs dangerous unless they are actually proven to be dangerous. So much for trusting common sense, not allowed in a socialist society I suppose.

Dogs Rights #2, he then advised me the ACT does not have a dog pickup service for stray or roaming dogs, and that if I really wanted to I’d have to contain the dogs myself and a ranger can come to pick them up from my backyard. Even if he wanted to, he couldn’t ask a ranger to even check or pickup the dogs. So whats the point of tagging and registering these dogs if we can’t do anything about roaming dogs? Gallagher needs to answer this. Do we wait for them to maul or kill some kids first and then jail the owner, is that what tags are really for?

So as I see it, the ACT government is not concerned about our personal safety, citizens must now save themselves and do dog wrangling just to protect their children, while the ACT government spend our money on unnecessary legal cases all over the place. This annoys me Mr Rattenbury.

I take initiative to advise the ACT government that two potentially dangerous dogs are roaming the suburb close to where children play and they simply throw me the book on Human Rights for Dogs in the ACT, we can’t do anything about it, you are discriminating against dog breeds, please don’t hurt the dogs feelings. Is this for real? Are we becoming so politically correct and extreme that we put animal rights ahead of human safety? What is Rattenbug thinking when he introduces such extreme laws?

I see another Rattenbug news story today with more Animal Sales reform from the minister, obviously thinking he represents animals and not humans anymore. The greens seem to take their ideaology from the humanist manifesto, they protect the environment and animals at all costs, but neglect the higher order species like us humans. Labor should put a stop to this immediately and kick Rattenbug out, because I’m pissed my taxes are not going to essential services like this, instead to pet projects for Barr and Corbell.

That’s why this government is a joke and Rattenbury is probably to blame to pushing them over the line during the last election with his extreme views, they certaintly weren’t the preferred party after vote counting.

poetix 11:47 am 21 Oct 13

Kelpies are lovely but they look too intelligent, as if they could moderate comments themselves, given a chance.

I think these moves are probably good, but they mean nothing without proper enforcement.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site