Proceedings OF ThE - Australian Institute of Animal Management Inc

Proceedings of the
AIAM Annual Conference
on Animal Management
2 012
17–19 October 2012
Penrith • NSW
•
20 Years
of Steady Progress in
Animal Management
•

Proceedings of the
AIAM Annual Conference
on Animal Management
2 012
17–19 October 2012
Penrith • NSW
•
20 Years
of Steady Progress in
Animal Management
•
Published by The Australian Institute of Animal Management Inc ABN 70 123 365 245

AIAM 2012 Committee
President Dick Murray Western Suburbs Vet Clinic, QLD
Deputy President Geoff Irwin Gold Coast City Council
Secretary Elke Tapley Knox City Council, VIC
Treasurer Rick Walduck Trovan Microchips, VIC
Committee Robyn Butterfield City of West Torrens, SA
Margaret Gaal Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers, NSW
Sharleen Jordan CY O’Conor College of TAFE, WA
Steve Larsen Pittwater Council, NSW
Mykel Smith Townsville City Council, QLD
Claire Gick
Benotto Animal Management, WA
Ex Officio CoMMIttee Peter Chandler MLA
Chris Button
Member for Brennan, NT
Adelaide Hills Council, SA
Text copyright © AIAM Inc
Published 2012
Disclaimer: The opinions, advices and information contained in this publication of AIAM Inc are offered in pursuance of the objective of
AIAM Inc to provide an information service to persons’ involved or interested in animal management. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the views or policies of AIAM Inc, or the conference organisers. AIAM Inc advises readers to seek legal and other opinion about the use of
procedure, technique, product or service referred to in this publication. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of the study, research,
criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Inquiries
should be made to AIAM Secretariat, PO Box 4137, Weston Creek, ACT 2611
Production coordinated by On Q Conference Support, Weston Creek ACT
Design and DTP by Designers Wakefield Bevanda, Griffith ACT
Printed by Union Offset, Fyshwick ACT

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 1
SponsorS
Principal SPONSORS
Gold ExhIBITORS
SILVER + BRONze ExhIBITORS

2 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
2012 AIAM Conference
Program
Day 1 WednesdAY 17 oCtober
ACM40110 CIV in
Animal Control
and Regulation
ACMSUS301A
LGA40504 CIV in
Local Government
(Regulatory
Services)
LGACOMP024A
National Accreditation Mapping codes noted in first two columns
Please refer to detailed listing at the end of program
8:30
8.45
9.10
9.35
9.45
Welcome
Conference Opening
Andrew Corwell MP, Member for Charlestown, Chair of NSW Companion Animal Taskforce
Welcome to Penrith
Councillor Mark Davies, Mayor, Penrith City Council
AIAM Awards presented by Councillor Mark Davies, Mayor, Penrith City Council
KEYNOTE: 20 years of steady progress in animal management
Dr Dick Murray, President AIAM
10:30 Morning Tea
The value of prior preparation in Animal Management
Interactive Session
ACMACR408A
PSPREG404C
LGACORE601B
LGACORE102B
11:00
11:40
12.00
Animal Welfare Emergency Response
Team. Mr Mark Vincent, Christchurch City
Council, NZ
Tools for identifying and working with
animal hoarders. Ms Courtney Stevens,
RSPCA NSW
Q&A
Learning by doing: social media
and pet ownership. Dr Tim Adams,
Petcare Information and Advisory
Service, Vic
ACMACR407A and LGACOMP024A
12:10 Lunch
Two sides to every story in Animal Management
PSPPM401B
ACMACR403A
LGACOM501B
LGAREGS404A
1:00
1:45
2:15
2:30
2:40
2:50
Keynote: Invisible paws in human affairs. Dr David Paxton
Beyond Prejudice – The inconvenient truths about puppy farms.
Dr Wendy Brown, University of New England, NSW, Dr Dick Murray, veterinarian, Qld
Compliance ‘Looking outside the box’. Mr Craig Highlands, Shire of Northam, WA
Presentation from the AIAM Animal Management Officer of the Year
Presentation from the AIAM Animal Management Plan of the Year
Q&A
Animal Management and Animal Behaviour
3:00 Afternoon Tea
ACMACR401A
ACMACR403A
LGAREGS404A
LGAREGS404A
3:30
4:10
4:35
4:50
Twenty years of steady progress – One bite will change your world – Looking
at the issue of dog bites from different views; education, legislation,
community and research. Ms Tracy Helman, Bureau of Animal Welfare, DPI, Vic
Animal Management, Local Government and Dog Aggression: The imperative
of understanding canine behaviour. Dr Joanne Righetti, Animal Behaviourist
A portable, automated apparatus for testing cognitive bias in dogs.
Ms Melissa Starling, University of Sydney, NSW
Q&A
6:30 BBQ and twilight golf • Penrith Panthers

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 3
day 2 THursdAY 18 oCtober
8:45 Housekeeping
Managing the interface of animals and community
ACMACR407A
AHCPMG401A
ACMACR402A
LGACOM404B
LGAREGS404A
LGACORE102B
9.00 Sociological aspects relating to pets, people and community.
Ms Julia Hardaker, AMRRIC
9.40 When wild dogs come to town – Management in peri-urban areas where dogs,
policy and people meet. Dr Peter Fleming, Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW DPI
10.00 Use of a restraining board for safe and humane processing of wild dogs,
feral cats and foxes without sedation. Dr Guy Ballard, Vertebrate Pest Research
Unit, NSW DPI
10:20 Q&A
10:30 Morning Tea
Using technology to enhance animal management outcomes
ACMACR407A
ACMACR407A
ACMOHS401A
LGACOM404B
GACOMP024A
LGACORE102B
11:00
11:45
12.00
12:20
Council and community benefits through maximizing resources.
Ms Louise Laurens, Moreton Bay Regional Council
Using technology to save lives. Mr John Bishop, Petrescue.com.au
Body worn video systems for animal management officers.
Mr Brad Dannefaerd, Compliance, Enforcement and Regulatory Training, NZ
Q&A
12:30 Lunch
People, animals and governance - Strategic planning for animal management
Interactive Session
PSPGOV404B
PSPREG404C
ACMACR401A
LGAREGS404A
LGACOM403B
LGAGOVA410B
1:30
1.50
2.10
Governance and strategic planning for
animal management – how to link it all up.
Mr Shane Scriggins, Sunshine Coast Council, Qld
The 80/20 rule and animal management.
Ms Vanessa Rohlf, Anthrozoology Research Group, Vic
Unruffling feathers – Assessing council
operational and financial compliance under
the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995.
Ms Danielle Suckley, Dog & Cat Management Board
Whatever you need to know,
just ask! Dr Joanne Righetti,
Animal Behaviourist
(Questions from delegates
to be handed in prior to the
session and drawn ‘out of the
hat’ for discussion).
2.30 Afternoon Tea
Managing dog aggression: A practical quest for better methods
ACMACR401A
ACMACR403A
LGAREGS404A
LGAREGS404A
3:20
3.40
4:00
4:30
A tiered approach to dealing with inappropriate dog behaviour in NSW.
Mr Noel Fuller, Penrith City Council
Desexing: The forgotten way to reduce dog attacks. Dr Katina D’Onise, Dog &
Cat Management Board, SA (Presented by Dr Ian McBryde and Mr Chris Button)
AIAM Position statement: Managing Dog Aggression in the Community
AIAM AGM
7:00 Conference Dinner

4 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Day 3 FRIDAY 19 October
Digging down into dog aggression: Does breed matter and if not, where lies the true heart of the important issues?
9:00
9:20
A sensible solution – Taking the evidence based legislative approach to
managing potentially dangerous dogs. Mr Graham Pratt, AVA SA Division
KEYNOTE PANEL: Managing dog aggression in the community
Facilitator: Ms Ellen Fanning, ABC Journalist
Panelists: Dr Dick Murray (Veterinarian); Dr Joanne Righetti (Animal
Behaviourist); Mr John Cohen (Compliance Manager Gold Coast City
Council); Ms Vanessa Rohlf (Monash University); Ms Maree Garrett (Animal
Welfare League); Ms Karen Ashby (Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit, Monash
University); Mr Graham Pratt (AVA SA Division); Ms Elke Tapley (Mitchell
Shire Council).
10:30 Morning Tea
Coalface practical animal management business
PSPREG404C
ACMACR408A
LGAREGS403A
LGAREGS404A
11:00
11:20
11:40
Wild animal capture. Mr Bob McComb, University of Sydney
Beach Education Intervention – Implementation and evaluation of a social
change campaign. Ms Dani Scuteri, City of Charles Sturt, SA
Promoting a happier workplace. Ms Vanessa Rohlf, Anthrozoology Research
Group, Vic
Conference closing session
12.00
12:10 Packed lunch
1.00 AIAM Training: Dangerous Dog Handling

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 5
ACM40110 CIV In Animal Control and Regulation
ACM40110 CIV In Animal Control and Regulation
ACMACR401A Comply with animal control and regulation
requirements
ACMACR401A Comply with animal control and regulation
requirements
LGA40504 CIV In Local Government (Regulatory Services)
LGA40504 CIV In Local Government (Regulatory Services)
LGACOM404B Establish cooperative arrangements with other
organisations
LGACOM403B Conduct public educational presentations
ACMACR401A Comply with animal control and regulation
requirements
ACMACR401A Comply with animal control and regulation
requirements
ACMACR402A Assess and impound animals
ACMACR403A Identify and respond to animal behaviour
ACMACR403A Identify and respond to animal behaviour
ACMACR403A Identify and respond to animal behaviour
ACMACR403A Identify and respond to animal behaviour
LGACOM404B Establish cooperative arrangements with other
organisations
LGACOM501B Develop and organise public education programs
LGACOMP024A Develop community relations
LGACOMP024A Develop community relations
LGACOMP024A Develop community relations
LGACORE102B Follow defined OHS policies and procedures
LGACORE102B Follow defined OHS policies and procedures
ACMACR407A Conduct community awareness programs LGACORE102B Follow defined OHS policies and procedures +
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities
ACMACR407A Conduct community awareness programs
ACMACR407A Conduct community awareness programs
ACMACR407A Conduct community awareness programs
ACMACR408A Coordinate seizure of animals
ACMACR408A Coordinate seizure of animals
ACMohs401A Maintain occupational health and safety processes
ACMsus301A Implement and monitor environmentally
sustainable work practices
AHCPMG401A Define the pest problem in a local area
PSPGOV404B Develop and implement work unit plans
PSPPM401B Design simple projects
PSPREG404C Investigate non-compliance
PSPREG404C Investigate non-compliance
PSPREG404C Investigate non-compliance
LGACORE601B Develop, implement and review operational plans
LGAEHRR304B Operate council pound facilities
LGAGOVA410B Monitor council procedures to ensure compliance
with relevant legislation
LGAREGS403A Monitor public behaviour in council areas
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities
LGAREGS404A Undertake appointed animal control duties and
responsibilities

6 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Contents
Sponsors ........................................1
2012 AIAM Conference Program ....................2
Preface of proceedings ............................7
01 20 years of steady progress in animal management – the
evolution of an institution ...........................8
Dick Murray
02 Animal Welfare Emergency Response Taskforce (AWERT). 18
Mark Vincent
03 Invisible paws in human affairs .....................24
David Paxton
04 Beyond prejudice: The inconvenient truths about
puppy farms ....................................30
Dr Wendy Brown and Dr Dick Murray
05 Indigenous health and companion animal welfare
Ranger initiative for compliance “Looking outside
the box” ........................................34
Craig Highlands
06 Twenty years of steady progress – but one bite
will change your world! ............................36
Tracy Helman, Steven Moore and Rob Morrice
07 A portable, automated apparatus for testing
cognitive bias in dogs .............................40
Melissa Starling
08 Aspects relating to pets, people and Indigenous
communities and how to work together for a
sustainable way forward ...........................48
Julia Hardaker
09 When wild dogs come to town: Management
in peri-urban areas where dogs, policy and
people meet .....................................54
Peter Fleming, Guy Ballard, Paul Meek, Benjamin Allen,
Matthew Gentle and Greg Mifsud
10 Use of a restraining board for safe and humane processing
of wild dogs, red foxes and feral cats
without sedation .................................60
Guy Ballard, Peter Fleming, Sam Doak and Paul Meek
11 Council and community benefits through maximizing
resources .......................................62
Louise Laurens
12 Body worn video cameras: The future for animal
control compliance and enforcement? ................66
Brad Dannefaerd
13 Governance and Strategic Planning for Animal
Management – how to link it all up ...................70
Shane Scriggins and Dick Murray
14 The 80/20 rule and animal management ..............84
Vanessa Rohlf
15 Compliance audits of Local Governments by the dog
and cat management board ........................88
Danielle Suckley
16 A tiered approach to dealing with inappropriate dog
behaviour in NSW ................................90
Noel Fuller
17 Desexing: the overlooked way to reduce dog attacks ....96
Katina D’Onise
18 Pet problems solved: Interactive Q&A ................98
Dr Joanne Righetti
19 Animal Management, Local Government and Dog
Aggression: The imperative of understanding canine
behaviour and the subsequent improvement of animal
management operating procedures .................100
Dr Joanne Righetti
20 Promoting happiness in the workplace ..............104
Vanessa Rohlf
21 Beach education intervention: Implementation and
evaluation of a social change campaign ..............106
Dani Scuteri and Vanessa Rohlf

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 7
Preface of
proceedings
This Penrith, 2012 conference marks twenty years of
direct involvement with the development of Animal
Management service in the Australian community.
The President wants to thank all the people who have
shared this path during this time. They are too many
to list, but they are champions all. Special thanks
must go to Michael Banyard, who in the very first
years of Urban Animal Management conferences,
was instrumental in securing Australian Veterinary
Association support for the initial series of
conferences. Without Michael Banyard’s leadership
in those critical early years, the vision of an
ongoing succession of annual Animal Management
conferences in Australia may never have been
realised.
In many ways, it is extraordinary what has been
achieved over these past 20 years by “simply”
convening these annual conferences and making
sure that they kept on happening. This (conference
convening role) is in truth as much as our voluntary
Institute office bearers are able to manage alongside
their other full time (and very demanding) jobs.
There is a finite limit to what can be achieved under
these circumstances. The author wishes it be
known that all members of the AIAM Committee and
Executive contribute their service voluntarily and as
a consequence of this generosity, AIAM has been not
only an effective, it also been cost effective.
It is probably true to say that working out the “why
and how” of Animal Management has taken every
bit of the past twenty years of doing annual national
Animal Management conferences to achieve. As a
result of this, however, the Institute can now say with
confidence that it knows what Animal Management
really is. And there is now an equally clear appreciation
of both how it should be done and what most needs to
be done now. This is a fair achievement in itself and
though it might seem (over 20 years past) to be pretty
slow going, perhaps not so.
It seems important that AIAM should keep doing
what it has been doing with preparing and presenting
its annual national Animal Management conferences.
While progress and innovation continues, while
sufficient Institute office bearers continue to be
available, while sufficient delegates continue to
attend these conferences and while AIAM remains
financially viable, the conferences should be able to
continue playing the same constructive / cooperative
role that it has thus far.
It can never be said too often or too loudly that
without our conference organiser, Doreen Culliver
and without the special effort of all our program
presenters we would be nowhere. Nor can it possibly
be overstated how much the Institute appreciates
the assistance and support of our industry sponsors
and contributers. It should also be said that all
conferences ultimately run on delegate power.
Without there being people in Animal Management
who come along and participate at conferences like
this, it is all for naught.
All the very best and welcome all. I do hope you get
good value from this conference
Regards,
Dick Murray President AIAM

8 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
01
20 years of steady progress in animal management – the evolution
of an institution
Dick Murray
President AIAM
In 1999, at the 7th National Urban Animal
Management Conference at the Gold Coast, a think
tank meeting was convened to determine what
these conferences should be working towards going
into the new millennium. No one, at that time, had
to be told that something urgently needed to be
done to improve the capacity of municipal Animal
Management services to properly meet the needs of
the Australian community. And no one had to be told,
either, that Animal Management had proven, by that
time, to be a much more complicated subject than
anyone had been previously thought.
At that conference, senior specialist Animal
Management Officers from each State, spoke to
delegates about the (considerable) obstacles they
faced in trying to properly execute their duties. There
was remarkable uniformity of opinion on what most
needed to be done. Consensus was quickly reached
on “tagging” the five most pressing needs. These
were all considered equally important and were
listed as follows:
1. Promote recognition in the community of the
importance of municipal Animal Management
services and the value of Animal Management
Officers (AMO) commitment to this;
2. Advocate career pathing through Animal
Management training to Certificate IV level under
the National Australian Qualification Framework
standard;
3. Encourage consistency in legislation and
compliance processes across Local and State
Government boundaries in Australia;
4. Support the provision of sufficient resources
to allow delivery of good quality Animal
Management services; and
5. Hold an annual national forum for the sharing of
progressive and innovative Animal Management
ideas.
Subsequent to that conference and meeting in 1999,
after the Australian Institute of Animal Management
(AIAM) had been formed, in 2006 AIAM developed a
“Statement of Purposes” that aligned the Institute’s
corporate identity with its role in endeavouring to
meet these needs. There has been much water under
the bridge since 1992 when the first Urban Animal
Management conference was convened in Brisbane
and much has been achieved.
Introduction
From the outset, there has always a clear
understanding of AIAM objectives, which is to
ensure the continued delivery of annual national
Animal Management conferences. There has also
been a clear understanding of the reason for doing
this, which is to promote best practices in Animal
Management service delivery by Local Government
in Australia. While in the beginning this was thought
to be the entire story, it was in retrospect, only a
statement of Institute strategy. It was not a complete
statement of Institute identity and purpose.
When subsequently, a mission statement, a values
statement and a vision statement were shaped to go
with the strategy statement outlined above, a more
technically correct account of the AIAM identity and
purpose subsequently emerged.
AIAM identity and purpose
The key components involved in defining an
organisations corporate identity routinely include
understanding its vision, its mission, its values and
its strategies. For AIAM this can be stated as follows.
> > AIAM’s vision The goal of AIAM Inc. is to eventually
see an Animal Management environment across
Australia in local Government that is sufficiently
resourced to shape a nation remarkable for
being one of the most sensible, responsible
and considerate in the world when it comes to
municipal animal ownership. In other words,
to have an Australian community in which
companion animals have been harmoniously
integrated.
> > AIAM’s mission The mission of AIAM Inc. is to
provide a mechanism for the effective promotion
of such harmonious integration through an
Animal Management service environment that
has the following five basic operational goals:

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 9
• yDevelop recognition in the community of
the value of municipal Animal Management
services;
• yProvide Animal Management Officers (AMO)
access to career pathing through formal
training of National Australian Qualification
Framework standard;
• yEncourage consistency in Animal Management
legislation and processes across throughout
Australia;
• yPush for the provision of sufficient resources
to allow the delivery of good quality Animal
Management services; and
• yHold an annual national forum for the
sharing of progressive and innovative Animal
Management ideas.
> > AIAM’s values The belief of AIAM Inc. is that by
effectively promoting competent pet animal
ownership, it can reduce community pet nuisance
in the interest of facilitating harmonious urban
animal integration.
> > AIAM’s strategy The strategy of AIAM Inc. is to
convene an Australian Animal Management
conference each year for the purpose of sharing
progressive ideas and gathering consensus on
the methodology of best operational practices by:
1. Stimulating critical and constructive
assessment of current animal management
practice and performance in Australia;
2. Encouraging reflection about the essential
role and purpose of Animal Management;
3. Supporting research and development in
Animal Management;
4. Promoting continuing education for Animal
Management Officers within an accredited
national competency framework of relevant
training package competencies;
5. Developing a repository of readily accessible
quality literature on this subject;
6. Sharing knowledge and experience to build
a collegiate sense of common purpose and
mutual assistance in this industry;
7. Helping underscore the significant
occupational health and safety issues
associated with animal management;
8. Drawing together streams of consensus
for nation uniformity on important matters
pertaining to urban animal management policy
and practice; and
9. Recognising excellence in animal management
service.
Two questions kept coming up
With time, it became evident that even this
description of AIAM identity and purpose was
incomplete. It was incomplete in that it did not
capture a meaningful description of what exactly
“Animal Management” itself was. But, as the work
of convening these AIAM conferences went on year
after year, an understanding of this too, progressively
emerged. During this time, two major questions
constantly niggled in the “mind” of the Institute.
These two questions were:
1. Why is this business so hard? And…
2. Why exactly, at the bottom of it all, is this
important enough to warrant all the effort?
1. Why so HArd?
Perhaps the most
important revelation in
peeling this particular
onion, lay in appreciating
the fact that Animal
Management is what
might be called a
“composite” discipline.
It is a discipline that
encompasses the full
breadth of all of the
following three separate
sciences:
1. Animal behaviour;
2. Human (owner)
behaviour; and
3. Community
behaviour.
Why so hard?
Animal Management
is a uniquely complex
socio- behavioural
discipline. There is
nothing even slightly
simple or easy about
Animal Management.
Appreciating this
fact goes a long way
to explaining why it
sometimes seems such
a comprehensively
baffling business.
While each of these three components is in itself a
separate scientific discipline, in Animal Management
they all come together as a whole new and rather
complicated (composite) entity. In this composite
format, each of the three elements operates
interactively with both of the others and it can be very
complicated indeed.
Embedded in this complexity is the fact that all
control and regulation centrally involves deprivation
of freedoms and this fact makes the going
consistently challenging. Brendan Bartlett presented
an illuminating paper on this “deprivation” theme
at the first Urban Animal Management conference
in Brisbane in 1992. 1 It (unsurprisingly) makes
things difficult to manage when the emotionality of
animal ownership is connected with deprivation of
freedoms. This complex “chemistry” occurs within
1 Brendan Bartlett, 1992. The depriving face of control in urban animal management. In the Urban Animal Management Conference Proceedings
1992 - Text copyright © AVA Ltd

10 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
the boundaries of all Australian municipalities, all
the time. And if that all sounds perhaps a little more
complicated than anyone thought in the beginning…
well, that’s correct – because it certainly is!
2. Why bother?
To further understand the complete story of Animal
Management, we also need to appreciate the full
picture of why we do it. There are in fact three levels
of understanding in the question of “why” as follows.
On the face of it, Animal Management is a Local
Government community service intended to realise
the following two goals:
1. Reduce pet nuisance; and
2. Promote responsible and community considerate
pet animal ownership.
Figure 1 shows the significance of animal related
nuisance in terms of the weight of complaints on this
subject to Townsville City Council. For Service Request,
read complaint. This weight of complaint to councils
about animal related problems is not unusual in a
national context. Figure 1 supports the notion that
pet animals can be a significant cause of public
nuisance. So, the first layer of purpose for Animal
Management, is to reduce community nuisance by
promoting competency of animal ownership.
Figure 1
Behind this understanding, lies a second layer of
purpose that relates to essential underpinning
governance and “policy” matters for Local
Government.
These governance and policy matters include
aspects pertaining to public health, public safety
and community amenity as illustrated for example
by Figure 2. regarding dog attacks recorded by
Townsville City Council in 2010/11.
Figure 2
On careful examination, it can be seen that Animal
Management is a municipal service that dovetails
with Government’s quadruple bottom line of
obligation as follows:
1. Community (public health, welfare and amenity),
2. Economy (commercial activity and employment),
3. Environment (wildlife and habitat protection), and
4. Governance (transparency and integrity of
community service delivery).
It can be seen from this,
that Councils provide
animal management
service because it is
comprehensively in
the best interests of
the communities they
should do so.
Then there is a third
layer of Animal
Management purpose
that relates to why it
is that so many people
want to (and do) keep
on keeping companion
animals in our
society. Without this
understanding there
is no fundamental
baseline that truly justifies this whole Animal
Management business. A summary of this third layer
of understanding of why we do Animal Management
is provided both succinctly and completely by Tamara
Shardlow 2 as follows:
“Simply put, pets are an Australian way of life and
clearly, one that we very much enjoy. Research shows
that eight in ten Australian’s have at some stage owned
a pet, while every second home now plays home to a
pet dog or cat. But if we peel back the generally agreed
upon notion that a well behaved pet is rather nice to be
around, we’ll find a bank of research documenting why.
Across the past 30 years, the sheer weight of
international and national studies that examine the
relationship between companion animals and range
of correlating human health benefits is staggering.
Not only are pet owners psychologically 3,4,5 ,
2 Pers Comm Tamara Shardlow, PIAS. April 2012.
3 McConnell, AR, Brown, CM, Shoda, TM, Stayton, LE, Martin, CE, 2011, ‘Friends with benefits: on the positive consequences of pet ownership’, Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, vol.101, no.6, pp.1239-1252
4 Straede, CM, & Gates, GR, 1993, ‘Psychological Health in a Population of Australian Cat Owners’, Anthrozoos, vol. VI, no. 1, pp. 30-42.
5 Garrity, TF, Stallones, L, Marx, MB, & Johnson, TP, 1989, ‘Pet ownership and attachment as supportive factors in the health of the elderly’, Anthrozoos,
vol. 3, pp. 35-44.

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 11
Obviously there
would be no need for
Animal Management
if companion animals
were not the municipal
community presence
that they actually
are… If there were no
pets – there would be
no problems – and
therefore there would
be no need.
But, then, who wants
to be part of a totally
no-companion animal
owning society?
physiologically 6,7,8 , and,
on the whole, generally
more healthy than nonpet
owners 9,10 ; they
also experience greater
levels of community
connection 11 and personal
security 12 . So why should
we be surprised to hear
that the majority of
owners regard their pet
as “one of the family”?
In 1994, at one of the
early National Urban
Animal Management
Conferences, David
Paxton 13 presented a
paper that explained the
notion that humankind has “co-evolved” with dogs to
the extent of there now being what might be called
a “composite” man-dog phenotype. In other words,
that co-existence of the two species may have come
to involve a degree of genetic binding between the
two species. David suggested at that conference:
“that if the “co evolution – extended phenotype”
model proves sound, it would follow that government
policies which reduce access to dog keeping need
to be appraised critically and not enacted until
alternatives are considered”. In other words: Public
policies which do not take into account the needs of
pets, may not cater for the needs of people either –
because dogs and people have evolved convergently
and have similar needs.
Animal management or animal welfare?
It has taken all of the past 20 years of Animal
Management conferences for AIAM to come to a
solid understanding of the relationship between
Animal Management and Animal Welfare. It seems
clear now that Animal Management is different to
Animal Welfare and this distinction stems from a
fundamental difference in the purposes of these
two enterprises. The difference can perhaps be best
outlined as follows:
> > Animal welfare is about people being considerate
of the wellbeing of any animals they might keep,
> > Animal Management, on the other hand, is about
people being considerate of their neighbours with
respect to how they control the animals they keep.
It should be clearly understood that while Animal
Management and Animal Welfare are not the same,
they are strongly linked in the sense that they both
involve animals, they both involve competency of
animal ownership and they are both shaped by
community values.
The key factor is consideration – consideration on the
one hand, of the welfare of animals themselves and
on the other hand, of neighbourhood. This mutual key
(consideration) factor is why tangible and significant
animal welfare dividends do routinely spin off from
good Animal Management. Clare Connel from
Auckland City Council presented an interesting paper
on this very theme (of Animal Management delivering
tangible and significant animal welfare spin offs)
at the third annual conference of the Australian
Institute of Animal Management in Geelong, Victoria,
2009. 14 When Local Authorities
Animal Management
is what Local
Government does
in handling service
requests associated
with animal nuisance
in the community.
respond to nuisance
being caused by dogs
roaming at large, that is
an Animal Management
issue. It is an Animal
Management issue
because constitute an
intrusive nuisance to
neighbours, a predatory threat to wildlife, a possible
danger to people and they create a real traffic
hazard. Roaming dogs are routinely impounded by
the council Regulatory Service officers because they
are a public nuisance. By so doing, these straying
dogs are also rescued from the real and serious risk
of being run over by motor vehicles. This significant
animal welfare is a benefit from the primary Animal
Management activity. There are many other such
animal welfare dividends that stem directly from
good Animal Management practices.
6 Qureshi, AI, Zeeshan MM, Vazquez, G, Fareed, M, Suri, K, 2009, ‘Cat ownership and the Risk of Fatal Cardiovascular Diseases: Results from the Second
National Health and Nutrition Examination Study Mortality Follow-up Study’, Journal of Vascular and Interventional Neurology, vol. 2, no.1, pp.132-135.
7 Vormbrock, JK, & Grossberg, JM, 1988, ’Cardiovascular effects of human-pet dog interactions’, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 509-517
8 friedmann, E, Katcher, AH, Lynch, JJ, & Thomas, SA, 1980, ‘Animal companions and one year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care
unit’, Public Health Reports, vol. 95, pp. 307 - 312.
9 Serpell, JA, 1991,’Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol.84, pp. 717-720.
10 olbrich, E, 1995, ‘Budgerigars in Old People’s Homes: influence on behaviour and quality of life’, Conference proceedings at Animals, Health and Quality of
Life, 7th International Conference on Human-Animal Interactions, Geneva, September, 1995.
11 Wood, L, Giles-Corti, B, & Bulsara, M, 2005, ‘The Pet Connection: pets as a conduit for social capital?’, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1159-1173
12 salmon, J, Telford, A, & Crawford D, The Children’s Leisure Activities Study, Summary Report, Deakin University Centre for Physical Activity and
Nutrition, 2004.
13 David Paxton, 1994. Community involvement and urban dogs - some ideas. In the Urban Animal Management Conference Proceedings 1994 - Text
copyright © AVA Ltd
14 Clare Connel, 2009. The link between dog control and dog welfare. In the Proceedings of the third annual conference of the Australian Institute of
Animal Management in Geelong, Victoria AIAM Annual Conference on urban animal management 2009. Presenter: Clare Connell, Auckland City
Council, NZ

12 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Process dissection
The above discussion is essentially about the “why”
of Animal Management and the clarity we now have,
after twenty consecutive annual conferences, in
this respect has been beneficial. In more recent
times, the Institute has sought to also gain a better
understanding of the “how” of Animal Management.
To achieve this, an effort has been made to “unpack”
Animal Management into its operational components
or functions – as they relate to Local Government
processes. The following “unpack” involves a breakdown
into five key Animal Management service functions 15 .
1. Governance process – Policy, Audit, Risk,
Reporting, Legislation, Advocacy
2. Planning process – Strategic, Operational,
Reporting, Advocacy
3. Service delivery process – Information,
Advice, Education, Compliance/Enforcement,
Partnerships/Relationships/Collaboration,
Consultation, Advocacy
4. Management efficiency process – Vertical/
Horizontal integration, Informed decisions,
Recruitment, Training, Mentoring, Continuing
Education, Information Repository/Library,
Advocacy
5. Quality control process – Service Level
Agreements, Community/Councillors/Staff,
Reporting/Benchmarking, Surveys, Audits,
Review, Reinvent
Because Animal Management has historically
tended to be a service “tacked on” to some other
departmental entity in Councils, it is possible that
clear functional dissections specifically for Animal
Management may not in some cases have been
carried out. “Unpacking” this and complex, important
and often demanding service is a part of seeing how
it all should come together in a framework that can
be best understood.
Achievements
It is probably true to say that working out the “why
and how” of Animal Management has taken all of the
past twenty years of doing annual national Animal
Management conferences to achieve. As a result of
this, however, the Institute can now say with confidence
that it knows what Animal Management really is.
And there is now an equally clear appreciation of
both how it should be done and what most needs to
be done now. This is a fair achievement in itself and
though it might seem (over 20 years past) to be pretty
slow going, perhaps not so.
The following anecdote about Yosemite National Park
from Tim Adams 16 is instructive in the context of this
business of having to work it out as we went along.
“Sometimes it takes a while to develop a new idea
to its completion. I was struck by this notion on a
visit to Yosemite National Park in the Sierra Nevada
mountain range in California: a park ranger told us the
story of how even after the area became protected by
law, pioneers and decision makers still hadn’t finally
resolved what it meant to be a National Park.
[The following is lifted from Wikipedia, and agrees with
the story as told by the park ranger] – “Concerned by
the effects of commercial interests, prominent citizens
including Galen Clark and Senator John Conness
advocated for protection of the area. A park bill was
prepared with the assistance of the General Land Office
in the Interior Department. The bill passed both houses
of the 38th United States Congress, and was signed by
President Abraham Lincoln on June 30, 1864, creating
the Yosemite Grant. This is the first instance of park
land being set aside specifically for preservation and
public use by action of the U.S. federal government, and
set a precedent for the 1872 creation of Yellowstone as
the first national park.” (emphasis is mine)
One of the most interesting parts of the ongoing story of
National Parks in the USA – and Yosemite in particular –
is that it seemed to take many decades before the Park
was defined in a way we would now regard as a modern
National Park. For example – in the late 19th century,
the area suffered from overgrazing by sheep, and was
home to an encampment by the US Army. In the early
20th Century a dam was built within the boundaries
of the National Park to supply water and power to
residents in neighbouring counties and San Francisco.
The park was even subject to a bid for the Winter
Olympics in 1932.
These days, preservation of the natural environment
within the park is the priority. Car use within the
Yosemite Valley is strongly restricted, with electric
shuttle buses running instead. Feeding animals is
banned, and the penalties for doing so are steep. Visitor
numbers are managed closely, and the rangers conduct
daily free tours on various topics relating to the natural
environment.
Yosemite National Park was a whole new idea in the
beginning. It has taken about 100 years for YNP
custodians to work out how this land should be
managed in a way we might identify today as a modern
National Park. In other words, it seemed to take a
century for this National Park to figure out exactly what
it meant to be a National Park. 17 ”
15 Pers comm. Shane Scriggins NCCC, April 2012.
16 Pers Comm Tim Adams, PIAS. April 2012.
17 Pers Comm Tim Adams, April 2012

