News and updates
Let's get positive! Here are some Facts from Professor Claire Wade regarding the Animal Justice Party (Emma Hurst Puppy Farming) Bill08-02-2022
We would like to thank Professor Claire Wade for allowing DOGS NSW to reprint her professional and valued opinion regarding the Animal Justice Party Bill.
The following changes to companion animal breeding rules are proposed:
61ZF Proprietors of companion animal breeding businesses must not breed dogs
or cats in certain circumstances.
A proprietor of a companion animal breeding business must not breed from a female dog or cat in the following circumstances—
(a) more than twice,
(b) if a heritable defect is identified in a previous litter of the dog or cat,
(c) with a dog or cat that is related to the dog or cat by blood.
Maximum penalty—
(a) for a corporation—2,000 penalty units,
(b) for an individual—400 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.
Response:
The animal welfare justifications for the proposed changes are absent or unclear.
There is no scientific support for the suggested changes.
Part (a): The rationale for the metric of two breedings is unclear or unjustified. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that negative welfare outcomes ensue from breeding an animal more than twice or even more than any particular number times if the animal is otherwise assessed as being in good health. There is no welfare or other justifiable reason why an animal assessed as fit by their veterinarian should not be bred.
Part (b): The definition of a heritable defect is absent or unclear. For Mendelian recessive conditions, simply breeding the animal with a partner from a different genetic background will minimize the chances of re-occurrence. Indeed, the imposition of such a requirement is far more likely to generate negative genetic outcomes from a population perspective by severely restricting the effective population size of the breeding population. This will do far more genetic harm than good. Most modern companion animal breeders actively participate in research to provide new genetic tests for Mendelian conditions where these do not already exist and actively apply genetic testing to minimize or eliminate the occurrence of Mendelian inherited defects in progeny.
For complex traits, such as orthopaedic traits or cancer, the proposed limit is unlikely to make any substantive impact on the occurrence of disorders in progeny.
Part (c): The definition of “related by blood” is unquantifiable. If this same requirement was imposed upon humans, then many cultures would be subjected to genocide.
Penalties:
The breaches would be impossible to prove and very severe. The legal battles that would ensue from attempting to enforce the breaches would place unnecessary stress on the court system and create serious mental health issues for the humans who love their animals. No part of the proposed Bill is either justifiable or desirable from any perspective, and particularly not from an animal welfare or animal genetic health perspective.
Professor Claire Wade
Chair Computational Biology and Animal Genetic
Part (b): The definition of a heritable defect is absent or unclear. For Mendelian recessive conditions, simply breeding the animal with a partner from a different genetic background will minimize the chances of re-occurrence. Indeed, the imposition of such a requirement is far more likely to generate negative genetic outcomes from a population perspective by severely restricting the effective population size of the breeding population. This will do far more genetic harm than good. Most modern companion animal breeders actively participate in research to provide new genetic tests for Mendelian conditions where these do not already exist and actively apply genetic testing to minimize or eliminate the occurrence of Mendelian inherited defects in progeny.
For complex traits, such as orthopaedic traits or cancer, the proposed limit is unlikely to make any substantive impact on the occurrence of disorders in progeny.
Part (c): The definition of “related by blood” is unquantifiable. If this same requirement was imposed upon humans, then many cultures would be subjected to genocide.
Penalties:
The breaches would be impossible to prove and very severe. The legal battles that would ensue from attempting to enforce the breaches would place unnecessary stress on the court system and create serious mental health issues for the humans who love their animals. No part of the proposed Bill is either justifiable or desirable from any perspective, and particularly not from an animal welfare or animal genetic health perspective.
Professor Claire Wade
Chair Computational Biology and Animal Genetic
University of Sydney
*PLEASE NOTE: Members are encouraged to circulate this information and to lobby your State members of Parliament regarding the proposed Animal Justice Party (Emma Hurst Puppy Farming Bill).
In addition there is a petition site CHANGE.ORG that members may like to use to have their puppy owners, and all who own dogs, sign, regarding the AJP Emma Hurst Puppy Farming Bill. Start your own petition and send to your State member.
In addition there is a petition site CHANGE.ORG that members may like to use to have their puppy owners, and all who own dogs, sign, regarding the AJP Emma Hurst Puppy Farming Bill. Start your own petition and send to your State member.
@dogsnsw
