NSW DECCW Code of Practice...

[Guest]

no buck this isnt NPWS code of standards that is top secret and cant be allowed into the public eye for some reason it is the animal welfare standard for housing reptiles

 

[buck]

Ok. Well from my understanding the ones I post above are the ones that were issued by DECCW after the Freedom Of Information request was filed.

 

[dangles]

i'll see if i can get anymore info out of them tomorrow when i go to pick up my diamond

 

[Bushman]

We ask that all keepers in NSW email the Department at [email protected] and insist that those involved in developing and implementing the Code of Practice make themselves available to meet with us - their own appointed expert advisory group. The fact that they have yet again avoided any arrangement to discuss our concerns by allowing only written submissions is entirely unsatisfactory. Written submissions will disappear into the bureaucratic maw, be examined by the individuals at the Dept of Primary Industry (who are driving this, and who insist that enforceability in law is essential), and the outcome for keepers will be the same as they propose at this time.

Respondents should also insist that DECCW release, on the DECCW website, a copy of the Code in its current form. They have refused to release electronic copies because they are easy to circulate widely, and it suits them to allow a degree of confusion in the keeping community. This Code will impact thousands of keepers in NSW, and the EAG believes it will serve no practical purpose in improving the welfare of captive reptiles in NSW.

Ask the Department to produce evidence of widespread problems with reptile welfare in NSW, and if the Department cannot do this, ask why a code, enshrined in law, is needed for a 'problem' which doesn't exist.

The appointment of the Expert Advisory Group was simply an exercise in window dressing for DECCW. They, and their masters at DII, clearly had a very firm view of the outcome they wanted, even before we met for the first time. This has been made evident from documents we obtained under FOI. We were mislead into believeing that we were contributing to a transparent and collaborative process which would benefit the welfare of captive reptiles in NSW. It has not turned out like that at all. At every meeting, and in every conversation, the EAG was unanimous in its insistence that the Code be based around recommendations, rather than enforceable standards, and it seemed to us that DECCW understood and accepted the good sense in this. However, the DII submission to DECCW condemned DECCW for wording the Code ambiguously, and was insistent that enforceability in the courts was THE primary consideration.

All this debate could be avoided if DECCW operatives agree to meet with us across the table. It is very evident that they don't want scrutiny of the Code itself - they have not released any electronic copies which would be easy to circulate widely, and they especially do not want us to question the motivation behind the development of the Code itself, because it is based on the personal viewpoints of the individuals in DECCW and DII.

Bureaucratic interference in the lives of fauna keepers in Australia is taken for granted by keepers in all states. It is just a way of life in this country, and it is always portrayed as necessary for conservation. It seems to escape the notice of the various state bodies that, despite them doing business in the same ways they were in the 1960s and 1970s, the conservation status of a huge number of species lurches towards critical... There is a conveyor belt to extinction (to use the phrase of a good friend of mine) happening out there, and we have a 'conservation' Department here in NSW spending who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, on a problem they can't even prove exists. And it has nothing to do with conservation.

J

Thanks very much for this J. It's much appreciated.

Let's ALL execute these suggestions asap!

 

[Pythoninfinite]

Attached is a copy of the current Code. Please read the preamble. Points of interest are: the firm warnings about adherence to legally binding standards; the definitions of adult animals - 6 months old for lizards, 12 months old for snakes, 2 years old for turtles; the intention to supersede the enclosure sizes 'within 5 years' (whatever that means in practice) to standards as yet undeveloped, but to come in the future from DII. My question would be - if the enclosure sizes, to be enforceable in law for the next 5 years, aren't suitable in the long term, why are they proposing any mandated enclosure sizes in the interim? This could cost keepers in NSW huge money to replace enclosures because of some arbitary bureaucratic requirement, and then they may have to do it again 'within 5 years'.

