Understanding New Zealand animal welfare legislation: The Animal Welfare Act, Codes of Welfare, and new Regulations

Ngā mihi o te tau hou / Happy New Year! (in te Reo Māori)

This is a post I have been meaning to write for some time. I finally have a moment to sit and reflect on the new(ish) New Zealand Animal Welfare Regulations.

These regulations were proposed in 2015 and many were introduced in 2016 and 2017 – with more to follow in 2018. They are specific to certain species or types of animal, or refer to particular ways we manage animals, e.g. transport regulations.

Background to New Zealand animal welfare legislation

I should probably put some context around these regulations – why do we need them? We already have The Animal Welfare Act 1999 and Codes of Welfare in New Zealand. The Animal Welfare Act is a piece of legislation, whereas the Codes of Welfare are not – this means they are not enforceable as such. I will explain further.

I like to think of The Animal Welfare Act as working to reduce the extreme negative end of the spectrum of animal welfare states. It talks about ‘obligations’, ‘liability’, and that we should ‘attend properly’ to animals, etc. It is a really useful document to refer to when people have done really bad things to or with animals – when there is pain and suffering involved. The Codes of Welfare are at the other end of the spectrum and are ‘Best Practice’ documents. They expand on The Animal Welfare Act by setting minimum standards and recommending guidelines for best practice. They are also more specific. Where The Animal Welfare Act talks about animals in general, The Codes are broken down into specific animals and/or interventions, or things we may do to animals. Examples of Codes include: circuses, dairy cattle, dogs, horses and donkeys, and painful husbandry procedures.

The gap for animal welfare regulations

As we can see, The Act and Codes of Welfare are at the extreme ends of the spectrum. And although Codes do specify minimum standards for animal care, they tend to be used when rebutting complaints, and not as a means of prosecution or enforcement. If an animal cruelty complaint is laid against a person in charge of an animal, then proof of adherence to these minimum standards can be used as a rebuttal of this complaint. In effect, if the basics are provided for an animal, it is hard for anyone to say anything different. In addition, the process of bringing animal carers to prosecution can be difficult and expensive. This, again, only results in extremely bad cases being prosecuted.

This is where The Regulations come in. They essentially use the minimum standards already in place (with minor adjustments) to allow for better enforcement of The Act. To do this they clarify the rules already in place to protect animal welfare. In essence, they specify that if you do this, you will be punished with that. There is less ambiguity surrounding what is required of those caring for, or who are responsible for, animals. The regulations are meant to be an additional tool for animal welfare inspectors, and in most cases do not require evidence of pain and suffering.

What regulations will we have in New Zealand animal welfare law?

In early 2016, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) sought feedback on 91 animal welfare regulations they had proposed. The broad categories for these regulations were: live animal exports; care of, and conduct towards, animals; and surgical and painful procedures. MPI travelled around the country with ‘roadshows’ publicising the regulations. Attendance was widely encouraged and there was a chance for feedback to be given and questions answered. Official written submissions to MPI totalled 1,400.

It was interesting to attend one of these ‘roadshows’ at Massey University in Palmerston North. There were many interested parties with varied views (for/against) the proposed regulations. A particularly heated discussion was had about the ‘dog tail docking’ regulation. It was clearly of high interest to dog breeders and owners. A short history of tail docking in New Zealand is given in this excellent post. Due to the issues proposed, MPI commissioned an independent review of the science and arguments for and against tail docking. The full report is available here. Essentially, the findings suggest that tail docking of dogs is a surgical procedure of major significance – with the potential to cause considerable pain and distress. The costs outweigh any potential benefits making it an unjustifiable act. A policy was approved in July 2017 to restrict tail docking of dogs. The restrictions mean that it can only be performed by a registered veterinarian, using analgesia, for therapeutic purposes, i.e. in response to a significant injury or disease. Therefore, dogs whose tails are damaged in some way may still have them docked – if a veterinarian believes this is the best therapy. Final approval to create the regulation is still pending at the time of writing.

Other regulations are already in place – particularly those relating to bobby (usually young male) calves and the export of live animals. Four regulations covering the welfare of calves were in place for the spring calving season in 2016 and a further three for 2017 calving, while those covering the export of live animals were confirmed in July 2016.

Examples of important regulations include: the mandatory use of pain relief for disbudding cattle, standards for the transportation of lame animals, that calves must be 4 days of age before being transported off farm, a maximum 12-hour journey time for young calves, young calves being prohibited from being sent cross the Cook Strait by sea (i.e. from North to South Island and vice versa), and the prohibition of killing calves by blunt force trauma to the head – other than in an emergency.