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 13
Perhaps we have done
pretty well by managing
to precisely define our
Animal Management
subject in just twenty
years, after all!
It is important to
note that the Institute
does not dictate, or
mandate, or legislate
or regulate anything.
What the Institute
can and does do is to
advocate the adoption
of what are constantly shaping to be genuinely best
practices in Animal Management. The Institute
endeavours (through its annual national conferences)
to facilitate consensus. The expectation is that with
consensus comes change. It may be a slow process,
but then as has been explained above, this is a very
complex undertaking and perhaps slow and steady,
in the end, might always been the best way to do it.
How to rate achievements?
How would delegates to this conference rate the
Institutes achievements in terms of its originally
stated mission goals and conference objectives as
they were originally framed?
AIAM MIssion goals:
1. Develop recognition in the community of the value
of municipal Animal Management services (0 – 10)
2. Provide AMO access to career pathing through
Animal Management training of National AQF
standard (0 – 10)
3. Encourage consistency in legislation and
regulative processes across municipal and State
boundaries in Australia (0 – 10)
4. Push for the provision of sufficient resources
to allow the delivery of good quality Animal
Management services (0 – 10)
5. Have a regular national forum (conference) for
the sharing of progressive and innovative ideas.
(0 – 10)
AIAM conference objectives:
1. Stimulate critical and constructive assessment
of current animal management practice and
performance in Australia(0 – 10)
2. Encourage reflection about the essential role and
purpose of Animal Management
3. Support R&D in Animal Management (0 – 10)
4. Promote continuing education for Animal
Management Officers within an accredited
national competency framework of relevant
training package competencies (0 – 10)
5. Develop a body of readily accessible quality
literature on this subject
6. Share knowledge and experience to build a
collegiate sense of common purpose and mutual
assistance in this industry (0 – 10)
7. Help underscore the significant occupational
health and safety issues associated with animal
management (0 – 10)
8. Draw together streams of consensus for nation
uniformity on important matters pertaining to
urban animal management policy and practice
(0 – 10)
9. Recognise excellence in animal management
service. (0 – 10)
AIAM vision:
Is the Institute realising its original vision of “An
Australian community in which companion animals
have been harmoniously integrated and an Animal
Management environment across Australia in local
Government that is sufficiently resourced to shape a
nation remarkable for being one of the most sensible,
responsible and considerate in the world when it comes
to municipal animal ownership”? Well, that was a hell
of a vision statement from the beginning and perhaps
going to the moon might have been easier. But even
so, this too is a pass or fail mark for others to make:
a. Are we closer now to having an Australian
community in which companion animals are
harmoniously integrated?... Y/N?
b. Are we closer now to seeing an Animal
Management environment across Australia in
which Local Government is sufficiently resourced
to shape a nation remarkable for being one of
the most sensible, responsible and considerate
in the world when it comes to municipal animal
ownership? … Y/N?
Looking ahead
In March 2012, AIAM commissioned Philip Pogson 18
to facilitate a committee review to update the
Institute’s corporate direction and purpose.
Identifying key opportunities and challenges for
the Institute as follows was a central part of that
process. In fulfilling its vision and objectives AIAM
sees several key challenges and opportunities.
These include:
Improving governance and coordination of
legislation and regulation between State and Local
Government and AIAM
State Governments have responsibility for enacting
animal management legalisation but the regulatory
accountability sits with Local Government.
18 Philip Pogson, FAICD. ACIS. Director, The Leading Partnership. North Sydney, NSW 2060 Australia

14 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
There has been a tendency for “knee jerk” animal
management legislation in Australia and a lack of
coordination between State and Local Authorities
which frequently results in a lack of resourcing to
enforce regulation in local government areas. One of
AIAM’s key goals is to improve the quality of legislation
and to coordinate implementation through partnering
local government and the animal management
professionals employed on the “frontline”.
Animal Management Officer (AMO) competence
and training
The safety and competence of AMO is of major
concern to the industry and AIAM. Great strides have
been made in professionalising animal management
work and it is important that ongoing sustainable
progress continues to be made. This will be difficult
as local government budgets in many parts of
Australia are under ongoing financial pressure.
Resourcing and funding service delivery
As noted under governance and coordination, it is
one thing to enact regulation, and it is another to
ensure that there are adequate local resources
available to enable animal management. Added to
this is a progressive change in community attitude
which now expects Local Government to resolve
issues that tended previously to be tolerated or
dealt with by the community itself. Nowadays people
feel it is Councils problem to resolve all and any
neighbourhood conflict issues. This huge shift in
attitude has in turn brought about a lot of additional
workload, expense and knee jerk reaction. Additional
expenses are particularly the case in rural and
regional areas/shires where animal management
roles may be only part time and the distances great.
Issues of welfare and well-being
As Australia continues to urbanise and grow a
complex set of issues around matters such as animal
welfare, the human-animal bond, quality of life and
the aging demographic are coming to the fore. In
addition, there are opportunities and challenges
related to our multicultural society and the differing
traditions of animal welfare and the human animal
bond that AMOs often have to deal with. Finally,
indigenous communities also have a strong and
unique relationship with their dogs. Remote
aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
in particular face special animal management
challenges that are ably addressed by our sister
organisation, Animal Management in Rural and
Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC). AIAM
has a coordinating and cooperative role in bringing
many of these issues and stakeholders together.
Engaging and partnering effectively with key
stakeholders
There are many stakeholders, organisations
and individuals involved in animal management.
Efficiently and effectively meeting the communication
requirements of our many stakeholders is a
significant challenge for AIAM which is expected to
require the application of increased resources over
the coming years.
Fundraising and resourcing
AIAM relies heavily on a single event – our annual
conference – to generate operating funds. We face
a major challenge in trying to expand our income
sources and creating a more sustainable business
model which will enable us to set up some kind of
permanent staffing.
Environment and social sustainability and equity
At the big picture level AIAM recognises that our
society faces some major demographic challenges
over the coming decades which are potentially farreaching
and which will provide the broader context
in which AIAM seeks to pursue its objectives around
effective and sustainable animal management.
The biggest breakthrough in 20 years
One piece of innovative
work stands out above
all others.
This was the creation
of the South Australian
Dog and Cat
Management Board.
Looking back over
the past 20 years of
Animal Management
activity in Australia,
many useful innovative
ideas have, in that
time interval, been
successfully converted
into effective and
progressive practices –
practices that have in many cases been then shared
across Australia. One such piece of innovative work,
however, stands out above all others. This was
the creation of the South Australian Dog and Cat
Management Board. A brief history of this Board is
as follows:
In 1992, Ken McCann 19 was commissioned by
the Minister of Environment and Planning in
South Australia to undertake a comprehensive
administrative review of dog control in that State.
This review centrally involved Ken McCann visiting
every Council in South Australia and having lengthy
discussions about Animal Management with the
relevant officers in each case. It showed unusual
insight on the part of the Minister that this research
was in fact focussed on Local Government.
19 Ken McCann 1993. Dog control review. In Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Urban Animal Management, Penrith, NSW

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 15
It essentially sought to find out what Local
Government in South Australia most needed from
the State Government to be able do their Animal
Management better.
Subsequent to that review by Ken McCann, in
November 1994, the Minister for the Environment
and Natural Resources in the South Australian
Government introduced a Bill for an Act to provide
for the management of dogs and cats. This new Act
repealed the existing Dog Control Act 1979 that was
not working. The purpose of the new Dog and Cat
Management Bill was to implement the following
changes:
1. A transfer of the full administrative responsibility
for dog control from State Government to Local
Government.
2. Amend existing regulatory provisions and include
additional provisions relating to the management
of dogs.
3. Include new provisions for the identification,
control and regulation of cats.
The South Australian Dog and Cat Management
Board (SA DCMB) was established as a body
corporate under this Bill. The Board had/has the
power to perform the following functions:
> > Contract and hold property in its own name
> > Advise Local Government on a wide range of
issues relating to dog and cat management,
including the development of dog and cat
management programs
> > Distribute funds collected on behalf of the
Dog and Cat Management Fund for purposes
associated with dog and cat management.
> > Make recommendations on the setting of fees
under the legislation which were uniform for all
councils.
> > The principal function of the Board is be to
assist and liaise with Local Government on the
administration of dog and cat management and
to achieve a high standard of consistency in the
management of dogs and cats in SA.
> > The Board was to be the focal centre and
disseminate information and knowledge to all
councils, and be responsive to the needs and
requirements of councils at all times. 20
The SA DCMB, in terms of direct service value for
money, a range of valuable services are provided for
all Councils in the State. These include items such as:
> > Developing consistency of legislation and uniformity
of regulatory processes across the State
> > Being able to directly link with (similarly set
up) DCMBs in other States of Australia for the
purpose of cooperatively working towards the
development of national (interstate) consistency in
Animal Management legislation and regulation
> > Providing recommendations to both Local
Authorities and State Government in times of
public / political media outcry over occasional
stress incidents if / when they arise
> > Arranging / supporting / facilitating accredited
training for Animal Management Officers
> > Undertaking compliance audits and
benchmarking exercises that directly assist
Councils in achieving and maintaining best
practice standards;
> > Developing topical research projects and
providing access to results that assist in the
advancement of animal management capabilities;
> > Providing emergency assistance for local
governments dealing with difficult / high risk /
high stress animal management situations; eg
Rabies, potential fatality, very difficult customer
situation, work place safety emergency, natural
disaster situation
> > Networking Councils to other Councils where
“specialist” capabilities might be beneficial and
available when needed;
> > Making recommendations to State Government
regarding legislative initiatives;
> > Developing and sharing uniform (best quality)
community awareness and public education
methods and materials;
> > Promoting (Statewide) public awareness of
the value and merit of community animal
management services; and
> > Assisting with the provision of specialist legal
support for Councils if / when needed.
The South Australian Dog and Cat Management
Board has been a remarkable Animal Management
initiative. It has stood the test of time and it has
delivered. The Board’s central magic lies in the fact
that it places the oversight and the implementation of
community Animal Management in South Australia,
firmly in the hands of people who know what they are
doing – Local Government experts.
Conclusions
It seems important that AIAM should keep doing
what it has been doing with preparing and presenting
its annual national Animal Management conferences.
20 Ben Luxton Material from Conference presentation, The Board Model for State Wide Dog and Cat Management: Does it Work?, by Ben Luxton at the
2011 national Annual AIAM conference in Glenelg

16 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
While progress and innovation continues, while
sufficient Institute office bearers continue to be
available, while sufficient delegates continue to
attend these conferences and while AIAM remains
financially viable, the conferences should be able to
continue playing the same constructive / cooperative
role that it has thus far.
In a most immediate sense the two main
“environmental” issue that need priority attention
going forward from 2012 are:
1. Improve the capacity of State Governments to
legislate competently for Animal Management.
2. Improve inter-State cooperation in identifying and
applying and sharing best practices in Animal
management.
There is no doubt
that this state based
Animal Management
model has proven to
be the best Australian
Animal Management
legislative initiative
there ever was.
If the people are
the same, and the
animals are the same
and the problems
are the same, then
logically, the solutions
of the problems (best
practices) must also be
essentially the same –
both within and across
State borders.
In order to achieve these two objectives, the Institute
strongly recommends that every effort should be
made to harness the power of South Australia’s Dog
and Cat Management Board model by replicating it in
every State and Territory of Australia.
Acknowledgements
This Penrith, 2012 conference marks twenty years of
direct involvement with the development of Animal
Management service in the Australian community.
The author wants to thank all the people who have
shared this path during this time. They are too many
to list, but they are champions all. Special thanks
must go to Michael Banyard, who in the very first
years of Urban Animal Management conferences,
was instrumental in securing Australian Veterinary
Association support and underwriting for the initial
series of conferences.
In many ways, it is extraordinary what has been
achieved over these past 20 years by “simply”
convening these annual conferences and making
sure that they kept on happening. This (conference
convening role) is in truth as much as our voluntary
Institute office bearers are able to manage alongside
their other full time (and very demanding) jobs.
There is a finite limit to what can be achieved under
these circumstances. The author wishes it be
known that all members of the AIAM Committee and
Executive contribute their service voluntarily and as
a consequence of this generosity, AIAM has been not
only an effective, it also been cost effective.
About the author
Dick Murray currently holds the office of President
of the Australian Institute of Animal Management.
Dick was a 1973 BVSc graduate of UQ and an MSc
graduate of JCU. He has been a North Queensland
veterinary (companion animal) practitioner with a
deep interest in animal management for about 40
years now. For work done in this field of endeavour
he has been awarded a Medal of the Order of
Australia, an Australian Veterinary Association’s
Meritorious Service Award, an AVA Gilruth Prize and
Fellowship of the AVA.
The conference at which this paper was presented
will be the 20th national annual Animal Management
conference of a consecutive sequence of conferences
that commenced in Brisbane in 1992. Dick has been
centrally involved with all of these conferences and
will willingly admit that all of the intervening years
have been a continuous learning curve about the
subject of Animal Management.
Contact
Dick Murray
President of the Australian Institute
of Animal Management
Email: fortmurray@westnet.com.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
02
Animal Welfare Emergency Response Taskforce (AWERT)
Mark Vincent
Christchurch City Council, New Zealand
1
3
2
4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 19
5
8
6
9
7
10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
11
14
12
15
13
16
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 21
17
20
18
21
19
22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
23
26
24
27
25
28
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 23
29
31
30
32
About the Author
Mark Vincent
Christchurch City Council
Employed by the Christchurch City Council, New
Zealand for 35 years—the last 30 years as Team
Leader Animal control. Responsible for the care and
control of 35,000 dog population, with nine amazing
field officers and 11 administration staff.
Contact
Mark Vincent
Team Leader Animal control, Christchurch
City Council
Email: mark.vincent@ccc.govt.nz
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
03
Invisible paws in human affairs
David Paxton
Veterinarian
“Responsible pet ownership” is a paradigm that
prescribes the Three Rs of control – registration,
regulation and remonstration – but does not address
the complicated, subjective relationship we share
with other animals in the urban environment. A
naturalistic perspective helps to do so by seeing the
urban environment as a shared, evolving ecosystem.
Native Australian wildlife is adapting to the built
urban environment. Its management is a potentially
rich opportunity for Animal Managers. However the
invisible paws which give this paper its name, are
those of the dog and cat.
Back scratching
Adam Smith wrote the influential An Inquiry into
the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in
1776. He argued that it is human nature to act in
one’s self-interest but, in doing so, each individual
is led by an invisible hand to act for the greater
good of the society. Thus the baker who bakes in
his self-interest also acts in the interests of the
consumer who, in turn also acts in the interests of
the baker when buying bread to assuage his hunger
selfishly. For Smith, the invisible hand explained
inner-connectedness and bonding, and natural selfregulation
in society.
This paper speculates similarly: Human natures,
dog natures and cat natures, although each working
out of self-interest, are led as though by the invisible
hands and paws of co-evolution to promote the
interests of the complex naturally.
Original din
In 1994, at the Third Urban Animal Management
Conference, I argued that the relationship between
people and dogs is evolved; it was not just a recent
human-mediated incident (Paxton 1994). I speculated
that dogs and people co-evolved from some
130,000 years ago in a complex of animals that was
biologically cooperative internally and successfully
competitive externally.
The evolution of the anatomy for speaking words by
quirky humans was possible because we learned to
depend on sentinels – dogs. Evolution of the equally
quirky dog was possible within the protection of
the human cave. The evolution of each species was
blended from the beginning, such that each became
part of the other’s nature. They were extended
phenotypes and, together, out-competed their own
cousins, including the physically gifted Neanderthal.
In 2011 the idea was published in detail in my book
Why It’s OK to Talk to Your Dog (Paxton 2011). Over
the years since the third conference, my idea
arguably has been supported by DNA evidence;
by the validation of 30,000+ years-old skulls of dogs
in Belgium and Siberia; by the idea that Homo
evolution may have been multi-regional within Africa
(Christopher Stringer 2011); and by fresh thinking
on the mechanisms of evolution, especially
regarding mutualistic symbionts (see, for example,
Frank Ryan 2009).
The social structures of animals evolve naturally.
The ability to enunciate words enabled people to
evolve very complex social structures, or cultures,
based on myths, traditions, theories: that is, stories.
These stories told us that we are God-like or uniquely
self-determinant. Rudyard Kipling (1902) was an
example of an influential story-teller whose ideas
on our relations with animals persist in popular
forms today.
“I am the cat who walks by myself, and
all places are alike to me”
In his Just So Stories, Kipling portrayed the cat as
aloof and self-contained, but susceptible to the
comforts of the human cave. He saw people’s caves
attracting cats with lots of mice, warm fireplaces and
bowls of milk. There was a sort of naturalism there,
but anthropocentric wishful thinking also.
I suggest that our caves provided self-contained
ecosystems in which domesticatable cats could have
their kittens, with greater security and success of
survival than in the wild outdoors. In our caves, the
ancestral cat became the species we know.
According to Carlos Driscoll et al 2009a, using
mitochondrial DNA analysis, an ancestral cat
branched into Felis silvestris lybica and the

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 25
“domestic” Felis catus about 130,000 years ago in
roughly the same area in which speciation of the
ancestors of the dog occurred, that is, roughly the
Middle East. Carlos Driscoll et al (2009b) reported
that, although there are now almost 60 breeds of
cat recognised, there is in fact only a slight genetic
difference between them. The time frame may be
as short as 100,000 years ago for people and the
dog and cat if the DNA “clock” is re-calibrated
(Groves 2012).
The dog and the cat co-evolved with our ancestors
in an ecosystem which was increasingly better
organized because of our improving ability to speak.
The benefits were mutual and the relationship
became subjective and intricate. Although that
complex continues to co-evolve biologically in subtle
ways, prehistoric cultural co-evolution is of much
more obvious importance once major anatomical and
physiological adaptations had occurred.
If we fast forward from then to say 60-40,000 years
ago, we find modern looking hunters, fishers and
gatherers still living in caves but also in crude huts
(probably on an impermanent basis). They used
blade tools, which were an improvement over flake
tools, but their economic system could only progress
up to a point. Then, according to mainstream
speculation, a “revolution” occurred. People began
to produce food. They selectively planted grain and
raised animals and began the march (or trudge: see
Shepard & McKinley 1967 for comment) towards a
sedentary lifestyle in cities and towns.
Not all people became sedentary. For example, the
Australian Aborigines developed skills and rules
for managing the land, and made The Biggest Estate
on Earth (Bill Gamage 2011), but their culture was
not defined by cities, nor by the storage of food. As
William Stanner (2009) put it, “… people who lived
by hunting and foraging had to be mobile to survive.
But both water and food usually had a seasonal
distribution too. Aboriginal life had to be rhythmical
or patterned as well as mobile”. Yet my friend John
Auty tells me that there are remains of Aboriginal
villages with stone-walled houses in the Western
District of Victoria: this suggests a settled existence
for some Aborigines, some of the year.
It is usually held that the dog (dingo) only appeared in
Australia as recently as the past few thousand years.
The goal posts have recently been moved on this, to
allow arrival 18,300 years ago (Oskarrson et al 2011).
It seems to me more likely that the dog accompanied
the earliest seafarers who reached Australia some
60,000 years ago on their shaped bamboo rafts
(Thorne & Raymond 1989). The dog would be the
ideal shipboard companion because it could be fed
fish and, if necessary, be eaten. When these two new
predators reached terra incognita, they presumably
out-competed many marsupial predators, which
became extinct. Under the novel circumstances of
this new continent, perhaps the link between people
and dogs fragmented, but was not lost: note the
alacrity with which Aborigines (including Tasmanians
who are held never to have had dogs) sought out
and even stole the dogs of early British colonisers
(Auty 2012).
Even in the ancient heartland of archaeological
study, there is a great deal still to be learnt on the
process of civilisation. For example, Mortimer
Wheeler (1976) mentions that archaeological digs, at
cities thought contemporaneous with Sumerian and
Egyptian civilisations, may have reached down to only
a third of the strata, the remainder having subsided
below the water table and probably become lost to
investigation. Finds such as massive stone pillars at
Göbekli Tepe in Turkey, much older than the Egyptian
ancient civilisation and hewn perhaps 12,000 years
ago with stone tools, show how much there still is
to discover.
Robert Braidwood (1964/67), a pioneer in modern
archaeology, argued that the idea of a “revolution” in
food production was simplistic. He speculated that
the food producing revolution must have been predated
by a food collecting stage. Braidwood thought
that the shift from food gathering to food collecting
occurred in nuclear areas where a variety of wild
plants and animals which were domesticatable
already existed and the climate at that time was
suitable. On this basis, he thought suitable nuclear
areas would be Western Asia, Middle America and
the Andean Highlands, and somewhere in South East
Asia. He was best able to cite archeological evidence
about an area of Western Asia. This area consisted
of the hilly flanks of the mountain ridges of Iran, Iraq,
Turkey, Syria and Palestine, between altitudes of
1,000 to 5,000 feet.
It is in these hilly flank areas that the earliest
evidence of domestication of plants and animals had
been found. He assumed the dog to be already in a
state of “domestication” because there is evidence
that pre-agricultural Maglemosian hunter-gatherers
around Denmark already had the dog by then (he
does not mention the cat).
According to Braidwood, the early phase of the
food collection era would have been “incipient”
cultivation and animal domestication. He visualised
this phase thus:
Although we cannot really demonstrate it − and
certainly not in the Near East − it would be very strange
for food-collectors not to have known a great deal about
the plants and animals most useful to them. We can
imagine them remembering to go back, season after
season, to a particular patch of ground where seeds or
acorns or berries grew particularly well. Most human
beings, unless they are extremely hungry, are attracted

26 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
to baby animals, and many wild pups or fawns or piglets
must have been brought back alive by hunting parties.
In these above senses, man has probably always been
an incipient cultivator and domesticator. (p 97, his
emphasis).
Braidwood and his colleague Richard Adams saw
this early phase as part of a wave of experimentation,
which included the invention of the new tools which
appear in the archaeological record. There are
also signs of a tendency to settle down in more
permanent camp sites, but caves were still inhabited
at the beginning of this era.
Surely, if the food collecting era is a logical
preliminary to food producing, then the invention of
food storing must be a corollary of food collecting?
Inventing food storing might not have appeared as
dramatically in the archaeological record as did the
food producing revolution but it would have been
a major breakthrough in the human struggle for
survival.
In nature, food is in abundance. This is by definition
because, otherwise, there could be no food chain.
There is more game on the Serengeti, more fruit in
the trees, more grains on the grasses than animals
can eat. Otherwise none of these things could exist.
There is much evidence that our forebears luxuriated
in natural excess: the piles of bones of mammoths
and other herbivores attest to the wasteful practices
of hunters in the distant past. Modern land-fills
witness the situation today. Every gardener knows
the chore of cleaning up fruit fallen from a tree.
In Papua New Guinea I have seen crowds of boys
satiated with mangoes make hardly a dent in the fruit
piling under the tree. Modern day experiments have
shown that food gatherers with primitive stone and
bone sickles can quickly and easily harvest quantities
of grain from wild grasses.
There is ample food for animals including people.
The problem lies in its seasonality. The lion fattening
royally on the Serengeti Plain in the wet season
becomes a fly infested bag of bones in the dry
season. Birthing cycles have evolved to fit with the
seasons of plenty. The survival of an animal which
can store food, even if for only a short period, is
greatly advantaged. The storing of varieties of food
is a necessary step from hunting and gathering
towards collecting food.
The foods first stored in our ancestors’ caves
probably were dried fruits and berries, dried meats,
grains, tubers and roots. The food stored must be
ventilated, otherwise it will not keep or may become
toxic due to fungus. The food therefore would be
accessible to vermin. Our cave dwelling ancestors
could not have stored food unless dogs and cats
were already living in the caves and keeping vermin
in check. The storage of food by people further
benefited the dogs and cats in the evolving complex.
Therefore people, dogs and cats became part of
each other’s culture and, I argue, have remained so.
Theirs were the paws that insensibly, but critically,
shaped human affairs to allow the most important
revolution to occur that our species had so far
experienced: the move to food production and,
eventually, urbanisation.
And this is why the life of an Animal Manager is
complicated by the subjective relationship people
have with their dogs and cats. It is human nature
to associate with dogs and cats, because we coevolved,
just as it is human nature to groom each
other because of our primate past.
Tails of the city
Does all this speculation amount to a hill of beans?
I think so because the human world is becoming a
city, and this presents a marvelous opportunity for
creative Animal Managers.
Because you have your feet on the ground, you know
what is going on. That knowledge is most productive
if it is put in context. We all need to read outside the
square. Reading gives us the confidence to influence
public policy makers who persist in seeing dogs
and cats as objects. If urban animal management
can see beyond “responsible pet ownership” and
instead encourage (for example) “careful keeping
of animals”, it may lose some of its adversarial
image and instead appear positively normal. Animal
Managers have to carry out policies which have a
strong odour of prohibition. How do you prohibit a
relationship which is part of our nature?
In Welcome to the Urban Revolution, Jeb Brugmann
(2009) reminds us that half the world is now a city,
with 3.5 billion people living in it. Soon there will be
5 billion city dwellers. If my naturalistic argument is
correct, as we crowd together until our population
plateaus at 9 billion, we must continue to associate
with the dog and cat to maintain sane, healthy
communities.
Some ideas
I have to thank my youngest daughter, Gillian Paxton
(2012) for guiding me to some new discourses on
cities: Living Cities, Natureculture, and Cosmopolitics.
These are names you may hear a lot in the coming
years. The ideas behind them are not new, but
the names link the ideas to some very powerful
discourses in the social sciences. I also thank Tina
Bloom (2011), who helped me scan the current
social discourse on companion animal keeping. Tina
is a psychologist working in a maximum security
prison and exploring the use of animal assisted
rehabilitation of troubled individuals.

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 27
Her PhD examined whether people could read dogs’
facial expressions. John Auty commented helpfully
on successive drafts of this paper.
The “living cities” (Hinchliffe & Whatmore 2006)
idea is that human and nonhuman animals share the
ecology of the city. Their relationship can be dynamic
and organic, if recognised politically. There need be
no presumption of opposition between the city and
nature. Nature is not a “thing” owned by one group
or another. My proposition fits with the idea of living
cities very well: we have co-evolved with the dog and
the cat in a persistent, naturally selective ecosystem
ever since we lived together in caves. Together, we
became who we are today. This is a naturalistic
perspective and matters because crowding together
in cities can cause natural pathologies. Fifty years
ago, John Calhoun demonstrated this in rats that had
access to every amenity except space. As colonies
multiplied and crowded, social pathologies developed
such that the rats fell into a “behavioural sink”, or
what we might call Hell.
However, Calhoun (1971) argued, human beings
can cope with crowding because we can, unlike the
rats, conceptualise space and so live harmoniously.
I think dogs and cats are very good at helping us
conceptualise space and should have a natural place
in cities. Wide access to dog and cat keeping infers
green space and good urban design, health and
psychological benefits, companionship and security,
fairness and ethical consideration of other species.
Lack of access to dog and cat keeping is a sign of an
asocial, compromised human community. If a city is
not fit to keep a dog or cat in, how can it be a fit place
for human beings? In living cities, Animal Managers
could become concerned with other animals and
participate more broadly in urban governance.
Natureculture rejects the concept of nature as fixed
and separate from human culture. Rather, it sees
both as fluid, inter-connected and difficult to define.
Humans and non-humans adapt, change and evolve
seamlessly although sharing a built environment.
One of the proponents of this view is Donna Haraway
(2003). Among many things, she describes the flow
of street dogs into North America from Puerto Rico.
These dogs are nicknamed Satos. There is a Save-a-
Sato Foundation which has exported 10,000 Satos to
carefully screened homes since 1996. Puerto Rican
members of the Foundation rescue at least 5 Satos
every month, socialise them and give primary health
care, all at their own cost. The North American
receivers of the Satos are especially happy that the
dogs are non-pedigreed. Even if the rescued Satos
are neutered, when one thinks of the ethologists
Rudolph and Rudophina Menzels’ (1948) concern 60
years ago that the street dog genotype might become
endangered, one must also think that the Menzels
can relax in their graves: there is a continuing
perception that street dogs are valuable, so the
invisible paw in human affairs is alive and well.
Cosmopolitics tries to weave the dispassionate
scientific assessment of nature and the passionate
political allocation of resources into a kind of
natural justice which allows for likelihood, instead of
demanding scientific certainty (Hinchliffe et al 2005).
I argue that the warp and the weft of cosmopolitics
should include companion animals. We now accept
that the socialisation of a puppy at Puppy School is
more likely to result in a Good Citizen Dog, and we
accept that the socialisation of a child at pre-school
is good for the child. In a cosmopolitical world
there is no great leap in suggesting that companion
animals and children might socialise each other
also. Tina Bloom (2011) draws our attention to how
thirty years ago the Hare Indian tribe in Northwest
Canada employed dogs and children to socialise
one another. Presumably they still do, because it is,
I think, a long-lived, if informal, practice in our own
culture. As Wardlaw Kennedy (1899) wrote, every
well-constituted Victorian household in England
had its dog and cat, and one can be sure that the
paws of the n th generation of Royal Corgis continue
to have an effect on human affairs, in this Diamond
Jubilee Year. And should First Dog Bo, the Obama
family’s Portuguese Water Dog be mentioned as
well? In Australia, research (MacCallum Research
& Mackay 1992) has recorded that dogs and cats, in
particular, can teach children respect, compassion
and traditional values, as well as about the birds and
the bees.
In a cosmopolitical world it is not only possible to
argue that all socio-economic groups should have
access to companion animals, but also that lack of
access may be detrimental for individuals and society
at large. There are very many references in Western
academic literature to the correlations of dog and
cat keeping with socialising children and with social
empathy in young adults. For those with an empirical
bent, an example of a good source of such literature
is Anthrozoös (Berg Publishers, London) where
researchers seek to validate their findings by various
means, for example, with score cards, or measuring
levels of oxytocin in the blood of people and dogs,
or using positron emission tomography scans of
cerebral activity (Sugawara et al 2012).
Cosmopolitics would allow a more relaxed
appreciation that Yes, keeping a dog or cat does
indeed socialise people for the general good of
society. Cosmopolitics appreciates the likelihood
of connections, rather than demanding 95+ per
cent levels of confidence. In a crowding world,
socialisation may be increasingly important. It is
not possible to overlook chronic bad behavior in
our own cities; nor the widespread and apparently
inexplicable youth violence in the United Kingdom in

28 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
2011; nor the overt racism in the Ukraine depicted
on our television screens in 2012. Perhaps living
conditions in cities already are impacting negatively
on access to keeping animals and consequently on
the positive social and conceptual effects of animal
companionship.
Conclusion
This paper is an argument for nurturing access to
dog and cat keeping, for the benefit of the whole
community. Animal management should not be only
about regulations and the negotiation of control,
but also about promoting access to our co-evolved
partners. Local government in burgeoning cities
should thus be cosmopolitical. Obviously scientific
rigour has its place but, if one accepts that people,
dogs and cats are animals, animal management
cannot be done as though in controlled a laboratory
experiment because, not only is there the inevitable
effect of the observer in the landscape, the observer
also is the landscape.
My own profession could also take heed of
cosmopolitics and living cities when considering
“best practice”. I think poorer people, as well as the
rich, should have access to dog and cat keeping, in a
good and fair society. The decisions of the Veterinary
Surgeons’ Boards, which set the standards upon
which litigation relies, can influence cost of access
to the public good of dog and cat keeping, and it is
important that the influence be naturally just.
References
Auty, John (2012). Book review: Why it’s ok to talk to your dog,
Australian Veterinary Journal, 90(3):99.
Bloom, Tina (2011). Human Ability to Recognize Dogs’ (Canis
familiaris) Facial Expression: Cross cultural to cross species
research on the universality of emotion, PhD dissertation, College
of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Walden University.
Braidwood, Robert (1964/1967). Prehistoric Men, 7 th edn, Scott,
Foresman and Co., Illinois.
Brugmann, Jeb (2009). Welcome to the Urban Revolution: How cities
are changing the world, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia.
Calhoun, John (1971). Space and the strategy of life, in Aristide
H. Esser (ed.), Behavior and Environment: The use of space by
animals and man, Plenum Press, NY: 329-87 and see eprints.lse.
ac.uk/22514/1/2308Ramadams.pdf
Driscoll, Carlos; Macdonald, David W. and O’Brien, Stephen J.
(2009a). From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary
view of domestication, Proceedings National Academy of
Sciences,106 (supplement 1):9971-9978, June 16.
Driscoll, Carlos; Clutton-Brock, Juliet; Kitchener, Andrew C. and
O’Brien, Stephen (2009b). The evolution of house cats, Scientific
American, 95, June 10 (downloaded 2011).
Gamage, Bill (2011). The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines
made Australia, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland,
London.
Groves, Colin (2012). Canine and able: How dogs made us human,
http://theconversation.edu.au/search?q=colin+groves
Haraway, Donna (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs,
people and significant otherness, Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago.
Hinchliffe, Steve and Whatmore, Sarah (2006). Living cities:
towards a politics of conviviality, Science as Culture, 15(2):123-138.
Hinchliffe, Steve; Kearnes, M.B.; Degen, M. and Whatmore,
Sarah (2005). Urban wild things: A cosmopolitical experiment,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23:643-58.
Kennedy, Wardlaw (1899). Beasts: Thumbnail studies in pets,
Macmillan, London.
Kipling, Rudyard (first published1902). Just So Stories, many
printings.
MacCallum Research with Hugh Mackay (1992). What Australian
Feel about their Pets, Petcare Information and Advisory Service,
West Melbourne.
Menzel, Rudolph and Menzel, Rudolphina (1948). Observations
on the pariah dog, in Brian Vesey-Fitzgerald (ed.), The Book of the
Dog, Nicolson and Watson, London:968-90.
Oskarrson, Mattias C.R.; Klütsch, Cornelya F.C.; Boonyaprakob,
Ukadej; Wilton, Alan; Tanabe, Yuichi and Savolainen, Peter
(2011). Mitochondrial DNA data indicate an introduction through
Mainland Southeast Asia for Australian dingoes and Polynesian
domestic dogs, Proc. R. Soc. B, doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1395
Published online.
Paxton, David (2011). Why It’s OK to Talk to Your Dog,
www.compositeconversationalist.com
Paxton, David W. (2000). A case for a naturalistic perspective,
Anthrozoös, 13(1):5-7,13-14, with comments by Elizabeth Attwood
Lawrence and Marc Bekoff.
Paxton David W. (1994). Community involvement and urban dogs
– some ideas, in D.W. Paxton (ed.), Urban Animal Management:
Proceedings of the third national conference on urban animal
management in Australia, Canberra, 1994, Australian Veterinary
Association, Artarmon, NSW:103-12.
Paxton, Gillian L. (2012). Wild Urban Companions: Living with
everyday native animals in Brisbane, Australia, Statement of intent
for confirmation of PhD candidature, School of Social Science,
University of Queensland.
Ryan, Frank (2009). Virolution, Harper Collins, London.
Shepard, Paul and McKinley, Daniel (eds) (1967). The Subversive
Science: Essays toward an ecology of man, Houghton Miflin, Boston.
Stanner, William Edward Hanley (2009) (1938-81). The Dreaming
and Other Essays, Black Inc., Schwarts Media, Melbourne:193.
Stringer, Christopher (2011). The Origin of Our Species, Allen Lane
(Penguin imprint), London.
Sugawara, Akihiro; Masud, Mohammed Mehedi; Yokoyama,
Akimitsu; Mizutani, Wataru; Watanuki, Shoichi; Yanai, Kazuhiko;
Itoh, Masatoshi and Tashiro, Manabu (2012). Effects of presence
of familiar pet dog on regional cerebral activity in healthy
volunteers: A positron emission tomography study, Anthrozoös,
25(1):25-34.
Thorne, Alan and Raymond, Robert (1989). Man on the Rim: The
peopling of the Pacific, Angus and Robertson, North Ryde, NSW.
Wheeler, Sir Mortimer (1976). The Indus Civilization, 3 rd edn, Book
Club Associates, London (Cambridge University Press 1968).

