Farmers and experts say Western Australia’s animal welfare laws are no longer fit for purpose, leaving residents exposed to surprising legal risks.
The state’s Animal Welfare Act provides the framework for the care and welfare of animals, as well as defining various forms of cruelty.
But experts say the laws, and the regulations that underpin them, are “too broad”.
RSPCA WA chief executive Ben Cave said it was often difficult to draw the line between a humane killing and animal cruelty.
“The codes of practice could be more fit for purpose. The Animal Welfare Act itself could be more fit for purpose,”
he said.
He said he was waiting for recommendations from a 2019 independent review of the act to be implemented and the law needed to be modernised.
Teresa Collins, from Murdoch University’s School of Veterinary Science, said the laws failed to take WA’s diverse environment into account.
“The same legislation needs to cover the management of rangeland cattle that hardly see humans up in our northern areas of WA, compared to the management of dairy cows and mainstream beef systems in our South West,” she said.
Kangaroo dilemma
Thousands of kangaroos are hit by cars on roads every year and motorists are often unsure of what to do when an animal is injured.
Professor Collins said the law provided little support or structure for what an individual — who may never have encountered an animal, let alone euthanased one — is meant to do in this situation.
Cars colliding with kangaroos result in thousands of insurance claims each year. (ABC News: Niall Lenihan)
In a statement, WA’s Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions said: “The best thing to do if you encounter displaced or injured native wildlife is to call the Wildcare Helpline on (08) 9474 9055.”
DBCA said the helpline gave advice on dealing with the animal and who to contact for assistance, including people with the authority to carry out euthanasia.
When the ABC called the Wildcare Helpline at 5:30pm on a Thursday, a recorded message said there was a shortage of volunteers to take calls and directed callers to a website containing a list of wildlife organisations.
“Science would say [the injured animal] needs to be humanely destroyed as soon as possible, but if you have no implement or you have no firearm on you or you don’t have a licence to use one, then you would have to seek the help of someone,” Professor Collins said.
Teresa Collins says WA’s laws require reform. (Supplied: Murdoch University)
“Very small animals can be potentially humanely destroyed by blunt trauma, but that’s not likely to be the case in kangaroos of reasonable weight.
“It’s a really challenging scenario because you would think that there would be some person available to assist within a reasonable time.”
Native wildlife is protected under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 which is enforced by DBCA but also sits under the Animal Welfare Act which is enforced by the RSPCA.
Cruelty is subjective
The varying way the laws can be applied was evident in two recent high-profile cases.
Last month, three men in the Goldfields were fined a total of nearly $130,000 for animal cruelty offences after bludgeoning a pigeon with a golf club multiple times.
Last year Mid West livestock farmer Calvin Royce found eight of his young calves dead or dying after they were deliberately run over in a paddock by an intoxicated driver.
The driver of the vehicle was jailed but was eligible for parole after two months.
The Royces were not compensated after a man was jailed for driving into their calves. (ABC Mid West Wheatbelt: Jo Prendergast)
“It doesn’t sit right with me,” Mr Royce said.
“It’s a pigeon; they got the maximum fine for a pigeon.
“I’m not condoning cruelty to any animal, a pigeon, a cow or whatever, but I think there is a big difference between killing some pretty innocent calves and killing a pigeon.”
WA Farmers president Steve McGuire said the term cruelty was open to individual interpretation based on a person’s personal experience and knowledge.
Steve McGuire says WA’s animal cruelty laws are “grey”. (ABC Rural: Kit Mochan)
“What I might think is cruel, you might not. Putting that subjective term into law becomes problematic,” he said.
“Some people think chaining up a dog is cruel, some people think putting a fish in a fishbowl is cruel. The line is so grey.”
Mr McGuire said this was problematic in a legal setting, with officials only having two options under WA law: prosecute or do nothing.
“If you go into a courtroom, you’re dealing with a judge or prosecutor who [probably] don’t have an agricultural background,” he said.
“We have a general population that is so far removed from agriculture, their knowledge is a vacuum.”
Mr McGuire says some people consider penning sheep a cruel act. (Supplied: Rural Export and Trading WA)
The RSPCA’s Ben Cave said it was unlikely a farmer humanely euthanasing an injured animal would ever face prosecution.
“Although I can’t guarantee that because every prosecution is based on fact and context,” he said.
“Something that is simply not acceptable when a vet clinic might be 500 metres away may be acceptable in a different context where a vet clinic is 500 kilometres away.”
Education and support key
Professor Collins said producers needed better support and education to meet society’s animal welfare expectations.
But she said the general public also needed a better understanding and appreciation of food production.
“Farmers are asked to be innovative to adopt the changes that science is suggesting, yet they still need to be profitable,” she said.
“The Australian public is very concerned about the care and treatment of animals and livestock, but there isn’t a necessary increased willingness to pay by those same people to have their food produced in that manner.
“Society often doesn’t see the link between the changes they’re asking from our producers and then not wanting to pay more for any changes made.”
