scholarly journals A Review of Australian Animal Welfare Legislation, Regulation, Codes of Practice, and Policy, and Their Influence on Stakeholders Caring for Wildlife and the Animals for Whom They Care

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Englefield ◽  
Simone A. Blackman ◽  
Melissa Starling ◽  
Paul D. McGreevy

The Australian constitution makes no mention of native animals. Responsibility for animal welfare is largely retained by the states and territories via a fragmented, complex, contradictory, inconsistent system of regulatory management. Given that most jurisdictions have expressly made the possession of wildlife unlawful, the action of taking and possessing an animal, to rehabilitate it, defies the regulatory process. In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to microchip, band, or mark an animal, meaning that no reliable method is available to monitor an animal. Each year, a minimum of 50,000 rehabilitated native animals are released back to the wild, with little post-release monitoring. Where required, the assessments of behavioural and health requirements to confirm suitability for release may be undertaken by people with either negligible or questionable qualifications. Whilst it can be appropriate to rehabilitate and release injured native animals back to the wild, there may be moral, ethical, and practical reasons for not releasing hand-reared orphan native animals. This article examines the evolution, and explains the consequences, of decentralised regulation on wildlife carers and rehabilitating animals. It recommends that the practice of placing hand-reared native animals into the wild, and the regulatory framework that provides for it, should be reviewed.

1999 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
A. D. Jorêt

AbstractThere is a wealth of animal welfare legislation affecting the egg industry. Legislation can be over-prescriptive and can be a barrier to progress even where welfare benefits would result. Codes of practice (e.g. Freedom Food; The Lion) present a more flexible way forward, but to be effective they have to be both understood and credible in the eyes of the consumer.With the increasing globalization of trade, welfare legislation must be framed to protect domestic industry from unfair competition.


Animals ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rochelle Morton ◽  
Michelle Hebart ◽  
Alexandra Whittaker

Animal welfare legislation in South Australia underwent amendments in 2008, where all the maximum penalties for animal welfare offences were doubled. This commitment to increased penalties arguably provides evidence of the legislature’s intent with respect to penalties. Studies have speculated that the legislative intent behind the increased penalties is not being reflected in the courts. This interdisciplinary research sought to gain evidence to confirm or disprove these speculations, by quantifying the average custodial sentence and monetary fine handed down in court before and after the 2008 amendments. Furthermore, trends relating to the species of animal affected and the demographics of the offender were identified. A total of 314 RSPCA (SA) closed case files from 2006 to 2018 were converted into an electronic form. Since the amendments, the average penalties have doubled in magnitude; fines have increased from $700 to $1535, while prison sentences have increased from 37 days to 77 days. Cases of companion animal abuse were most common (75% of all cases) and the location of the offence was found to influence offending. These findings suggest that the 2008 amendments have caused the average penalties to increase. However, it is debatable whether these increases are enough to effectively punish animal abusers.


2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Oriol Caudevilla Parellada

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan O. Hampton ◽  
Timothy H. Hyndman ◽  
Michael Laurence ◽  
Andrew L. Perry ◽  
Peter Adams ◽  
...  

Increased scrutiny of animal welfare in wildlife management has seen a recent proliferation in the use of procedural documents (standard operating procedures, codes of practice etc.). Some procedural documents are presumed to represent ‘best practice’ methods, whereby adherence to prescribed inputs is explicitly purported to generate humane outcomes. However, the relationship between what is done to animals (inputs) and what they experience (outputs), as assessed by animal-based measures, has received little attention. Procedural documents are commonly developed in the absence of empirical animal-based measures, creating uncertainty in animal welfare outcomes. Prescribed procedures are valuable as guidelines for standardising methodology, but the development of ‘welfare standards’ that focus on desired thresholds for animal-based measures offers many advantages for improving animal welfare. Refinement of the use of procedural documents in wildlife management is required to ensure they generate desirable outcomes for animals, and do not preclude the development of improved methods.