The future for animal welfare regulations

A number of regulations will be progressed in 2018. These broadly relate to: tail docking/castration (horses, sheep, llama and alpaca, and roosters), other surgical procedures in production animals and companion animals (e.g. hot branding, velvetting, cropping of ears in dogs, and Caslick’s procedures in horses), and dentistry.

Of particular interest to veterinarians, the stock transport regulation relating to lame animal’s says that “A person in charge of a lame cattle beast, sheep, deer, pig or goat commits an offence if they permit the animal to be transported”. In contrast to current practice, liability has been placed on suppliers presenting lame animals for transport, rather than transporters. Veterinarians may therefore find themselves being called upon for additional certification of lame animals for transport.

Final thoughts

In conclusion, the Animal Welfare Regulations are promising, and although some did not make the final cut (mostly due to issues with wording and meaning), there are plenty of good regulations being progressed that will improve the welfare of animals in New Zealand.

Beyond the regulations, there is still scope for further reforms in animal welfare legislation. In an earlier post, I wrote about the excellent work Dr Rebecca Ledger is doing using the Five Domains Model for forensic animal behaviour analysis in Canada. This is something we could really embrace in New Zealand. In addition, using animal abuse cases to create ‘links’ to domestic violence could lead to improvements in both animal and human welfare. The Veterinary Council of New Zealand has a guidance document relating to this here.

We still have much to do, but this is a great start!

 

Advertisements

Exploring end-of-life management of old and chronically ill cats

My second study towards my PhD is well under way. The recruitment phase started on social media (Facebook and Twitter) with a call for cat owners to participate. Interested cat owners who have put down their cat in the last 6 months are redirected to an online survey which takes them through a few quick questions. These are to help us interview the right people.

We want to make sure we are interviewing cat owners who recently euthanased their pet. If it was too long ago then the vet involved may not remember enough details for their (separate) interview. The cat owners, and their vet, must also be in New Zealand. The interviews are done in person so I need to be able to visit them. We are also asking owners to tell us why the cat was put down. If it was due to a disease that lasted a long time, or because the cat was older, then we might get more information about tricky decisions that were made. On the other hand, a cat that was put down because it was involved in an accident would probably provide much less information. The owners also need to give us permission to contact their vet for interview and leave us enough information to contact them.

We have also had a write-up about the study in VetScript – the magazine for The New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA). An email has also gone out to all NZVA members. Massey University has got on board with an article on their website and the study has been shared through their social media channels. These various initiatives are helping get the word out about the importance of the study and how to participate.

Why am I doing the study?

The research seeks to uncover how the owners of older cats or cats with chronic disease perceive the role their vets have played in the euthanasia process, before comparing this to the vet’s own understanding of their involvement. We are also looking at the decision-making process and how cat owners, and their vets, are making euthanasia decisions. This improved understanding of what drives owner behaviour would safeguard older cat welfare and further inform vets of their role in end-of-life management.

How can you get involved?

If you are a cat owner who meets our criteria, or you know someone that might, please take the time to visit our online recruitment page and answer a few questions. This should only take 5-10 minutes of your time.

If you are a veterinarian and you think you might have a client that would be happy to chat to me then please direct them to our online recruitment page.

If anyone has questions about the study they can get in touch with me at: K.Littlewood@massey.ac.nz

Cat Friendly Veterinarians

Following on from my previous post on environmental enrichment for New Zealand cats, this post will focus on some things veterinarians can do to improve the lives of their feline patients.

There are many ways we can increase the number of positive experiences pet cats have. Not least is helping to ensure their experiences when visiting a veterinary clinic are less negative, and more positive [1, 2]. This is where individual veterinarians and clinics come in. If a cat is not ‘happy’ about going to the clinic, then an owner is less likely to bring their pet to the veterinarian as often as they may otherwise [3, 4]. Feline environmental enrichment is not just good for the cat; it is good business.

