“UNFORTUNATELY they think of dogs as four-legged people,” summarised Don Robertson, when speaking about some of the conditions that appeared in the draft Victorian Animal Welfare legislation – and which could end up in the WA version coming later this year.
Although Dr Robertson is a farmer and sheep dog breeder, he is a past deputy director of the Muresk Institute, spent 20 years as a lecturer in genetics at the Murdoch Veterinary School and was a consulting geneticist to the Working Kelpie Council of Australia.
More importantly, he has been a member of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS) group since 2010, addressing the welfare needs of working dogs.
In the eyes of those who have trouble separating the two concepts of animal welfare and animal liberation, a working sheep dog bitch that has the occasional litter of pups is no different to the bitches owned by the so-called puppy farmers that are used solely for breeding.
Some of the thoughts on animal welfare from that quarter include a provision that both the bitch and sire be examined by a vet and given a clean bill of health before each mating, with a bitch being limited to five litters in her lifetime.
Plus, if the dog is a worker, limiting its hours of work in any day.
As the WA Labor government is committed to legislate this year on puppy farms, Dr Robertson discussed the issue with two others who are involved at a national level in proposed dog legislation – Grant Cooke who farms at Grass Valley, between Northam and Meckering, and Gordon Curtis, who farms at Kellerberrin.
Both men are into sheep dog trials and are involved at a national level in administering the sport.
Most Australians are aware of the Tests that are played between Australia and New Zealand in cricket and rugby, but are probably unaware that Tests are played out between the two countries with sheep dog trials.
Mr Curtis has been the manager of the Australian team which recently won two test series, while Mr Cooke – plus his dogs – has been a member of the Australian team four times.
Mr Curtis is chairman of the WA Working Sheep Dog Association (WAWSDA) and president of the Australian Federation of Livestock Working Dogs (AFLWD) and Mr Cooke is the incoming WAWSDA president – so both are well versed in the operations and the politics of working dogs and the legislation that governs their operations.
Dogs are divided into two groups – working dogs and companion dogs.
Companion dogs, or pets, are the largest group and are concentrated in cities and large towns.
The first, and hardest, goal of working dog organisations is to convince the legislators that the two types of dogs should be acknowledged in any legislation and be subject to different conditions.
In the opinion of these three experienced dog handlers, the New Zealand legislation is the one to follow, a belief that has guided the development of the Code of Welfare for Australian livestock working dogs.
This code was developed in consultation with the various farmer organisations throughout Australia and its acceptance is mandatory for members of all of the livestock working dog groups that are members of AFLWD.
But as with other groups, science and common sense are not taken as evidence on their own, for politics is increasingly intervening and those people who take the liberation stance rather than the welfare one are increasingly taking charge.
The Code of Practice developed by AAWS working group was done with reference to the New Zealand model plus consultation with the various user groups.
Working dogs, including dogs used for working livestock, were the responsibility of this AAWS group until its final meeting when it was announced that the code was to be set aside.
The companion animal group had taken over working dogs and the AAWS will be promoting the draft Victorian legislation for companion dog breeders as the model for Australia-wide adoption.
The area involving working dogs is set against the background of a campaign run by the National and Victorian branches of the RSPCA against the use of animals for farming – the groups seem to have had the major influence on the draft Victorian legislation.
Fortunately, the public outcry against the draft legislation saw the Victorian Upper House set up a committee of inquiry which presented a report that was scathing of the excesses in the draft legislation.
The legislation was withdrawn and re-written, with an interesting sideline being a letter from the Victorian RSPCA chief ending its campaign against farm animals.
However, as the Victorian RSPCA is also part of the Federal RSPCA – which intends to continue its war on farmers – a somewhat sceptical approach needs to be taken to the Victorian about-face.
As the State government is committed to introducing legislation to control puppy farming, the ostensible target of the Victorian legislation, it is vital that the local legislation is based on experience and science and not the usual “liberation“ rubbish.
But it is a winnable battle as Mr Cooke and Mr Curtis were quick to point out, for the recently released Queensland code is a good one and treats both types of dogs differently.
It is also easy for legislation to become self-defeating, for the claimed target is the large, intensive facilities that produce pups for the companion market, including the designer-crosses such as the Labradoodle, a Labrador/Poodle cross.
The environment that the Victorian-type approach is trying to force onto dog breeders will not affect the sterile facilities of the big players, but cut out the farmer breeders who will baulk at the cost of the new facilities.
Legislation designed to control the activities of the puppy farms will end up being a marketing exercise for these large enterprises, for it will inhibit competition from the small, farmer/breeders.
Dr Robertson, the geneticist, is concerned that any legislation preventing the breeding of dogs on farms where they can be tested and selected for their work with livestock will smother the practical aspect of working dog breeders.
Research undertaken by Sydney University, New South Wales, has demonstrated an 80 per cent success rate among these practical breeders who, by selecting good workers to breed from, are finding that 80pc of the pups are good workers also.
“Working sheep is bred into them,” Dr Robertson emphasised.
“Anecdotal evidence indicates that the 20pc failure rate is increased by the lack of knowledge of the owner/trainers, for many dogs are good workers in spite of their trainers, not because of them.”
This success rate is in contrast to other working dogs such as sniffer dogs, police dogs and guide dogs, where this selection by assessment is not seen and, at best, only 40pc meet the required standards.
Many working sheep dogs can be into their second or third year of work before the owner decides that they are good enough to breed from, whereas the Victorian legislation states that those rejected for breeding must be neutered while still pups.
Breeding for looks, rather than working ability, has not only resulted in designer dogs, but other problems can arise, well-demonstrated by the British Bulldog where the squashed face look has been exaggerated as has the broad chest and slim hips.
Experience has shown that many of these fashion-influenced bulldogs have breathing difficulties and most pups must be delivered by caesarean section.
Dr Robertson, Mr Cooke and Mr Curtis are all practical, committed dog owners and although they have had discussions with politicians and grower organisations, the battle remains to ensure that the forthcoming legislation is practical and sensible.
It is an issue that has the potential to unite city and country people, for dog lovers can be found everywhere, as long as the radical tail, evident in Victoria, doesn’t end up wagging the legislative dog.