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
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...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2019-06-01
|
| Series: | Animals |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/6/335 |
| _version_ | 1818331455743328256 |
|---|---|
| author | Bruce Englefield Simone A. Blackman Melissa Starling Paul D. McGreevy |
| author_facet | Bruce Englefield Simone A. Blackman Melissa Starling Paul D. McGreevy |
| author_sort | Bruce Englefield |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T13:20:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0fa01222f8cc460fbf44db333cefb6f0 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-2615 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T13:20:08Z |
| publishDate | 2019-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animals |
| spelling | doaj.art-0fa01222f8cc460fbf44db333cefb6f02022-12-21T23:44:25ZengMDPI AGAnimals2076-26152019-06-019633510.3390/ani9060335ani9060335A 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 CareBruce Englefield0Simone A. Blackman1Melissa Starling2Paul D. McGreevy3School of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, AustraliaTasmanian School of Business and Economics and the Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7005, AustraliaSchool of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, AustraliaSchool of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, AustraliaThe 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.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/6/335wildlifenative animalswildlife carelegislationmental well-beingphysical well-being |
| spellingShingle | Bruce Englefield Simone A. Blackman Melissa Starling Paul D. McGreevy 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 wildlife native animals wildlife care legislation mental well-being physical well-being |
| title | 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 |
| title_full | 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 |
| title_fullStr | 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 |
| title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
| title_short | 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 |
| title_sort | 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 |
| topic | wildlife native animals wildlife care legislation mental well-being physical well-being |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/6/335 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bruceenglefield areviewofaustraliananimalwelfarelegislationregulationcodesofpracticeandpolicyandtheirinfluenceonstakeholderscaringforwildlifeandtheanimalsforwhomtheycare AT simoneablackman areviewofaustraliananimalwelfarelegislationregulationcodesofpracticeandpolicyandtheirinfluenceonstakeholderscaringforwildlifeandtheanimalsforwhomtheycare AT melissastarling areviewofaustraliananimalwelfarelegislationregulationcodesofpracticeandpolicyandtheirinfluenceonstakeholderscaringforwildlifeandtheanimalsforwhomtheycare AT pauldmcgreevy areviewofaustraliananimalwelfarelegislationregulationcodesofpracticeandpolicyandtheirinfluenceonstakeholderscaringforwildlifeandtheanimalsforwhomtheycare AT bruceenglefield reviewofaustraliananimalwelfarelegislationregulationcodesofpracticeandpolicyandtheirinfluenceonstakeholderscaringforwildlifeandtheanimalsforwhomtheycare AT simoneablackman reviewofaustraliananimalwelfarelegislationregulationcodesofpracticeandpolicyandtheirinfluenceonstakeholderscaringforwildlifeandtheanimalsforwhomtheycare AT melissastarling reviewofaustraliananimalwelfarelegislationregulationcodesofpracticeandpolicyandtheirinfluenceonstakeholderscaringforwildlifeandtheanimalsforwhomtheycare AT pauldmcgreevy reviewofaustraliananimalwelfarelegislationregulationcodesofpracticeandpolicyandtheirinfluenceonstakeholderscaringforwildlifeandtheanimalsforwhomtheycare |