NSW DECCW Code of Practice...

[REPTILIAN-KMAN]

i see this code of practice issue has sparked quite a stir !

but at the end of the day it is a code of practice - pretty much unenforceable !

code of practice !
* a set of guidelines and regulations to be followed by members of some profession, trade, occupation, organization etc.; does not normally have the force or law
* is usually 'lower level' documents that provide guidance on management or other practices to be adopted in implementing the principles of the Codes of Conduct.
* It provides practical guidance on ways to achieve compliance
* A code of practice establishes good practice in an area of ? . Codes of practice are generally not legally binding although they are usually admissible in proceedings before industrial relations tribunals or courts of law.
* A generic set of guidelines which defines minimum requirements
*

 

[bensen]

i see this code of practice issue has sparked quite a stir !

but at the end of the day it is a code of practice - pretty much unenforceable !

*

did you bother reading the rest of the thread? maybe you don't comprehend, or maybe you work for NPWS.

 

[-Peter]

Sorry Kman but its being drafted as an enforcable code.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

Sorry Kman but its being drafted as an enforcable code.

Indeed it is, as a result of pressure from DII. If any matters go to court as a result of heavy-handed Departmental behaviour, unjustly charged keepers will have some very heavy hitters batting for them - a number of very senior reptile-interested people are prepared to testify in defence of keepers facing vexatious charges.

This Code is the product of ideology, there has been no demonstrated need for it, and there are already avenues available in the courts to prosecute cases of cruelty. It is not being introduced as a document to assist keepers in maintaining their animals, its primary purpose is to facilitate enforcement action against reptile keepers who don't rely on 'tape-measure' management of their animals, regardless of knowledge or experience. It may cost some keepers thousands of dollars to comply, and then, after another 5 years, a new set of standards (as yet not defined) will be implemented.

It is a totally unwarranted intrusion into the lives of reptile keepers in NSW.

 

[Colin]

Just wondering if there's any more news on this issue or any ideas?

In my opinion the only way to defeat this mandatory code of practice is to form a representative group that has paying members and then to write letters directly to the Minister from learned academics and people representing the membership asking a heap of questions and making appropriate pointed accusations. This means that the CEO of DECC will have to pass on the letter for a Ministerial (a letter for the Minister to sign and send back to the membership addressing the issues which public servants hate doing) You keep doing this until you have the public servants pushing for this mandatory code of practice backing off..

The reptile keeper's representative group, keeps writing letters to the Minister, making appointments to see him and make life as miserable for the public servants under him as possible.

Even if a representative reptile keepers group hasn't yet been formed, concerned individual keepers, herp societies representing members etc could send letters of concern directly to the minister.

Jamie.. any chance you may be able to organise a draft letter for individuals to send off? and where do people send these letters?

If reptile keeper's indicate to the Minister they will be changing their voting preferences and urging all their friends, work colleagues and families to follow suit that it may influence them to be more sympathetic to our cause.

 

[-Katana-]

I was just wondering if it would be worth the Queensland herp keepers joining in on the letter writing/sending campaign?
If someone with an excellent grasp of written English and fully up to date with the inherent flaws in the NSW system could write that draft letter it would help streamline the whole process.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

I had an email from Danielle Lautrec late last week telling me that DECCW removed the 'old' Code from their website 'last year'. She hasn't yet responded to my query (emailed on the weekend) about when this happened, or when they propose to put the new (current) Code up for scrutiny.

I'll draft a letter today Col, and copy it to you by pm, so you may be able to set it up on APS for the use of members. The Minister, the Shadow Minister, the Acting Director of Reserve and Wildlife Conservation, and the clerk with responsibility for development and implementation of the Code, Reserve and Wildlife Policy Section of DECCW, should all be contacted to express your concerns about the unnecessary imposition of this 'Code of Practice', which simply reflects the personal ideologies of the clerks involved in developing it.

It is evident that ALL our concerns are referred back to a couple of individuals in the Department of Industry and Investment for their comments, and to develop strategies that ensure the departments eventually succeed in their goal of much more intrusive management of reptile keepers in NSW. Setting standards now, which will be superceded within 5 years by standards not yet even developed, is a bizarre way for a Government Department to go about its business.