How can we treat our cat patients with kindness? (and differently to dogs)

Cat are not just mini dogs. They respond very differently towards veterinary consultations. From the cat that refuses to leave its carrier, to the one who refuses to go back in; the cat who stiffens up and tries to draw blood, to the one who just wants to rub its face all over you. We know there are many differences even between cats. However, there are a few things we can do to make life a little easier for those that are struggling with going to see a veterinarian.

cat-friendly-vets

Cat carrier training

For starters, training cats to not completely hate the idea of going in their cat carrier can make life much easier for everyone. This is something that owners will need to work on at home, but as veterinary professionals we can help pick up on these problems and guide owners in the right direction. If a cat is not apparently ‘happy’ about going in a carrier, then an owner is probably going to think twice about bringing ‘Fluffy’ in to get that cough looked at. This can be bad for the cat, and bad for business.

Dr Sarah Ellis (@sarahlhellis) has written an excellent blog post on Katzenworld about how to train cats to like their carrier. The post starts off with some tips about what makes a good cat carrier and then goes through how to counter-condition cats to their own carrier. It would be a great post for veterinary professionals to be familiar with and then make owners aware of. A veterinarian could quite easily have a chat to an owner about carrier training if they mention having troubles, or if the cat is clearly not happy about going back in at the end of a consultation. It could even just be something we casually ask, for example ‘How does fluffy like her carrier?’.

I was in a pet store recently (acquiring more toys for my spoilt felines) and happened to be walking past a couple who were looking at cat carriers. They were complaining about their cat not liking the one they already own. They saw the cat toys I had and (guessing I had a menagerie) asked me which one I used for my cats. As a busy-body (and cat enthusiast) I could not help but ask them if they had ever heard of cat carrier training. They had not and were very interested to hear about it. I gave them the link and they (happily) trotted off to have a read.

Cat friendly veterinary practices

Veterinarians and clinics with cat friendly approaches can also get involved in feline environmental enrichment. Once cats arrive at the clinic, in the carrier they have now learnt to like, it is up to us to make that experience as positive as possible. Not only do we want them to come back, but we also want to tip the balance of their possible experiences towards the positive side as much as possible [1, 2] – if we are aiming to be the animal welfare advocates that the New Zealand Veterinary Council would like us to be.

Low stress handling techniques and clinic design can have a massive impact on the experiences of our feline patients. Many clinics could be re-designed with feline patients in mind (e.g. separate dog and cat waiting areas, separate consulting rooms, and separate hospitalisation areas with each species comfort in mind), but there are also simple cost-effective ways of providing for our feline patients. Cats do not respond well to aggressive handling techniques. How many veterinarians or veterinary nurses have ‘lost’ a cat after pushing it too far? It makes it very difficult to work with them in the future – and the owners are never very impressed. The International Society of Feline Medicine (ISFM) recognise this and have written an excellent article [5] in The Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery about feline-friendly handling guidelines.

The ISFM are also responsible for the worldwide Cat Friendly Clinic programme, designed to increase the number of cat friendly veterinary clinics by providing free information – to enable clinics to work towards a voluntary accreditation scheme. The importance of handling cats in clinics is emphasised by this scheme. Once accredited, veterinary clinics can advertise this accreditation to cat owners and are then eligible to be listed on the ISFM website. Veterinarians and clinics can register their interest for free to receive more information about this accreditation scheme.

In addition to all these differences in the ways we treat our feline patients, there are some things we can do for them that we are already doing for dogs. Providing yummy cat friendly treats in consult rooms can be used to reinforce any positive experiences and counter-condition pets to the veterinary clinic [6]. If it makes it easier to examine an overweight cat after a few treats are given, then this is probably going to do more good than potential harm – so long as we are clear with the owner why we are doing it in this instance. Giving cats a little more time, once out of their carrier, to acclimatise themselves to the room (as we so often allow for in dogs) is also likely to help the consult go smoothly.

These are just a few of the ways that, as veterinarians, we can improve the lives of our feline patients – at least during the time that we have some control over their experiences. Enriching the lives of cats is not just good for them; it is also good for us.

References

  1. Green, T.C. and D.J. Mellor, Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 2011. 59(6): p. 263-71.
  2. Yeates, J.W. and D.C.J. Main, Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Veterinary Journal, 2008. 175(3): p. 293-300.
  3. McMillan, F.D., Maximizing quality of life in ill animals. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 2003. 39(3): p. 227-235.
  4. Vogt, A.H., et al., AAFP-AAHA feline life stage guidelines. Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2010. 12(1): p. 43-54.
  5. Rodan, I., et al., AAFP and ISFM Feline-Friendly Handling Guidelines. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 2011. 13(5): p. 364-375.
  6. Westlund, K., To feed or not to feed: Counterconditioning in the veterinary clinic. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 2015. 10(15): p. 433-437.