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
| Autor: | Simone A. Blackman, Melissa J. Starling, Paul D. McGreevy, Bruce Englefield |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
0106 biological sciences
040301 veterinary sciences media_common.quotation_subject wildlife Wildlife Legislation Review native animals legislation 010603 evolutionary biology 01 natural sciences 0403 veterinary science physical well-being lcsh:Zoology Wildlife management lcsh:QL1-991 Wildlife conservation media_common lcsh:Veterinary medicine General Veterinary Constitution Mental well-being Environmental ethics 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences Possession (law) mental well-being wildlife care Code of practice lcsh:SF600-1100 Animal Science and Zoology Business |
| Zdroj: | Animals, Vol 9, Iss 6, p 335 (2019) Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI |
| ISSN: | 2076-2615 |
| Popis: | Simple Summary The Australian constitution does not mention native animals. Responsibility for animal welfare is largely retained by the states and territories via a fragmented, complex, contradictory, inconsistent system of regulatory management. The problem this creates for volunteers undertaking the rescue and rehabilitation of native animals is complex. Capturing and rehabilitating wild animals goes against regulations. In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to microchip, band, or mark an animal, making it almost impossible to monitor their survival. A minimum of 50,000 rehabilitated native animals are released back to the wild each year, with few checks afterwards to see how well or if they are surviving. 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. With no reliable method of identification, no instructions on how to get animals ready for release or see if they are suitable, and little post-release checking, the practice of placing hand-reared native animals into the wild, and the regulatory framework enabling it, should be reviewed. Abstract 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. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
| Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje | K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit. |