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 29
About the author
David is a veterinarian with postgraduate
qualifications in political science. His interest is in
relationship between humans and other animals.
Contact
David Paxton
Veterinarian
Email: david@compositeconversationalist.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
04
Beyond prejudice: The inconvenient truths about puppy farms
Dr Wendy Brown and Dr Dick Murray
Animal Scientist, UNE
Veterinarian, Qld
Defining the problem
Puppy farming is not a new phenomenon; but the
issues surrounding these large-scale dog-breeding
operations have received increased media attention
recently as ‘puppy farms’ have come under greater
scrutiny from animal welfare organisations such
as the RSPCA. Consistent with this, it appears that
the general public now has an increasingly negative
view of puppy farms without ever having visited one,
or even knowing exactly what one is. This paper
attempts to provide a broader perspective to the
debate, together with some practical guidelines for
those employed in animal management roles.
The term puppy farm is generally applied to largescale
dog breeding operations that typically supply
a variety of mixed breeds and crossbreed puppies,
primarily to pet shops. For the many people who
want a family pet, and are not interested in an
impressive pedigree, a puppy farm or a ‘back-yard’
breeder is more likely than not to be the source of
that purchase. This may be an inconvenient truth
for some dog owners, given the negative press that
puppy farms have received in recent times, but is
this bad press wholly justified and what are the facts
surrounding the issues?
Puppy farms have been singled out as demons of
the dog-breeding world, and this has resulted in a
highly emotive debate that has focused on a specific
section of the dog breeding community rather
than focusing on important issues relating to dog
breeding practices in general. It can be argued
that this is a form of prejudice, and as such is not
helpful in any rational debate. All dog breeders
should be required to comply with a set of standards
and guidelines aimed at delivering good animal
management that will in turn deliver good animal
welfare and all dog breeders ought to be subjected
to periodic inspections to ensure compliance with
such standards. These guidelines do exist, in
various forms, and rather than “reinvent the wheel”,
it seems prudent to apply the existing standards
and guidelines wherever appropriate, and direct
resources towards dealing with compliance rather
than to expend time and energy on developing new
guidelines. In NSW for example “people involved
in the business of breeding dogs” are required to
comply with the standards outlined in the Animal
Welfare Code of Practice for breeding cats and
dogs (2009). The degree to which a dog-breeding
establishment complies with these standards can
therefore be used as a measure of the quality of its
animal management practices, and also provides
a mechanism for compliance for local council
authorities.
A closer look at puppy farms and dog breeding
practices is warranted if we are to gain a better
understanding of the issues involved and contribute
more effectively to the debate. Some of these issues
are highlighted in the case study and personal
experience of Dick Murray (below), which also
provides a historical perspective. It should be noted
that all of the issues raised can be applied equally to
any dog breeding establishment that is not practicing
good animal management, not just ‘puppy farms’.
Case stUDY
by Dick Murray
Approximately 15 years ago, I assisted Council
Regulatory Service officers in dealing with an
unpleasant situation involving a dog breeder or
‘puppy farmer’ that had been ongoing and unresolved
for several years. The Council file was already 60-
70mm thick at the stage I became involved. The
initial complaint to the Council was about barking
noise. Council officers had visited the property on
a number of occasions in an attempt to remedy this
situation, but with no success. The occupier had
disregarded all attempts at remediation and had
failed to comply with their relevant noise abatement
directives.
Subsequently, this noncompliance matter was
listed to be dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court. The
Council’s approach by then was no longer based
on the noise issues, but on an assertion that an
excessive number of dogs were being kept on the
property. If excess dog numbers could be proven, it
was expected that the Council could then withdraw
the kennel permit for this person – and thus resolve

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 31
the problem. However, the magistrate in summing up
this case found in favour of the property owner.
This decision by the court was based on the
magistrate’s belief that the Council officers involved
had not been qualified to reliably tell the age of the
dogs – and hence not competent to accurately state
how many of the dogs on the property were adult
dogs. Despite the shift of Council emphasis from one
of barking nuisance to one of land use misuse, this
too had hit a snag.
Property inspection
As a consequence of continuing complaints, the
same council officers undertook to carry out another
property inspection. On this occasion, I was included
in the inspection process in the capacity of veterinary
expert. The council officers were confident that
when the ages of the dogs could be established to
the satisfaction of the Magistrate, then the case
would be settled swiftly in the Council’s (and the
complainant’s) favour.
On inspection of the property, I noted the following:
• ythe front fence of the property was not dog proof
and there were dogs loose (with free access to
the roadway);
• ythere were more than 40 dogs being kept, with
nearly all being adult dogs;
• yabout half of the dogs were contained in
an inadequately fitted out, small and badly
maintained enclosure. The dogs in this enclosure
were overcrowded while the rest were being
kept outside on dirt, chained to car wrecks,
old rainwater tanks, and various types of farm
machinery and so on;
• ythere were wallaby carcases scattered around
the property in varying stages of decomposition
and consumption. All these carcases were for the
dogs to eat. They were smothered in blowflies and
appeared to have been dead for many days;
• ythe neighbour’s residence was approximately
10-20 metres from the dividing fence line and
chained dogs were located right up to that fence
line;
• ythe property was overgrown with long grass and
weeds. It had all kinds of discarded junk lying
about.
Further investigation
It should be noted that at the time of the inspection,
the barking noise monitors commonly used today
were not available. Today, the primary “noise”
complaint in such a case could be readily resolved
by recording ambient sounds and then applying bark
noise standards to prove the noise offence.
It should also be noted that the Animal Management
Officer training at Certificate IV level that is readily
available now, was not available then either. Today,
AMOs undergoing formal training could be taught in
about five minutes how to age puppies by dentition
and be deemed competent to do so.
On the basis of the observations I made during the
property inspection, this dog-breeding establishment
was an unacceptable situation by any reasonable
person’s standards. There seemed (at least to me) to
be a whole package of additional compliance issues
that could have been (but weren’t) used to expedite
the process. These (additional) issues might have
included all of the following:
• yRoutine dog regulations to do with the keeping
of any dogs regarding dog registrations and the
provision of adequate property fencing;
• yHealth and hygiene regulations to do with the dirt,
dust, dung, dead wallabies, blow flies, maggots,
etc;
• yWeeds and vermin regulations to do with the
overgrown allotment - junk yard conditions;
• yBuilding regulations to do with there being an
inadequate, partially roofed dog compound
• yEnvironmental regulations to do with noise, smell
and proximity to existing neighbouring residences
• yLand use regulations associated with fencing /
town planning / residential zoning and permitted
land use
I have to say that
I felt indeed sorry
for the neighbours.
That dog breeding
setup was, by any
reasonable standard,
an unacceptable
shambles.
It seemed pretty clear
to me that the case
was about much more
than just a matter of
barking nuisance.
It involved a whole
range of concurrent
regulatory issues and
perhaps all the available
remedial regulatory
“tools” had not come together as strongly enough to
permanently resolve this problem as they might have
done – right from the beginning in this case.
So, what about puppy farming?
It might be a much
better idea to call
this business of
breeding dogs what
it really is, ie. “dog
breeding” – and why
not call the people
who do it “dog
breeders”?
The term “puppy farming”
is an example of “loaded
language”. In other
words, it is a manner
of speaking that is
intentionally weighted for
biased interpretation. In
this case, the intended
bias values are negative
ones. In the States, these
businesses are called

32 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
“puppy mills” and the connotation is the same. Such
language has no place in matters of governance that
should, on the contrary, bear only the hallmarks of
uncompromised objectivity. As such, the term “puppy
farming” is unhelpful.
There are always going to be some dog breeders who
do the right thing and maintain good standards, and
others that do not. The central problem in attempting
to resolve the “bad” breeder situation lies in where
to draw the line between what is “good” and what is
“bad” dog breeding practice. Though we may clearly
understand the intent, these terms are subjective and
without technical (legal) definition. Promoting good
and eliminating bad may be a nice idea (and a useful
statement of broad intent), but it has no merit in a
legal or regulatory sense.
The key
From an Animal Management perspective, it is
important to remember that the primary focus of
Local Government is not an animal welfare focus.
The obligatory focus of councils (with respect to
animal ownership) is directed at community care
and management through the minimisation of public
nuisance and public risk. This does not suggest
for a minute however, that Local Government is
not interested in animal welfare but it does say
that animal welfare is not the jurisdiction of Local
Government.
The Animal Management services that are provided
for the community by local authorities involve three
things: Local laws, the factual findings of specifically
trained council officers, and the application of
established remedial measures when required.
This reality is of great moment (in the context of
this discussion) in that this is an entirely objective
process. While “subjective” won’t ever cut it, no
matter how passionate the views, “objective” can!
Anecdotally, there is an important perception in
Animal Management circles that, where animal
control and regulation issues are effectively
addressed by Local Government regulatory
measures, a range of animal welfare issues
tend to spontaneously resolve as a direct (default)
consequence of this intervention. If routine general
regulatory services together with specific Animal
Management services can be focussed in an effective
way, it can be made impossible for bad breeders to
operate. And hence, another positive animal welfare
outcome can be delivered by Local Government.
Summary
It is worth noting that the Magistrate in court after
that second (successful) property inspection case
did not even ask if I had actually looked in the mouth
of any of the dogs in question. The emphasis in
evidence was entirely focussed on my qualifications,
how I had kept notes of my observations and what I
thought. Perhaps the mandatory training of Animal
Management Officers to Cert IV standard is a first
priority for getting better outcomes for councils. With
training comes qualification, and with qualification
comes credibility of competence.
• yThere may in fact be no need to have dog
breeders registers as such, provided the facilities
used for breeding of dogs are of a high and
properly controlled standard.
• yThere may also be no need to even register dog
breeding businesses when any person selling
dogs must mandatorily have a registered
business name and an ABN could be required to
cover any such enterprise.
• yThen, if all newly acquired dogs were required
to be both micro-chipped (to link with their new
owner) and registered to link with the relevant
council database at the point of acquisition, the
whole system could be completely controllable
with already existing procedures and capabilities.
Why would any State Government or Local Authority
wish to get tangled up in new animal welfare
oriented legislation that is intended to prevent bad
dog breeding when all the necessary regulatory
processes are already available under existing
jurisdictions?
• yThe full range of regulatory functions available
may need better coordination and sharper focus
for this specific problem.
• yThe overall process may require more
professionalism, greater consistency and
improved resourcing,
• yBut the mechanisms are probably all there –
already in place and available if the effort is
made.
Concluding remarks
A few lessons from the above personal experience
could be useful for Animal Management Officers
when they are required to deal with issues
concerning a dog breeding establishment.
• yAn objective and thorough approach is more
likely to be effective in gaining compliance with
regulations and for dispute resolution
• yStandards and guidelines aimed at delivering
good animal management are also likely to
deliver good animal welfare, and should be
applied to all sectors of the dog breeding industry
It might be an inconvenient truth for some that many
puppies originate from puppy farms. It should be
noted, however, that there are other types of dog

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 33
breeding establishments and that some of these
also do not comply with good animal management
at times (including registered pure-bred dog
breeders). It is possible that these operations may
be overlooked in the singular pursuit of puppy farms.
Perhaps this is another inconvenient truth?
About the authors
Dr Wendy Brown
Senior Lecturer in Animal Science, UNE
Wendy has a PhD in canine nutrition and a long
career with animals – from animal technician to
zookeeper, track rider, and veterinary nurse. She
leads a successful canine research program at
UNE and manages the canine research facility
where she has been conducting non-invasive dog
research since 1997 by ‘borrowing’ privately-owned
dogs. After many years as a research fellow, Wendy
transited to a lecturer’s position in 2010 and her
current teaching portfolio includes Wild Dog Ecology,
Working Canines, and Animals in Society.
Contact
Dr Wendy Brown
Senior Lecturer in Animal Science, UNE
Email: wbrown@une.edu.au
Dr Dick Murray
Dick Murray currently holds the office of President
of the Australian Institute of Animal Management.
Dick was a 1973 BVSc graduate of UQ and an MSc
graduate of JCU. He has been a North Queensland
veterinary (companion animal) practitioner with a
deep interest in animal management for about 40
years now. For work done in this field of endeavour
he has been awarded a Medal of the Order of
Australia, an Australian Veterinary Association’s
Meritorious Service Award, an AVA Gilruth Prize and
Fellowship of the AVA.
The conference at which this paper was presented
will be the 20th national annual Animal Management
conference of a consecutive sequence of conferences
that commenced in Brisbane in 1992. Dick has been
centrally involved with all of these conferences and
will willingly admit that all of the intervening years
have been a continuous learning curve about the
subject of Animal Management.
Contact
Dick Murray
President of the Australian Institute
of Animal Management
Email: fortmurray@westnet.com.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
05
Indigenous health and companion animal welfare
Ranger initiative for compliance
“Looking outside the box”
Craig Highlands
Shire of Northham, WA
This pilot programme was born through the desire
to boost companion animal health and management
this was going to be done in a framework of
encouraging voluntary Compliance, through an
understanding of the issues from both sides. This
led to a partnership between the Shire of Northam
and Max Employment. The aim of the initiative is
provide training and education along with practical
experience to facilitate future employment for
Aboriginals in meaningful work in the community.
At the same time gain a deeper understanding of the
issues faced in the community by rangers and the
effects that animals can have on the individual and
the community as a whole. Also to show the benefits
of compliance to the person or family that are
dealing with rangers in their role in the community
and how we are there to help and not hinder.
The 26 week program is a work experience initiative
funded by the department education employment
and workplace relations and delivered jointly by
Max Employment and the Shire of Northam and
assistance from the Shire of York. The project
participants undertook accredited training in
animal control and regulation as part of the work
experience. Participants also worked alongside the
Northam Shire Ranger Services to develop on the
job skills and have a deeper understanding of animal
welfare and the role ranger services plays in the
community.
The program was designed around the needs of the
community and community expectations of Ranger
Services to deliver a service which makes the
community a safer place (less stray animals and
a reduction in the spread of Parvovirus and cat
influenza). The participants see effects firsthand and
have a deeper understanding of the need to maintain
their companion animals responsibly. Sharing this
information with their peers means that the message
gets out without the need for a “white fella” to ‘preach’.
There are significant long term benefits to
be expected for both the participants and the
community. The participants will learn lifelong
employment skills in an area that they will enjoy with
the potential of ongoing employment. The community
will benefit from having access to better companion
animal health and welfare trained individuals,
and from having more participatory community
members.
The challenge within the community of Northam
was to break old opinions / pre-conceived ideas.
We needed community members to stop and take
time to say “hang on maybe I need to listen and gain
an insight to another’s perception” There was the
opportunity to dispel the “just another white fella
in a uniform telling us what we can and can’t do”
perception, this project thinks outside the square by
inviting community members in so we can learn from
them as well as teach.
The training that is now being provided by
C Y O Conner that the participants have through
Max Employment now consists of Cert ii in Civil
Construction, Automotive, industry construction
skills and with the new training on board the
participants have the opportunity to engage in
Cert iii in Aged Care, Child Care, Disability Care
and home Services. All these skills are a very
much sought after qualification within the Avon
region. Having ranger services seek out and
secure this training means that we have a real
concern for the community and the community’s
health and well being. So rangers are leading the
community through a process of improvement and
opportunity. Through this approach our ability to
engage with people in a more harmonious way the
desire to comply has greatly increased not because
“some fella in a uniform told me” But because
the community wants to it wants to, because the
community understands and through joint respect
and understanding and the desire to help each other
compliance has improved beyond our hopes.
Along the way as rangers we have been privileged
to learn from the local community members, we
saw we had big gaps in our appreciation on what
was going on “on the other side of the fence” This
deeper understanding has given us a the skills to
approach in a way that is more appealing to those in

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 35
the community that we interact with. This has made
our job more enjoyable and of course out of all this
our companion animals say thank you for giving us a
human voice.
A special Thank you must go out to my Ceo
Mr Neville Hale for having the foresight to allow
me to embark on this endeavour and to the Shire of
Northam Council for believing in the work I do. Of
course a huge thank of dept to Mr Barry Mackie from
Max Employment and to the visionary Management
and staff of C Y O Conner at Northam.
About the author
Craig Highlands works at the Shire of Northam as
the Shire’s Senior Ranger. Craig is the developer of
an education and animal welfare program
Contact
Craig Highlands
Senior Ranger, Shire of Northam
Email: snrranger@northam.wa.gov.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
06
Twenty years of steady progress – but one bite will change your world!
Tracy Helman, sTeven Moore and Rob Morrice
Bureau of Animal Welfare, DPI Vic.
This presentation will review the twenty years of
steady progress, in relation to dog bite prevention
and dog control that has occurred within the
Bureau of Animal Welfare (Victoria) in the areas of
legislation, research and education. Additionally, this
presentation describes how the journey has been
punctuated, and in some cases redirected, by events
that have achieved mass media attention.
In the world of animal control and regulation,
specifically dog bite prevention, the reality remains
that one significant event can overtake, override, or
overrule what ever plans and actions were in place.
This review considers that one event can have a
dramatic effect but, as the event settles, it is often
noted that the line of continuous development is still
on track; in fact, generally the post-event reflection
highlights that the event acted to speed up the
cycle that was already on course. The unplanned
event causes a sudden stop, immediate review and
evaluation, and then a realignment of a strategic plan
in a way that could never truly of been prepared for;
effectively highlighting the value of steady progress,
continual review and analysis as a way of minimizing
or stabilizing the effect of that horrendous event.
Nothing can compare with the grief that a family
faces when their child is killed. At the same time,
nothing will prepare a worker, a workplace, a
government or a community for the effects of that
death on policy, legislation and community opinion
about dogs.
Since the development of the Victorian Domestic
Animals Act 1994 (the Act), from both an educational
and legislative perspective, there has been
significant progress made in the field of dog bite
prevention. An overview of the development of these
programs shows slow and steady, but significant
progress in animal control and regulation. However,
the public are quick to acknowledge the monumental
changes in government policy, legislation and
education programs that occur following a very
tragic event.
Since the commencement of the Act in 1996 there
have been 26 legislative amendments and three
amendments of the supporting Domestic Animals
Regulations 2005. Twelve amendments to the Act
have been simple omnibus changes (a reference to
another act). However, thirteen of the changes have
been specifically to amend the Act and, of those,
there have been three changes, occurring between
2010 and 2011, specifically in response to dog
attacks.
In this presentation the presenters will set up a time
line of dog control legislation and education by the
Victorian Government.
In 1992 when AIAM first started Victoria was still
operating under the Dog Act 1970 – clearly cats were
not in existence at that time! Despite this, even in
1970 under the Dog Act 1970, there was already an
emphasis in the legislation for the registration and
containment of dogs. There were also limitations and
controls on greyhounds and German Shepherds. The
Dog Act was repealed and replaced with a ‘new’ act,
the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994,
that had a delayed commencement and came into
effect on 9 April 1996.
The Act had a new purpose ‘to promote animal
welfare, responsible ownership of dogs and cats
and the protection of the environment by providing
for’… registration and identification of dogs (and
cats), identification and control of dangerous dogs,
registration of domestic animal businesses and
other matters. It created a new benchmark in animal
control and management of both dogs and cats.
Since the commencement of the Domestic (Feral
and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994, (now known as
the Domestic Animals Act 1994 - DAA) there has
been a continuous cycle of research, legislative
development, and the development of tools and
resources for education programs. This 20 year
development has been occasionally punctuated by a
single event, but each time the cycle always begins
again. Outlined below are highlights of the cycle so
far, specifically in relation to dog control:
1996 (legislation) inclusion of declaration tools
to declare dogs dangerous including the
introduction of the requirement for dangerous
dogs to be microchipped
1997 (research) consultant report on responsible
pet ownership education in Victoria

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 37
1998 (education) community education campaign –
mass media including dog safety and registration
1998 (tools) launch of website and brochures
for Councils and Council communication
resource kit developed
2000 (event) dog attack (Premier Bracks conducted
a door stop interview following an attack
by a ‘pit bull’ and when asked what was
the Government doing – Bracks said “ [his
Government] will introduce restricted breed
dog legislation to protect the community)
2000 (legislation) introduce menacing dog
declarations and power to obtain warrants
2000 (education) Responsible Pet Ownership (RPO)
program contracted to Victorian Government
through ‘Dogs Vic’ and did first 500 school
visits to primary school children
2000 (research) BAW pilot study with 10 councils –
“Dog attack prevention in public places”
2001 (legislation) introduce Restricted Breed Dog
(RBD) Legislation
2003 (education) start of annual Animal
Management Officer (AMO) seminar series
and AMO website
2003 (legislation) regulate microchips and greater
powers to seize dogs
2004 (research) Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit
(VISU) report on dog bite injury 1998 - 2004
2004 (education) RPO consultants introduced
kinder program
2004 (legislation) establish the Victorian Declared
Dog Register
2005 (education) RPO consultants becomes inhouse
Government program
2005 (legislation) Require menacing dogs to
be microchipped and power to destroy
unidentified dogs that have attacked
2005 (legislation) Prohibit the acquisition of RBD’s,
power for councils to make desexing and
microchip orders
2006 (education) Local Government Professionals
(LgPro) Manual produced as a tool for officers
in DAA enforcement
2006 (event) deATH of Kara Compton (18 month old
by family dingo cross)
2007 (legislation) provided further enforcement
powers particularly in relation to restricted
breed dogs and created definitions for serious
injury and laceration (and removed (Feral and
Nuisance) from the title of the Act
2007 (event) deATH of Alysha Parrant (9 weeks old
by family Rottweiler)
2008 (education) RPO introduced “We are Family”
(WRF) to maternity hospitals
2009 (research) VISU report on hospital treated
bite injury 2004-2007
2009 (education) introduced WRF to maternal child
health centres
2009 (event) Coroner released report on Alysha
Parrant recommending increase exposure of
“We are Family”
2010 (event) Coroner released report on Kara
Compton recommending increase exposure of
“We are Family”
2010 (event) a series of attacks (women lost
arm, dog locked on to mans arm, young
girl attacked by family dog, man attacked
by neighbours dog – all reported as pit bull
terriers)
2010 (legislation) ability to have dogs destroyed
under certain circumstance of attack and
amnesty on RBD registration and keeping.
Move from Ministers review panel to the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
(VCAT) for appeals against RBD declaration
and introduce ability to for a Magistrate to
make an owner attend a Responsible Dog
Ownership course
2010 (event) -December, Change of Government
And then – one very tragic day in August 2011 it
seemed as if the whole world had stopped and the
direction changed. A series of events culminated
from what appeared to be ‘the perfect storm”, the
first fatality in Victoria resulting from a dog at large
(not known to the family), AND (allegedly) a pit
bull terrier, AND an unregistered dog, AND a child
attacked and killed AND from an invasion into her
own home. The event killed four-year old Ayen Chol
and injured her mother, cousin and aunt.
The event affected EVERYONE and consumed
everything we did. In a review article in The Age
‘Good Weekend’ magazine Dr Michael Linke from the
RSPCA in Canberra summed it up perfectly…
“It is not the first time a pit bull’s attacked somebody
and it’s not the first fatality, but it was like the stock
market. You could map that event on a timeline as the
one that shifted the whole psyche of people around pit
bull terriers.”
Dr Michael Linke, RSPCA Canberra
(25 February 2012) Good Weekend.
It can not be over emphasised the effect of this event
on people.

38 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
The Council officers…
“This community has lost a little girl and a family
has lost a little girl in circumstances that can only
be described as tragic and it’s a parents’ worst
nightmare”
Nick Fao ceo Brimbank City Council (18 August
2011) the Age
The Preschool that Ayen attended…
“It had been a hard week for both staff and the
children. The children have been speaking about the
incident, we’ve all been a bit down,’’ Ms Joao centre’s
assistant manager said. “Last week, her parents,
classmates and teachers released pink balloons in her
memory”.
St Albans Main Road East Early Learning Centre
(26 August 2011) Brimbank Leader
The family’s legal team…
“This is the most horrific case I’ve dealt with in 17
years at the firm”
Mr Ike Nwokolo, Lawyer Slater & Gordon
(25 February 2012) Good Weekend
The Public…
“Public sympathy for the disappearing dog [pit bulls]
was never been easy to find, and the death of Ayen
Chol made it near impossible”
Joel Meares, “Wagging the Dog”
(25 February 2012) Good Weekend
For the Government it created a chain of legislative
changes, review and development of education
resources…
Aug 2011 introduction of “Dangerous Dogs” hot line
Aug 2011
(legislation) remove amnesty that was
in existence since 2010 (18 days for
legislative change!)
Sept 2011 (legislation) introduction of RBD
Standard
Oct 2011
Oct 2011
Oct 2011
(education) change to RPO program
required to educate parents on the
difference between dangerous and
restricted breed dogs
(education) targeted calls from kinders
that request the program if a child has
been involved in a dog attack
(education) every school/kinder within
region that requested was provided the
program – with emphasis on parent
programs
Oct 2011
Oct 2011
Nov 2011
Jan 2012
Jan 2012
(legislation) Changes to Crimes Act
1958 introduce jail terms for death or
endangerment of life
(education) complete review / update of
all communications
(education) AMO seminar series, Breed
Identification Training Day
(education) review of RPO program
promotion (Social Scripts, stronger
message on need – NO change in
message)
(research) review of the RDO program
upgrade implementation plan
April 2012 Additional Officer employed by the
Department specifically as Council liaison
May 2012
May 2012
(education) new messages created for
urban Indigenous communities on dog
bite prevention
(legislation) increase age permitted
to have access or be in control of a
dangerous dog/RBD from 17 years to
18 years. Change the age for responsible
for any charges under the DAA
Unfortunately there is more still to come:
Ms Parkinson (state coroner) said she would also
investigate the policies of Brimbank Council in
identifying and controlling restricted breeds.
22 March 2012 Brimbank Leader
The dog owner faced the Magistrate on 30 July 2012.
The owner pleaded guilty and received a total of
$11,000 in fines, $4,000 for a dog causing death,
$6,000 for the other attacks and $1,000 for being
unregistered. The recent court appearance and
judgement has, not surprisingly, raised the profile
of the case once more. It also serves as a sobering
reminder that whilst some of us can move on many
cannot…
“Witnessing my daughter being killed by this dog is
the worst thing that has ever happened to me. It was
terrifying and I see images in my head all the time. I
was holding her trying to keep her alive” “There are
no words that can describe what it is like to bury your
beautiful daughter,”
Ms Ancaito (Ayen’s mother)
(31 July 2012) Herald Sun
The media have remained relentless
“The Government needs to jerk their leash. Tighten the
law and get rid of dogs that in rare cases kill, but often
maim. There is no moral argument for keeping them.”
Editorial (21 July, 2012) Herald Sun

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 39
The case will be heard by the Victorian State Coroner
in the last week of August 2012, and so no more can
be said on the future at this stage, and so for now we
can only assess and review…
We [BAW] are proud of our progress but under no
illusion that one event changed things very rapidly.
Upon reflection however, we can now see that this
event essentially resulted in a rapid acceleration of
the path we were already on.
Our advice to all governments, local, state and
federal, is to plan as much as you can, review as
much as you can, implement improvements as
much and as often as you can – because some
things you cannot prepare for.
About the author
Tracy is the Manager of Policy and Education at
the Bureau of Animal Welfare. Along with the
team of Authors for this paper Tracy overseas
the Domestic Animals Legislation in Victoria.
Tracy has worked at the Bureau for nearly five
years with a dynamic, passionate and very
dedicated hard working team.
Contact
Tracy Helman
Manager Policy and Education, Bureau of
Animal Welfare, DPI, Victoria
Email: Tracy.Helman@dpi.vic.gov.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
07
A portable, automated apparatus for testing cognitive bias in dogs
Melissa sTArling
University of NSW
Animal welfare science focuses on the assessment
and the potential optimisation of the quality of life of
animals. Animal welfare studies have traditionally
focused on identifying negative states tied to
stressors such as those causing pain, fear, anxiety
and frustration (Duncan 2006; Boissy et al. 2007), as
it was assumed that they reflect poor welfare and
that therefore good welfare would be an absence
of these states (Duncan 2006). However, there are
problems with this approach. For example, negative
states are adaptive and consequences of a stress
response may be protective(Korte et al. 2007). It
has been suggested that assessments of animal
welfare should not focus purely on avoiding pain
and suffering, but should also provide positive,
pleasurable activities and resources (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi 2000). It is therefore of growing
importance to identify accurate indicators of positive
and negative affective state in animals.
One potential method of identifying positive and
negative affective states in animals is cognitive bias.
Cognitive bias is a term that has been used in the
human literature to describe the effects of emotional
state on information processing and decision-making
(Hinde 1985; see Paul et al. 2005 for review). It is
now being put to similar use in non-human animals,
referring to the phenomenon of affective state
influencing cognitive processes (Mendl et al. 2009).
In animals, the cognitive process under investigation
so far has been judgement bias. A judgement bias
refers to how animals interpret ambiguous signals
and whether they seem to expect more positive or
negative outcomes. A negative affective state leads to
an expectation of negative outcomes and a negative
bias in the interpretation of ambiguous signals.
This is being referred to in the animal cognitive bias
literature as pessimism (e.g. Bateson & Matheson
2007; Burman et al. 2009). A positive affective state
leads to an expectation of positive outcomes and
positive biases in signal interpretation, which is
being referred to as optimism (e.g. Matheson et al.
2008; Brydges et al. 2011). Environmental conditions
that induce either a state of positive or negative
affect can be used to test this concept in animals by
changing environmental conditions to induce positive
or negative affect and then testing whether cognitive
bias changes correspondingly. This approach has
been reported in rats (Harding et al. 2004; Burman
et al. 2008a), starlings (Bateson & Matheson 2007;
Matheson et al. 2008; Brilot et al. 2010; Brydges
et al. 2011; Douglas et al. 2012), sheep (Doyle et al.
2010b; 2011; Destrez et al. 2012), chickens (Lindström
2010; Salmeto et al. 2010), cats (Tami et al. 2011),
macaques (Bethell et al. 2012), pigs (Douglas et al.
2012), dogs (Mendl et al. 2010)Burman et al. 2011)
and even honeybees (Bateson et al. 2011). In the
species studied to date, negative judgement biases
tend to positively correlate with conditions known
to induce negative affect, and positive judgement
biases positively correlate with conditions known to
induce positive affect. These results support the use
of cognitive bias in animals as a potential indicator of
both positive and negative affective state.
Some studies have found that individuals that display
more stereotypic behaviour than their conspecifics
are also more likely to be more pessimistic (Brilot et
al. 2010; Bethell et al. 2012). If all individuals within
a given population are assumed to be equally prone
to optimism or pessimism, using cognitive bias as a
welfare assessment tool would be relatively straight
forward. However, if individuals differ in their
inherent tendencies towards optimism or pessimism,
any assessment of welfare would need to take this
inherent tendency into account.
This study reports on the trial of a portable,
automated apparatus to train an operant task
and then discrimination between auditory cues
of different tones (low and high) to reveal dogs’
expectations and therefore their cognitive bias. The
device was designed to collect data on cognitive
bias in a range of dogs from different environments,
investigate population levels of optimism and
pessimism and explore factors that may affect its
expression.

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 41
Methods
Subjects
Dogs older than eight years were excluded to avoid
recruiting dogs that may be affected by canine
cognitive dysfunction. Dogs younger than one year
were excluded to exclude the possible influence of
social immaturity on cognitive bias. The included
subjects were 23 dogs of various breeds. Seventeen
of the dogs were recruited via a positive training
and pet boarding company based in the North Shore
suburbs of Sydney, Australia. These dogs belonged
to members of the public and thus had variable
housing, feeding and exercise arrangements. The
remaining six dogs were sourced from Assistance
Dogs Australia’s (Heathcote, NSW, Australia) advanced
training facility. These dogs were 1-2 years old.
Details of the dogs in the study are shown in Table 1.
APPAratus
The apparatus used in this study was designed to be
portable and easy to set up and operate. It consists
of three major external components: an interactive
target that detects movement through the use of
an infrared photointerruptor, and two feed trays
assigned to either lactose-free milk or water. As a
diet high in lactose is associated with diarrhoea in
some dogs (Bennett and Coon 1966), lactose-free
milk was chosen as a liquid reward to avoid causing
digestive upsets. Throughout training and testing,
dogs received a set amount of lactose-free milk and
water ranging from 1-5mL, depending on their weight.
The apparatus prototype was constructed
around an Arduino Uno micro-controller board
(SmartProjects, Italy). The Arduino Uno controlled
an LCD screen (V1.2 and V1.2: DFRobot, Beijing,
China; V2.1: FORDATA ELECTRONIC Co. LTD, China),
two peristaltic pumps (SmallPumps, Arlington,
Texas, usA; part # SP200 517), six pin buttons
(generic manufacturer, part# SP0710) used to set
the training program variables, a power switch
(generic manufacturer, part #:SK0960), and an
infrared photointerruptor. The photointerruptor
consisted of an infrared led (Osram, Malaysia) and
a phototransistor (Vishay, Germany). The flow rate
on the pumps was approximately 100 mL/minute.
Peristaltic pumps deliver small amounts of liquid by
compressing a silicone delivery tube, thus ensuring
the tubes were primed to deliver liquid the moment
the pump was activated. The pumps were connected
via plastic and silicone tubing to reservoirs in the
form of 500mL intravenous transfusion bags and
plastic tubing also delivered liquid from reservoirs
to two feed trays fixed in front of the target. Each
delivery tube was dedicated to delivering either milk
or water, and could be configured to deliver fluid
into either the left hand tray or the right hand tray,
thus allowing milk to be delivered to either side and
controlling for any side preference shown by the dogs.
Four buttons provided a means to select options
displayed on the LCD screen. This interface allowed
the operator to select the weight class of the dog (0-
7kg, 8-27kg, 28-47kg, 48kg+) the protocol (whether
the milk tone was the highest tone or the lowest
tone), the training phase, and to start the training
session. The remaining two buttons activated the
two pumps outside of the training program. This
was essential for cleaning the tubes and pumps
and priming the tubes before the training program
began. A speaker volume control dial allowed
adjustment of the volume of the tones emitted.
Training and cognitive bias testing
Dogs were trained in a go/no-go discrimination task
where they were required to touch a target with their
nose after a tone in order to trigger the delivery of a
lactose-free milk reward or water. The tone informed
the dog which outcome would be delivered, and thus
whether they should go ahead and touch the target
or avoid touching. When dogs showed a significant
difference in their response to the two tones, the
dog’s judgement bias was probed by presenting 9
new, ambiguous tones that fell between the milk and
water tones.
Three training phases were used to train the dogs
in the discrimination task. These are summarised
in Table 1. The testing phase was the cognitive bias
test itself and was the only phase that included
ambiguous signals. Training and test sessions were
no more than 30-minutes long and consisted of four
5-minute training blocks and a 3-minute rest period
between each training block. If dogs had not met
success criteria within 30-minutes, they were given a
subsequent training session within 24 hours.
Each dog was randomly assigned before being
exposed to the apparatus to receive milk from either
the left or right tray, and to protocol A, which had the
highest tone as the milk tone and the lowest as the
water tone, or protocol B, which was the reverse of
protocol A. These were randomly allocated based
on a coin toss. These measures were implemented
to control for selective attention to one cue over the
other and side preference.