There has been no evidence placed before us, as the Advisory Group, which indicates any sort of ongoing problem with the welfare of captive reptiles, and even if there was, there are already legal avenues available to take the appropriate action.

Jamie.

 

[Colin]

I was just wondering if it would be worth the Queensland herp keepers joining in on the letter writing/sending campaign?
If someone with an excellent grasp of written English and fully up to date with the inherent flaws in the NSW system could write that draft letter it would help streamline the whole process.

In my opinion it most definitely would help.. especially if the senders indicated to the minister they will be changing their voting preferences and urging all their friends and families to follow suit. It may influence them to be more sympathetic to our cause if they are hit where it hurts and thats the polling booths..

This Code of Practice has been a trojan horse from the beginning and if it succeeds in NSW you can count on it being introduced in other states as well.. I also think the code of practice has less to do with "animal welfare" and more to do with certain animal liberationist factions in government departments.

 

[-Katana-]

In my opinion it most definitely would help.. especially if the senders indicated to the minister they will be changing their voting preferences and urging all their friends and families to follow suit. It may influence them to be more sympathetic to our cause if they are hit where it hurts and thats the polling booths..


This Code of Practice has been a trojan horse from the beginning and if it succeeds in NSW you can count on it being introduced in other states as well.. I also think the code of practice has less to do with "animal welfare" and more to do with certain animal liberationist factions in government departments.

That's why we tried to fight the canine tail docking issue(and failed).
We viewed it as only the thin end of the wedge and set a disturbing precedent that these animal rights movements can use as a stepping stone to start taking action against cattle and sheep producers and the way they conduct their animal husbandry.
I'd hate to see that happen to the herp. fancy.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

This Code of Practice has been a trojan horse from the beginning and if it succeeds in NSW you can count on it being introduced in other states as well.. I also think the code of practice has less to do with "animal welfare" and more to do with certain animal liberationist factions in government departments.

This is very true. Many people don't distinguish between animal 'welfare' and 'animal rights' - but the groups associated with each, and the intent of each, are very different. It is easy to slip the interests of animal RIGHTS proponents in under the cover of animal WELFARE... We should all be concerned with the WELFARE of our animals, but the proponents of animal RIGHTS are often extremists, and many of them are working to see the end of the keeping in captuvity, of all animals. The views they espouse are entirely subjective, built on personal philosophy, and have no objective basis whatsoever. Your animals may be the best looked after in the world, but the fact that they are in cages is the problem. This would be impossible for any Govt department to achieve, so the next best thing is to sell the message as a 'welfare' one, and legislate to make the parameters for captive care far more difficult to meet.

I've mentioned it before - they contrive a problem that doesn't really exist, state that it is a problem without providing much evidence, the community accepts without much question that there must be a problem... and then a few people get the great job of solving it, and the Department gets kudos for being seen to solve a big problem...

J

 

[chase77]

If i may be cynical, there may be people inside the department using it to further their political/gov't careers.

Chase.

 

[Waterrat]

If i may be cynical, there may be people inside the department using it to further their political/gov't careers.

Chase.

Or to justify their sheer existence and protecting their precious jobs. Don't forget, these people are pawns, a non-productive dead wood absolutely terrified of any changes, especially if the changes are not instigated by themselves.

 

[zulu]

Apparently there will be outsourcing when the labour government goes and departmental heads get the bullet in a shake up.
Maybe the book returns and import and exports could be outsorced to QLD,SA or china where they have expertise and know how

 

[BigWillieStyles]

Being able to keep Australian Native Reptiles is a priviledge and as such should be treated as such. I am actually amazed that it has taken 30 years or so before the authorities actually clamp down on the ethics of keeping natives. It has nothing to do with revenue. The fact that reptile keeping is now becoming much more popular justifies for further government changes to keeping reptiles to ensure that animals are kept and bred ethically.