Keepers should not forget that even if their enclosures may be only millimetres less than the required size, if the LAW states that you MUST have enclosures of a particular size, the inspecting officers have no right to 'allow' any leeway, regardless of how well looked after your animal/s may be. If your enclosures do not comply, you will have to take measures to ensure they do. Mandatory enclosure sizes are just that - there is NO SCOPE for a pragmatic approach.

J

 

[GeckoJosh]

Firstly Id like to say that I think the way DECCW is going about this very unsettling.
I would like someone to point out to me a part in the draft they dont think is reasonable and their reasons why they think that.
So far I cant see any major problems with it, so if someone can enlighten me to potential issues with the sizes proposed I'd appreciate it (please be specific).

Thanks Josh

 

[Pythoninfinite]

Firstly Id like to say that I think the way DECCW is going about this very unsettling.
I would like someone to point out to me a part in the draft they dont think is reasonable and their reasons why they think that.
So far I cant see any major problems with it, so if someone can enlighten me to potential issues with the sizes proposed I'd appreciate it (please be specific).

Thanks Josh

So you're happy for some government official to design a set of laws (which will affect every keeper in NSW) to deal with a problem that, as far as we know, doesn't exist?

 

[dangles]

When the greens get into gov't herp keeping will be a thing of the past. If it's seen that we aren't keeping them in tubs, but rather in a larger enclosure it can only help IMO. Keeping herps in small tubs is no different to puppy farmers that house dogs in tiny kennels. Donning my flame suit as I speak

 

[Pythoninfinite]

When the greens get into gov't herp keeping will be a thing of the past. If it's seen that we aren't keeping them in tubs, but rather in a larger enclosure it can only help IMO. Keeping herps in small tubs is no different to puppy farmers that house dogs in tiny kennels. Donning my flame suit as I speak

A few inaccuracies here. I wouldn't be as sure about the Greens thing as you seem to be Dangles. Comparing dog breeding and raising to breeding and raising reptiles is nonsensical. Our reptiles have never lived longer, healthier lives, or bred in anywhere near the numbers they do now, before the techniques we currently use were developed. Skilled breeders will be assured of almost 100% survival rates with offspring raised in captivity, unlike wild survival rates which would often be zero per clutch. I'm not advocating for or against 'tubs', if I see a clean, healthy snake I can generally be assured that it is being properly cared for. Snakes, in the wild, live secretive lives, and spend a lot of time confined in hollows, burrows, under rocks etc. Many of them don't like to be exposed, and so they thrive in the controlled confines some keepers offer them.

But this thread isn't a debate on those issues. If you think a little more deeply, you will realise there are very important philosophical reasons why government officials should not able to introduce laws of any sort without having to justify the need for them, and if they do want to introduce laws of any sort, their proposals should be held up for scrutiny by the community.

j

 

[GeckoJosh]

So you're happy for some government official to design a set of laws (which will affect every keeper in NSW) to deal with a problem that, as far as we know, doesn't exist?

When did I say im happy with it?, I said I found it unsettling.
I just would like to know what parts people are most unhappy about regarding the sizes

 

[Waterrat]

I just would like to know what parts people are most unhappy about regarding the sizes

It's not about the actual cage sizes, it's about a new law (totally unnecessary) that gives the bureaucrats another weapon they can use against us whenever they please to do so. The uncertain changes proposed 5 years later are also a serious worry.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

Yes Michael, it's quite bizarre that these guys think they just lay down their arbitary law, which may cost some expert and conscientious keepers dearly, and then change it again to some unknown formula five years later.

An interesting observation of the Expert Advisory Group has been that unless we had applied for info from DECCW and DII under freedom of information, we would know nothing of the outcome of the deliberations in which we were involved, or the plan to change the code again within 5 years, since DECCW would not voluntarily provide the information we sought.

J

 

[saximus]

That is probably the part that most confused me as well. Have they given any indication as to the rationale behind that part?