42 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Habituation
Dogs were habituated to the apparatus through a
brief habituation program that involved placing a
set number (n=14) of small liver treats around the
apparatus for the dogs to find and consume. Dogs
were then exposed to the apparatus tones. The
volume was adjusted from the minimum starting
point and set when the dog’s ears came forward
indicating they had noticed the tone. If the dog’s
ears did not come forward, the volume was set at
maximum. The milk pump was then run manually
until dogs licked the milk out of the milk tray without
showing a response to the sound of the pump.
Training phases
Dogs were given at least one full session in each
training phase, after which the criterion in Table 1.
was implemented if it had not already been met. The
only cue given in Training Phase 1 (TP1), Training
Phase 2 (TP2) and Training Phase 2A (TP2A) was
the tone associated with a lactose-free milk reward,
henceforce, “milk tone”. The tone associated with
water delivery, henceforth, “water tone”, was
introduced in Training Phase 3 (TP3). Milk and water
tones were played pseudo-randomly in TP3, with
no more than two of the same tone being played in
succession. This was in alignment with other similar
cognitive bias studies in animals (Brilot et al. 2010;
Doyle et al. 2010b).
Cognitive Bias Test (CBT)
Cognitive bias testing involved the presentation of
auditory probes. The latency of the dog to respond
to probe tones by touching the target was logged.
The probes were interspersed throughout a regular
training session. No more than two tones of the
same type were played in a row, with the exception
of probe tones, which were played randomly. Each of
the 9 probes were presented twice in a cognitive bias
test, and each dog was given 3 cognitive bias tests
over the space of 2 weeks. A session of TP3 was run
in the next session after each cognitive bias test to
ensure responses to milk and water tones remained
strong and dogs were given little chance to learn not
to respond to any probe tones.
Statistics
All statistical analyses were carried out in R, version
2.15. A one-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test was used to
test whether dogs were significantly faster to touch
the target after milk tones than water tones. The
‘survival’ package was used to analyse cognitive bias
tests using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression
model. This model was chosen as the data was
censored at 10 seconds. If dogs had not touched
the target within 10 seconds of the tone, their
latency was recorded as 10 seconds and marked as
censored. This kind of analysis is called a survival
Table 1 Summary of training phases and cognitive bias testing phase.
Phase Training Objective Structure
TP1
TP2
TP2A
TP3
Dogs to pass nose through
photointerruptor towards
visual target.
Dogs to move their nose to
the target on cue.
Reduce reinforcement
rate
Dogs to discriminate
between 2 tones.
8s block after reward
triggered.
Milk tone played, 10s
window to respond,
20s iti.
Milk tone played, 10s
window to respond,
30s iti.
Milk or water tone
played pseudorandomly,
10s window
to respond, 20s iti.
Cbt Test cognitive bias 2x9 probes, 15 water,
15 milk presented
pseudo-randomly,
20s iti.
Max. sessions
allowed
Criteria
5 Reward trigger rate of at
least 8 in 2 of 3 training
blocks
3 80% successful trigger
after tone for 2 of 3
training blocks
3 80% successful trigger
after tone for 2 of 3
training blocks
25 Milk latency significantly
shorter than water
latency (Mann-Whitney
U-test)
N/A
N/A

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 43
analysis, and the dependent variable has two parts:
the event indicator and the latency to the event. In
this case, the event indicator is touching the target
(or reaching the end of the 10-second window
without touching the target), and critical latency is to
touch the target after a tone. The regression model
was built using the step-wise method and the final
model was chosen using the Akaike Information
Criterion (AIC).
Results
The fate of all dogs in the study is shown in
Table 2. Fifteen of the 23 dogs included in the
study completed all three cognitive bias tests.
The exclusion rate was much higher in pet dogs
(47%, n=17) than in Assistance Dogs Australia
advanced training dogs (0%, n=6). Reasons for
exclusion of dogs during the training program
included inconsistent or low rates of targeting
resulting in a failure to meet the criterion for TP1,
extinguishing of targeting in later training phases
when reinforcement rates decreased, and two dogs
appeared to dislike the lactose-free milk, avoiding
the milk tray and ignoring coaxing towards it from
the experimenter. Dogs that completed training took
12-32 training sessions (Mean=19 ± S.D=5.768) from
TP1 to reaching the criterion at the end of TP3. The
fifteen dogs that completed cognitive bias tests gave
144 responses to various cues each over the three
cognitive bias tests.
Latency to touch the target during cognitive bias
tests differed significantly between dogs (N=15,
DF=14.7, p

44 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Table 2 A history of dogs in the study, showing where they were sourced from (ADA=Assistance Dogs
Australia), their breed, sex (M=male, F=female) and reproductive status (N=neutered, E=entire), the protocol
they were assigned to (A=milk tone lowest, B=milk tone highest), the side the milk was dispensed to, the
training phase reached before the dog was excluded, and the reason for exclusion. Dogs that reached Cbt
(cognitive bias tests) were not excluded.
Dog Source Breed
Sex/
Reproductive
status Protocol
Milk tray
side
Phase
reached Reason for exclusion
Jazz Public Spoodle F/N A R TP1 Inconsistency in targeting rate,
ear interference
Murphy Public Whippet x Border collie M/N A R TP1 Rate of targeting too low
Declan Public Labrador M/N A L Cbt
Ellie Public Labrador M/N A R Cbt
Oscar Public Schnauzer M/N (implant) B R TP1 Avoided lactose-free milk
Jack Public Australian cattle dog M/N B R Cbt
Zack Public Maltese cross M/N A R TP2A Targeting extinguished
Apollo Public German shepherd dog M/N A L Habituation Avoided lactose-free milk
Ellie U Public Groodle F/N A R TP3 Targeting extinguished
Abbie Public Golden retriever F/N B L Cbt
Diesel Public Groodle M/N A L TP3 Targeting extinguished
Sinbad Public Border collie M/N A R TP3 Targeting extinguished
Jenna Public Border collie F/N A L Cbt
Jesse Public Border collie F/N A R Cbt
Lola Public Labrador F/N B L Cbt
Diesel T Public Rhodesian ridgeback M/N B R Cbt
Archie Public Pug x Schnauzer M/N B R Cbt
Chance ADA Labrador mix M/N A R Cbt
Hudson ADA Labrador M/N B L Cbt
Jaxon ADA Labrador M/N B R Cbt
Biscuit ADA Labrador M/E B R Cbt
Risky ADA Labrador mix M/N B L Cbt
Willow ADA Golden retriever F/N B R Cbt

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 45
Discussion
Latency to touch the target differed significantly
between probes, showing that dogs respond
differently to probes, being on average quicker
to touch the target after probes that were more
similar to the milk tone than those similar to the
water tone. This supports the expectation that dogs
respond differentially to signals and that this may
correspond to their expectations of positive and
negative outcomes. The dogs in this study were not
subjected to any manipulations expected to alter
their affective state or expectations. Therefore, no
conclusions can be drawn from this study about
the efficacy of cognitive bias in measuring affective
state in dogs. Nonetheless, the differing responses
between dogs suggests dogs are interpreting probes
differently to each other, which adds support to the
use of cognitive bias as a surrogate measure of
affect. It is also possible that the differences shown
in this study between dogs and their responses to
probes represents different degrees of optimism and
pessimism relating to personality differences rather
than differences in affect. The root cause of these
differences in responses between dogs is unknown.
Cognitive biases in humans are sensitive to both
short-term changes in an individual’s level of anxiety
(state anxiety) and long-term, individual difference
in an individual’s tendency to experience anxiety
(trait anxiety). There is some evidence in animals
that some individuals may be inherently more
pessimistic than others, for example, stereotyping
starlings and macaques are more pessimistic
than non-stereotyping or reduced stereotyping
conspecifics (Brilot et al. 2010; Bethell et al. 2012),
and dogs that show indications of separation-related
distress are more pessimistic than dogs that do not
(Mendl et al. 2010). It is possible, particularly with
Assistance Dogs Australia dogs that are kept in the
same environment, that the differences in responses
between dogs represent a fundamental difference
in how individual dogs cope with challenging
environments, or perhaps an inherent tendency
towards optimism or pessimism akin to the trait
anxiety described above.
Latencies differed significantly between cognitive
bias tests, suggesting that some dogs at least may
respond to fewer probes over time as they learn
that probes are not reinforced. This effect has been
documented in sheep (Doyle et al. 2010a), but despite
being searched for in dogs, was not identified (Mendl
et al. 2010). It is possible this effect was not found
before in dogs because the method used by Mendl et
al. (2010) required fewer trials (21-61 as opposed to
at least 12 session of 48 trials each in this study) with
fewer probes (4 vs 9 in this study), thus not giving
dogs (n=24) the opportunity to learn that probes
are unreinforced. Nonetheless, the effect of test
number on latency in this study was significant, but
small (Regression coeff=-0.082, S.E=0.033, D.F=1,
p-value=0.014). A refinement of the methodology
presented here by reducing the number of probes
may aid in reducing the test effect. However,
reducing the number of probes may also reduce the
power of detecting fine scale differences in optimism
and pessimism between dogs. It was beyond the
scope of this study to test the optimum number of
probes to present, and this is part of the cognitive
bias methodology that has not been systematically
investigated yet.
Further research into the personality of dogs excluded
from the study may reveal patterns in personality
traits that may explain why the dogs are not able to
complete the training. It is likely a certain level of
optimism is necessary for dogs to persist with the
self-directed training when reinforcement rates
drop. The reinforcement rate was stepped down over
three phases during training, which was adequate for
many dogs, but may have been too fast or large a
drop between phases for other dogs. A study that
found that rats were more sensitive to reward loss
when their welfare was compromised (Burman et al.
2008b) may help to explain why dogs failed to meet
criteria during training. Although it is difficult to draw
parallels between reward loss and a reduction in
reinforcement rate, further research into the
personality of those dogs being excluded due to
extinction of the targeting behaviour may prove critical.
Conclusions
This study provides proof of concept for the portable,
automatic apparatus used to both train dogs and
test their cognitive bias. It also lends support to
the use of cognitive bias as a tool to objectively
measure affective state in dogs. Further research
into the ideal number of probes to use and steps
that may reduce the test number effect may
improve the methodology currently used in this
approach. Further research into extinction curves
and personality of dogs that were excluded from
the study may reveal important information about
the affective state of dogs that failed to respond
appropriately to early training.
References
Bateson, M. & Matheson, S. 2007. Performance on a
categorisation task suggests that removal of environmental
enrichment induces“ pessimism”in captive European starlings
(Sturnus vulgaris). Animal Welfare, 16, 33–36.
Bateson, M., Desire, S., Gartside, S. E. & Wright, G. A. 2011.
Agitated Honeybees Exhibit Pessimistic Cognitive Biases. Current
Biology, 21, 1070–1073.
Bethell, E., Holmes, A. & Maclarnon, A. 2012. Cognitive bias
in a non-human primate: husbandry procedures influence
cognitive indicators of psychological well-being in captive rhesus
macaques. Animal Welfare,

46 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M., Moe, R., Spruijt, B.,
Keeling, L., Winckler, C., Forkman, B., Dimitrov, I. & Langbein,
J. 2007. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve
their welfare. Physiology & Behavior, 92, 375–397.
Brilot, B., Asher, L. & Bateson, M. 2010. Stereotyping starlings
are more “pessimistic.” Animal Cognition, 13, 721–731.
Brydges, N. M., Leach, M., Nicol, K., Wright, R. & Bateson, M.
2011. Environmental enrichment induces optimistic cognitive bias
in rats. Animal Behaviour, 81, 169–175.
Burman, O. H. P., Parker, R. M. A., Paul, E. S. & Mendl, M. T. 2009.
Anxiety-induced cognitive bias in non-human animals. Physiology
& Behavior, 98, 345–350.
Burman, O., Parker, R., Paul, E. & Mendl, M. 2008a. A spatial
judgement task to determine background emotional state in
laboratory rats, Rattus norvegicus. Animal Behaviour, 76, 801–
809.
Burman, O., Parker, R., Paul, E. & Mendl, M. 2008b. Sensitivity
to reward loss as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare.
Biology Letters, 4, 330.
Destrez, A., Deiss, V., Belzung, C., Lee, C. & Boissy, A. 2012.
Does reduction of fearfulness tend to reduce pessimistic-like
judgment in lambs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1–9.
Douglas, C., Bateson, M., Walsh, C., Bédué, A. & Edwards, S. A.
2012. Environmental enrichment induces optimistic cognitive
biases in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 139, 65–73.
Doyle, R. E., Lee, C., Deiss, V., Fisher, A. D., Hinch, G. N. & Boissy,
A. 2011. Measuring judgement bias and emotional reactivity
in sheep following long-term exposure to unpredictable and
aversive events. Physiology & Behavior, 102, 503–510.
Doyle, R. E., Vidal, S., Hinch, G. N., Fisher, A. D., Boissy, A. & Lee,
C. 2010a. The effect of repeated testing on judgement biases in
sheep. Behavioural Processes, 83, 349–352.
Doyle, R., Fisher, A., Hinch, G. & Boissy, A. 2010b. Release from
restraint generates a positive judgement bias in sheep. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science, 122, 28–34.
Duncan, I. 2006. The changing concept of animal sentience.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 11–19.
Harding, E., Paul, E. & Mendl, M. 2004. Animal behaviour:
cognitive bias and affective state. Nature, 427, 312.
Hinde, R. 1985. Was “The expression of the emotions” a
misleading phrase? Animal Behaviour, 33, 985–992.
Korte, S., Olivier, B. & Koolhaas, J. 2007. A new animal welfare
concept based on allostasis. Physiology & Behavior, 92, 422–428.
Lindström, L. 2010. Performance of laying hens in a cognitive
bias task.
Matheson, S., Asher, L. & Bateson, M. 2008. Larger, enriched
cages are associated with “optimistic” response biases in captive
European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Applied Animal Behaviour
Science, 109, 374–383.
Mendl, M., Brooks, J., Basse, C., Burman, O. & Paul, E.
2010. Dogs showing separation-related behaviour exhibit a
“pessimistic” cognitive bias. Current Biology, 20,
Mendl, M., Burman, O., Parker, R. & Paul, E. 2009. Cognitive
bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: Emerging
evidence and underlying mechanisms. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science, 118, 161–181.
Paul, E., Harding, E. & Mendl, M. 2005. Measuring emotional
processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 469–491.
Salmeto, A., Hymel, K., Carpenter, E., Brilot, B., Bateson, M. &
Sufka, K. 2010. Cognitive bias in the chick anxiety-depression
model. Brain Research,
Seligman, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positive Psychology
An Introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Tami, G., Torre, C. & Compagnucci, M. 2011. Interpretation of
ambiguous spatial stimuli in cats. Animal Welfare,
About the author
Melissa Starling is a 3rd year, full-time PhD student
from the Veterinary Science Faculty at the University
of Sydney. She is supervised by Professor Paul
McGreevy and Nick Branson.
Contact
Melissa Starling
Email: mjstarling@fastmail.com.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 47
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
08
Aspects relating to pets, people and Indigenous communities
and how to work together for a sustainable way forward
Julia Hardaker
CEO, AMRRIC (Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities)
Animal management in Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander communities is not just a remote
issue. Seventy-six per cent of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples live in non-remote areas,
predominately along the Eastern Seaboard. Although
there are a wide variety of situations, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander communities anywhere
across Australia seem to face similar problems.
Organisations and groups such as AMRRIC, RSPCA
NSW and other service providers are well placed
to learn from each other in meaningful ways to
work alongside remote and urban Aboriginal and
Torres Strait communities to deal with these, often
complex, issues.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples often
suffer a sense of isolation from the people they
interact with in remote or urbanised areas and
often have a lack of access to services in remote
areas. This can also be an issue in urban areas
where people may be or feel economically or socially
excluded, e.g. when people are ‘shame jobbed’ or
embarrassed inadvertently or purposefully about
the condition of their pets. A lack of resourcing
for dog health/desexing programs and a lack
of or insufficient Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander employment both on the ground and in
managerial positions is common. Lack of community
engagement and empowerment due to lack of
appropriate community consultation with regards to
by laws etc often results in ‘white fella’ top down law
that is often difficult to comprehend, irrelevant or
impossible to enforce.
Understanding Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people’s different perspectives on family
responsibilities and roles of dogs is crucial to
delivering culturally sensitive programs in remote,
rural and urban areas. Therefore collaboration with
relevant support groups and appropriate information
sharing to enable preparation for vet visits and dog
health programs is also crucial. When delivering
the program messages, the use of appropriate
terminology and methodology becomes crucial.
People need to receive messages delivered in a
relevant and culturally appropriate manner such
as posters etc that are not too text dominant with
relevant pictures, otherwise immediate barriers
can be formed. It is important program staff do
not speak about removing peoples’ ‘neglected
animals’ and finding them ‘new homes’ to avoid
creating potentially painful parallels with the stolen
generations story.
Redressing these issues for pets, people and
communities will provide a partnered and
sustainable solution for our future. AMRRIC and
RSPCANSW will endeavour to illustrate the above
with achievements in terms of demonstrable and
sustainable community benefit outcomes that are
tangibly useful to Local Government.
Background
Seventy-six per cent of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples live in non-remote areas,
predominately along the Eastern Seaboard of
Australia. Problems with animal management,
animal welfare and how to work alongside Aboriginal
and Torres St peoples to improve these issues is
challenging for remote areas as well as the urban
areas. Opinions about pet ownership, treatment of
dogs that don’t appear to be owned, perceptions
about people and their relationships to pets vary
from community to community, state to state,
individual to individual. Commonalities apply
however there have been keys steps identified,
through experience, that ensure positive ways
forward.
Cultural significance and traditional law relating
to animals in communities cannot be overlooked
when considering compliance, partnership and
appropriateness of any animal health, welfare and
control plans being developed with the community
(Hardaker 2008). Recognition and acceptance of
these facts help facilitate the establishment of
sustainable culturally appropriate animal health and
welfare delivered alongside education programs.
Respecting the cultural traditions of individual
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
and the right of the community to manage their
animals and animal programs is imperative to
undertaking any work in improving health and
welfare outcomes. Dogs, in particular, remain

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 49
integral to the fabric of communities: their health
is intrinsically linked to the health and overall wellbeing
of the community. Therefore, a wholistic, ‘one
health’ approach is required to achieve change in
improvements in the health and control of animals.
In any Aboriginal community, remote or urban,
companion animal welfare and control can be
viewed as either a “top-down” approach i.e. where
decisions are made by extra-community employees
and imposed on communities or a “bottom up”
approach where the community’s needs and concerns
underpin the animal management strategy. Given the
enormous and ongoing cost of the top-down approach
many communities worldwide are looking for more
sustainable and effective practices (AMRRIC 2006)
as past approaches have often been non-progressive
and disrespectful on the whole.
A bottom-up approach is especially important where
differing cultural values exist. Whilst it is clear that,
like most people, many Aboriginal people love and
value their dogs and often share their distress about
dogs in poor condition, not all people necessarily
share western cultural attitudes to animal welfare
and individual responsibility to care for their animals
What can seem cruel to an Indigenous person can
seem normal to a western person and vice versa.
Two examples: Very often we hear ‘let him die
natural way’ in response to an old diseased dog
that a western eye might think would be kinder to
euthanase. This is a challenging situation for any nonindigenous
person working in a community (Donelan
2006). Cultural attitudes and beliefs may underlie this
attitude. This wish must be considered should the
Veterinarian or Animal Management Worker/Officer
wish to continue building a trusting relationship that
allows further work to be undertaken to improve
animal welfare in that community. A palliative
approach might gain more cooperation in the first
instance, allowing a relationship to be built in which
discussion of euthanasia can take place. Another
example from the other perspective is keeping dogs
locked alone in backyards: to some people this is
incredibly cruel, whereas it is the norm in most
urbanised areas (Donelan 2006).
In Aboriginal communities in particular, animal
health, welfare and control tactics dictated by external
forces using non-negotiated methodologies have been
uniformly unsuccessful and unsustainable. Imposition
of welfare and control measures, in the absence of
trust, relationship, adequate capacity building and
two-way education and awareness programs has
resulted in unnecessary ongoing expenditure on pure
service delivery, both veterinary and law enforcement,
and has also been demonstrated to be a completely
unsustainable model. Understanding Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people’s different perspectives
on family responsibilities and roles of dogs is crucial
to delivering culturally sensitive programs in remote,
rural and urban areas.
Perspectives on companion animals
Some differences in perspectives on normal mores
for dogs in communities may have originated from
the different traditions of living with canines in
either culture. In contrast to the Euro-Australian
tradition, Indigenous Australian societies traditionally
lived with dingoes brought in as pups from the wild
(Corbett 2001). Dingoes are self-reliant, hunted for
their food and often contributed their hunt to their
companion Aboriginal family. They needed to be free
roaming to fulfill this role. Domestic dogs, on the
other hand, are almost completely dependent on
human carers for food and water (Boitani et al 1995).
Also, dingo breeding only occurred in the wild, and at
much reduced rate compared to our domestic dogs
that are capable of replacing 70% of their numbers
every year (Matter and Daniels 2000). Despite these
differences, canine companions had, and do still
have, important roles as companions and protectors
(Hunt 2006).
It is not only the breed of dogs that have changed. The
wider social context must be considered. European
settlement brought displacement from homelands
and economies, and institutionalization further led to
a chronic disempowerment of people. Roaming dogs,
together with this disempowerment has underpinned
a common perception/ misconception that some
Aboriginal people do not care about their dogs,
whereas in fact, on the whole, they do. Dr Sophie
Constable’s research confirms this fact (Constable
et al 2008) demonstrating that Aboriginal people
keep pets for many of the same reasons as non-
Indigenous people. Companionship is the key reason
for people to keep dogs, cats or pigs and interactions
between them and their owners are often
affectionate or sometimes cruel as in any developed
society. Whilst dogs everywhere can be part of
human families, in some Indigenous communities
this is recognized in a formal way by including dogs in
the kinship system. Dogs can also serve a practical
purpose by assisting in hunting (Donelan 2006) and
are often seen as ‘protectors and guardians, both of
property in a territorial sense but also in a spiritual
sense: to ward off evil spirits.
“Dog Dreaming” is a very real and an important
feature of dog ownership and treatment within many
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. To
overlook or dismiss this issue at a community level is
firstly disrespectful and ignorant and secondly, can
result in significant noncompliance with by laws or
imposed plans in many communities.

50 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Commonly shared issues
– remote and urban
In remote communities common problems relate
to animal welfare and public nuisance. They include
overpopulation from uncontrolled dog breeding;
visibly diseased, malnourished animals (mainly dogs);
public health considerations related to external and
internal parasites; noise and nuisance from fighting
and pack behaviour; spreading of rubbish while
scavenging for food and public safety concerns with
dog bite injuries from aggressive animals (Donelan
2006). Unrestrained breeding of larger breed e.g. pig
dogs negatively influences the makeup of the next
generation of pups in many top end communities
(AMRRIC 2007).
Many people are often overwhelmed by free
breeding dogs and cats and have little access to
desexing programs and population control. They feel
disempowered by non-Aboriginal decision makers
and struggle to access resources such as normal
veterinary services, medications, information or
education to improve the situation resulting in the
overall poor state of animal health and welfare.
It is positive to note some change in recent years
regarding these services.
Aboriginal people commonly share their concerns
that health status of their dogs (in particular) impact
on human health and welfare. Zoonotic diseases
and mental health and wellbeing concerns such as
embarrassment or ‘shame’ about the state of their
companion animals’ health are often heard. They
express fear of attacks from free roaming dogs to
themselves and other dogs.
Although there are a wide variety of situations,
AMRRIC after many years of working with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander communities across
Australia observe similar problems across the
country. It appears that longstanding animal health
and welfare management issues exist in many of
those communities with varying degrees of veterinary
programs, resources, education or professional
support to address the situation. Whilst some
communities seem to be way ahead in terms of
achieving locally owned and driven success in this
area, we have seen few models of truly sustainable
change. AMRRIC is currently attempting to build a
sustainable model in the NT that is being rolled out in
partnership with three shires.
Developing trustful relationships is the key
“Some of the greatest challenges in providing
veterinary services to remote communities centre
on lack of understanding and trust. Education and
developing a trusting relationship with community
members is the key to success, but often there are
barriers, [including] language and cultural’, (Kennedy
cited in Constable and Lucia 2011) especially when
local people aren’t involved. The lack of trust can
mostly be attributed to a history of often brutal
forms of companion animal management with
routine poisoning, shooting forming the mainstay
of companion animal control. In more recent
times lack of trust is deepened or reinforced when
unknown contractors are bought in to communities
by non-Aboriginal authorities to undertake mass
non- consensual euthanasia programs as a reactive
response to the death or mauling of someone.
The Veterinarian, the Animal Control Officer or
Rangers are often the frontline people involved in
delivering a dog health and welfare strategy in an
Aboriginal community. They are often faced with a
culturally complex environment and a background of
fraught cross-cultural interaction. Many Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Traditional Owners or Dog Dreaming
Elders possess authority or custodianship over
dog matters within existing systems of traditional
governance. For lasting and beneficial companion
animal control change to occur it is essential that
those with authority to speak contribute to planning
a control program. Identifying those key people and
‘working with them rather than for them’ (Phelan 2006)
is vital.
Programs require significant planning with local
staff, traditional owner groups and key stakeholders
that support animal control and regulation. A QLD
Health Environmental Health Worker stated recently
‘It is important for agencies and other people
who visit these communities to understand the
environment these services are provided in and the
experience required to provide animal management
services in discreet communities’. Programs are
best approached in this way, and ideally with a locally
employed animal management worker or similar
person, who has the communities trust, speaks the
local language and has the relationships.
Unless people have a trustful relationship with
the veterinarian or the animal management staff
in a community they are not likely to engage in the
program, pick up the phone or ask for assistance.
This can also be an issue in urban areas where people
may be or feel economically or socially excluded, e.g.
when people are ‘shame jobbed’ or embarrassed
inadvertently or purposefully about the condition of
their pets.
Acting with integrity to build respect and trust with
community stakeholders and community engagement
in the program is a must to improving the welfare
of animals (Donelan 2006). In a climate of mistrust,
resulting from inappropriate culling programs or
treatments and surgical procedures undertaken
without owner permission, nothing can be achieved.
Everything we do relies on the process of relationship
building and respect.

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 51
Educating or ‘two way knowledge sharing’
Education or ‘two way knowledge sharing’ is a
critical component of companion animal health,
welfare and control bridging knowledge gaps from
both European and Indigenous cultures. All levels
of government are beginning to realize the huge
value in this vital program component although is
still tends to fall down the list in terms of budgetary
priorities. There is currently a lack of trained
Aboriginal staff in the NT who can deliver the
programs and a paucity of resources on the whole,
especially for remote communities. AMRRIC is
redressing this through the employment and training
of up to 18 Animal Management Worker’s over the
next few years. Through education and advocacy,
appropriate resourcing and two-way knowledge
transfer we are able to create the resources the
community requires to establish a plan to achieve
animal health and welfare standards that everyone
can be proud of.
For the majority of Aboriginal people in remote
communities English is their third or fourth language
and English literacy rates are poor (Donelan 2006).
We must bear this in mind when communicating
messages from our world perspective. An imposed
western world view, as so often seen, becomes
the single most important factor in accounting for
communication breakdown (Australian Volunteers
International 2004). Communities must be
empowered with knowledge, through community
engagement and consultation to understand by laws,
animal health and welfare messages etc. through
appropriate messaging, images, and language
if change is to come about. Animal management
workers or local rangers are the expert
communicators in delivering the right messages
(Constable et al 2010).
Through community engagement and consultation,
correct language and the messages to be conveyed
can be checked, or better yet, developed as tailor
made resources for their community. External
visitors or workers may speak about removing
people’s ‘neglected animals’ and finding them ‘new
and better homes’ which can create painful parallels
with the stolen generations story, demonstrating the
importance of ‘right’ language and understanding
the environment they are in.
It has been demonstrated that trained animal
management workers are best placed to raise
awareness and improvements of dog health issues
through locally delivered education strategies. Verbal
‘yarning’ is demonstrated to be the preferred method
of knowledge sharing for 68.4% of those interviewed
by Constable et al 2010, and 79% of the people
preferred locally produced education resources over
commercial resources that had no real meaning
for them (Constable et al 2010). However, every
community differs in their preferred way of sharing
knowledge: some prefer passive pictorial resources
and others preferred active participative dog health
demonstration days or watching an educational
video. Clearly people need to receive messages
delivered in a relevant and culturally appropriate
manner, to best encourage communication and to
avoid forming barriers through misunderstandings.
Prendergast’s (Prendergast et al. 2008) research
demonstrated that family members play a key role
in shaping dog ownership behaviors and decisions
concerning participating in education and dog health
and desexing programs. A recent evaluation of the
AMRRIC’s DVD, ‘Caring for Dogs, Community and
Country’, undertaken by an independent consultant,
showed that learning about caring for dogs occurred
through organised and structured activities (active
learning) and through more informal mechanisms,
such as the DVD playing in the background in waiting
rooms (passive learning). Engaging families in this
type of learning was demonstrated as essential to
attaining desired behavioural changes (Holmes 2012).
Further, developing an understanding of relevant
legislative requirements through targeted education
and training programs will enhance the capacity of
communities to benefit from the implementation of
programs. Enabling communities to understand the
process fosters effective and appropriate long term
change and compliance. Likewise, enabling service
providers and other stakeholders to understand
better the environment they are working in allows
them to appreciate the kinds of barriers that impede
immediate term change in essential areas of animal
welfare and management.
Giving it time – ‘slow and steady’
Government funding is generally tied to Key
Performance Indicators (KPI’s). For service providers
who are funded dependent on the achievement of set
KPI’s, challenges arise when remote communities
do not function on this western view basis. Given
the range of cultural and sociological attitudes
toward pets, the difference in world view, significant
imposed government policies constantly reshaping
community living and a range of other external
influences on community, pets are often way down
the scale of importance when it comes to coping
with this high level of change. Pets and program
outcomes don’t often meet the KPI’s organisations
need to report on. Programs may take enormous
amounts of time which can seem frustrating to
local government and service providers. It has been
demonstrated to AMRRIC, program after program,
that ‘slow and steady wins the race’. There are no
‘quick fix solutions’ despite millions of dollars that
have been spent in the past trying to achieve one.

52 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
There must be compromise, trust and respect. Slow
and steady attitudinal change, underpinned by trust,
respect and adequate resources, has been the way
forward in many communities where AMRRIC and the
RSPCA are working.
Consultation, local employment,
knowledge and language
Consulting extensively within the community to
facilitate the development of a strategic animal
health and management plan guided by community
needs and circumstances is crucial. Imposing predetermined
programs, developed through non-
Aboriginal eyes can mean little to no sustained
compliance with the approaches undertaken. Without
extensive consultation the vet or provider may arrive
in the community to undertake the pre-decided
program to find that the community, in fear of what
is being imposed based on previous history, have
evacuated their dogs to a ‘safer’ place.
Environmental Health Workers (EHWs), and Animal
Management Workers (AMW’s) who work alongside
veterinarians are highly valued and are often
crucial to a program’s success. Trained AMWs and
EHWs can deliver parasite control programs and
injectable temporary sterilisation of animals, assist
vets to understand and navigate local sensitivities,
are educators and surgical assistants and can
provide feedback and data to assist Shires/Councils
with strategic planning. They can undertake the
groundwork to establish a program as they are well
known and trusted by their community, resulting
in a more efficient program. Local issues and
sensitivities that need to be navigated in remote areas
may be ‘ceremony business, dog dreaming or sorry
business’ (Donelan AMRRIC 2006), and the program’s
interaction with politics, social tension and personal
traumas need to be appropriately handled in urban
communities as well.
Local AMW’s can be a wealth of knowledge and
provide vital language translation when required.
They ensure that vets and other external staff are
informed of cultural differences that they may
otherwise be unaware of. “You can go backwards
very quickly in these places if you don’t have the right
help” (Irving cited in Constable and Lucia 2011). The
AMWs are best placed to obtain informed consent
and higher numbers of consents that Non Aboriginal
people to treat dogs (81% as against 53%) (Constable
et al 2010).
Conclusion
Progress is being made in many communities
regarding the improvement of animal health and
welfare. It is being made through consultation, the
building of trustful relationships, engagement, local
employment and education programs. Aboriginal
people in remote communities, on the whole, value
their pets as those non- Aboriginal people on the east
coast do. Over recent years the Federal Government
has come to see the enormous benefits of dog health
and welfare programs to improving the overall health
and safety of remote communities through the work
and lobbying of agencies like AMRRIC and RSPCA.
This is a positive step forward and is allowing some
communities to benefit from veterinary and education
strategies that is making a real difference. Engaged
communities who trust in the slow and steady
respectful approach want to work with us to make
the changes that bring benefits to all.
Sources
Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous
Communities (AMRRIC), Companion Animal Welfare Service
Framework, MacDonnell Shire, 2007.
Australian Volunteers International, Building and Maintaining
Relationships in Communities, PP Presentation, Remote
Recruiting Services, 2004.
Boitani L, Francisci F, Ciucci P, and Andreoli G 1995 “Population
biology and ecology of feral dogs in central Italy” in Serpell J.A.
(ed) The Domestic Dog: its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with
People Cambridge University Press, Cambridge p 217-244.
Constable S , Brown G, Dixon Rose, Dixon RJ ‘Healing the hand
that feeds you: Exploring solutions for dog and community health and
welfare in Australian Indigenous communities’ The International
Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. 22 to 25 July 2008.
Constable, S and Lucia, S ‘2.89 million will help make Animal
Health management a reality in the Northern Territory’, The
Australian Veterinary Journal, Vol 89, No 6, June 2011.
Constable S., Dixon RM, Dixon RJ, Brown G., 2010 “Walking
Together on Country” AHPA National Conference, Melbourne, May
31st.
Constable, S., Brown, G., Dixon, R.M., and Dixon, R.J. (2011)
The effect of veterinary and dog health worker programs
in controlling mange in dogs living in remote Indigenous
communities Unpublished paper.
Corbett L. (2001). The Dingo in Australia and Asia. Marleston, JB
Books.
Donelan T, 2006, ‘To Kill or Control - Humane Animal
Management in a Remote Indigenous Australian Community’,
World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) annual
conference, Mexico City May 2005.
Hardaker J, (2008) Making Sustainable Improvements in Animal
Welfare ‘A strategic approach to Animal Welfare improvement in
remote Indigenous communities’. Animal Management in Rural and
Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC), Australian Animal
Welfare Strategy Conference Gold Coast.
Holmes, Catherine (2012) Evaluation of ‘Caring for Dogs,
Community and Country’ AMRRIC DVD.
Hunt A, Animals and their Importance to Aboriginal Society’, 2006
AMRRIC Dog People Conference Proceedings, AMRRIC.
Matter HC and Daniels MJ 2000 “Dog ecology and population
biology” in Macpherson CNL, Meslin FX, and Wandeler AI (eds)
Dogs, Zoonoses and Public Health CABI Publishing Oxford p 17-62.
Phelan S, Conducting Dog Health programs in Remote Indigenous
Communities – A Veterinary Guide, AMRRIC, 2006.
Prendergast M, Dixon R and Lawrie M, 2008, Attitudes of
Indigenous Australians that may influence uptake of desexing
programs: A Case Study. AMRRIC Conference, Darwin, 14th
October 2008.