 

[hugsta]

Being able to keep Australian Native Reptiles is a priviledge and as such should be treated as such. I am actually amazed that it has taken 30 years or so before the authorities actually clamp down on the ethics of keeping natives. It has nothing to do with revenue. The fact that reptile keeping is now becoming much more popular justifies for further government changes to keeping reptiles to ensure that animals are kept and bred ethically.

I don't entirely disagree, but where is the common sense to crack down so hard on native Australian animals. Why don't they crack down hard on introduced animals such as cats? They are a far worse pet than some person with a python or a bluetongue in their house. What about dogs? I can buy a great dane, but no ones cares how big my back yard is. I could have a small yard and never walk my dog. Let's not start on fish or birds either eh. Although it was amazing whilst working in the pet industry the amount of people that killed fish and just bought more to replace them whilst trying o fix their water quality. So keeping animals ethically should be across the board, not just picking on reptile keepers. Seems ok to keep Macaw in a cage that it can't fly in and birds are way more available than reptiles, so why not sort them out first??

 

[Waterrat]

Hugsta, with due respect, you are talking about domestic animals which do not come under the wildlife department's umbrella. They have no obligation or powers to control such. Native wildlife and cats & dogs are two very different categories.

 

[killimike]

I don't entirely disagree, but where is the common sense to crack down so hard on native Australian animals. Why don't they crack down hard on introduced animals such as cats? They are a far worse pet than some person with a python or a bluetongue in their house. What about dogs? I can buy a great dane, but no ones cares how big my back yard is. I could have a small yard and never walk my dog. Let's not start on fish or birds either eh. Although it was amazing whilst working in the pet industry the amount of people that killed fish and just bought more to replace them whilst trying o fix their water quality. So keeping animals ethically should be across the board, not just picking on reptile keepers. Seems ok to keep Macaw in a cage that it can't fly in and birds are way more available than reptiles, so why not sort them out first??

I see Michael's point, from an administration point of view, but I agree very strongly with you here hugsta.

Ok dogs are not wildlife. But ethically and logically, there is no difference when the rationale for regulation of reptile keeping is said to be making sure people look after them right. The only difference then is how feasible it is to force keepers to jump through hoops.

In that context, keeping reptiles is not a privilege any more than keeping a dog or cat or fish is.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

Being able to keep Australian Native Reptiles is a priviledge and as such should be treated as such. I am actually amazed that it has taken 30 years or so before the authorities actually clamp down on the ethics of keeping natives. It has nothing to do with revenue. The fact that reptile keeping is now becoming much more popular justifies for further government changes to keeping reptiles to ensure that animals are kept and bred ethically.

Unfortunately BigWillieStyles, you've entirely missed the point of this thread. The problem is not with bureaucratic support of ethics in dealing with animals, it's the nature of that support, its poor design, and its intent, which is simply to arm government officials with bigger sticks than they have now. It will have no impact on animal welfare, all it will do is bring about management by tape measure. Despite the recommendations of the most experienced keepers in NSW, they have decided that non-reptile-keeping clerks in DII and DECCW will dictate the terms under which you will keep your animals. One of the biggest drivers has been what the dept calls 'public perception'... I vehemently disagree that the 'public' knows more about what a reptile needs than I do - but this is a feel-good and look-good PR exercise for DECCW. They will get a lot of kudos from the 'public' for being seen to do a job which isn't needed in the first place, and as long as the bigger questions aren't asked (in fact, we've asked but haven't been answered!) they come out smelling like a rose in some circles.

Jamie

 

[Guest]

where does this code come from?
I just read the first page of the code posted at the start of this thread and it is nothing like the current draft from the ag department and animal welfare that i have in my hand right now

is the standards different for DECC now?

 

[girdheinz]

Farma your well behind the times.

DECCW took it upon themselves to change the code of practice based on alleged comments from other stakeholders. This feedback has lead them to go against the advice of the advisory group that they appointed. It's clear they never had any intention of accepting a draft that has anything other than MANDATORY minimum enclosure sizes.

IMO they have mislead the public by leaving the old draft on their website for numerous months whilst producing this one.

Gird