Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison

Developing and Planning a Protocol for Implementing Health Promoting Animal Assisted Interventions (AAI) in a Tertiary Health Setting

The Ottawa Charter identifies that multiple levels of government, non-government, community, and other organizations should work together to facilitate health promotion, including in acute settings such as hospitals. We outline a method and protocol to achieve this, namely an Action Research (AR) framework for an Animal Assisted Intervention (AAI) in a tertiary health setting. Dogs Offering Support after Stroke (DOgSS) is an AR study at a major tertiary referral hospital. AAI has been reported to improve mood and quality of life for patients in hospitals. Our project objectives included applying for funding, developing a hospital dog visiting Action Research project, and, subsequent to ethics and governance approvals and finance, undertaking and reporting on the Action Research findings. The Action Research project aimed to investigate whether AAI (dog-visiting) makes a difference to the expressed mood of stroke patients and their informal supports (visiting carers/family/friends), and also the impact these visits have on hospital staff and volunteers, as well as the dog handler and dog involved. We provide our protocol for project management and operations, setting out how the project is conducted from conception to assess human and animal wellbeing and assist subsequent decision-making about introducing dog-visiting to the Stroke Unit. The protocol can be used or adapted by other organizations to try to avoid pitfalls and support health promotion in one of the five important action areas of the Ottawa Charter, namely that of reorienting health services.

How Well Does Australian Animal Welfare Policy Reflect Scientific Evidence: A Case Study Approach Based on Lamb Marking

The development and substance of animal welfare policy is subject to a range of social, cultural, economic, and scientific influences that commonly vary within and between countries. Discrepancies in policy can create confusion and mistrust among stakeholders and consumers and limit the ability to create a uniform minimum level of requirements to safeguard animal welfare, as well as create a level 'playing field' for farmers when trading with other jurisdictions. The livestock sector is receiving growing scrutiny globally for real and perceived violations of animal welfare, for example, the practice of mulesing in Australia. This article explores animal welfare legislation within Australia and how it reflects the scientific evidence surrounding routine husbandry practices in sheep, including tail docking, castration, and mulesing. While there is some variation between state and territory legislation, the most notable concern is the lack of enforceable recommendations surrounding the evidence-based use of analgesia and anaesthesia for painful husbandry procedures. The age at which these procedures are recommended to be performed is relatively consistent across Australian jurisdictions, but there is a marked difference compared to international legislation. The global context of animal welfare legislation, public perception, and producer perception of these procedures are also discussed, highlighting the difficulty of creating robust animal welfare legislation that promotes a good standard of welfare that is respected worldwide whilst being practical in an Australian setting given our unique geography and climatic conditions.

An investigation into ‘community expectations’ surrounding animal welfare law enforcement in Australia

Nature of reform to animal welfare legislation in Australia has commonly been attributed to increasing alignment with the ‘communities’ expectations’, implying that the community has power in driving legislative change. Yet, despite this assertion there has been no publicly available information disclosing the nature of these ‘expectations’, or the methodology used to determine public stance. However, based on previous sociological research, as well as legal reforms that have taken place to increase maximum penalties for animal welfare offences, it is probable that the community expects harsher penalties for offences. Using representative sampling of the Australian public, this study provides an assessment of current community expectations of animal welfare law enforcement. A total of 2152 individuals participated in the survey. There was strong support for sentences for animal cruelty being higher in magnitude (50% support). However, a large proportion (84%) were in favour of alternate penalties such as prohibiting offenders from owning animals in the future. There was also a belief that current prosecution rates were too low with 80% of respondents agreeing to this assertion. Collectively, this suggests a greater support for preventing animal cruelty through a stronger enforcement model rather than punishing animal cruelty offenders through harsher sentences. This potentially indicates a shift in public opinion towards a more proactive approach to animal welfare, rather than a reactive approach to animal cruelty.

Understanding Subordinate Animal Welfare Legislation in Australia: Assembling the Regulations and Codes of Practice

Simple Summary

In Australia, animal welfare protection is a state and territory responsibility. Having eight separate state and territories results in eight separate animal welfare legal frameworks, all which contain a primary piece of legislation and secondary or subordinate forms of legislation. These subordinate forms are known as regulations and codes of practice and are lower-ranking laws that are given powers under the primary legislation. Subordinate laws contain crucial details that govern everyday human–animal interactions and industry practices, for example companion animals used for breeding. There has been no review of the animal welfare-focused subordinate laws in Australia. This study has assembled each animal welfare regulation and code of practice in force in Australia as a reference for practitioners working in specific animal-related areas to easily identify relevant documents pertaining to welfare and understand the nature of their responsibilities in terms of compliance with these documents. A total of 201 pieces of subordinate legislation were identified and presented through the following utility categories of animals: companion, production, wild/exotic, entertainment. The benefits of housing the information identified from this study on an online database for animal industries to use are discussed.