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 53
About the author
Julia has a health background as a nurse and
educator. She has held executive positions in the
Non-Government, Not for Profit programs sector
for 20 years. She spent many years in rural NSW,
coordinating and facilitating programs for Non
Indigenous and Indigenous families. She undertook
studies in Aboriginal Community Development and
Peace Studies whilst working in an Afghanistan
NGO as a community development practitioner
and a Change Manager in a Kabul based women’s
organisation. Julia moved to the NT eight years
ago to coordinate Indigenous Health Programs
in Southern Barkly remote communities, prior to
becoming Executive Officer with AMRRIC. In the five
years she has been with AMRRIC the organisation
has undergone significant growth, is recognised
nationally by the Federal Government as the Best
Practice Model for remote Indigenous community
dog heath programs. Julia remains committed to
building sustainable, culturally respectful one health
models for animal health and welfare management
that improves overall health outcomes for remote
communities and their residents.
Contact
Julia Hardaker
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CEO, AMRRIC (Animal Management in Rural
and Remote Indigenous Communities)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Email: info@amrric.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
09
When wild dogs come to town: Management in peri-urban
areas where dogs, policy and people meet
Peter Fleming 1 , Guy Ballard 1 , Paul Meek 1,2 ,
Benjamin Allen 1,3 , Matthew Gentle 3 and Greg Mifsud 2,3
1
Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Biosecurity NSW, NSW Department of Primary Industries
2
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre
3
Biosecurity Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
Traditionally, society has focussed on what to do
about unrestrained town dogs that wander through
urban areas and beyond. Far less attention has been
given to the issue of wild dogs that come to town.
These animals are frequently undetected, or
misidentified, but available information suggests
they are becoming increasingly common visitors to
towns and cities throughout eastern Australia.
As threats to domestic animals, and potentially to
humans, we must consider how we can effectively
manage the problem when most wild dog related
legislation and policy is geared towards rural
scenarios. We review what is known about periurban
wild dogs, highlight knowledge gaps and key
limitations to effective management and discuss
research priorities for avoiding significant humananimal,
animal-animal and human-human conflicts
in the future.
Introduction
Dogs have always come to town and, indeed, that
anthropic behaviour probably started the selection of
dogs from wolves (von Holdt et al. 2010). The varied
relationship between dogs and urban humans is
ongoing and worldwide, but, with notable exceptions
(e.g. Beck 1973), is little studied. The free-ranging
dogs that are in and around Australian towns fall
along a continuum from totally restrained pets
that rarely leave their owner’s house, through
unrestrained pets that are free to range away from
home, through stray un-owned dogs, to totally freeranging
dingoes and other wild dogs.
Dingoes, most likely tame and restrained, came
to Australia from the north on the boats of South
East Asian traders about 4,500 years ago (Corbett
2001; but see Oskarsson et al. 2011 for a possible
earlier date of entry). These dogs were likely
originally associated with the camps of indigenous
Australians, before hearing the “call of the wild”
(London 1903) and straying into independence well
before Europeans reached Australia. Dingoes have
filled a commensal role with indigenous Australians,
sometimes being kin, companions, hunters,
bedwarmers and food (Smith and Litchfield 2009),
and always being scavengers (e.g. Allen 2010). The
different roles of dingoes are recognised in some
Indigenous languages, where there were different
words for dogs in different places. For example, in
the Warlpiri language of the Tanami region, camp
dogs can be jarntu and maliki and dingoes can be
waltiki and warnapari (Swartz 2012).
The dogs brought to Australia by Europeans have
become unrestrained and come to town (where
they have “gone to town”) since early in European
settlement. In the early 1800s, interestingly-worded
laws were passed to control them in the growing
townships, e.g. the NSW Dog Nuisance Act 1830:
“the Streets of the Towns of Sydney Parramatta
Liverpool and Windsor are infested by the great number
of dogs which are allowed to go loose at all hours of the
day and night to the danger of passengers as well as
to the great annoyance of the inhabitants at large … if
any dog ... shall be at large and shall attack any person
passing in a street of any town or on any highway or
turnpike road on foot on horseback or in a carriage the
owner or proprietor of such dog shall forfeit and pay a
fine” (Gamble et al. 1988).
Free-ranging dogs continue to cause problems for
human communities, and skin infections and bites
by dogs can be a serious issue of public health,
particularly for children (e.g. Currie and Carapetis
2000; Ozanne-Smith et al. 2001). Here we briefly
review the impacts and management of peri-urban
dogs in Australia, highlight knowledge gaps and key
limitations to effective management of free-ranging

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 55
Management of free-ranging dogs in urban and
adjoining rural areas is complicated by a lack of
knowledge on free-ranging dog ecology by affected
stakeholders, many of whom are unaware of the
local presence of free-ranging dogs until they are
involved in an incident (Allen 2006a; Atkinson 2008).
Legislation and policy about the management of
free-ranging dogs varies between States, and its
implementation in urban and peri-urban areas is
sometimes confounded because of uncertainty
about the status of the dogs. In New South Wales
for example, pet and working dogs fall under the
Companion Animals Act 1998, with responsibility for
their activity falling on the owner. Un-restrained
dogs are not considered to be controlled by their
owners and so can be impounded by council staff
or can be killed on agricultural holdings. However,
it is difficult for a council worker to restrain a freeranging
dog in an urban or peri-urban area when it
has no owner or experience of being handled. Such
dogs are considered “wild dogs” under the Rural
Lands Protection Act 1998, and are required to be
controlled by land owners and occupiers, but are
often not recognised for what they are in closerdogs
in and around urban areas and identify areas of
research involvement in the issues pertaining to their
management .
Impacts
The negative impacts of urban and peri-urban
free-ranging dogs are of growing public concern,
particularly in remote communities and eastern
Australian coastal cities (Atkinson 2008; D. Sheil,
Senior Pest Management Officer, Morton Bay
Regional Council, pers. comm. 2011). Human and
companion animal safety are the issues that cause
most angst, but human amenity and environmental
impacts are also important. Potential threats
to public health include: direct attack on people
resulting in mauling and rarely death (Healy 2007);
direct attack on companion animals and/or domestic
livestock resulting in mauling and commonly their
death and distress for the owners; a potential source
of parasite infection for ruminants (e.g. neosporosis,
infectious agent Neospora caninum, King et al. 2011);
a potential source of zoonotic infection (e.g. hydatids,
agent Echinococcus granulosus, Jenkins 2006;
toxoplasmosis, agent Toxoplasma gondii, Etheredge et
al. 2004) through contamination of school grounds,
municipal parks and bushland reserves with freeranging
dog droppings; loss of amenity through
disturbance or fouling of public infrastructure
including rubbish bins; psychological and emotional
trauma caused by the loss of domestic animals
(Fleming et al. 2010); and fear of free-ranging
dog attacks on people and resultant alteration or
curtailment of normal human activities.
Other studies have investigated disease prevalence
among dogs associated with remote communities
(e.g. Brown et al. 2006; King et al. 2012). Allen
(2006a; b) showed that a large proportion (17 of 30)
of free-ranging dog faecal samples collected in periurban
areas of south eats Queensland contained
propagules of zoonotic organisms.
The effects of free-ranging dogs on urban and periurban
wildlife is also understudied, but free-ranging
dogs are recognised as a threat to peri-urban
koala populations in communities from south east
Queensland (McAlpine et al. 2006) to the Central
Coast of New South Wales (Lunney et al. 2007).
Impacts on wildlife includes disease interactions
where dogs are an intermediate host in a sylvatic
cycle, e.g. hydatidosis of brush-tailed rock-wallabies,
Petrogale penicillata (Barnes et al. 2010), or are direct
carriers of diseases that affect domestic dogs (e.g.
mange
With the notable exceptions of cases such as Azaria
Chamberlain and Clinton Gage where their deaths
were ascribed to attack by free-ranging dingoes
at Uluru and Fraser Island respectively, data
about attacks by free-ranging dogs in peri-urban
environments are impossible to dissect from general
dog attacks.
In NSW it has been required since 2008 that Councils
report dog attacks to the Department of Premier
and Cabinet (e.g. Division of Local Government
2012). However, it is difficult to determine which of
the 5,140 attacks by unrestrained dogs in 2010/11
on people and pets were by truly free-ranging dogs.
Pets attacked by dogs usually died (Division of Local
Government 2012), which causes trauma for the
owners. This human aspect of dog attacks has not
been unstudied.
Although veterinary practitioners treat pets attacked
by free-ranging dogs, it is impossible to tease out
those caused by the un-owned dogs from those
caused by the merely unrestrained. There is little
information recorded about attacks on pets and
livestock on small acreage near urban environments.
One exception is the Kempsey district on the north
coast of NSW, where between 280 and 813 pets and
small livestock were killed annually by free-ranging
dogs for the years 2003 to 2008 (Willey et al. 2008).
All these negative impacts of free-ranging dogs
cause conflict, which is exacerbated because of the
contradiction with the beneficial roles that dogs
are presumed to have for people (e.g. Beck 2000;
Hergovich et al. 2002). Attacks by dogs often have
lasting effects on the relationships between people
and dogs.
Policy and management

56 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
dingo proportion is often held as iconic and subject
to conservation efforts, yet once pets or people are
attacked or harassed these attitudes can be rapidly
reversed. This conflict is compounded by a general
lack of understanding about wild dog ecology and the
effectiveness of management techniques in these
environments.
Impacts of free-ranging dogs are increasingly
being felt by livestock producers on small holdings
and residents of towns and suburbs throughout
the more populated areas of eastern NSW and
Queensland (e.g. Willey et al. 2008). Generally, the
impacts on people, livestock and pets have not
been quantified or analysed for patterns that might
suggest mitigation strategies. Free-ranging dogs
in these areas can also have substantial impacts
on increasingly fragmented conservation estates
around human communities and these too are
mostly unquantified.
The disease implications of free-ranging dogs where
dogs and people interact are also unquantified.
The contacts between free-ranging and restrained
dogs are fundamentally important for predicting
the epidemiology of diseases such as mange and
rabies, yet there have been no studies to date of
this important interaction. A collaborative project
addressing rabies preparedness is being undertaken
between Animal Management in Rural and Remote
Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC), University of
New England, University of Sydney and the authors.
In various forums, bodies such as AMRRIC and local
governments throughout Australia have consistently
identified the need to improve our understanding of
peri-urban free-ranging dog ecology and behaviour
so that tools, strategies and policies can be
developed for their management. This information
is required to assist in planning and coordinating
control activities and raise the awareness and
capacity of communities to deal with the issue.
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre,
with councils from south east Queensland and north
eastern NSW, is embarking on a project that will
develop best practice management strategies and
guidelines for implementation in peri-urban areas.
Specifically, the project will study detailed daily
movements, survival rates, and habitat use within
participating local government areas. Stomachs
and faeces will be collected and analysed for dietary
composition and dependence on human provided
subsidies. This will provide an indication of the
relative importance of native and anthropogenic
food sources, potential impact on native fauna and
competition with other species, and likely foraging
places. Tissue samples will be collected from freesettled
environments. Uncertainty about status
sometimes leads to inaction because responsibility
is not clear.
Ecology
The ecology of free-ranging dogs in and around
human communities is fertile ground for research.
Only one study has been undertaken about the
ecology of peri-urban wild dogs in eastern Australia
(Allen 2006a; b) and Newsome (2011) investigated
aspects of free-ranging dog ecology around a remote
mining community in the Tanami Desert. Both these
studies showed the importance of human resource
subsidies to wild dog movement behaviour and diet.
The movements of nine dingo-like free-ranging dogs
in south east Queensland coastal communities over
a few months indicated that home range sizes in
urban settings were very much smaller (mean
2.2 km 2 , 100% MCP estimate, Allen 2006a) than for
free-ranging dogs in eastern agri-ecosystems
(27km 2 ; ~10 –100 km 2 ; 42.5–124.3km 2 for Harden
1985; Claridge et al. 2009; Robley et al. 2010
respectively, all 100% MCP estimates). However,
Allen’s (2006a) study was short term (7-45 days) with
high frequency of GPS logging of locations and needs
to be repeated over a longer time frame to ascertain
seasonal differences in home range size and use.
Newsome’s (2011) study could not have been in
a more different environment to Allen’s (2006a).
The mine community had a two refuse tips, the
vast majority of food waste going into one of which
However, Newsome (2011) found that home range
size for dingoes wholly associated with the mine
community was about 40 times smaller (10km 2 ,
85% Kernel estimate) than dingoes that lived away
from the mine, which supported Allen’s findings.
The small home range sizes are likely the product
of purposeful and accidental anthropogenic food
subsidies (Newsome 2011). Although Allen and Leung
(2012) briefly report the diets of peri-urban dogs
in their broader examination of free-ranging dog
diets, the importance of highly digestible domestic
dog food and refuse to peri-urban dogs and its
influence on their movements is unknown. One
could reasonably expect on the basis of Newsome
(2011) that sources of regular subsidy would be more
visited by free-ranging dogs, and that these are likely
foci for aggressive and other interactions with pets
and children.
Knowledge gaps and research
Free-ranging dog management in peri-urban
settings is often contentious and difficult to
implement given the variety of stakeholders with
wide-ranging and often conflicting ideologies. The

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 57
ranging dogs euthanized as part of routine control
programs conducted within and adjacent to periurban
research sites. Samples will be assessed
for genetic purity (i.e. domestic dog versus dingo
origin) and gene flow between sampled populations.
Gene flow can be used to determine if a region acts
as a single/multiple demographic management
unit (based on dispersal among locations) and
appropriate management units can be set. Patterns
of movement between and within rural and urban
dog populations can also be determined. This
information will provide direction for more targeted
wild dog management. Most importantly, the impacts
of free-ranging dogs on people, their pets and
livestock and iconic urban wildlife will be assessed.
References
Allen, B. L. (2006a). ‘The spatial ecology and zoonoses of urban
dingoes – a preliminary investigation’. Honours Thesis. (The
University of Queensland: Gatton).
Allen, B. L. (2006b). Urban dingoes (Canis lupus dingo and
hybrids) and human hydatid disease (Echinococcus granulosus) in
Queensland, Australia. In: 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference (eds
R. M. Timm and J. M. O’Brien) pp. 334-338. The University of
California, Davis, Berkeley, California.
Allen, B. L. (2010). Skin and bone: Observations of dingo
scavenging during a chronic food shortage. Australian
Mammalogy 32, 1-2.
Allen, B. L. and Leung, L. K.-P. (2012). Assessing predation risk
to threatened fauna from their prevalence in predator scats:
dingoes and rodents in arid Australia. PLoS ONE 7, e36426.
Atkinson, S. A. (2008). Dingo control or conservation? Attitudes
towards urban dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) as an aid to dingo
management. In: 23rd Vertebrate Pest Conference (eds R. M. Timm
and M. B. Madon) pp. 145-147. University of California, Davis,
California.
Barnes, T. S., Goldizen, A. W., Morton, J. M. and Coleman, G. T.
(2010). Parasites of the brush-tailed rock-wallaby (Petrogale
penicillata). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46, 218-228.
Beck, A. M. (1973). ‘The ecology of stray dogs: a study of freeranging
urban animals’. (York Press: Baltimore).
Beck, A. M. (2000). The human-dog relationship: a tale of two
species. In: ‘Dogs, zoonoses and public health.’ (Eds C. N. L.
MacPherson, F. X. Meslin and A. I. Wandeler). pp. 1-16. (CABI:
Wallingford).
Brown, G. K., Canfield, P. J., Dunstan, R. H., Roberts, T. K.,
Martin, A. R., Brown, C. S. and Irving, R. (2006). Detection of
Anaplasma platys and Babesia canis vogeli and their impact on
platelet numbers in free-roaming dogs associated with remote
Aboriginal communities in Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal
84, 321-325.
Claridge, A. W., Mills, D. J., Hunt, R., Jenkins, D. J. and Bean,
J. (2009). Satellite tracking of wild dogs in south-eastern
mainland Australian forests: Implications for management of a
problematic top-order carnivore. Forest Ecology and Management
258, 814-822.
Corbett, L. K. (2001). ‘The dingo in Australia and Asia’. (J.B.
Books, South Australia: Marleston).
Currie, B. J. and Carapetis, J. R. (2000). Skin infections and
infestations in Aboriginal communities in northern Australia.
Australasian Journal of Dermatology 41, 139-143.
Division of Local Government. (2012). ‘Council reports of dog
attacks in NSW 2010/11’. (NSW Department of Premier and
Cabinet: Sydney).
Etheredge, G. D., Michael, G., Muehlenbein, M. P. and Frenkel,
J. K. (2004). The roles of cats and dogs in the transmission of
Toxoplasma infection in Kuna and Embera children in eastern
Panama. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica/Pan American
Journal of Public Health 16, 176-186.
Fleming, P. J. S., Allen, B. L. and Ballard, G.-A. (2010). Seven
considerations about dingoes as biodiversity engineers:
the socioecological niches of dogs in Australia. Australian
Mammalogy, -.
Gamble, H., Scott, R., Phegan, C. and Byrne, P. (1988). 2.
The history of the law relating to dogs. In: Report 52 (1988) -
Community Law Reform Program: Tenth Report - Liability For
Injuries Caused by Dogs. NSW Law Reform Commission.
Harden, R. H. (1985). The Ecology of the Dingo in Northeastern
New-South-Wales .1. Movements and Home Range. Australian
Wildlife Research 12, 25-37.
Healy, S. (2007). Deadly dingoes: ‘wild’ or simply requiring ‘due
process’. Social Studies of Science 37, 443-471.
Hergovich, A., Monshi, B., Semmler, G. and Zieglmayer, V. (2002).
The effects of the presence of a dog in the classroom. Anthrozoos
15, 37-50.
Jenkins, D. J. (2006). Echinococcus granulosus in Australia,
widespread and doing well! Parasitology International 55,
S203-S206.
King, J. S., Brown, G. K., Jenkins, D. J., Ellis, J. T., Fleming, P.
J. S., Windsor, P. A. and Šlapeta, J. (2012). Oocysts and high
seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dogs living in remote
Aboriginal communities and wild dogs in Australia. Veterinary
Parasitology 187, 85-92.
King, J. S., Jenkins, D. J., Ellis, J. T., Fleming, P., Windsor, P.
A. and Šlapeta, J. (2011). Implications of wild dog ecology on
the sylvatic and domestic life cycle of Neospora caninum in
Australia. The Veterinary Journal 188, 24-33.
Lunney, D., Gresser, S., O’Neill, L. E., Matthews, A. and Rhodes,
J. (2007). The Impact of Fire and Dogs on Koalas at Port
Stephens, New South Wales, Using Population Viability Analysis.
Pacific Conservation Biology 13, [189]-201.
McAlpine, C. A., Rhodes, J. R., Callaghan, J. G., Bowen, M. E.,
Lunney, D., Mitchell, D. L., Pullar, D. V. and Possingham, H. P.
(2006). The importance of forest area and configuration relative
to local habitat factors for conserving forest mammals: A case
study of koalas in Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation
132, 153-165.
Newsome, T. (2011). ‘Ecology of the Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) in
the Tanami Desert in relation to Human-Resource Subsidies’.
Thesis. (University of Sydney: Sydney).
Oskarsson, M. C. R., Klütsch, C. F. C., Boonyaprakob, U., Wilton,
A., Tanabe, Y. and Savolainen, P. (2011). Mitochondrial DNA data
indicate an introduction through Mainland Southeast Asia for
Australian dingoes and Polynesian domestic dogs. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
Ozanne-Smith, J., Ashby, K. and Stathakis, V. Z. (2001). Dog bite
and injury prevention—analysis, critical review, and research
agenda. Injury Prevention 7, 321-326.
Robley, A., Gormley, A., Forsyth, D. M., Wilton, A. N. and
Stephens, D. (2010). Movements and habitat selection by wild
dogs in eastern Victoria. Australian Mammalogy 32, 23-32.
Smith, B. P. and Litchfield, C. A. (2009). A review of the
relationship between indigenous Australians, dingoes (Canis
dingo) and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anthrozoos 22, 111-128.

58 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Swartz, S. (2012). Warlpiri-English Interactive Dictionary. In:
Aboriginal Languages of Australia Virtual Library: Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Languages (ed D. Nathan). Ausil.
von Holdt, B. M., Pollinger, J. P., Lohmueller, K. E., Han, E.,
Parker, H. G., Quignon, P., Degenhardt, J. D., Boyko, A. R., Earl,
D. A., Auton, A., Reynolds, A., Bryc, K., Brisbin, A., Knowles, J.
C., Mosher, D. S., Spady, T. C., Elkahloun, A., Geffen, E., Pilot,
M., Jedrzejewski, W., Greco, C., Randi, E., Bannasch, D., Wilton,
A., Shearman, J., Musiani, M., Cargill, M., Jones, P. G., Qian,
Z., Huang, W., Ding, Z.-L., Zhang, Y.-P., Bustamante, C. D.,
Ostrander, E. A., Novembre, J. and Wayne, R. K. (2010). Genomewide
SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying
dog domestication. Nature 464, 898-902.
Willey, J., Zejbrlik, K., Jeffery, A., Croft, G. and Thompson, M.
(2008). Wild Dog Management Plan for the Kempsey Rural Lands
Protection Board District. Kempsey Rural Lands Protection
Board, Kempsey.
About the authors
Peter Fleming
Dr Peter Fleming is Research Leader with the
Vertebrate Pest Research Unit of NSW DPI, which
he has worked with since 1983. He is currently
involved in programs to improve management of
feral goats, and dingoes and other free-ranging
dogs in Australian ecosystems. Like his species of
interest, Peter is a generalist, having investigated
the impacts of rabbits, pest birds and flying foxes,
and improvements to the control of feral pigs and red
foxes. Peter undertook his PhD on the behavioural
ecology of feral goats for exotic disease transmission
modelling, but is mostly
recognised for his work
on introduced canids and
aerial survey methods.
He is current President of
the Australasian Wildlife
Management Society.
Guy Ballard
Guy’s interests include wildlife ecology and
management, especially those scenarios involving
human-human or human-wildlife conflict. Since
2007 he’s worked as part of an Invasive Animals
CRC team undertaking research on wild dogs
(including dingoes) in various parts of Australia.
As well as working to improve our understanding
of wild dog ecology, Guy facilitated across-tenure
wild dog management plans to balance control
and dingo conservation objectives in north eastern
NSW. Since 2010, he has been involved in a largescale
project to determine the effectiveness of
aerial baiting for wild dog and fox control and
has investigated the movements of free-ranging
dogs and red foxes in and around small holiday
townships and rural communities on the north
coast of NSW and in remote communities of the
Tanami Desert. Guy is also
involved in research on the
distribution and abundance
of rangeland goats and the
movement behaviour and
management of brushtailed
rock-wallabies.
Contact
Guy Ballard
Email: guy.ballard@dpi.nsw.gov.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contact
Peter Fleming
Email: peter.fleming@industry.nsw.gov.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 59
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
10
Use of a restraining board for safe and humane processing
of wild dogs, red foxes and feral cats without sedation
Guy Ballard 1 , Peter Fleming 1 , Sam Doak 2 and Paul Meek 3 .
1
Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries,
2
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Walcha Area
3
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre
For many people, sedatives are an obvious solution
to problems inherent in handling wild animals.
However, in capture-and-release programs
associated with animal research and management,
sedation often has significant limitations, including
inherent risks to animal welfare.
Whilst we recognise an ongoing need to use
sedatives in many research and management
programs, since 2007 we have processed hundreds
of wild dogs, red foxes and feral cats without
sedation, using a purpose built restraining board.
In this paper, we draw on our practical experience
to outline the pros and cons of this equipment and
demonstrate how it can be safely used. We note key
differences in behaviour between its use for dogs,
foxes and cat, outlining how we have addressed
these to achieve safe handling of animals, without
sedation, under field conditions.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 61
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
11
Council and community benefits through maximizing resources
Louise Laurens
Education Officer, Environment and Local Laws, Moreton Bay Regional Council
Moreton Bay Regional Council (MBRC) is situated
between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast and is
a region of diverse communities and landscapes.
MBRC covers 2,037 square kilometres with a
population of 389,661 is represented by a Mayor and
12 Divisional Councillors. There are approximately
65,500 children enrolled at schools from prep to
grade 12 across the region and approximately 70,000
registered dogs and 11,000 registered cats.
The Division of Community and Environmental
Services includes Environmental Health and
Environmental Planning and Compliance
Departments. The Environmental Health Department
includes the Community Response Unit, which
is responsible for all Local Law related matters,
including Animal Management, both domestic and
livestock. Environmental Planning and Compliance
deal with community engagement and environmental
policy and projects.
PetSmart works with both Departments to deliver
a range of education strategies covering local laws,
voluntary conservation programs and environmental
education – such as koala awareness.
1. PetSmart program
Pets can provide children with mutual respect,
unconditional love and trust, as well as enhancing
their childhood development however bad
experiences can leave long standing physical and
emotional scars.
In order to have an effective dog safety message
remembered by the children, a joint effort from the
parents, teachers and the PetSmart team creates
positive results through behaviour change.
MBRC considers the PetSmart program a very
important component of its Animal Management
program. A key component of the program targets
students. The community benefits are widely spread
as students learning about animal behaviour and
safe interaction at school take information home to
share with their families and friends. Knowledge
and awareness of safe and responsible companion
animal ownership in all age groups is a vital step in
achieving a safe and amenable community and the
prevention and reduction of attacks. PetSmart in
schools is an essential package benefiting approx
10,000 children every year. The PetSmart program
has visited over 60,000 students to date.
MBRC’s PetSmart program is an interactive
education program for all primary and secondary
schools of the Moreton Bay Region. From daycares,
girl guides to grade 12 students – there is no limit or
restrictions on who can be involved.
The PetSmart team presents this exciting
educational program with lessons linked to National
Science curriculum and sose related curriculum
outcomes. The program provides year level
appropriate experiences to reinforce key messages
regarding interactions between pets, humans and
wildlife, responsible pet ownership, and the role of
local laws in protecting pets, the community, and the
local environment.
PetSmart has joined local laws and the environment
together. This initiative has proven to provide a
very positive outcome for the officers across both
departments as well as for the intended recipients of
the program.
The long-term goal, through education and
awareness, is to encourage the community to be
‘PetSmart’, to be responsible pet owners and to
respect all animals.
Every lesson starts with a discussion on the key
components of Council’s local laws and animal
behaviour. In relation to dogs, the lessons teaches
children they have to FREEZE – stand up tall, look
at their shoes and hide their fingers which look like
“sausages” when approached by an unfamiliar dog.
PetSmart has created a song to assist children
learning a fun way to retain important information
through movement and music. The creation of this
song is a great opportunity to promote dog safety
and reinforce the messages to children and their
parents. The children remember the song and the
“sausages” which, when combined, assists them to
retain the information learnt during the lesion.
The lessons then discuss the relevant information
around dogs, cats, koalas or wildlife with 16 lessons
plans to choose from:

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 63
• yPetSmart with Dogs -Years Prep – 3 - If I could
talk like a dog; Years 4-5 - In the dog house; Years
6-9 - It’s a dog’s life; Years 10-12 - Teaching an old
dog new tricks;
• yPetSmart with Cats - Years Prep – 3 - Cat Tails;
Years 4-5 - Kitty Galore; Years 6-9 - Alleycat or
Aristocat; Years 10-12 - Putting the cat among the
pigeons;
• yPetSmart goes WILD - Years Prep – 3 - Take a
walk on the wild side; Years 4-5 - Where the wild
things are; Years 6-9 - Born to be Wild; Years 10-
12 - Wild at heart;
• yPetSmart meets Koalas - Years Prep – 3 - How do
you know if a koala has been in your backyard?;
Years 4 – 5 - What do you get when you cross a
koala and a pet?; Years 6-9 - Living in a koala’s
backyard; Years 10-12 - Fostering KoalaSmart in
our community.
Link to Teachers page: http://www.moretonbay.qld.
gov.au/petsmart-teachers
PetSmart Website link: www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/
petsmart
Other Components of the
PetsMArt program:
‘I’m Alert’ is a new interactive tool linked onto
Council’s webpage that is available for the
community and schools to access. It covers dogs in
general including behaviour and local laws.
Community Information Evenings are informal
gatherings where officers provide assistance with
some training ideas and advice to help residents
manage problems they may face with their pets.
These sessions are free and target community
issues such as barking.
Workshops are held at our Environmental Centres
and cover topics such as cats and wildlife; snake id
and pet first aid. These workshops target local law
requirements and how our pets can live together
with the wildlife in our back yards.
The dob-in-a-dog program is used in schools and
allows students to report dogs that have scared or
have the potential to scare a child. If a dog can put
his head over under or through a fence and scares
a child, the child can tell the office or their teacher
and the teacher can send in a report. The form is
also available to the public. Once received by Council
the area officer will conduct a fence inspection and
educate the owners on responsible keeping of their
pet and how to keep it from causing issues with
children. Patrols are regularly conducted in the
area around school times. The program has worked
well and following one school visit 29 emails were
received from the school – all about 1 property.
2. FamilySmart program
FamilySmart is delivered via DVD into both the
Caboolture and Redcliffe Hospitals. Expectant
couples attend ante-natal classes which covers
pet awareness and preparing the pet for the
newborn. During this very special time for new
parents preparing the pet can be daunting and
often forgotten. The aim is to reduce attacks and
accidents and create a mutually safe environment for
newborns and pets.
The development of a standalone ante-natal program
including DVD and crying CD was completed in 2011
and approx 200 expectant couples attend sessions
monthly or available as a free download on the website.
The aim of the FamilySmart program is to educate
the new and expecting parents on pet ownership
and basic behaviour. Topics discussed include
pack structure, basic dog manners, preparing the
pet, introducing the baby, walking with the pram,
worming, senior pets, cats, do’s & don’ts, some
tips and encourage lots of fun. The most important
message that is given is about never leaving any
child or baby unattended – no matter how much you
trust the dog.
Website and Crying CD Link: http://www.moretonbay.
qld.gov.au/living.aspx?id=32661
3. Education K9
Council’s ‘Education K9’ assists with school visits
and provides an excellent opportunity for children
to interact and build confidence with an animal
and reinforces the lessons learned. The Education
Officer is responsible for training the ‘Education
K9’. Workplace Health and Safety assessments are
conducted regularly.
“Smash” – The 5 year old Education K9 was rescued
from the Caboolture Pound as a 7 week old. He has
now visited over 57,000 children across MBRC. With
‘Smash’s’ assistance the lessons taught can be
practically reinforced by allowing interaction with a
live and responsive animal.
“Cinders” is our new leaner boxer pup in training.
She is now 12 weeks of age and has completed the
first 4 weeks of her 6 month training program.
4. Microchipping program
Council’s microchipping program is held every
month either traditionally on a Sunday or Wednesday.
Residents can often find it hard to attend during
the week so the Sunday session is frequently the
most popular. The sessions are held at various
locations across the region but traditionally targets
low-income areas or areas showing poor animal
management compliance.

64 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
The program offers discounted pet microchipping to
MBRC residents and has increased the percentage
from 50% of all pets in MBRC to 60% and over a five
year plan with a goal of moving towards 75% within
the next three years.
Conclusion
Education and promotion play a vital role in aligning
a number of MBRC’s key goals and in the successful
future of the Moreton Bay community. When a
community is educated, the gained knowledge
increases awareness and interest in the future
success of their local environment. This in turn,
leads to a powerful and motivated community that is
more willing to take responsibility and get involved,
resulting in community where everyone works
together towards a common goal.
Local Laws benefit the community through the
provision of structure and guidelines which in turn
promotes a harmonious living environment for all
residents. A public education program is vital to help
residents know, understand and observe the laws of
their community and how to live together to protect
our community and in turn it’s environment.
It is important to remember that working together
is the key. Communication, inclusion, feedback and
feed forward are crucial. Environmental Officers and
Community Response Officers work in conjunction
with Education Officers to ensure that the community
is supported from an environmental, regulatory, and
educational perspective.
References
Web site: www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/petsmart
About the author
Mrs Louise Laurens believes education is the key
to changing behaviour and attitude. Twenty years’
experience working within the animal industry and
her knowledge in animal behaviour has prepared her
for this role.
Contact
Louise Laurens
Education Officer, Environment and Local
Laws, Moreton Bay Regional Council
Email: louise.laurens@moretonbay.qld.gov.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 65
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
12
Body worn video cameras: The future for animal control compliance
and enforcement?
Brad dAnnefaerd
Compliance, Enforcement and Regulatory Training, New Zealand
As the name implies, Body Worn Video (BWV) systems
are self-contained video cameras that are worn on the
officer’s body.
The cameras record both video and audio to provide
a very accurate record of incidents the officer attends
including interactions with members of the public /
offenders etc.
The technology was originally developed to enhance staff
safety and while it was very effective in doing this, it also
provided a number of other significant benefits (time /
cost savings, enhanced staff professionalism etc)
BWV is extensively used in the UK with in excess of 60
agencies now utilising the technology.
In Australia and New Zealand numerous Central and
Local Government agencies are now operationally using
or trialling BWV systems.
“In the first 2 months we’ve had Reveal Media’s
cameras; our reported incidents of violence and
aggression have decreased by 42% against the same
period last year.”
Enforcement Manager – Leeds City Council (UK)
The main benefits of this technology are:
Enhanced Staff sAfety
• yReduced staff safety incidents (members of the
public far less likely to behave in an abusive /
aggressive manner if they know they are being
recorded)
• yReduced physical harm / mental stress suffered
by staff who may otherwise have been involved in
a staff safety incident
tIMe / Cost sAvings
(own agency and others)
• yReduced staff time preparing defended hearing
files / appearing in Court due to increase in
guilty pleas (the unit records exactly what took
place which provides compelling evidence as to
people’s / animals behaviour and actions)
• yReduced cost to overall Justice system as a result
of above
• yReduced time spent investigating complaints
against staff (rather than having to interview
/ take statements from complainants, staff,
witness etc from the outset, the video footage of
the incident can be reviewed at the start of the
investigation which may enable the complaint to
be dealt with immediately)
• yParticularly relevant for any ‘use of force’
(excessive) complaints (able to see exactly how
the subject was behaving and how the staff
member responded)
Reduced Complaints
• yMembers of the public are far less likely to make
vexatious / untruthful complaints against staff if
they know the interaction between them and the
staff member is being recorded
Enhanced Staff Professionalism
• yStaff aware their actions / language are also
being recorded

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 67
• yFootage able to utilised for training / coaching
purposes
Reduced lIAbility
• yAssists in demonstrating your agencies
commitment to taking all practical steps to
provide a safe working environment
Using video recordings is not ‘new’ for compliance
and enforcement agencies by any means. For many
years agencies have utilised CCTV in metropolitan
areas as well as ‘in vehicle’ systems which are
permanently mounted in patrol vehicles. The other
major use of video recording technology has been
around systems used to record interviews (video
interview machines).
What is reasonably new is the use of this technology
as a body worn deployment option which allows
for a far more flexible use of the technology over
the traditional ‘fixed’ options (in car / interview
machines etc).
Reveal media Body Worn Video systems
Vehicle mount option
• yWhen combined with the vehicle window mount,
the RS3 camera provides an ‘in-car video’
capability but with the added benefit of virtually
immediate transition to a body worn deployment
to capture interactions external to the vehicle.
• yWhen used ‘in vehicle’ the camera can used to
capture video ahead (outside) of the patrol vehicle
OR the camera lens may be rotated to record
the inside of the patrol vehicle (transporting
members of the public / prisoners etc) for the
protection of staff
Video interview option
• yThe camera can be used as a ‘portable video
interview machine’ to record interviews with
members of the public (suspected offenders,
victims, witnesses etc) in any location. The
camera can be sat on a table (or any other flat
surface) and used to record the interview /
statement.
CERT Systems
RS3 –SX CAMERA
Limited has recently
been appointed the
Australasian Distributor
for the UK based Reveal
Media range of body
worn video cameras
and accessories as
well as their award
winning Digital Evidence
Management Solution
(DEMS) system.
While there are numerous types of BWV systems
available, we believe the Reveal Media cameras (and
DEMS software) offer some significant advantages
over other systems.
One of the major features the Reveal Media cameras
offer is a unique forward facing screen that enables
the member of the public to see themselves being
recorded. This has a dramatic effect in ‘modifying
their behaviour’ in a positive sense.
While with more covert models of camera you
can verbally tell (warn) the person they are
being recorded, having them able to actually see
themselves ‘on camera’ has a far more powerful
effect.
In addition to the standard body worn deployment,
the Reveal Media cameras also offer the following
deployment options.
Reveal Media also offers the Digital Evidence
Management Solution (DEMS) system for managing
the footage recorded on the cameras.
DEMS is a fully integrated software system to
provide agencies with an integrated BWV system.
A deMS licence to upload / manage footage from
Reveal Media cameras is provided with each camera
supplied. Additional licences to enable ALL digital
evidence (photographs, CCTV footage, digital
dictaphone recordings, scanned documents etc) be
managed by the deMS system.
The deMS system is intuitive to use and provides a
full audit trail of all evidence managed by the system.