2018 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Bennett ◽  
Kelvin Balcombe ◽  
Philip Jones ◽  
Andrew Butterworth

Author(s):  
Angus Nurse ◽  
Tanya Wyatt

This chapter examines the notion of wildlife as property or ‘things’ and critically analyses the extent to which anthropocentric notions of wildlife as a resource for human exploitation determines harm caused to non-human animals. This chapter examines how anthropocentric notions of morality and human-centred values underpin the exploitation of non-human animals and the sense in which they are owned. Employing a green criminological perspective, the chapter examines the use and abuse of wildlife within the animal ‘entertainment’ industry. The chapter examines the use of wildlife within aquariums, zoos, and circuses and examines both the legality of this use and the non-human animal harm contained within such uses. Evidence exists, for example, of psychological harm caused to wildlife in zoos that would likely be unlawful if experienced by companion animals. Yet, zoos and safari parks are ostensibly legal operations, thus animal welfare legislation is often the only mechanism through which action can be taken in respect of what would otherwise be deemed unlawful captivity (see also Chapter 7 on animal rights). We end the chapter by touching on how wildlife come to be property – that is a short discussion of wildlife trade, including the online market.


Author(s):  
Emmanuel S. Swai ◽  
Abdu A. Hayghaimo ◽  
Ayubu A. Hassan ◽  
Bartholomeo S. Mhina

Information on the level of foetal wastage in slaughtered cattle in Tanzania is limited. A three-month observational study (April – June 2014) of animals slaughtered at the Tanga abattoir in Tanga region, Tanzania was carried out to determine the number of pregnant cows slaughtered. The total number of cattle slaughtered during the study period was 3643, representing a monthly kill average of 1214 and a daily kill average of 40. Over 98% of the cattle presented to the abattoir for slaughter were local breed (Tanzania shorthorn zebu) and most were above 3 years of age. Improved breeds of cattle represented only 1.3% of all slaughters. Of the cattle slaughtered, 2256 (61.9%) were female and 1387 (38.1%) were male. A total of 655 slaughtered cows were pregnant, representing a foetal wastage of 29.1%. Of the 655 recovered foetuses, 333 (50.8%) were male and 322 (49.2%) were female. Of the recovered foetuses, 25.8% were recovered in the first, 42.7% in the second and 31.6% in the third trimester. This study indicates cases of significant foetal losses, negatively impacting future replacement stock as a result of the slaughter of pregnant animals. The indiscriminate slaughter of pregnant cows suggests that existing animal welfare legislation is not sufficiently enforced and routine veterinary ante-mortem inspection of trade animals is failing to prevent the high level of foetal wastage.


Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 715
Author(s):  
Sofia Väärikkälä ◽  
Tarja Koskela ◽  
Laura Hänninen ◽  
Mari Nevas

EU legislation requires the violations of animal welfare standards to be sanctioned. Our aim was to evaluate criminal sanctions concerning violations of cattle and pig welfare on Finnish farms. We analyzed 196 court cases heard in Finnish district courts from 2011 to 2016. Almost all the cases (95%) concerned the violations of cattle welfare, of which 61% occurred on small farms. The lack of cleanliness and inadequate feeding and watering were the most common reported violations. Median time span from the start date of an offending to a judgement was slightly less than two years. Of the cases, 96% resulted in conviction. The court did not perceive the violations as being highly blameworthy as a small fine and a short conditional imprisonment were the most often imposed sanctions. A ban on the keeping of animals was used as a precautionary measure in half of the cases. Veterinarians were shown to have an important role in the initiation of criminal procedures, providing evidence for the police, and acting as witnesses. Therefore, it is crucial to achieve a well-functioning collaboration between veterinarians and the police and prosecutors. The expertise of these authorities on animal welfare legislation should also be emphasized to improve the efficacy of criminal procedures.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-195
Author(s):  
Dennis Paustenbach ◽  
Julie Panko

In this issue of the journal, Dr. Ragnar Lofstedt examines the current state of the EU regulatory framework with respect to chemicals and illustrates how the hazard-based approach sealed the fate of two important chemicals in the EU market-place. He also explores how the attitudes, technical knowledge and economic influences of the individual member states determine the outcome of environmental and chemical regulations. Lastly, Dr. Lofstedt provides some recommendations to improve consistency in the European regulatory process and ensure greater scientific, as well as, risk-based regulations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document