Search

Simple Summary: Animal cruelty or neglect is an emotive social issue. Animal welfare legislation is the primary tool for defining, penalizing and hopefully deterring animal cruelty. A number of issues arising at all stages of the animal law enforcement process have been previously identified. These issues contribute to a discrepancy between the written law and the realities of the animal law enforcement process: the 'enforcement gap'. This paper reviews the available resources to identify the causes of this 'gap'. It is argued that the 'gap' is caused by numerous factors derived from all stages of the enforcement process: (1) reporting acts of animal cruelty, (2) ambiguity and shortcomings derived from the language used in animal welfare legislation (3) the nature of enforcement authorities, and (4) court determination on the matter. In order to reduce the enforcement gap and bring the expectations closer to reality, further research is needed. Previous research has identified a number of issues arising at all stages of the animal law enforcement process. These issues contribute to an enforcement gap between the written law, as it relates to the penalties laid out in statutes, and the reality of the animal law justice system. This paper identifies and investigates the contributors to this gap. The identified factors discussed are (1) the role of the public in reporting animal cruelty, (2) the ambiguity of the language used in animal welfare legislation, (3) the nature of enforcement authorities, and (4) the role of the courts. Thus, the causes of the enforcement gap are multifactorial, derived from all stages of the enforcement process. Further research on the enforcement model and public education, in addition to debate on legislative reforms, will be needed to address this gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Animal welfare policy regarding husbandry practices in sheep in Australia differs between states and territories. This dis-uniformity of the legislature can be confusing and limit the application of the law, particularly with growing pressure from the local and global community to improve animal welfare. The influence of scientific evidence contributing to the development of these policies is unclear. This article explores the Australian animal welfare legislature and the scientific evidence informing husbandry practices commonly performed at 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Australia does not have any federal legislation pertaining to animal welfare; thus, the responsibilities lie with each state and territory. This situation has led to eight different pieces of animal welfare legislation across the country, with potentially distinct content and avenues for interpretation. These differences may create problems for the enforcement of animal welfare law, and hence it has been suggested that a uniform approach is required. However, before such an approach can be considered, the extent of the inconsistencies between the states and territories needs to be assessed. This review compares the differences between state and territory animal welfare laws to determine the presence and nature of any major inconsistencies. A total of 436 primary pieces of legislation were reviewed, with 42 included in the detailed analysis. Animal welfare laws were found to be generally consistent across the states and territories of Australia, but with some important shortcomings that are discussed. Animal welfare is not included in the Australian Constitution, rendering it a residual power of the states and territories. Commentators have suggested that inconsistencies exist between the state and territory statutes, and that a uniform approach would be beneficial. However, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the nature or extent of these purported inconsistencies. This review addresses this gap by providing a state-by-state comparison of animal protection statutes based on key provisions. Utilizing systematic review methodology, every current Australian statute with an enforceable protection provision relating to animal welfare was identified. A total of 436 statutes were examined, with 42 statutes being included in the detailed analysis. The comparison showed that animal protection laws are generally consistent between each Australian jurisdiction and were found to have similar shortcomings, notably including lack of a consistent definition of 'animal' and reliance on forms of legal punishment to promote animal welfare which have questionable effectiveness. It is argued that there is a need for attention to definitions of key terms and future consideration of alternative forms of penalties, but that a uniform federal approach may not be necessary to address these shortcomings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]