68 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
In the nine months since the BWV project began, 61
officers’ not wearing cameras have been assaulted
and just one wearing body worn cameras were
assaulted. (Statistically it would be expected to be 18)
In Aberdeen, 76% of people supported the use of
body worn cameras and 57% said they believed it
would make their community safer.
Value of changes:
• yThe 26% reduction in crime in the measured area
in Aberdeen is estimated to have saved £346,000
in three months (£1,386,472 per year)
If you want to join the hundreds of other agencies
utilising Body Worn Video technology to enhance
staff safety, save time and money, reduce complaints
and improve staff professionalism contact the
Australasian distributor of Reveal Media cameras
and DEMS software, CERT Systems Limited.
Body Worn Video projects in Aberdeen
and Renfrewshire evaluation report
In a bid to reduce crime, increase guilty pleas and
increase public confidence body worn cameras
were introduced in two areas of Scotland. It is a
comprehensive and ultimately fascinating report
which should assist any organisation intending
to start or expand their body worn camera
programmes. Below is a summary of this report.
Overview: In Renfrewshire, 38 body worn video
cameras were introduced in June 2009. This
programme was reviewed by Strathclyde Police for
the eight months between June 09 to Jan 10.
In Aberdeen, 18 body worn video cameras were
introduced in June 2010 and reviewed after three
months. The programme has been extended since.
Results for measured area:
• y60% reduction in Serious Assault
• y27% reduction in Minor Assault
• y29% reduction in Vandalism
• y19% reduction in Breach of the Peace
• y26% reduction total (compares to reduction of 1%
in area as a whole)
In Renfrewshire, cases where body worn cameras
were used were 80% less likely to go to the Sheriff
court. In Aberdeen no cases involving body worn
cameras went to court compared to the normal 18%
of all cases that do.
There were seven complaints against the Police
where body worn video was used. The footage
recorded vindicated the officers in all cases.
About the author
Brad Dannefaerd has 20 years experience as a
Fisheries Enforcement Officer / Instructor in NZ.
In 2007 he established CERT Systems, a private
training and equipment supply company for the
Compliance, Enforcement and Regulatory sectors.
Contact
Brad Dannefaerd
Email: brad@cert.co.nz
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 69
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
13
Governance and Strategic Planning for Animal Management
– how to link it all up
Shane Scriggins and Dick Murray
Sunshine Coast Council, Queensland
President AIAM
A strategic plan for animal management needs
to be more than just an operational plan. While a
check list of things that need doing (in an operational
sense) may be a very good thing to have, such a list
does not constitute a strategic plan. A strategic plan
does however need to include operational matters,
but it should be more than this. It must, in a technical
sense, be a comprehensive statement of governance
compliance. To achieve this objective, a strategic
plan needs to successfully describe the enabling
mechanisms behind operations as well as it does
the operations themselves. In this day and age, a
strategic plan should also demonstrate a dynamic
capacity to accommodate anticipated (and perhaps
significant) changes in an operating environment.
The two principal users of Local Government
Strategic Animal Management Plans are the
Councils themselves and their clients (i.e. residents,
visitors, industry and special interest groups etc). To
be meaningful for both of these user groups, Strategic
Animal Management Plans need to satisfactorily
explain the ”why” and the “how” of Council’s
approach to Animal Management as thoroughly as
they explain the “what” and the “when”.
Good Strategic Animal Management Planning
requires, perhaps before all else, a comprehensive
“user friendly” format. There is no advantage in
having a strategic plan that does not “work” at the
community level. Such plans need to be clearly
structured, easily understood and readily available
for community review and comment.
Introduction – What is strategy?
The purpose of a Strategic Plan is to determine
direction. Johnson and Scholes 1 define strategy as:
“the direction and scope of an organisation over
the long-term: which achieves advantage for the
organisation through its configuration of resources
within a challenging environment, to meet the needs of
markets and to fulfil stakeholder expectations”
In other words, strategy is about direction,
scope, advantage, resources, environment and
stakeholders.
Developing a business strategy is not a new concept
in the corporate world, without them, surviving the
recent global financial crisis (GFC) would have been
an unlikely scenario for many. For local government
however, their vulnerability to the GFC was less
challenging because “market choice” is not an option
for its customers. Given this scenario, has local
government positioned itself to navigate through a
crisis and has strategic business planning been a
priority or has it slipped under the radar?
If the answer is “slipped under the radar do not
despair, the tide is beginning to turn. 2009 saw in
Queensland the introduction of a dynamic piece of
legislation the “Local Government Act 2009”. This
Act was dynamic in that prescriptive legislation,
once an iconic beacon for all things legal had been
removed, and was replaced with a “principles based”
drafting platform. For the first time since Federation,
local government had a statutory obligation to
apply transparency, democracy, good governance,
sustainability and ethics in its decision making
process.
Why have Strategic Animal Management
Planning in Local Government?
To encourage local government compliance with
the new Act, the Queensland Parliament legislated
that local government must develop and implement
Community Plans, plans built in collaboration with
and driven by its community. Parliament rightly
believed that the liveability of a community or a
local government area is generally driven by the
cumulative decisions of local government and its
residents. A Community Plan was viewed as the
vehicle by which Council and the community could
develop a strategic direction for the region, improve
relationships, develop long term partnerships and
build on that capacity to help maintain and enhance
the vitality, sustainability and liveability of the local
government’s area.
1 Exploring Corporate Strategy 1st Paperback Edition 1998

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 71
Liveability of the local government’s area
Given that Australia
continues to have one
of the highest levels
of pet ownership in
the world, with an
estimated 63% of
households owning
a pet (53% owning a
cat or dog), long term
planning for pets is
not only necessary, its
a “no brainer”.
The question here in
the context of this paper
is: Could/should this
governance model be
used for the purpose
of developing Strategic
Animal Management
Plans? And the answer
is probably: Yes, it must.
If this model was
adopted for Animal
Management there is
a strong likelihood of
some very quick and
significant wins. For example, imagine a workplace
where your community appreciates the work that you
do, elected representatives and executive directors
having a better understanding of what companion
animals mean socially, environmentally and
financially to the regions economy, and also consider
what it might be like working for an organisation that
has a clear direction, strategic goals and achievable
objectives. This model given its power can only
enhance the liveability of the region, lift community
confidence in Council and empower Council staff to
make good informed decisions.
Creating the linkages between Council’s Strategic
Animal Management Plan, Council’s Community
Plan and Council’s Corporate Plan is a significant
enabler that will help ensure that there is an
integrated approach to planning for pets in the
community. A Strategic Animal Management Plan if
developed along these lines, can comment on a wide
range of decisions and add value to other Council
plans and projects also.
Given that Australia continues to have one of the
highest levels of pet ownership in the world, with
an estimated 63% of households owning a pet (53%
owning a cat or dog)2, long term community planning
for pets is not only necessary, its a “no brainer”.
What is (and what is not) a Strategic
Animal Management Plan
An internally focussed Operational Plan does not
constitute a Strategic Plan. This is not to suggest that
Operational Plans for Animal Management should be
scrapped - they should not be scrapped – they are
an integral and essential part of Strategic Planning.
Operational components are an important element
of strategic planning, but they are not, in themselves,
strategic in scope.
According to standard governance principals, to be
strategic, an Animal Management Plan must:
1. represent the needs and the expectations of the
entire community;
2. be responsive to the evolving landscape; and
3. be flexible enough to amend at any time whilst
maintaining community confidence 3 )
When Community and Corporate Plans have been
developed on the understanding of what is happening
at a global, national, regional and local level in
accordance with current convention, there is a
strong likelihood that in this framework pets and
their management will surface as a critical issue in
most communities and proper planning is essential.
Strategic Animal Management Plans put simply,
are a tool for Council and its community. To be
complete, and to conform with standard governance
methodology, Strategic Animal Management
Plans should include all the following (important)
components:
1. the linkages between other existing council
strategic documents and policies with respect to
Animal Management service provision must be
transparent;
2. a summary of the council’s governance
framework (the legislative authority and
obligations) with reference to Animal
Management service provision must be clear;
3. fiscal and asset management with reference to
Animal Management service provision by council
documented;
4. human resource requirements with reference
to Animal Management service provision within
council explained;
5. long term council planning for growth, with
reference to Animal Management service
provision (i.e. financial sustainability, population
diversity, climate change and peak oil demand
etc) must be articulated ;
6. information detailing the relevant Acts,
Regulations, Local Laws and Codes of Practice
relevant to Animal Management service provision
highlighted;
7. Councils regulatory framework detailed;
8. linkages to other council projects and initiatives
clearly defined;
9. Councils community engagement strategy
documented; and
10. community members, key stakeholders,
industry, advocates, Council staff and elected
representatives acknowledged in the plan.
2 Power of Pets 2009, Australian Companion Animal Council
3 Appendix 1 this paper

72 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
When all of these components have been
accommodated in a Strategic Animal Management
Plan, nothing important will have been left out.
In the absence of this level of discipline, Animal
Management Operational Plans tend to focus on the
“what and when” of Animal Management service
without reference to essential underpinning policies
that pertain to “how and why”. In the absence of a
strong “how and why” components, the following key
issues may tend to be “smudged” over or perhaps
even omitted altogether:
1. consistency with stated council’s vision. mission
and goals;
2. consistency with stated council’s policy and
philosophy frameworks;
3. commitment to governance standards;
4. compliance with relevant State legislation;
5. explanation of Animal Management purpose;
6. explanation of budget, expenditure and funding
methodology;
7. commitments to human resource needs and
obligations;
8. description of all the various separate service
components that are embraced in Animal
Management etc; and
9. identification of performance indicators to allow
effective benchmarking.
None of these matters can be omitted because they
all serve to provide the necessary (and required)
depth of clarity and transparency in the planning
process.
The look, feel and content of Strategic Animal
Management Plans will vary to some degree across
the nation, from State to State and from region to
region to meet differing priorities – and so perhaps
“no one shoe will ever fit all”. However, in an holistic
landscape, it has often been observed that (in Animal
Management), the animals are essentially the same,
the people are essentially the same, the problems
are essentially the same and it is very likely the
solutions for Animal Management problems are
going to be the same also.
State to State and from region to region to meet
differing priorities – and so perhaps “no one shoe
will ever fit all”. However, in an holistic landscape,
it has often been observed that (in Animal
Management), the animals are essentially the same,
the people are essentially the same, the problems
are essentially the same and it is very likely the
solutions for Animal Management problems are
going to be the same also.
Similarly, the same global issues affect each and
everyone of us, issues such as the global financial
crises, natural resource market decline, peak oil,
climate change, land degradation, population growth,
development and social/demographic change will
likely affect all of us to some degree and there is
likely to be some level of consistency in planning for
companion animals in the long term.
The “enabling” of Strategic Animal Management
Plans involves having an Operational Plan in
conjunction with a solid background of:
• yforesight;
• yrisk planning;
• yinformation access;
• yinter-agency communication;
• ypeer group support;
• ynegotiation; and
• ycommitment to resourcing, often over several
years.
It should be noted that not outcomes in a strategic
plan will be achievable. It may even be that some
outcomes may even become irrelevant within the
time frame of the plan itself. But they should still be
considered and included.
Meaningful community engagement
The first and most important challenge faced by
Council in drafting a well structured Strategic Animal
Management Plan lies in preparing for, and the
successfully carrying out of a meaningful community
engagement strategy. Lose-lose scenarios are
likely unless the process is managed skilfully by a
competent and suitably trained person/group.
Meaningful engagement in this context means
“engaging and consulting with as many people as
possible across all sectors and geographic locations
within the community”. This will involve not just
“consultation” with community members about what
should be in a strategic plan document, but also, it
should be about providing residents with a range of
opportunities to be involved in ways that suit them.
Traditionally, local government has used public
meetings, workshops and surveys as the preferred
method of engagement. But increasingly, it would
seem that these conventional approaches attract
fewer people. As such, there is a significant risk
that they may not represent the community at all.
Such conventional consultation processes may
produce unbalanced outcomes by excessively being
“focus group” or “vested interest group” oriented.
, Engaging a broad cross section of the community
now requires innovative approaches (i.e. social
and media networks and/or more tailor-made and
specific engagement of groups and individuals).
It is important to understand what makes a
community tick and how the key decision makers

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 73
and stakeholders are structured. Seeking the advice
of “in house” council specialist’s staff from the
Community Services area is a great place to begin.
Establish who are the key people, groups and where
natural “hubs” in the community can be found.
Remember that (like most everything else) there is
“no one” community engagement model guaranteed
to succeed, however the tips below in Table 1 may assist.
There is likelihood that some community groups or
members might identify what might be called “non
negotiables” (i.e. things that simply can’t or won’t
be able to be provided). Whilst it’s important that
those consulted are developing a wish list, acting
on these agendas can often require finite resources
that simply are not available. In mitigating the risk of
allegations relating to poor community engagement
practises, careful consideration needs to be given
to representation and the level of input that are
practical and achievable.
A number of methods are available for engaging
people in community planning. Some common
methods are detailed below in Table 2.
Table 1
No Tip Method
1. Build relationships Gain personal trust and presence
2. Go to them Engage with natural community hubs
3. Keep people informed Provide feedback about their input to the plan
4. Maintain balance and focus Remember the “silent majority” are just as important as the vocal groups or individuals
5. Logistics Find neutral venues, hold meetings at an appropriate time of day, venues must be easy
to travel to, and have food and drink available.
6. Structure Be upfront about the structure, provide adequate procedures for input, feedback and a
framework for evaluation
7. Facilitation Engage a professional facilitator that is over the topic and has the interpersonal skills
in discussing issues with people, information gathering and capacity to assess and
feedback information
8. Accountability The evaluation of the engagement process needs to be rigorous and defendable,
workable and simple
9. Ownership Stakeholders must have and perceive ownership of the plan
10. Pace Be flexible with timeframes
Table 2
No Method How
1. Working groups Formed from the general community to reflect the demographics of the community,
special interest or business groups
2. Workshops Hold at suitable times, usually evening, half day or even full day events. Use of a
professional facilitator is recommended
3. Public meetings Advertise and manage well
4. Forums Select which particular groups (i.e. youth/seniors etc) because people often know each
other and issues are focused
5. Surveys Allow a broad cross section of the community to have input, other than those who
attend meetings or workshops. There is a risk of low return rates and can be expensive
6. Social/media networks Innovative method of engagement, they engage different groups in a way that suits them
7. Community conversations Informal discussions are held with relatively small groups of people in communities.
They suit situations where there has been previous “over-consultation”, local people
have limited time, issues are particularly contentious or people prefer “kitchen table”
discussions rather than larger meetings
8. Focus groups They provide a comprehensive range of views from a small group of people
9. Combination of methods Engagement should be based on the preferred methods of different sectors and
communities according to community “contacts” or discussion with local informed
people. People also need to have multiple opportunities to participate such as a
combination of workshops, informal discussions, feedback forms etc.

74 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Compilation and drafting
Comments from stakeholders will need to be
recorded and wherever possible the information
structured around the key themes and/or issues this
will allow strategies and actions to be developed or
refined and the plan drafted using the framework
available in appendix 1 to this document.
Once drafted, the strategic animal management
plan will require validation and it is advised that a
“Reference Panel” already in place and inclusive
of community and stakeholder representation
should be convened specifically to review the plan.
This can be carried out by a facilitated workshop
or panel discussion where recommendations for
improvements are suggested.
The second and most important stage of validation
is Councils review of the draft plan. Councillors will
need to be very aware that the issues have come
from a comprehensive community engagement
process and that any amendments will require
significant consideration before major changes are
made. However, Council also can use its knowledge,
community understanding and capacity to clarify
strategies and actions. Additional information or
data may be necessary to substantiate priorities and
strategies.
Once the draft plan has been validated, it is crucial
to source feedback from the community, particularly
those that participated in the engagement events. It
is advisable at this stage to engage with Councillors
so that they are aware of what will be going out to the
community.
This is effectively a second phase of engagement
where residents review the plan and suggest
changes. It also builds community support and
can mobilise residents and other stakeholders to
participate in actions and/or provide comment under
submission.
Following validation and feedback, the draft plan
is finalised. Changes are made to the draft and
an advanced draft is formally provided to Council.
Councillors debate the advanced draft and may make
changes directly and/or request further information
or justification. Direct changes by Council need
to reflect community views and the engagement
process undertaken, in accordance with the
community engagement strategy. Councillors may
wish to consult constituents further about aspects of
the plan. Once appropriate changes are made to the
advanced draft, a final draft would be presented to
Council for adoption.
Implementation
The key role of Council in implementing the Strategic
Animal Management Plan is to:
1. consider actions that are core Council business
and look to incorporate them into operational
plans and budgets over the next several years;
2. maintain communication with the broader
community about progress with the plan;
3. provide leadership for the community on
achieving the aspirations and actions in the plan.
Across Council, staff need to have ownership and
take responsibility for the plan;
4. continually engage a range of organisations
and stakeholders for them to participate
in implementing actions. Council acts as
a “steward” for implementation as well as
implementing relevant actions itself;.
5. ensure that the time for implementation matches
the resources available. While many desirable
actions are written into the plan, the pace at
which they can be put in place depends on
available resources. Some make take years to be
implemented;
6. small visible actions that can be implemented
within six months of the release of the plan need
to be identified and achieved. These low cost
actions are crucial to demonstrating concrete
results from the planning process. This generates
community enthusiasm and trust, reducing
possible criticism that the process is all talk and
no action; and
7. promote the product so there is greater
community awareness of actions and how groups
and individuals can be involved.
Reference group
It is important that a reference group including some
Councillors, Council staff and the community be
established to guide and monitor implementation.
This group would need to meet regularly and should
be coordinated by an appropriate officer within
Council.
Annual report
The reference group should report annually to
Council on the status of the plan.

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 75
Summary and conclusions
Developing a Strategic Animal Management Plan
is a no brainer, but it desperately requires an
organisation to acknowledge the importance of the
human/companion animal relationship. Readers
need refer no further than Dr David Paxton’s paper
of Wednesday 17 October 2012 at the Australian
Institute of Animal Management National Conference
Penrith, New South Wales, Australia “Invisible Paws
in Human Affairs” to unravel the complexity of the
human, companion animal bond.
Your Council will also need to allocate the resources
that will allow individuals to focus their time and
energy on preparation, consultation, research,
design and the writing of the document. A Strategic
Animal Management Plan cannot be written in
isolation, it must be supported across the entire
organisation and be representative of community
input. Only with this chemistry is there likely to be
success.
As Council acts as a “steward” for the plan the
time frame for implementation needs to match the
resources available. While many desirable actions
are written into the plan, the pace at which they can
be put in place depends on available resources.
Some make take years to be implemented.
Some actions will not only require additional funding
and services but also partnerships and coordination
between existing organisations and services.
Although local resources maybe limited, there is
often scope for them to be better coordinated and
used in innovative ways. Actions will often depend
on matching priorities in the plan with the scope and
motivation of existing organisations and individuals.
Plans need to be promoted so there is good
community awareness of actions and how groups
and individuals can be involved.
It is good practice to review the plan annually
to ensure that as priorities change or tasks get
completed they are recorded, where necessary
projects reprioritised and action plans updated.
At the time of writing this paper neither the Sunshine
Coast nor Townsville City Council’s have yet
developed Strategic Animal Management Plans for
their region. The authors of this paper live in hope
that one day that Strategic Animal Management
Plans will be an essential function of local
government equally as important as preparing the
annual financial plan. An article written by Mr. Alex
Shaw, Director Planning and Infrastructure, Town of
Gawler SA in the AIAM Publication, The Phoenix May
2012 (below), has lifted our spirit and we recall that
“Rome was not built in a day 4 ”—
Alex wrote…
Through my attendance (AIAM Conference 2011
Townsville Qld), my awareness and understanding of
some significant areas of our business was brought
forward in my consciousness and quickly identified
that this area of Council responsibility and operation
was not only grossly underestimated in regard to
its community and risk management contribution
but was clearly a cohesive and evolving mainstream
profession. As a profession, they are grappling now
with scenarios and community evolution issues
that are fundamental and lead indicators in Council
strategic planning.
Alex Shaw went onto to state—
By way of example, one of the most fundamental
considerations in service delivery by Councils’ is the
identification and qualification of the demographic
being serviced and their expectations. AIAM has
recognised this and has done significant research
into this issue. It should also be recognised that
General Inspectorial and Animal Management
Officers deal with these issues at the coalface
on a day-to-day basis. It has been identified, and
supported by other research, that the population
growth Australia wide is going to be, in large,
resultant of immigration. Due to the diversity
of immigrants, they bring with them different
expectations and behaviours, cultures, religions /
beliefs, base diets and animal husbandry traits etc..
An unprecedented new set of dynamics that will
change our demographic profiles forever. This will
not only challenge our Bylaws, and in fact State and
Federal governance, but will also test grassroots
neighbourhood behaviours and interactions.
Fundamental issues, some of which are now starting
to emerge, which will change our Society and
subsequently Councils are, but not limited to:
• yrecent evolution of zoological and homological
diseases which now cross species and threaten
the community and habitat;
• yintroduction of ”exotic” diseases and health
complaints in both human and
• yAnimal;
• ydemand and expectation of different types
of ”pets” which bring with it different control
problems and social challenge;
• ycultural difference and practice of different
animal husbandry norms that challenge existing
communities; and
• ychange in predominant pet breeds and their
associated behavioural, environmental and
committee impacts
4 from a French proverb, ‘Rome was not made all in one day,’ which was
recorded in ‘Li Proverbe au Vilain’ (c. 1190)

76 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Considering the above one can see that impacts on
communities can range from serious issues such
as disease control and environment to as minor
as dog barking and attack issues resultant from
changing breed dominations or type. One can also
take this to another level and consider the demands
and expectations of this new demographic in regard
to animal husbandry practices and requirements,
shared space expectations, neighbourhood
character, pet controls and so on.
In short, if one is to turn one’s mind to the issues that
come from these simple premises it is easy to see
how they will affect not only animal management but
also planning, community services and a myriad of
other Council strategies and responsibilities.
Appendix 1
What should a Strategic Animal
Management Plan look like
1. Foreword
A Strategic Animal Management Plan has to include a
foreword, written by either Council’s Chief Executive
Officer or Mayor.
The purpose of the forward is to introduce and
provide a precise summary of the plan. It should
also in general, validate the process by which the
plan was drafted. An example of the 1st and 2nd
paragraph of the foreword is detailed below:
“This Strategic Animal Management Plan and the
underlying processes that it supports, are fundamental
to ensuring that companion animals kept in the region
are supported by a management framework that
assist Council in making informed decisions that are
consistent with community expectations.
A Strategic Animal Management Plan is not just a
good idea; in some states throughout Australia there
development is a mandatory requirement under State
legislation. They are viewed as vital for audit reporting
and recording, and for benchmarking the status of
service delivery across state and local boundaries”.
The plan also clearly aligns to Council’s publicly stated
overarching vision for the region and its commitment
towards meeting its obligations of transparency,
democracy, good governance, sustainability and ethics
in its decision making.
2. Introduction
The first few sentences of introduction carry the
most importance message and lay a foundation
of creditability. An introductory paragraph should
attempt to do three things:
• yintroduce the topic with some indication of its
inherent interest or importance, and a clear
definition of the boundaries of the subject area;
• yindicate the structure and/or methodology of the
plan, with the major sections clearly stated; and
• ystate the need, preferably in a single, arguable
statement with a clear message.
An example of a strong introduction is detailed
below:
“Unlike many State-managed public services that are
legislated for and regulated under State jurisdictions,
Animal Management is legislated in part by the State
Government and is regulated by Local Government with
the assistance of local laws. It is Local Government
that enables and implements Animal Management
legislation and it is Local Government together with its

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 77
community that is best placed to understand how to
most effectively deliver this important service.
Without having the benefit “hands on” working
experience in Animal Management service delivery, it
is difficult for State government officers to know what
is required, which advice is sound and genuinely in the
community’s interest and which is self-serving lobbying.
Animal Management has long history of emotional
public volatility that can easily link to political difficulty.
Issues are unfortunately often presented by the media
in such a way as to incite public outrage, together with
crisis levels of community division and political stress.
If it is agreed that companion animal management is
a significant issue for local government, then its only
fair and reasonable that animal management policy,
legislation and processes should be shaped by the
community with local government being the enabler.
There is strong evidence available that shows, a failure
to engage with residents about how they see the future
of their community, results in they becoming more of a
hindrance than a help...”
3. P u r p o s e
Because Council has recognised the importance
of pet ownership and its linkages to the quadruple
bottom line (i.e., social capital, economic benefit,
environmental enhancement and good governance),
it makes good corporate sense to promote the
Strategic Animal Management Plan to public opinion.
The success of the plan, because of its ties to public
opinion, which can be a malleable and fickle beast,
will rely heavily on everyone involved in its design, to
be “singing from the same page”. For this reason, the
purpose of the plan must be stated and referred to
when public opinion begins to wane.
A plans purpose, should be designed around three
core open questions:
• ywhat is the current position? (Situation Analysis);
• ywhere does the community want to be? (Goals and
Objectives); and
• yhow to get there? (Strategies and Action Plans).
For the purpose of the exercise only, a structured
“purpose of the plan” paragraph is presented as a
guide:
“The purpose of this plan is to document the philosophy
that has been applied to its development and includes
a scan of the current animal management landscape
within Council’s geographical area and the service
delivery models available to Council in meeting
community expectations.
A long term planning approach is considered absolutely
necessary given the—
−−importance of pet ownership to Australian
families,
−−Council’s large capital and operating expenditure
−−importance of facilitating positive pet outcomes
−−need to consider population growth and the
diversity of cultures within our communities.
The strategic animal management plan links directly
to, and supports the outcomes sought from both the
Community and Corporate Plans, their goals, policies
and vision for the region. The plan does however, focus
directly on pet ownership and is supported by a number
of strategies with key outcomes linked to achievable and
cost effective action plans...”
4. Strategic Objectives
The plan must document clearly defined objectives
that provide a sound basis for defining its long term
aspirations, the short and medium term landscape,
where the community wants to be at a particular
time and the measures for whether the objectives
can and have, in fact, been accomplished.
The objectives of the plan which must be
documented upfront, must be achievable and can
include:
• ya financial statement;
• yhow infrastructure and assets will be purchased,
managed and disposed of;
• yhuman resource requirements;
• ytrend data on population growth and cultural
diversity;
• yhow information access and dissemination is to
be managed; and
• yhow community engagement will remain a
priority.
5. tIMeframe
A Strategic Animal Management Plan should define
its lifecycle, generally 5-10 years is considered
reasonable, but must be subject to regular reviews.
Importantly, a Strategic Animal Management Plan
should not be viewed as a static document. It must
remain flexible, subject to modification and improved
based on experiences in implementing actions and to
manage changing circumstances.
Whilst there are no crystal balls, there is strong
scientific evidence, economic data and population
growth statistics available from reliable sources that
can accurately reflect the likely scenarios over its
lifecycle.
6. lIMItations
A disclaimer should always accompany the Strategic
Plan. The disclaimer must inform on the plans
limitations and include information that relates to—
• ywhere the information/data was sourced;

78 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
• ythe model being designed on existing service
levels;
• ythe financial forecasting period; and
• ythe level of community consultation… etc
7. Scope
Scope statements may take many forms and should
capture, in very broad terms, the product of the
project, for example, “developing a 10 year Strategic
Animal Management Plan that describes the future
aspirations, goals, strategies and key action plans for
the management of companion animals kept in the local
government area”.
8. Strategic overview
The strategic overview of the plan will include the
vision, mission, core values and the overall objective
sought from the plan.
9. Vision statement
During the community engagement process, it
is vital for residents to develop a vision for their
community and their Strategic Animal Management
Plan. However, the one non negotiable is the vision,
must link to Council’s Community and Corporate
Plans. For example, the Sunshine Coast Council’s
Community Plan, proposes that the region be the
most sustainable in Australia and the Corporate
Plan compliments this statement by proposing that
the Sunshine Coast be Australia’s most sustainable
region, vibrant, green, and diverse.
It therefore follows logically that the vision for the
Strategic Animal Management Plan must not only
compliment both the key strategic documents;
it must also be aspirational and above all else
achievable. The vision should not be a broad
“motherhood statement” descriptor that doesn’t
specify enough detail of how the future of the region
will look.
A vision can be represented in several ways, but a
worded statement, describing the preferred future
situation for the region will suffice.
necessary to assist Council in becoming Australia’s
most sustainable, vibrant, green and diverse region.
The themes included:
• ya robust economy;
• yecological sustainability;
• yinnovation and creativity;
• yhealth and well being;
• ysocial cohesion;
• yaccessibility and connectedness;
• ymanaging growth; and
• ygreat governance.
Each theme (once identified) attracted a number of
emerging priorities that are supported by a series of
strategies to which operational plans, projects and
activities are scheduled.
Table 3 below, provides an example of the hierarchy
of Corporate Documents that will need to be
considered in the preparation of an Strategic Animal
Management Plan and how the themes, priorities,
strategies, actions and outcomes surface.
For the purpose of better understanding the process,
Table 3 below has identified via the Community
Plan Region Growth as its theme. The Corporate
Plan in response identifies planning for healthy and
sustainable communities as a priority outcome.
The key strategic issue follow and there could be
several. In the example provided “infrastructure and
asset management” are identified as the strategy.
The Operational Plan subsequently presents an
opportunity to review the current infrastructure
and assets used by the business. The Business
Plan however provides the challenge of preparing
a long term fiscal management plan to ensure
infrastructure and assets meet the growing needs
of the community with consideration given to
achievability of expectations.
Table 3
Document
Theme/Priority/Strategy/Action/
Outcome
10. oPPortunities and CHAllenges
To ensure that the vision of the Strategic Animal
Management Plan is cohesive with the Community
and Corporate Plans, it is important to regularly
revisit the documents to ensure that the linkages
are there and they are transparent for all to see.
This process will assist in identifying the challenges
that Council and the community face and the
opportunities that can be pursued under the plan.
As an example, the Sunshine Coast Council
Corporate Plan 2009-2014, identified a number
of themes that the organisation believed were
Community
Plan
Corporate
Plan
Strategic
Animal Mgt
Plan
Operational
Plan
Business
Plan
e.g. Regional Growth (Theme)
e.g. Planning for Healthy and Sustainable
Communities (Priority)
e.g. Infrastructure and Asset
Management (Strategy)
e.g. Review infrastructure and assets to
determine future needs.(Action)
e.g. Prepare a long term financial plan
to meet infrastructure and assets
requirements (Outcome)

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 79
11. Animal management goal
In a very strategic context, the Strategic Animal
Management Plan should be supported by two
or three statements that clearly articulate the
development of the plan, and its long term
aspirations. For example:
“This animal management strategy has been developed
with a common sense of purpose, mutual assistance,
progressive ideas, aspirations, knowledge sharing and
experience on important matters pertaining to the
delivery of sustainable animal management practices
and policies across the region”.
12. Key PArtnersHIPs and
stakeholders
Plans cannot be developed in isolation; their
sustainability relies heavily on the assistance of key
partners and stakeholders. These groups should be
acknowledged for their contribution and participation
in the process. An example of the type of key
partners, stakeholders etc is given below.
Key partners:
• yCommunity – groups/hubs/locals;
• yIndustry Groups – business/service providers/
contractors; and
• ySpecial Interest Groups – breeders/welfare
groups/clubs.
External stakeholders:
• yCommunity;
• yRatepayers association;
• yEnvironmental groups; and
• yOther government agencies.
Internal Stakeholders:
• yElected Representatives;
• yOther Business Units/Departments;
• yLegal Provider; and
• yStaff.
13. Description of the ACtivities
Although obvious to those writing the plan, the tasks
involved in animal management are not always clear.
For this reason, always make a point of documenting
clearly what animal management activities are
carried out by Council. For example:
• yCommunity Education – include a short narrative
detailing what this means
• yCommunity Service Obligation Services (i.e.
animal impounding, complaint resolution, patrols,
livestock etc)
• yPound Services (i.e. holding, releasing and
disposal)
• yEnforcement (i.e. Notices, Infringements,
Prosecution, Dispute Resolution etc)
• yInformation Access (i.e. brochures, flyers,
equipment etc)
• yPlanning process (i.e. Strategic, Business,
Operational, Reporting, Policy etc)
• yPartnerships/Relationships/Collaboration,
Consultation, Advocacy etc
• yRecruitment, Training, Mentoring, Continuing
Education, Information Repository/Library etc
• yService Standards (i.e. Service Level Agreements,
Community/Councillors/Staff, Reporting/
Benchmarking, Surveys, Audits and Reviews etc).
14. Activity suMMAry
For each activity provide a summary of funding and
expenditure, business drivers (refer to Appendix 2),
and current levels of service. The more information
included the better. However, sourcing and recording
data for more than a four year period can be onerous
and time consuming. For this reason, gather what
ever is available and make use of the content by
using charts, tables and drawings to reduce the
amount of text.
15. Organisational structure
Detail your organisational structure, the framework
and the hierarchy within which your Council
arranges its lines of authority and communications,
and allocates rights and duties. An organisational
flowchart can normally be sourced from Human
Resources and generally suffices for this purpose.
16. Roles and responsibilities
In order to effectively engage and create a better
appreciation of Council and animal management
services, it is important to provide the audience
with a clear definition and understanding of the
role, functions, and responsibilities of the animal
management team. Providing this information will
assist readers with understanding the tasks, issues,
and limitations of local government, in the very
complex business of animal management.