Abstract

The state-based approach to regulating animal welfare in Australia is thought to create national dis-uniformity in that each state and territory legislates and operates inconsistently. The animal welfare legal framework in each of the eight Australian jurisdictions is made up of a primary statute and subordinate legislation, where subordinate animal welfare legislation, in the forms of regulations and codes of practices, are lower-ranking laws that are given power under the jurisdiction’s specific animal welfare statute. Since a review of animal welfare statutes identified broad patterns between the jurisdictions, this study is intended to be complementary by collating the subordinate legislation to provide a more comprehensive understanding of animal welfare laws in Australia. Using targeted search strategies stemming from the eight enabling animal welfare statutes, this study identified 201 pieces of subordinate legislation in force between 28 March 2022 and 5 April 2022. The scope of subordinate legislation is depicted through the following utility categories of animals: companion, production, wild/exotic, entertainment. Whilst subordinate legislation differed between the jurisdictions, it was common for similar welfare concerns or topic areas to be protected in higher-order legislation (statutes or regulations). Additionally, many jurisdictions were found to have similar shortcomings, all which likely could be managed through a mechanism of national data collection.

The Welfare of Fighting Dogs: Wounds, Neurobiology of Pain, Legal Aspects and the Potential Role of the Veterinary Profession

Simple Summary

Dog fights are cruel and harmful events which have a clear impact on animal welfare. For this reason, many countries have banned these events via statute. However, in some regions of the world they are still legal. Moreover, the enforcement of legal bans can be problematic in countries where they are illegal, and they may still occur. This article provides background information on dog fighting and the welfare implications of it. This includes consideration for the pain inflicted, and its mechanisms of perception and recognition. It also analyzes the injuries and emotions experienced by the animals and considers the profile of the breeders and handlers involved in the activity. Since welfare concerns often extend beyond the animals’ fighting lives, a discussion around the possibilities of reintroduction into suitable environments for these animals is also made. Finally, attention is turned to the role that veterinarians can and should play in dealing with these issues of welfare.

Abstract

Throughout history it has been common to practice activities which significantly impact on animal welfare. Animal fighting, including dogfighting, is a prime example where animals often require veterinary care, either to treat wounds and fractures or to manage pain associated with tissue and where death may even result. Amongst the detrimental health effects arising are the sensory alterations that these injuries cause, which not only include acute or chronic pain but can also trigger a greater sensitivity to other harmful (hyperalgesia) or even innocuous stimuli (allodynia). These neurobiological aspects are often ignored and the erroneous assumption made that the breeds engaged in organized fighting have a high pain threshold or, at least, they present reduced or delayed responses to painful stimuli. However, it is now widely recognized that the damage these dogs suffer is not only physical but psychological, emotional, and sensory. Due to the impact fighting has on canine welfare, it is necessary to propose solution strategies, especially educational ones, i.e., educating people and training veterinarians, the latter potentially playing a key role in alerting people to all dog welfare issues. Therefore, the aim of this review is to describe the risk factors associated with dogfighting generally (dog temperament, age, sex, nutrition, testosterone levels, environment, isolation conditions, socialization, education, or training). A neurobiological approach to this topic is taken to discuss the impact on dog pain and emotion. Finally, a general discussion of the format of guidelines and laws that seek to sanction them is presented. The role that veterinarians can play in advancing dog welfare, rehabilitating dogs, and educating the public is also considered.

Animal Abuse as an Indicator of Domestic Violence: One Health, One Welfare Approach

For years now, the importance of animal cruelty has been gaining recognition in the industrialized cities of the West. Animal cruelty encompasses any act that causes a non-human animal unnecessary pain or suffering, including negligence, abandonment, abuse, torture, bestiality, and even theriocide. This represents a red flag for society as a whole because people who commit such acts can escalate violence and direct it to other individuals. Animal cruelty and interpersonal violence—as well as other socially undesirable conduct such as bullying, antisocial personality disorder, rape, and serial murder—are closely related, so timely diagnoses of either one can help prevent acts of aggression. It is necessary, therefore, to analyze and try to understand whether there are early indicators that may help identify potentially violent individuals. It is well known that kids from homes with actual violence in their homes show a high tendency to reproduce such behaviors with both animals and other people. In conclusion, much research and rethinking of the importance of the veterinarian in detecting animal abuse and cruelty is needed to help detect and prevent cases of interpersonal violence that may arise over time.