 

[olivehydra]

Perhaps someone might want start a similar thread on Australian Freshwater Turtles.
If you think the housing requirements for snakes and lizards are tough, have a look
at the turtle section. Might get some support in that community.

Due to time constraints I am unable post the required info (busy designing my olympic size pool for my turts ;0 ).
Sorry for breaking the rules relating to mentioning other forums.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

That is probably the part that most confused me as well. Have they given any indication as to the rationale behind that part?

It is just an indication that the process is being designed and driven by DII, and DII is advocating even larger minimum enclosure sizes. I suspect that DECCW thought it would be a bit hard to sell vast enclosure sizes in one hit, so they've chosen a stepped introduction - a sort of 'if we get them used to one increase, it'll be easier to sell a further increase in the near future' sort of attitude.

 

[Waterrat]

Lets hope that the new Minister is going to be a pragmatic and approachable person (extremely rare amongst politicians) and will see fit to put stop to this rot. One one hand, the DECCW is struggling to keep up with the licensing and other administration and on the other hand, they are acquiring more of it. Be assured the new, non-labor government is not going to increase the Department's funding, so how are they going to cope? It's clearer by the day that this whole nonsense is driven by few a individuals within DECCW and DII and their personal agendas may not even be palatable to the majority of departmental staff. I wonder if these individuals can be identified and brought to the new Minister's attention sooner rather than later.
As a Queenslander, I am watching all this from a pretty cushy patch but I worry that the NSW idiocy may be contagious.

 

[Bushfire]

I have two general issues with the code. Firstly the way the DECCW has gone about its development and secondly how it has enforced standards and how an authorised officer can interpret those standards.

I have concerns regarding table 1 and the actual cage sizes for the lizards. My interest is in monitors so Ill use these as an example. Monitors in group C (the ackie group) require 0.98 for single adults. Standard 5.2.1.5 state if the is 2 adults, the cage must be 50% larger than table 1 sizes (0.98) and if you unfortunately have a trio add another 20% on that figure. Thats one bloody big cage!

The standards in 6 relating to the enclosure environment (actually add most of the rest of the document in that too) all require the authorised officer doing an inspection to make judgement calls on experiences he/she doesn't have. They might say that enclosure is too warm/cold, moist/dry etc without having the required experience in a range of species to make that call.

Its fine to have guidelines but once they become enforced standards, thats scary stuff especially when the officers are not equiped to deal with the level of expertise required to deal with such requirements.

The section in 6.5 relates to UV. Some very experienced keepers that dont keep beardies with UV will now by enforced to provide it based on some officers call who has no experience. Also as there is no list it will be up to the officer to decide which ones require it and ones that dont.

 

[Chris1]

so im reading the code from start to finish atm and im wondering if a bedroom with a closed door with a 4x2x2 foot enclosure with sand/lights etc left open for bedroom access will be acceptable for beardies? (theyre gonna be super peeved if its not)

the bedroooms are all 'safe' from things that could crush or kill them, and they would have the desired heat gradients/access to real sun (they have mesh cages to get up to the windowsills)

im a bit confused, in theory i think it would be ok, like it ticks all the heat gradient, escape from cage mates, ability to exhibit natural behaviour boxes, but the bedrooms dont exactly look like cages (altho like i said they do have access to open cages that meet all the requirements,....

it would be a bit unfair having to downgrade their lifestyle to adhere to the code......

 

[Waterrat]

Chris, this is a most unusual concept. Do you mean your beardies have bedrooms (how many?) to them selves with 4x2x2 enclosures inside but they roam the bedroom and go into the cages whenever they feel like? Maybe I have missed something.

 

[Chris1]

no, u didnt miss anything, thats how it works, the 2 boys have a bedroom each,(as in seperate bedrooms) with a 4 foot cage/basking lights and a mesh enclosure they climb to get to windowsills, 3 of the girls who get along share a bedroom, same set up, 1 girl who doesnt get along with anyone has the loungeroom and access to a cage.

its been working well for 5 or so years,....