80 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Appendix 2
Significant anticipated environmental
influences (business driver) that need
to be accommodated in your planning
process
Population growth
In the year ending 31 December 2009, Australia’s
estimated resident population (ERP) had increased
by 433,000 people to 22.2 million, a 2.0% increase
from December 2008, this followed growth of
460,000 people (or 2.2%) between December 2007
and December 2008.
The rate of population growth has become
considerably faster since the mid-2000s. Over the
two decades prior to 2006, the annual growth rate
had averaged 1.3%, adding an average of 234,000
people per year in that period. The recent growth
rate of around 2% per year is faster than at any other
time in the past several decades, and faster than
nearly all other developed countries.
estIMATED resIdent POPULATION
AND AnnuAL groWTH RATE –
AustrALIA
Source: ABS Australian Demographic Statistics (cat. no. 3101.0)
30 million in the next 20 years5, it is a logical
conclusion to reach that pet ownership will also
grow expedientially. It is in this context that Strategic
Animal Management Plans must be designed if they
are to be meaningful and sustainable.
ACTUAL AND ProjeCted
POPULATION, 1961-2101
(a) Estimated resident population
Source: Australian Historical Population Statistics (ABS cat. no.
3105.0.65.001), Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101
(ABS cat. no. 3222.0)
Cultural Diversity
In 2006, the Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded
that in Australia, there were over 120 different
religious denominations with language being a key
marker of membership and culture. The data also
identified that whilst the majority of Australians
speak English as a first or other language, there
were a significant number of people who also spoke
a language other than English.
About 78% of Australians speak only English. While
English is the dominant language in Australia, many
people speak a language other than English within
their families and communities. The following data is
derived from the 2006 Census:
• ycollectively, Australians speak over 200
languages. Of these, about 50 are Australian
Indigenous languages.
• yabout 16% of Australians speak a language other
than English. Australian Indigenous languages
are spoken by about 0.3% of the total population.
• ythe most common languages other than
English are: Italian, Greek, Cantonese, Arabic,
Mandarin and Vietnamese. Collectively, Chinese
languages (including Cantonese, Mandarin and
other Chinese languages) have the greatest
number of speakers after English, accounting for
approximately 2.5% of the total population.
With population growth expected to exceed
5 Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101 (ABS cat. no. 3222.0)

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 81
must be initiated more than a decade in advance of
peaking
Not surprisingly cultural diversity is going to be a
huge business driver for many local governments
particularly in our larger capital and regionally cities.
Failing to acknowledge or consider cultural diversity
in your Strategic Animal Management Plan could
have disastrous implications.
Peak oil
The wide use of fossil fuels has been one of the most
important stimuli of economic growth and prosperity
since the industrial revolution. It is believed however
that when oil production decreases, human culture,
and our modern technological society will be forced
to change drastically. The impact of peak oil will
depend heavily on the rate of decline and the
development and adoption of effective alternatives.
In Feb 2010, it was predicted that by 2012, surplus
oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and
as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach
nearly 10 million barrels per day.
While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic,
political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might
produce, it surely will reduce the prospects for
growth in both the developing and developed worlds.
Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate
other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing
economies further down the path toward collapse,
and likely to have a serious global economic impact.
At best, it will lead to periods of harsh economic
adjustment. To what extent conservation measures,
investments in alternative energy production, and
efforts to expand petroleum production from tar
sands and shale would mitigate such a period of
adjustment is difficult to predict.
In 2005, the United States Department of Energy
published a report titled Peaking of World Oil
Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management.
Known as the Hirsch report, it stated, “The peaking
of world oil production presents the U.S. and the
world with an unprecedented risk management
problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel
prices and price volatility will increase dramatically,
and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social,
and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable
mitigation options exist on both the supply and
demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they
Given this prediction, the cost of fossil fuel is likely
to influence the global financial landscape leaving in
its wake destruction and mayhem. If putting food on
the table and keeping a roof over our heads becomes
a lot tougher what status or place will companion
animals have in our lives…is the scenario likely to be
more dumped pets?
ClIMAte CHAnge
Whilst Australia’s climate is changing and its
impacts are now being witnessed globally (i.e.
rainfall, temperature change and extreme weather
events) there is still great uncertainty about what it
might mean to local government. However, a little
crystal balling leads you to believe that climate
change will not just impact on coastal settlements,
infrastructure and buildings, it is very likely that
its effects will be widespread and that no part of
Australia will be immune from it.
Densely populated urban areas will likely face a
different suite of problems than the less densely
populated regional towns. Similarly, coastal areas
will face different challenges to inland areas. Local
government as the agency responsible for land
use planning, infrastructure, asset development,
operation and maintenance, as well community
well-being and safety will need to have a better
understanding of climate change science.
Climate change will lead to uncertainties and
implications to land use planning, building and
design across the residential, commercial and
infrastructure sectors, and is an important
prerequisite in considering the design of new
development and retrofitting existing development.
The majority of science on climate change decisions
are being made or developed at the global or national
level with minimal support provided to regional and/
or local events. For example, the ability to model the
areas potentially vulnerable to sea-level rise and
storm surge is an essential first step to addressing
the risk. The majority of Australians and their pets
live close or adjacent to the coast and as such
present a problem on a massive scale.

82 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Climate change is not just limited to storm surges or
sea level rises; they present a challenge for all
sectors of the Australian economy but particularly
for those sectors dependent on natural resources,
like agriculture and forestry. The recent introduction
of a carbon tax in Australia has put additional financial
pressure on industry groups, many who are still
coming to terms with the effects of the global financial
crisis of 2008. What this might mean to pet
ownership remains an unknown. A likely consequence
will include the indiscriminate dumping of pets, as
ownership becomes more prohibitive and costly.
Climate change will influence our actions, choices
and decisions.
About the authors
Shane Scriggins
Shane Scriggins has 27 years experience in Local
Government and has worked extensively in the fields
of both Local Laws and Corporate Governance. He
is currently Project Managing the Sunshine Coast
Council’s:
• yBusiness Continuity Management Framework;
• yLocal law implementation roll out;
• yOrganisational, Strategic and Operational Policy
Development; and
• yThe advertising and use of public land use
strategy.
Shane is a strong advocate of continuous
improvement and will investigate opportunities
to be innovative, efficient and effective in meeting
community needs and expectations. He is a
transformational leader with proven senior-level
experience in decision-making, determining policy
direction, strategic business planning, customer
relations, financial and personnel management,
research and development, and change
management.
Contact
Shane Scriggins
Sunshine Coast Council
Email: shane.scriggins@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au
Dr Dick Murray
Dick Murray currently holds the office of President
of the Australian Institute of Animal Management.
Dick was a 1973 BVSc graduate of UQ and an MSc
graduate of JCU. He has been a North Queensland
veterinary (companion animal) practitioner with a
deep interest in animal management for about 40
years now. For work done in this field of endeavour
he has been awarded a Medal of the Order of
Australia, an Australian Veterinary Association’s
Meritorious Service Award, an AVA Gilruth Prize and
Fellowship of the AVA.
The conference at which this paper was presented
will be the 20th national annual Animal Management
conference of a consecutive sequence of conferences
that commenced in Brisbane in 1992. Dick has been
centrally involved with all of these conferences and
will willingly admit that all of the intervening years
have been a continuous learning curve about the
subject of Animal Management.
Contact
Dick Murray
President of the Australian Institute
of Animal Management
Email: fortmurray@westnet.com.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 83
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
14
The 80/20 rule and animal management
Vanessa Rohlf
Anthrozoology Research Unit, Monash University Vic
A commonly held idea within urban animal
management is that 20% of the population is
responsible for 80% of the animal management
issues. Indeed discussions with Animal Management
Officers and Animal Shelter Personnel confirm that
they often interact with the same individuals over the
same issues. This paper will explore the 80/20 idea
in detail by answering the following questions: What
empirical evidence do we have to support this idea?
What are we doing about it? and Can we do it better?
What is the 80/20 rule?
According to the 80/20 rule, or the Pareto principle,
many events (approximately 80%) are derived from
just a few (approximately 20%) of the causes.
The 80/20 rule was first formulated by an Italian
economist Vilfredo Pareto in 1906 when he observed
the unequal distribution of wealth in Italy at the time.
He found that 80% of the property in Italy was owned
by 20% of the population (Pareto, 1971). Actually we
still see this distribution of wealth even today where
the richest 20% of the world’s population, people like
Bill Gates and Georgina Rinehart, control 80% of the
world’s wealth. Pretty scary huh!
Later the rule was applied to areas other than
economics when, in the 1940’s, Joseph Juran
applied the principle to quality management. Juran
found that quality could be dramatically improved
by focusing on just the vital few and ignoring the
rest. For example, 20% of product defects in a
factory cause 80% of the product problems thus by
concentrating on solving the 20% of product defects
product issues would theoretically improve by 80%
(Pinnicle Management, n.d).
Not only does this rule apply to economics but the
Pareto principle can be observed in a range of areas.
Table 1 presents just a few examples.
Table 1 Examples of the 80/20 Rule
Business
Occupational
Health and Safety
IT
Criminology
80% of the profits come from 20% of the customers
80% of complaints come from 20% of customers
80% of profits come from 20% of your time
80% of sales are made by 20% of the sales staff
80% of sales come from 20% of the products (Koch, 2008)
20% of the hazards within a workplace cause 80% of the injuries (Woodcock, 2010)
80% of system crashes are caused by 20% of the faults
80% of the crimes committed by 20% of the criminals
80% of crimes affect 20% of the population
80% of the crimes committed in single location occur in 20% of that area (Boba, 2005)

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 85
As can be seen in Table 1, the 80/20 rule applies
to many diverse areas. Quite often though, it’s not
always a strict 80/20 split, sometimes the ratio can
be 90/10 or 95/5 etc. For example, in the field of
Criminology, depending on the area, about 4% of all
victims experience 40% of the crimes. In another
example, 6% of homes in a suburb location in the
United States were responsible 60% of the calls for
police service (Boba, 2005).
Despite the departures from a strict 80/20 split in
these observations, the 80/20 rule has some very
real and practical implications. The 80/20 rule has
been used for the following applications:
• yImprove service delivery
• yIncrease productivity
• yIncrease profitability
• yIncrease efficiency
• yIdentify target areas or individuals
• yQuality control
To illustrate, using the examples presented in
Table 1, from a business perspective one may wish
to enhance profits by providing special privileges to
the 20% of customers that contribute to 80% of the
profits. Some companies also use the 80/20 rule as
a means of identifying top and low selling products
and then either expand on their top 20% of products
or discontinue their bottom selling products.
Further to this, in the field of criminology, due to
the observation that a large proportion of crimes
committed are by repeat offenders, intervention
programs have been developed to prevent repeat
offending,
Does the 80/20 rule apply to animal
management?
Given the applicability of the 80/20 rule to areas as
diverse as the ones listed in Table 1 it is perhaps
not surprising that examples of the principle can be
observed in the area of animal management.
Compliance/non-compliance: Notwithstanding
variations within state and local municipality areas,
the majority of people are compliant with animal
management regulations while the minority are not.
Based on the research in this area it appears that it
is the minority who are responsible for many animal
management compliance issues. To illustrate, Rohlf
et al. (2010) found that 98% of dog owners report
that their dog is confined to their property when
required, 90.4% of dog of owners report that their
dog is registered with their local council and 86%
report that their dog is implanted with a microchip.
Additional evidence of this uneven distribution
can be found in Headey’s report (2006) on socially
responsible pet ownership. Headey (2006) found that
only 15% of the cat owners surveyed reported that
their cat was rarely or never contained at night while
91% of dog owners reported that they have their dog
on leash when required to do so.
Repeat offenders: Anecdotal evidence also suggests
the existence of repeat offenders suggesting that
a large proportion on the animal management
issues are committed by repeat offender. Animal
shelter and pounds often see dogs that have been
impounded more than once and many animal
management officers recount numerous situations
where they are left to deal with an irresponsible dog
or cat owners for failure to abide by a whole host of
animal management regulations.
Hot spots: Similar to observations by those in the
field of criminology anecdotal evidence suggests
the presence of small areas that are the source of
numerous animal management issues. The City
of Port Phillip’s Domestic Animal Plan 2008-11
for instance observed that a high rise community
housing facility was resident to an estimated 250
animals however only 20 of these were registered
with the council.
Currently however, with the exception of a couple of
research papers, much of the evidence supporting
the Pareto principle is anecdotal. Clearly then it is
important that research be conducted in this area
so that the ‘vital few’ that make the biggest impact
to animal management are empirically identified. By
identifying these areas efforts and resources can be
appropriately directed to the most vital areas. In the
meantime, 80/20 analyses can be easily and readily
conducted on a local basis.
How to conduct your own 80/20 analysis
This kind of analysis can be an easy tool for the
purpose of project management. Theoretically it
allows you to tackle 80% of the problem by simply
addressing 20% of the key causes.
1. Determine the animal management problem(s)
you wish to investigate and why
For example, the problem may be the number
of customer requests for animal management
services. Investigating customer requests can be
a time consuming and costly exercise. It might be
worthwhile designing an intervention to reduce
the number of these customer requests. However,
if you’re like most councils it can be a daunting
if not impossible task to investigate every issue
especially if you want to see results within a year.
The aim of this analysis will be to determine the
vital few – the few critical issues that cause the
majority of requests.

86 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
2. Determine how
Do you have the data in order to carry out your
analyses or do you need to first go out and
collect it?
In this example we are going to assume you
already have the data. We are going to analyse
all customer requests received by council in the
last year
3. List and rank order the events according to
the number of events associated with each –
most to least
In this example, you can see that all types of
customer requests are listed in Column A.
In Column B they are ranked from most (Dog
collections) to least (Dog rush).
4. Calculate the percentages of the events each
person, place or product contributes or in this
example, the customer request
Column C in the table below presents the
percentages.
5. Cumulate the percentage of incidents starting
with the most involved person, place, or product
In this example, Column D presents the
cumulative percentages.
6. Cumulate the percentages of the people, places
or products
In this example, the cumulative percentage of
requests is presented in column E.
7. Compare the cumulative percentage of people,
places or products (column E) to the cumulative
percentage of outcomes (column D)
This shows how much the most involved people or
places contribute to the problem.
These kinds of calculations can be very helpful
at showing where you should direct your animal
management resources and efforts.
In this example you can see that over 70% of the
customer requests are caused by only 25% of the
possible animal management issues. In other words
dog collections and barking dog requests contribute
to more than 70% of the customer requests. In
theory focussing your efforts on these two issues
rather than all of the animal management issues
could be a very efficient strategy for reducing the
number of customer requests.
Table 2 Example 80/20 table
A B C D E
Customer
requests
Dog
collections
Barking
dogs
Dog
off-leash/
not under
effective
control
Cat
collections
Trespassing
cats
Dogs
wandering
at large
Frequency Percent
of total
Cumulative
percent of
total
Cumulative
percent of
requests
430 40.53 40.53 12.50
350 32.99 73.52 25.00
71 6.69 80.21 37.50
70 6.60 86.81 50.00
64 6.03 92.84 62.50
50 4.71 97.55 75.00
Dog attack 24 2.26 99.81 87.50
Dog rush 2 0.19 100.00 100.00
Totals 1061 100.00 100.00 100.00
Conclusion
The 80/20 rule or the Pareto principle states that
20% of the causes are the source of 80% of the
effect. Since its inception in 1906, the rule has
been applied to a diverse range of areas including
criminology, business, and occupational health and
safety. Applying the rule to project management
has the benefit of improving both effectiveness
and efficiency by identifying the vital 20% for the
most benefit. While scholarly research applying the
80/20 rule to animal management is lacking, animal
management officers can apply this tool to their own
data so that they can not only determine the extent
to which the 80/20 rule applies but most importantly
can use it to identify where they need to direct their
animal management resources and efforts.
References
Boba, R. (2005). Crime analysis and crime mapping. Sage
Publications: Thousand oaks CA,
City of Port Phillip. Domestic Animal Management Plan 2008-11.
Headey, B. (2006) National People and Pets Survey, Socially
Responsible Pet Ownership Practices in Australia: A Decade of
Progress. Melbourne: Petcare Information and Advisory Service
Australia Pty Ltd.
Koch, Richard, (2008). The 80/20 Principle: The Secret to
Achieving More with Less. DoubleDay: New York

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 87
Pareto, V and Page, A. N. (1971), Translation of Manuale di
economia politica (“Manual of political economy”), A.M. Kelley.
Pinnicle Management, (n.d.) The Pareto Principle – Application
in Management. Retrieved 20 August, 2012 from http://www.
pinnicle.com/Articles/articles.html.
Rohlf, V. I., Bennett, P. C., Toukhsati, S., Coleman, G. (2010).
Why do even committed dog owners fail to comply with some
responsible ownership practices? Anthrozoos, 23(2), 143-
155.
Woodcock, K. (2010). Safety Evaluation Techniques. Toronto, ON:
Ryerson University. pp. 86.
About the author
A former Veterinary Nurse, Vanessa is a Monash
University PhD candidate studying owner attitudes
towards responsible dog ownership behaviours. She
currently holds a position as Research Officer at
Monash University.
Contact
Vanessa Rohlf
Email: vanessa.rohlf@monash.edu
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
15
Compliance audits of Local Governments by the dog and cat
management board
Danielle Suckley
Dog and Cat Management Board, SA
The Dog and Cat Management Board (the Board) is a
statutory authority established under the Dog and Cat
Management Act 1995 (the Act). In 2005 the Minister of
Local Government requested that the Department of
Environment and Heritage undertake a review of the
operations of the Board. The findings of the review
included a recommendation that the Board should
‘undertake spot checks of all Councils with the aim of
covering all Councils within a five year period’.
This finding was accepted and a five-year auditing
cycle of the 69 local governments in South Australia
was established. The aim of the audits is to
measure the level of compliance with the Dog and Cat
Management Act 1995 and provide assistance, advice
and support where improvements are needed.
The audits inform the Board so it is better able
to fulfil its functions under the Section 21 of the
Act which includes:
21—Functions of Board
(1) The Board has the following functions:
(a) to plan for, promote, and provide advice
about, the effective management of dogs and
cats throughout South Australia;
(b) to oversee the administration and
enforcement of the provisions of this Act
relating to dogs, including—
(i) monitoring the administration and
enforcement of this Act by councils; and
(ii) issuing guidelines and providing advice
to councils about—
(A) planning for the effective
management of dogs;
(B) training for dog management officers;
(C) the appropriate level of administration
and enforcement in the circumstances
prevailing in the area;
(D) the issuing of orders or related
directions under this Act;
(E) the standard of facilities used for the
detention of dogs under this Act;
(F) the keeping of registers under this
Act and the issuing of certificates of
registration and registration discs;
(G) any other matter related to the
administration or enforcement of the
provisions of this Act relating to dogs;
A long-term goal of the audits is to increase
compliance throughout the state and ensure that there
is consistency in dog and cat management across
jurisdictions. Audits are also of significant benefit to
the Board as they provide ‘real world’ examples of
how legislation is administered and identify where
education and support will be most effective. An
increased understanding is helpful in the development
of policies and guidelines and accurate, evidence
based information is also critical when providing
advice to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment
and Conservation. The Board also responds to
media and public enquiries in relation to dog and
cat management issues. This requires an accurate
understanding of council procedures, administration
and capabilities.
The first round of audits was completed in 2006 and
the second round is currently being finalised. The
Board has decided to audit every three years from
2012. This will ensure that audits are sufficiently
frequent to follow up on non-compliance. A three
year audit cycle will also identify policy gaps that
arise due to changes in legislation or emerging
issues. In addition to compliance, the audit examines
financial records relating to councils contributions
to the dog and cat management fund. The financial
section of the audit is outsourced as the expertise to
assess financial information does not currently exist
in-house. The compliance and financial audits are
conducted at the same time so that the council only
receives one visit per audit cycle. It is important that
Board staff attends the council to audit so that record
maintenance and operations are sighted. The audit
procedure is transparent and councils have access to
the assessment tool prior to the site visit.
During audits Board staff and the financial auditor
use an audit checklist. The checklist is a Board
approved policy document which sets out each of the
areas where councils must be compliant under the
Act. The checklist also has standard questions so
that assessment is consistent and non-compliances
can be quantified as part of the review process. The
audit checklist covers the following areas of animal
management:

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 89
• yGeneral (Plan for the Management of Dogs and
Cats)
• yAdministration (registration, authorisation of
officer)
• yDetention and Seizure (impound, detention)
• yCustomer Service Provisions (out-of-hours
requirements)
• yForms and Document Control (use of Board
approved forms)
• yTraining (induction, performance management)
• yOccupational Health and Safety
• yFinancial Audit
In assessing compliance, Board staff will ask
for evidence of the required operations and
administration that should be occurring. The
audit checklist also includes a list of evidence.
Where evidence is unavailable the auditor may ask
for alternate records so compliance can still be
assessed. The evidence that is requested includes
councils Plan for the Management of Dogs and Cats
and how key performance indicators were achieved.
Board staff will also examine dog attack and barking
complaint investigations and confirm that the
appropriate expiations and orders have been issued.
If the council maintains its own detention facility it
too is audited as the Board is required to approve
all facilities used for the detention of dogs under the
Act. The RSPCA and Animal Welfare League which
are used by the majority of metropolitan councils
are routinely audited and generally pre-approved for
use. When auditing facilities staff will check that the
council has the appropriate cleaning and disinfection
procedures to control disease outbreaks e.g. Canine
parvovirus. These procedures must be documented.
Facilities should also be adequately secured so
that impounded dogs cannot escape or be stolen.
The facility is also assessed for welfare outcomes.
Although this is not required by the Act, councils are
required to adhere to the Animal Welfare Act 1985 and
dogs should not loose condition during the seventytwo
hour detention period. As a facility must be
audited before dogs are detained, facility audits are
completed as required as well as part of the councils
scheduled compliance audit.
Based on the responses provided by the council on
the day of audit each section of the audit checklist
is scored from three to zero and an audit report is
written. A score of three represents full compliance
with the Act and a score of zero indicates noncompliance.
Scores of one and two relate to part
compliances or compliance without sufficient
evidence.
All non-compliances are listed on a Corrective
Actions Report and sent to Council for agreement.
The Corrective Actions Report explains the noncompliance
and rates it as critical, major or minor.
This rating indicates how quickly the compliance
should be remedied e.g. 1, 3 or 6 months. There is
an opportunity for the council to provide comment
on the Corrective Actions Report and negotiate the
timeframes. Once agreed, the Corrective Actions
Report and audit report are provided to the Board for
approval. If the report is approved with outstanding
corrective actions, staff will contact council for
evidence of compliance with the corrective actions
after the agreed timeframes have passed. The Board
provides information and support to assist councils in
redressing non-compliances.
Although the Board has only completed two audit
cycles since 2006 significant improvements have been
seen and critical non-compliances have significantly
reduced. The response from councils has been
positive with most viewing audits as an opportunity
to make improvements to processes and highlight
concerns. The reciprocal information exchange
connects the Board and local governments and will
assist both parties to meet state-wide dog and cat
management goals. As the process is refined and
councils continue to improve, the audits will be an
invaluable tool in assessing the progress of dog and
cat management in South Australia.
References
Dog and Cat Management Act 1995
About the author
Danielle has been a Policy and Compliance Officer
with the Dog and Cat Management Board since early
2012. She is currently responsible for developing a
policy framework for the Board and is completing
the current audit cycle of local councils. Prior to
commencing with the Dog and Cat Management
Board, Danielle was employed as a Policy Officer
with the Department Of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry and as a Workplace Inspector with the
Workplace Ombudsman. Danielle has a Bachelor of
Science from Flinders University, a Graduate Diploma
in Public Administration from the University of
Canberra and a Diploma in Applied Science – Animal
Technology from the Torrens Valley Institute of TAFE.
Contact
Danielle Suckley
Email: Danielle.Suckley@sa.gov.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
16
A tiered approach to dealing with inappropriate dog behaviour in NSW
Noel Fuller
Penrith City Council
Often as a result of a dog attack on another person
or animal the local authorities are left with the
decision to declare a dog a “Nuisance Dog” or a
“Dangerous Dog”. These control orders can be
unsuitable for the offence and are either too lenient
or too harsh.
Degrees of dangerousness can be established on the
basis of injury severity in dog attack incidents. These
categories of dangerousness include “menacing” or
“threatening” behaviour that does not involve a bite
being inflicted.
By changing the Companion Animals Act 1998 to
include the term “Menacing Dog” and a description
of the control orders required, this second tier
to control orders would provide local authorities
with the opportunity to improve the welfare of
dogs reduce costs to the owner and ensure a safer
community in an effective and timely manner.
Introduction
Early in 1998 the Companion Animals Act 1998 was
introduced into New South Wales and replaced The
Dog Act 1966.
This legislation was developed to capture the ever
changing perceptions of the community, to apply best
practice companion animal (dogs & cats) control and
education, and increase the enforcement provisions
for local council their Law Enforcement and Animal
Management officers.
Since the commencement of the Companion Animal
Act 1998 (referred to as the Act), the Act has been
reviewed approximately every five years. This
review has taken place with advice from selected
experts, local council law enforcement officers, legal
representation and parliamentary advice.
The reviews looked at adapting the appropriate level
of legislation to an ever changing government or
community expectation and closing any loopholes
that may exist in the Act. Changing this legislation
benefits the community and allows the local
authority to enforce the Act with greater expectations
of compliance and community confidence.
At times, new bills are introduced to parliament
to strengthen the Act; these bills are driven by
community expectations, media sensationalism or
political gain. The introduction of these new bills
has resulted in changes to the Act, which could be
debated as a kneejerk reaction.
This paper will examine the recommendations for a
tiered approach when enforcing control orders on
dogs in the community, provide examples of how
these recommendations would benefit local councils,
law enforcement officers and dog owners, and take
into consideration the welfare of the dog.
Current situation
Under the current legislation (the Act) when a dog
attacks a person or another animal, other than
vermin, the local authority has the option of applying
a Nuisance Order or a Dangerous Dog Order. This
often depends on the severity of the attack and
provides the local authority with an option to apply
a Nuisance Order that ceases after six months or
declare the dog dangerous which could be in force
for the life of the dog and at great expense to the
owner.
Quite often there could be a case for an order to
be imposed on an owner of a dog due to the dog
menacing the area. This type of dog falls between
the “nuisance dog” and the “dangerous dog” and
meets similar definition under Section 21 of the Act
“Nuisance Dog”.
(1) (d) repeatedly runs at or chases any person, animal
(other than vermin and, in relation to an animal,
otherwise than in the course of droving, tending,
working or protecting stock) or vehicle, or
(e) endangers the health of any person or animal (other
than vermin and, in relation to an animal, otherwise
than in the course of droving, tending, working or
protecting stock), and
Section 33 of the Act “Meaning of Dangerous”,
(b) has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to
attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal (other
than vermin), or

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 91
(c) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a
person or animal (other than vermin)
This type of dog could be deemed as a “Menacing
Dog” as the definitions are similar for Section 21 (1)
(d) & (e) and Section 33(b) & (c) of the Act.
The tiered approach system
A tiered approach system of control requirements
has many benefits for the local authority, as well as
the welfare of the dogs and their owners.
“Vermin” for the purposes of this section includes
small pest animals only (such as rodents).
Tier 1 “Nuisance Dog Orders”, this type of order
could apply for a dog which is an annoyance to
another property owner or person without threat and
could be described as:
Nuisance Dog definition
a. habitually at large (roaming); or
b. is making a noise, by barking or otherwise, that
persistently occurs or continues to such a degree
or extent that it unreasonably interferes with the
peace, comfort or convenience of any person in
any other premises; or
c. repeatedly defecates on property (other than a
public place) outside the property on which it is
ordinarily kept; or
d. repeatedly causes substantial damage to anything
outside the property on which it is ordinarily kept
This type of order would continue to be applied for
a period of six months. The Nuisance Order would
state the owner of the dog is required to prevent the
behaviour that is alleged to constitute the nuisance.
Tier 2 “Menacing Dog Orders”, this type of order
could apply for a dog that has a level of aggression
displayed when territorially protecting its property,
their owner or has attacked another animal on the
first occasion, other than vermin and the attack
resulted in a minor injury or no injury sustained and
could be described as:
Menacing Dog definition
a. Repeatedly runs at or chases any person, animal
(other than vermin and, in relation to an animal,
otherwise than in the course of droving, tending,
working or protecting stock) or vehicle; or
b. Endangers the health of any person or animal
(other than vermin and, in relation to an animal,
otherwise than in the course of droving, tending,
working or protecting stock); or
c. Without provocation, repeatedly threatened to
attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal
(other than vermin), or
d. Displayed unreasonable aggression towards a
person or another animal (other than vermin); or
e. Has attacked a person or another animal
resulting in minor or trivial injuries
The Menacing Order would be issued to the owner
of the dog requiring the owner to comply with the
following:
• yThe dog must be desexed (if it is not already
desexed) within 28 days after the date the owner
of the dog is given notice by the council that it has
made the declaration
• yIf the owner appeals against the declaration to
a Local Court within those 28 days, the order is
stayed until the appeal is either withdrawn or
determined
• yThe dog must be kept in a child-proof enclosure,
(a secure fenced rear yard to the dwelling with a
gate capable of being locked and tamper proof)
• yOne or more signs must be displayed on that
property showing the words “Warning Dangerous
Dog” in letters clearly visible from the boundaries
of the property on which the dog is ordinarily kept
• yWhen the dog is away from the property where
it is ordinarily kept the dog must be under the
effective control of a competent person by means
of an adequate chain, cord or leash and have
a muzzle securely fixed on its mouth in such a
manner as will prevent it from biting any person
or animal
Tier 3 “Dangerous Dog Orders”, this type of order
could apply for a dog that has caused severe injury
or death as a result of an attack on another person
or multiple animals, i.e. livestock and could be
described as:
Dangerous Dog definition
a. Dog has history as a “Menacing Dog” and a
control order is current or has been repealed; or
b. Without provocation, attacked or killed a person
or multiple animals, i.e. stock (other than vermin);
or
c. The attack on a person or another animal was
particularly vicious and the dog was extremely
aggressive; or
d. Is kept or used for the purposes of hunting
The Dangerous Dog Orders would exist as currently
written in section 51 of the Companion Animals Act 1998.

92 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Rationalisation for change
The New South Wales judicial system when used for
dealing with human offenders is also tiered, where
by first time offenders are given a lenient penalty or
a minimal custodial sentence. This penalty is given
where the circumstances involving the incidents
are minor; however, should this person re-offend
the penalties are increased and adjusted to suit the
crime.
When dealing with companion animals, this similar
approach could be applied, as in most cases there
are mitigating circumstance that must be taken into
consideration when applying a control order.
Often, when a dog has committed an offence, i.e.
roaming, nuisance or a dog attack, these offences
can be traced back to their owner’s responsibility or
person/s in charge of the dog at the time.
• yMaybe a gate is left open by a visitor to the
property and the dog roams or the owner is not
responsible to care for their dog appropriately; or
• yThe owner is not aware or responsible to ensure
their dog’s actions or noise emanating from the
dog are controlled; or
• yThe owner has not socialised their dog with
humans or other dogs and it has been allowed
to display various levels of aggression without
correction
The dog may be the catalyst for applying control
orders; however, should the dog be guilty of an
offence when acting on instinct?
If the control orders were broken down as previously
mentioned in this document, then the dog’s welfare
could be taken into account and have the appropriate
levels of control orders to fit the crime.
The owner’s ignorance or inability to take
responsibility for their dog’s behaviour should not
be held against the dog who is acting on instinct,
the natural drive that is present in most breeds to a
varying degree.
It must be remembered dogs can think, however, they
cannot reason.
Typical scenarios
Case 1
Bailey, Female American Bulldog, lifetime registered
and desexed
Chronology
2 November 2010 dog attack at Illawong Ave.
Subject dog attacked a cat caused
life ending injuries to the cat.
10 November 2010 Warning letter sent to owner
advising of the attack and that any
further attack may result in dog
being declared dangerous.
B
B
O
I
bailey escaped from her property
and attacked and killed a cat,
Bailey was roaming for a short
time when she noticed a cat, the
cat ran, and Bailey gave chase
and killed the cat.
bailey was impounded by Council
for roaming on the street.
owner interviewed who stated:
“Bailey has never liked cats”. A
hole in the fence on the owner’s
property was identified as the
location Bailey escaped through.
infringements and warning letter
were issued for attack.
18 May 2011 dog attack on Caloola Ave.
Subject dog attacked a cat caused
life ending injuries to the cat.
Bailey and an accomplice “Abbey”
(GSD X) sniffed out, attacked and
killed the cat.
O
owner once again stated: “Bailey
doesn’t like cats” and thought it
“OK” for cats to be killed by dogs,
especially if the cat was feral or
unregistered. Bailey had escaped
through the same hole in the
fence as the previous attack.
1 June 2011 Notice of Intention to Declare Dog
Dangerous was served.
7 June 2011 owner of dog makes
representations in response to the
Notice of Intention.
9 June 2011 Council responds to the Owner’s
representations by way of letter.
17 June 2011 dog declared dangerous on 17
June 2011

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 93
8 July 2011 Owner files an application in the
Penrith Local Court seeking a
review of the Dangerous Dog
Declaration.
18 August 2011 the matter is listed for a Call
over in the Penrith Local Court.
The Court ordered that:
D
D
Council serve statements of
witnesses it seeks to rely on by
29 August 2011;
defendant serve any statements
by 5 September 2011;
defendant serve Breed
Assessment Report (requested
by defendant) by 7 October 2011;
Matter listed for hearing on
10 November 2011.
26 August 2011 Council served three statements,
two of which were from lay
witnesses and one from a
Council officer.
5 September 2011 Defendant served five separate
letters/statutory declarations,
including one from the
Defendant.
7 October 2011 defendant served Council with a
Temperament Assessment from
the Vineyard Veterinary Hospital.
The Vet states that the dog is
“reasonably accepting of other
dogs but not totally socialised
into fully accepting them.
However, Bailey does not accept
the presence of cats, showing a
typical canine/feline reaction and
would chase and attack a cat if
given the opportunity”.
10 November 2011 Matter is listed for hearing in the
Local Court at Penrith.
D
T
defendant appeared in person.
All witness statements (three
from Council, five from
Defendant and Temperament
Assessment) tendered as
evidence before the Court. In
addition, the s.74 certificate and
dangerous dog declaration was
tendered as evidence.
the Defendant did not dispute
that the attacks occurred. The
Defendant made representations
to the Court that her dog was
T
D
not a danger to humans or other
dogs. The Defendant conceded
that her dog did not like cats.
the Magistrate dismissed the
Defendant’s appeal and gave
considerable weight to the Vet’s
Temperament Assessment.
Further, the Magistrate held that
s.33 of the Companion Animals
Act had been satisfied.
dog owner was given three
months to comply with control
requirements.
2 February 2012 the dog owner was unable
to comply with the control
requirements due to the costs,
the dog was subsequently
euthanized.
Case 2
12 July 2011
A small dog was killed by a large dog being walked
on a lead by a female person in charge of the dog.
The Person in charge of the dog is an older female
who was walking her son’s American Staffy on a
lead. The dog is identified, lifetime registered and
de-sexed.
Small dog came out of its house with the elderly
owner; the small dog commences to bark at the Am
Staff being walked on the lead.
The Am Staff drags the older lady over to the fence
where the small dog resides and attacks the small
dog pulling it through the fence.
Several people came to assist the older lady who
was yelling; however, by the time the Am Staff let go
of the small dog, the dog had sustained fatal injuries.
Am Staff carer accepted full responsibility for the
attack.
Am Staff is very friendly towards people and has
never attacked before.
Dangerous Dog Declaration was issued 2 August
2011.
Animal welfare considerations
It must be considered that dogs kept in enclosures/
kennels may develop increased aggression without
the required mental stimulation or appropriate
exercise. This type of mental health disorder may
manifest into cage rage.
Cage rage can develop in shelter dogs; you may see
the beginnings of cage rage perhaps not aggression,
but rather an unruly hyperactivity that will put off