Welfare Assessment Tools in Zoos: From Theory to Practice

Zoos are increasingly implementing formalized animal welfare assessment programs to allow monitoring of welfare over time, as well as to aid in resource prioritization. These programs tend to rely on assessment tools that incorporate resource-based and observational animal-focused measures. A narrative review of the literature was conducted to bring together recent studies examining welfare assessment methods in zoo animals. A summary of these methods is provided, with advantages and limitations of the approaches presented. We then highlight practical considerations with respect to implementation of these tools into practice, for example scoring schemes, weighting of criteria, and innate animal factors for consideration. It is concluded that there would be value in standardizing guidelines for development of welfare assessment tools since zoo accreditation bodies rarely prescribe these. There is also a need to develop taxon or species-specific assessment tools to complement more generic processes and more directly inform welfare management.

The Organization of Animal Protection Investigations and the Animal Harm Spectrum: Canadian Data, International Lessons

This paper offers the first overview of the Canadian animal cruelty investigations landscape. First, the public and private sector organizations responsible for enforcement are explained, followed by examination of the implications of this patchwork for reporting suspected cruelty. Key statistical data are presented about the types of issues and cases and investigator responses. Initial recommendations are then proposed, and the value of the animal harm spectrum is discussed, including how it can be mobilized to strengthen the operations of animal protection work and animal welfare policy across nations.

Is One Health a Viable Strategy in Animal Health Litigation: Evidence from Civil Lawsuits in China

Simple Summary

Strategic litigation launched to protect animal welfare worldwide branches out with several tactical themes: environmental protection, child abuse, veterinarian malpractice, product liability and quasi-family member. Currently, the litigation strategy themed in One Health has been observed in legal practice in Chinese mainland. Using 1520 zoonosis related civil lawsuit judgments, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of this litigation strategy in animal health cases from Chinese mainland. It has been confirmed that using the litigation strategy themed in One Health results in more successful outcomes and larger damage awards, so there might be a practical value in using this strategy in animal welfare lawsuits.

Abstract

Several litigation strategies are used to gain support from courts in order to protect animals. While the emerging litigation strategy themed in One Health stimulates judicial protection in the animal health sector, little is known about whether and how such strategies are supported by courts. In this article, we investigate how animal welfare litigation strategies influence judge’s choices within their discretion. We argue that litigators equipped with the litigation strategy themed in One Health are placed in an advantageous position in animal health cases, but that this tendency varies markedly across zoonoses. Specifically, we suggest that litigators utilizing One Health’s litigation strategy are associated with higher probabilities to win, whereas normal litigators are not. Further, we propose that litigators equipped with the One Health litigation strategy are awarded more damages from judges. We test and find support for our predictions using a cross sectional dataset of civil lawsuit cases centering on the animal health industry in Chinese mainland. Our findings indicate that courts indeed were persuaded by the One Health litigation strategy, even when bound by the discretion rules. At the same time, we suggest that for advocates who would like to litigate for animal welfare in the animal health sector, the litigation strategy themed in One Health might have potentially positive implications.

Artistic Freedom or Animal Cruelty? Contemporary Visual Art Practice That Involves Live and Deceased Animals

This paper examines a selection of 21st-century international examples of exhibited visual artworks involving live or deceased animals. It seeks to reveal the risks and benefits of unique encounters with animals through art and to consider the ethical implications of artwork deploying animals. Australian and international animal protection laws are not explicit when it comes to the sourcing of animals for art nor for the direct inclusion of animals in artworks. This lack leads to a variety of artistic practices, some considered ethical while others are viewed as controversial, bordering on animal cruelty. Artwork selection is determined by a focus on high-profile artists who intentionally use animals in their practice and whose reputation has been fostered by this intention. The study provides insight into how the intentional use of ethically sourced animals within art practice can be a method of addressing hierarchal human-animal imbalances. Further, this study identifies unethical practices that may be best avoided regardless of the pro-animal political statements the artists put forward. Recommendations of how to better determine what is an acceptable use of animals in art with a view to informing legal guidelines and artistic best practice are presented.