94 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
a lot of potential adopters, who may think that the
dog will be like that normally. Often this is just a
temporary thing, resolving itself as the dog has a
little more freedom and is no longer staring at bars
all day.
Cage rage is common in dogs that have been shut
up in a cage for too long. They look upon the cage as
their territory and become very aggressive.
Tying a dog to a chain or a leash all day long also
causes dog mental health problems. The dog is a
pack animal and cannot sustain loneliness. After
some time the dog feels neglected and starts
becoming aggressive because the dog cannot have
its freedom. This frustration turns to anger and the
dog will soon increase its aggression.
Dogs may develop Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
(OCD). This mental health problem is mostly seen in
dogs that are anxious, stressed or bored. If caused
by boredom, OCD can be avoided by upping the
activity level of the dog. Increased activities, fun
and play will pull the dog out of this harmful mental
health problem.
A caged dog is a trapped and cornered dog. In a
confrontational situation, the dog no longer has the
“flight” option, and “fight” is all that is left. Most of
these mental health problems can be reduces or
resolved by providing sufficient obedience training
and more freedom for the dog.
RSPCA Australia considers that the welfare of an
animal includes its physical and mental state and
that good animal welfare implies both fitness and a
sense of well-being.
The RSPCA believes that an animal’s welfare should
be considered in terms of five freedoms, which form
a logical and comprehensive framework for analysis
of welfare within any animal.
1. Freedom from hunger and thirst: by ready access
to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health
and vigour.
2. Freedom from discomfort: by providing an
appropriate environment including shelter and a
comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from pain, injury or disease: by
prevention through rapid diagnosis and
treatment.
4. Freedom to express normal behaviour: by
providing sufficient space, proper facilities and
company of the animal’s own kind.
5. Freedom from fear and distress: by ensuring
conditions and treatment which avoid mental
suffering.
RSPCA Policy A09 Housing of Companion Animals
states:
9.1 All housing facilities for companion animals must
be designed and maintained to provide a clean,
comfortable and safe environment and to meet
the behavioural and physiological needs of the
particular animal.
9.2 Where companion animals are usually confined
in a restricted environment (such as in cages,
hutches or similar housing), they must be given
regular opportunities for exercise, as appropriate
for the species, in a safe, predation-free and
escape-proof area (such as an outdoor run or
enclosed indoor area).
Benefits of a tiered approach
• yFewer dogs would be euthanized
• yDecrease in appeals and referrals to court
• yDog owners in low socio-economic areas would
be able to meet a control order that involves
reducing the severity/costs
• yThe welfare of the dog must be considered when
applying control orders for dangerous dogs
Conclusion
In my opinion, not all dog attack offences fit the
control orders as presently written in the Act. They
are either too lenient or too extreme in the majority
of cases to fit less significant offences. Therefore,
a case must be considered to include within the
Act a provision for declaring a dog a “Menacing
Dog”, should they display the level of behaviour as
previously explained.
This additional tier of control orders would provide
a local authority an additional tool within the
parameters of the legislation (should it be adopted)
to effectively manage these types of dogs and
perhaps have a flow-on effect of reducing additional
costs to the owner, reducing local court appeals,
an early finalisation and closure for local authority
and owner, and allow for the welfare of the dog to be
taken into account.
Acknowledgements
RSPCA Policy A09 Housing of Companion Animals
The Companion Animal Act 1998 (NSW)
The National Consultative Committee on Animal
Welfare position Statement #24 (1995)

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 95
About the author
Noel Fuller is the Ranger & Animal Services
Coordinator at Penrith City Council. He has been
engaged in the area of Rangers and Animal
Management for the past 15 years. Prior to joining
Local Government in 1998, Noel served with the
RAAF Police Dogs (now known as Military Working
Dog Handlers) for 20years as a handler, trainer
and section commander. Noel was part of the team
instrumental in developing a war role for Military
Working Dogs, which is currently used by Military
Working Dog handlers in today’s conflicts.
After leaving the service, Noel took up a position with
Parramatta City Council as a general duties Ranger
for four years. His knowledge of dog behaviour was
well received and assisted other staff to deal with
difficult or aggressive dogs.
Noel left Parramatta City Council in 2003 to take
up his present position with Penrith City Council.
In 2005 Noel received an award from WorkCover
and Unions NSW after designing and arranging for
a local company to manufacture the new vehicles
that complied with
OH&S requirement for
transporting companion
animals. Noel provides
advice to Council on
companion animal and
livestock concerns as they
arise in the urban and rural
environments of Penrith.
Contact
Noel Fuller
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Penrith City Council
Email: nfuller@penrithcity.nsw.gov.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
17
Desexing: the overlooked way to reduce dog attacks
Katina D’Onise
Dog and Cat Management Board, SA
Desexing of dogs results in a range of well known
benefits for the dogs and their owners, including
specific health benefits for dogs, improvement in
the sociability of dogs, and a reduction in unwanted
litters (Reichler 2009). The potential that desexing
offers to reduce the risk of dog attacks is not so
widely known. Good epidemiological evidence, as
well as evidence from animal behaviour science,
suggests that desexing dogs is an important
modifiable risk factor for dog attacks on people and
on other animals. This presentation reviews the
evidence of the benefits of desexing for dog attack
reduction.
A relatively small number of studies have been
published that explore the epidemiology of dog
attacks on humans (for exampleGershman et al 1994;
Messam et al 2008; Overall & Love 2001; Shuler et
al 2008). These studies have examined a number of
possible risk factors for dog attack, ranging from
victim-specific factors (such as age and gender) to
dog-specific factors (such as dog breed, age, gender,
and training status). Beyond the effect of dog gender,
some studies also examined the effect of the neuter
status of dogs. These studies are observational in
design and retrospective. They document the details
of attacks after they have occurred. These studies
are thus prone to a range of biases, in particular
confounding and measurement bias, some more
than others.
The study by Schuler and colleagues is likely to
be the least biased study published that examined
the risk factors for dog attack (Shuler et al 2008).
This study used a retrospective cohort design that
examined all dog attack reports to the authorities
over a period of one year. Another strength of this
design was that dog attacks in the jurisdiction
concerned were reportable by law, which was
likely to lead to more complete reporting of dog
attacks compared with other published studies.
Further, the dog attacks came from a community
sample rather than from a sample restricted to dog
owners or dog owners who frequent a particular
veterinarian, and thus the sample was likely to be
more representative of the full range of dog attacks
across the population. This study found that the
risk of dog attack was greatest for intact male dogs
(relative risk (RR) 18.6, 95% confidence interval (CI)
13.9-24.7), and then intact female dogs (RR 10.5, 95%
CI 7.4-14.8), when compared with desexed female
dogs (Shuler et al 2008).
It is also instructive to examine those studies that
reported details of dog attacks that led specifically to
severe injury or death (Sacks et al 1996; Wright 1985).
Although these studies tended to provide weaker
evidence (generally they used a case-series design),
they present an opportunity to examine precisely
those events that society most wants to prevent.
Only a few of these studies were able to report
on the neuter status of the attacking dog, and the
information was not always complete for each attack.
That said, where the information was available, the
vast majority of dogs involved in severe attacks on
humans were not desexed. For example, in the study
by Sacks et al, of the 20 cases of attack leading to
death where neuter status was known, 19 were not
desexed. Further, 15 of the 20 attacks involved an
entire male dog (Sacks et al 1996).
The findings from animal behaviour literature can be
used to ‘triangulate’ the evidence from epidemiology.
That is, if the evidence from a different perspective
supports the findings from epidemiology, then there
is greater confidence that the epidemiologic results
are an accurate reflection of the ‘real’ risk. There
is consistent evidence that intact males are more
aggressive than neutered males, and also that intact
males are the most common group with dominance
aggression (Overall & Love 2001). There is less
consistent evidence however for intact females,
with conflicting reports of increased or decreased
dominance aggression compared with neutered
females (Guy et al 2001; Overall & Love 2001).
These findings are broadly consistent with those
from epidemiology, given that aggression is more
likely to lead to dog attacks, and the greatest risk is
consistently seen with intact male dogs. This gives
further confidence that the finding of reduced risk
among neutered dogs is a correct reflection of a true
difference.
There is also good reason to promote desexing for
purposes beyond the usual indications from a publichealth,
injury-control perspective. On the basis of the
evidence presented here, desexing of dogs is likely to

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 97
make dogs less aggressive and less likely to attack.
This is an example of making the environment less
risky, rather than relying on the behavioural change
of all the individuals potentially in contact with
dogs, through education or training (Haddon 1980).
Modifying the environment rather than modifying
the people is a well established principle in injury
control, and there are many historical examples of
successful risk reduction employing this principle.
Requiring swimming pools to be adequately fenced
is an example of a successful environmental control
strategy for drowning prevention, rather than relying
on continuous supervision of children around pools.
This alternative approach is particularly important
with dog-attack control as there is no good evidence
that education only approaches have reduced the
risk of dog attack (Duperrex et al 2009).
In summary, both the epidemiology literature and
animal behaviour studies indicate that dog attacks
are less likely among neutered dogs, and there is a
suggestion that desexing dogs will reduce the most
severe attacks on humans. Borrowing from what
has been consistently proven to be the case in injury
control, interventions that modify the environmental
risk factors are more likely to be successful. In
dog management, interventions that encourage the
desexing of dogs are likely to directly reduce the risk
of dog attacks.
References
Duperrex, O., Blackhall, K., Burri, M., & Jeannot, E. (2009).
Education of children and adolescents for the prevention of dog
ite injuries (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004726. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004726.pub2.
Gershman, K., Sacks, J., & Wright, J. (1994). Which dogs bite? A
case-control study of risk factors. Pediatrics, 93(6): 913-917.
Guy, N., Luescher, U., Dohoo, S., Spangler, E., Miller, J., Dohoo,
I., & Bate, L. (2001). A case series of biting dogs: characteristics
of the dogs, their behaviour, and their victims. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 74: 43-57.
Haddon, W. (1980). Advances in the epidemiology of injuries as a
basis for public policy. Public Health Reports, 95(5): 411-421.
Messam, L., Kass, P., Chomel, B., & Hart, L. (2008). The human–
canine environment: A risk factor for non-play bites? The
Veterinary Journal, 177: 205-215.
Overall, K., & Love, M. (2001). Dog bites to humans – demography,
epidemiology, injury, and risk. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association, 218: 1923-1933.
Reichler, I. (2009). Gonadectomy in cats and dogs: a review of
risks and benefits. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 44(Suppl.
2): 29-35.
Sacks, J., Lockwood, R., Hornreich, J., & Sattin, R. (1996). Fatal
dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics, 97(6): 891-895.
Shuler, C., DeBess, E., Lapidus, J., & Hedberg, K. (2008). Canine
and human factors related to dog bite injuries. Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association, 22: 542-546.
Wright, J. (1985). Severe attacks by dogs: characteristics of the
dogs, the victims, and the attack settings. Public Health Reports,
100(1), 55-61.
About the author
Contact
Dr Katina D’Onise
MBBS MPH PhD FAFPHM
Public Health Physician,
Epidemiology Branch, South Australian
Department for Health and Ageing
Email: katina.d’onise@health.sa.gov.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
18
Pet problems solved: Interactive Q&A
Dr Joanne Righetti
Animal Behaviourist
Pets can bring us great pleasure but certain
behaviours of dogs, cats or their owners can be
a source of great frustration for those who must
deal with them. Problems such as excessive
barking, aggression, fears, phobias and destructive
behaviours are all common, yet annoying,
behaviours. These can impact on our enjoyment of
pets and our community’s tolerance of pet owners.
This Interactive Q&A session will help you understand
and deal with the unwanted behaviours of companion
animals. The animal’s drives and likely causes of the
behaviours will be explained, together with suggestions
of the most effective short-term management and
long-term solutions to the problems.
Submit your questions and/or case studies prior
to the session and Dr Jo will take you through the
causes of and solutions to the cases described. No
problem is too big, too small or too embarrassing to
talk about so bring your most annoying cases, those
you lose sleep over or those you are simply curious to
understand.
Paper: Whatever you need to know, just ask!
Pets can bring us great pleasure but certain
behaviours of dogs, cats or their owners can be a
source of great frustration for those who must deal
with them. A modern dog’s life may bring many
challenges to both dog and owner (McGreevy &
Boakes, 2009; Bradshaw, 2011) and cats are not
without their share of unwanted behaviours too.
Problems such as excessive barking, aggression,
fears, phobias and destructive behaviours are all
common, yet annoying, pet behaviours. These can
impact on our enjoyment of companion animals and
our community’s tolerance of pet owners.
Solutions to pet behaviour problems require
an understanding of behaviour and successful
implementation of short and long-term solutions.
Instinct and learning
Behaviours in animals arise from a combination
of instinct and learning. Instinctive behaviours are
a result of drives, innate within species. Drives in
our pets include the need to find food, the need for
shelter and the need to have companionship. Often
unwanted behaviours are a result of the animal
trying to fulfil these needs.
Dogs, for instance, have an instinct or drive to
hunt for food. This may lead them to chase birds,
raid garbage bins or steal food from our tables.
When they receive food from their actions, they are
rewarded and learn that this strategy is productive.
Drives, being inbuilt, cannot be removed without
generations of breeding so we have to satisfy them,
in appropriate ways.
Learning in animals involves a combination of
processes, from simple habituation to repeated
events (for example, your puppy no longer
responding when the telephone rings), to sensitisation
to anxiety-provoking events (for example, pacing
during thunderstorms, leading to escaping and
roaming the streets), to trial and error learning (for
example, scratching at door, then barking to get
owner’s attention).
Our pets’ behaviour is shaped by the owner’s actions.
Owners may provide opportunities for their pets to
learn – attending puppy classes, for example, which
encourages socialisation opportunities. Alternatively
pet owners may be completely unaware of their
impact on their pet’s behaviour. Shouting at their
dog for barking, for example, is often an attempt to
reduce unwanted, noisy behaviour but may have the
opposite effect of reinforcing it.
The manner in which people respond to unwanted
pet behaviours will affect their outcome, as will how
we teach our pets. Owner actions may vary from:
• ypositive, motivational encouragement of desired
behaviour eg. praise or treats
• ynegative reinforcement, involving the removal of
discomfort on performance of desired behaviour
eg. head halters
• ypunishment, including either:
−−positive punishment eg. shouting or inflicting
physical pain
−−negative punishment eg. withdrawal of treats
or time out
Animals may be trained using a variety of methods
but it helps to understand just how they learn
(McGreevy, 2007).

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 99
Solving common behaviour problems
Behaviour problems are best solved when
their cause is understood. Causes may include
natural drives or learned behaviours and also the
environment the pet lives within.
One of the most common unwanted behaviours in
dogs is barking (Righetti, 2012a). Barking may be
an instinctive behaviour in dogs, to communicate
to other individuals – dog or human – but it can be
difficult to understand just why some need to bark
so often or for such great lengths of time. Barking is
also a leaned behaviour, dogs using this behaviour to
have an impact on their environment.
Barking, in fact, is a symptom and we need to
understand its cause. Once it is understood that a
dog is bored or anxious or is responding to events in
the environment or is seeking their owner’s attention,
then strategies can be put in place to reduce the
unwanted barking.
Solutions to behaviour problems generally include:
• yShort-term management strategies to ensure
the safety of the animals that the undesirable
behaviour impacts and to provide immediate
reduction, if possible, of the unwanted behaviour.
• yLong-term solutions which address the needs
of the animal, provide appropriate outlets for
their drives and teach the pet a more desirable
behaviour.
Short-term management of barking may include the
use of anti-barking devices or relocating the dog to
a different area of the home to prevent barking at
certain times of the day. Long-term solutions may
include relieving the dog’s anxiety, providing outlets
for their energy or teaching them to be quiet.
Other common dog behaviour problems such as
aggression (Righetti, 2012b) and anxiety (Righetti,
2012c), over being alone or meeting other dogs for
instance, can also be addressed by following a shortterm
management strategy and long-term goal
implementation. Cat behaviour problems such as
anxiety (Righetti 2012d) or toileting issues (Righetti
2012e) can also be addressed this way.
References
Bradshaw, J. (2011). In Defence of Dogs. Allen Lane.
McGreevy, P.D. & Boakes, R.A. (2007). Carrots and Sticks:
Principles of Animal Training. Cambridge University Press.
McGreevy, P.D. (2009). A Modern Dog’s Life. UNSW Press.
Righetti, J. (2012a). Barking Problems Solved. Longueville Books.
Righetti, J (2012b). Dog Aggression Problems Solved. Longueville
Books.
Righetti, J (2012c). Dog Anxiety Problems Solved. Longueville Books.
Righetti, J. (2012d). Cat Anxiety Problems Solved. Longueville
Books. To be published.
Righetti, J. (2012e). Cat Toileting Problems Solved. Longueville
Books. To be published.
About the author
With a passion for pets and extensive knowledge of
human–animal relationships, animal behaviourist
Dr Joanne Righetti consults with pet owners,
councils, commercial companies and not-forprofit
organisations. She is a also a regular radio
guest, a speaker aboard P&O cruises and also
hosts interactive sessions at numerous pet events.
Joanne attracts significant following on digital and
social media, including a website, blog, twitter
and facebook. Her latest venture is a series of pet
behaviour books tacking common issues such as
barking, anxiety and aggression. More about
Dr Jo and her business Pet Problems Solved at
www.joannerighetti.com
Contact
Dr Joanne Righetti
Email: drjoanne@petproblemsolved.com.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
19
Animal Management, Local Government and Dog Aggression: The
imperative of understanding canine behaviour and the subsequent
improvement of animal management operating procedures
Dr Joanne Righetti
Animal Behaviourist
Dog aggression can be a problem for dogs, for
dog owners and for those who have to deal with its
consequences in society. Understanding the biology
of canine aggression and then implementing relevant
management, prevention and solutions will reduce
the incidences of dog aggression.
Canine aggressive behaviour is the expression of
the emotional states of anger or fear, occurring
due to a combination of genetic, physiological and
environmental influences. Some dogs are more
likely to be aggressive due to factors such as pain or
other medical conditions; due to lack of experience of
particular situations or negative experiences: due to
the provision (or perception) of limited resources: or
due to redirected or attention-seeking situations.
For the pet owner and animal behavioural
professional, solving aggression problems involves
a combination of short-term management solutions
and long-term therapies. The reduction of canine
aggression in society requires a long term strategic
approach combining many stakeholders including
dog breeders, pet owners, animal professionals,
government bodies, researchers and the general
public.
Paper
Dogs are faithful companion animals. Their
willingness to defend us, our property and our
resources may endear them to us but can, at times,
make life difficult. On occasion dogs may display a
growl, a lunge, a bite or even a full-scale dog attack.
This behaviour then becomes a problem for owners
and for society to deal with.
Understanding the biology of canine aggression
including its definition, causes and measurement,
then implementing relevant management, prevention
and solutions will reduce the incidences of dog
aggression.
Canine Aggression
Aggression identified
Aggression can be defined as behaviour that has the
intention of inflicting physical damage on another
individual. When the interests of two or more
individuals conflict, the potential for aggressive
behaviour exists (Righetti, 2012).
Aggression is identified in a variety of ways, both
by owners and by animal behaviour specialists.
Definitions of aggression types may be based on:
• yThe subject (owner-directed aggression, dog-todog
aggression, stranger aggression);
• yThe situation (territorial aggression, food-related
aggression, predatory aggression, maternal
aggression, social aggression);
• yThe emotions and intentions of the dog (fearrelated
aggression, dominance aggression;
status-related aggression, pain-related
aggression);
• yThe underlying cause (medically related
aggression, fearful aggression, resource related
aggression, redirected aggression).
An aggressive canine encounter can frighten or
traumatise the victim, injure or even result in
death. Aggressive behaviour is, however, a normal
part of life for many animals and is a successful
evolutionary strategy, as it helps animals defend
their resources. It is, however, rarely tolerated in
human society.
Aggression explained
Aggression is an outward expression of a dog’s
intense emotions – emotions such as anger or
fear. These feelings alert animals to a potentially
threatening situation and they may also be felt to
lesser extents as dislike, wariness, displeasure,
or irritation. The emotions themselves, although
they may cause severe internal stress, are rarely
dangerous to others. It is when the animal acts on
their emotions that danger may result.

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 101
Genetic influences & physiological expression
Aggressive behaviour, like most other behavioural
traits, has a genetic component. Dogs may inherit a
tendency to be aggressive or a tendency to be more
fearful than the average canine. Genetic influences
may also be linked to the animal’s gender, with male
dogs responsible for more attacks (Gershman et al
1994, Shuler et al 2008).
Genetic influences, however, do not act alone and
their expression is influenced by the animal’s
experiences in life. Thus breed specific legislation,
since it essentially addresses only one genetic aspect
of aggressive behaviour – the breed, cannot result
in an accurate removal of potential aggressors from
society.
Behavioural expression of aggression
When dogs encounter a threatening situation, most
will communicate their anger through body language
displays. These may include a range of symptoms
including barking, growling, lunging, nudging with
muzzle, biting or attacking. These behavioural
responses often follow a progressive order, moving
from one stage to another when the threat remains.
Not all dogs will show each stage, however. An active
aggressive response, such as a fight, is often a last
resort for many animals.
Understanding likely environments and conditions
that lead to the expression of aggression in dogs may
help reduce this unwanted behaviour. For instance,
aggressive incidents are more common in summer
(Rosado et al, 2009), among young children (Beaver
et al, 2001; Overall & Love, 2001; Ozanne-Smith et
al, 2001) and in homes, rather than public places
(Thompson, 2004). By being aware of these factors,
it may be possible to reduce the likelihood of dog
attack or at least to minimise the chances of dog
bites occurring by effective management.
Aggression causes
A variety of factors may result in the display of
aggressive behaviour by dogs (Righetti, 2012). These
may include:
• yNegative experiences which lead to the dog
feeling threatened whenever the experience
occurs.
• yPain or medically-related factors, including brain
tumours, neurological problems and thyroid
disorders.
• yLimited resources, where essential such as food,
shelter and companionship may be low or must
be competed for (at least in the dog’s mind).
• yRedirected aggression where the object of
the attack was not an intended recipient but
unfortunately was in the path of an attack
intended for others.
• yAttention seeking, where dogs learn that by
nipping, lunging or other threatening behaviours,
that they get human attention.
Many factors can trigger aggression. These include
excitement (Sherman et al, 1999) and confrontational
approaches by humans (Herron et al, 2005; Hsu
& Sun, 2010). Aggression often occurs within
households and has been associated with factors
such as female households, large families and dogs
being kept outdoors (Hsu and Sun, 2010) as well
as a lack of obedience training and being fed from
the dinner table (O’Sullivan et al, 2008). Household
aggression may, however, rarely be reported.
Similarly, fights by dogs within households are rarely
reported, although these tend to be more severe
than those between unknown dogs (Sherman et
al, 1999). Stranger-directed canine aggression has
been linked to rural areas, large yards and more
family members (Hsu and Sun, 2010). This type of
aggression may have more in common with dogto-dog
aggression than it does with owner-directed
aggression.
More and more research is being conducted into
factors associated with dog aggression so it is likely
that we shall continue to improve our understanding.
Most of this research, however, is conducted
overseas and we may not be able to draw entirely the
same conclusions from our situation as those drawn
overseas. Most research is also conducted after the
aggression event. It may be equally or more useful
to look at predictive factors for aggression and to
examine why some dogs do not attack.
Solutions for aggressive behaviour
Aggressive behaviour in dogs can be reduced
and/or managed by a combination of short-term
management techniques and long term behavioural
therapy (Righetti, 2012).
Short-term MAnagement
of aggression
Management of aggression is essential to prevent
any other animal being injured. Strategies for
management include:
• yRelocation of the dog to areas where it is not
possible to attack or where it has less aggression
or anxiety-provoking stimulation.
• yUse of anti-aggression and/or controlling devices
such as muzzles, leads and head halters.
• yCalming agents including veterinary medication
and herbal medications.
• yHuman intervention during or just prior to an
attack.

102 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
• yAvoidance strategies such as walking away,
remaining quiet and still and avoiding eye contact
between dogs or between dog and human.
While one or more management strategies are
necessary to prevent injury or to lessen the
consequences of an attack, these strategies are
rarely a long-term solution. They are, however,
useful for prevention of immediate attack and
may be used by people who may encounter
potentially aggressive dogs, including council
animal management officers, veterinary staff, dog
groomers and others. Appropriate training in dog
body language and behaviour and in appropriate
interactions with dogs may need to be given. Animal
management operating procedure may need to be
revised and/or updated regularly, as knowledge on
dog aggression improves.
Long-term solutions
for aggression
To reduce canine aggressive behaviour in the long
term, a range of possibilities are possible, depending
on the cause of the underlying problem. Long-term
solutions include:
• yDesensitisation by gradually exposing the dog to
the situation that provokes the fearful or angry
response. Improvements have been made in
dog-to-dog aggression cases after only 10 days
of therapy (Orihel & Fraser, 2008) but need to be
continued in the long term.
• yTraining the dog to perform alternative, more
acceptable, behaviours.
• yActivity, routines and diets that meet the dog’s
needs and ensure no threat or competition for
resources (food, toys, shelter and/or attention).
• yVeterinary care including diagnosis and treatment
of potential medical conditions which may result
in the expression of aggressive behaviour, in
addition to regular check-ups.
Long-term measures are vital to the reduction of
aggressive behaviour in any individual animal but,
as these processes are not without danger, they
should be overseen by an experienced behavioural
professional. For people that work with dogs, or
encounter then on a regular basis while working, it is
often not necessary to actually implement long-term
solutions but it is imperative to inform dog owners
that such options are available.
Prevention of canine aggression in society
In addition to reducing aggression at an individual
dog level, it is essential that we reduce this unwanted
behaviour at a society level. This, of necessity,
involves a co-operative approach between the
various stakeholders involved including:
• yDog breeders - to ensure that desirable
behavioural traits are bred (King et al, 2012) and
that early developmental and environmental
factors, which may predispose dogs to specific
behavioural traits are understood and monitored
(Freedman et al, 1961; Webster, 1997).
• yPet owners – to ensure that suitable pets are
chosen and that environmental influencers, such
as socialisation and training, are understood and
implemented.
• yResearchers – to assess and evaluate which
canine behavioural traits are desired and can be
bred, developed and assessed; to monitor the
incidence of canine aggression and its influencing
factors in society; and to monitor the effects and
effectiveness of legislation on canine aggression.
• yTrainers and behaviourists – to work on a oneto-one
basis with owners of aggressive dogs and
those with the potential to be aggressive. This
may involve temperament testing and subsequent
therapies.
• yGovernment bodies – to collect information
about dog aggression incidents, to introduce and
implement legislation and to educate pet owners
on options available to reduce canine aggression.
• y Public – to educate themselves and to be
educated on dog behaviour and reducing the
likelihood of being on the receiving end of dog
aggression. This may require a coordinated
approach of delivering educational programs,
which are evaluated and constantly improved
(based on research findings), delivered by
professionals and volunteers.
A united and comprehensive approach to dog bite
reduction is a view echoed by many organisations
(eg. AVA, 2012) and involved bodies around the world.
The cooperation of all stakeholders in the humananimal
relationship will ensure that the humancanine
bond remains positive in the future.
References
A.V.A. (2012). Dangerous dogs – a sensible solution. Policy
and model legislative framework. The Australian Veterinary
Association Ltd. www.ava.com.au.
Beaver, B. (2001). A community approach to dog bite prevention
– AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human–Canine
interactions. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 281: 1732–1749.
Freedman, D.G., King, J.A and Elliot, O. (1961). Critical period in
the social development of dogs. Science, 133: 1016-1017.
Gershman, K.A., Sacks, J.J. and Wright, J.C. (1994). Which dogs
bite? A case-control study of risk factors. Pediatrics, 93: 913-917.
Herron, M., Shofer, F.S. and Reisner, I.R. (2009). Surey of the use
and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training
methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours.
App Anim Behav Sci, 117: 47-54.
Hsu, Y. and Sun, L. (2010). Factors associated with aggressive
responses in pet dogs. App Anim Behav Sci, 123: 108-123.

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 103
King, T., Marston, L. And Bennett, P.C. (2012). Breeding dogs for
beauty and behaviour: Why scientists need to do more to develop
valid and reliable behaviour assessments for dogskept as
companions. App Anim Behav Sci, 137: 1-12.
O’Sullivan, E.N., Jones, B.R., O’Sullivan, K. and Hanlon, A.J.
(2008). He management and behavioural history of 100 dogs
reported for biting a person. App Anim Behav Sci 114: 149-158.
Orihel, J.S. and Fraser, D. (2008). A note on the effectiveness of
behavioural rehabilitation for reducing inter-dog aggression in
shelter dogs. App Anim Behav Sci: 112: 400-405.
Overall, K.L. and Love, M. (2001). Dog bites to humans -
demography, epidemiology, injury and risk. J Am Vet Med Assoc,
218: 1923-1934.
Ozanne-Smith, J., Ashby, K. and Stathakis, V.Z. (2001). Dog bite
prevention – analysis, critical review and research agenda. Injury
Prevention, 7: 321-326.
Righetti, J. (2012). Dog Aggression Problems Solved. Ebook.
Longueville Books.
Rosado, B., Gacia-Belenguer, S., Leon, M. And Palacio J. (2009).
A comprehensive study of dog bites in Spain, 1995-2004. The
Veterinary Jounrl, 179: 383-391.
Sherman, C.K., Reisner, I.R., Taliaferro, L.A. and Houpt, K.A.
(1999). Characteristics, treatment, and outcome of 99 cases of
aggression between dogs. App Anim Behav Sci, 47: 91-108.
Shuler, C.M., DeBess, E.E., Lapidus, J.A. and Hedberg, K. (2008).
Canine and human factors related to dog bite injuries. JAVMA,
232: 542-546.
Thompson, P. (2004). Aggression effects – from a human
perspective + solutions. Urban Animal Management conference
proceedings.
Webster S D, (1997) Being sensitive to the sensitive period. In:
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Veterinary
Behavioural Medicine. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare,
England. pp 20-27.
About the author
With a passion for pets and extensive knowledge of
human–animal relationships, animal behaviourist
Dr Joanne Righetti consults with pet owners,
councils, commercial companies and not-forprofit
organisations. She is a also a regular radio
guest, a speaker aboard P&O cruises and also
hosts interactive sessions at numerous pet events.
Joanne attracts significant following on digital and
social media, including a website, blog, twitter
and facebook. Her latest venture is a series of pet
behaviour books tacking common issues such as
barking, anxiety and aggression. More about
Dr Jo and her business Pet Problems Solved at
www.joannerighetti.com
Contact
Dr Joanne Righetti
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Email: drjoanne@petproblemsolved.com.au
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

104 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
20
Promoting happiness in the workplace
Vanessa Rohlf
Antrozoology Research Group, Monash University
Working within the field of animal management
can be a complex, emotionally demanding and
stressful task. Not only are animal management
officers expected to be animal behaviour experts
but they are also expected to be skilled negotiators
and understand the human psychology underlying
compliance and pet ownership practices. Identifying
ways to not just cope with the demands of work
but to flourish at work is therefore an important
undertaking.
The aim of this presentation is to introduce delegates
to the growing field of Positive Psychology and
demonstrate how current knowledge within this
field can be applied to increase happiness in the
workplace as well other areas of your life.
What is Positive Psychology?
Positive psychology is a new and rapidly growing
field of Psychology. Unlike traditional models of
Psychology, Positive Psychology is concerned with
the study of optimal human functioning rather
than pathology. Basically positive psychologists
are concerned with understanding and promoting
happiness.
Exactly why happiness is important? Happiness is
associated with a range of positive outcomes. In the
workplace, increased happiness is associated with
improved work productivity, lower staff turnover,
reduced sick days and better relationships with
colleagues. More importantly happiness is also
associated with improved health and longevity.
Understanding Positive Psychology
According to the founder of Positive Psychology,
Martin Seligman, there are three dimensions to
happiness; the Pleasant Life, the Good Life, and the
Meaningful Life (Seligman, 2002).
The Pleasant Life
Basically the Pleasant Life is all about collecting
a whole bunch and feel-good experiences. These
experiences can be based on the past, present or
future. Keeping photos of your favourite holidays on
your desktop, savouring a glass of red, or looking
forward to the weekend are all examples of the
pleasant life. These forms of happiness, while
effective, are typically short lasting (Seligman, Park
& Steen, 2004). For example, the pleasure you feel
when eating chocolate soon fades as you take that
last bite.
The Good lIfe
The Good Life is all about participating in activities
that engage us. Happiness derived from this pathway
tends to be longer lasting than happiness derived
from pleasure. Engagement can typically be achieved
by participating in activities that utilise our skills.
These activities often absorb us and we tend to lose
our sense of time (Seligman, Park & Steen, 2004).
Psychologists call this experience ‘flow’. The kind of
activities likely to engage us in flow differ depending
on the individual for example, some people enjoy
gardening while others consider this activity a
chore. The key here is to identify those activities that
produce ‘flow’ and engage in them more often.
The Meaningful lIfe
The Meaningful life concerns the pursuit of
something larger than yourself. The pursuit of
meaning often gives us purpose in life (Seligman,
Park & Steen, 2004). While there are many ways
to increase meaning in our lives, one of the most
significant ways is to use our strengths and virtues
for the greater good. Basically this means we should
find out what we are good at and do them more often,
not just for ourselves but for others as well.
Some of these may include participating in religious
activities, contributing to charities or volunteering.
We don’t all have to be Mother Theresa’s but the
research shows that when we do something for
someone else we are actually happier than if we did
it just for ourselves.
The Full Life
One pathway is not necessarily better than the
others. To experience true happiness we need
to pursue all three pathways (Peterson, Park &
Seligman, 2005a).

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 105
Promoting happiness in the workplace
• yDiscover your strengths and virtues. Take
the VIA Signature Strengths questionnaire to
out what they are. This can be found at www.
authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu.
• yBuild on people’s strengths within the workplace.
Find out what people are good at and allocate
tasks accordingly.
• yAgain using your strengths formulate and work
towards short-term achievable goals.
• yAs a unit, share a common goal and vision with
your co-workers.
• yEngage positively with the community. If one of
your strengths is love of knowledge why not impart
some of that knowledge by holding responsible
pet ownership stalls at community events.
• yUse a Gratitude Journal. At the end of each work
day, write down three things that went well and
the reasons why they went well. Researchers
found that people who wrote down three good
things in a journal every day for one week
reported higher levels of happiness than those
that did not use a journal. The effect was still
observed six months after the intervention
(Seligman & Steen, 2005).
• yPractice forgiveness. Many of us feel angry or
hurt because we feel an injustice has occurred.
This can especially be the case if you’re dealing
with the public and monitoring compliance.
Whomever or whatever the transgressor, holding
on to these feelings will not change the situation
that has occurred. Research suggests there is a
relationship between forgiveness and happiness
(Maltby, Day & Barber, 2005).
Resources
Australian Positive Psychology Association (APPA)
• yThe APPA is an online community of people with a
shared interest in positive psychology.
• ywww.positivepsychologyaustralia.org/
The Authentic Happiness website.
• yThis website provides you with free access to
a number of questionnaires, newsletters and
teaching resources.
• yhttp://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/
Default.aspx
References
Diener, E. & Seligman, M. (2004). Beyond money, towards an
economy of wellbeing. American Psychological Society, 5 (1), 1-31.
Maltby, J., D, L., & Barber, L. (2005). Forgiveness and happiness.
the differing contexts of forgiveness using the distinction
between hedonic and eudaimonic happiness. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 6(1), 1-13.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. (2005a). Orientations to
happiness and life satisfaction: the full life versus the empty life.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25-41.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. (2005b). Assessment of
character strengths. In G. P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross & S. S. Hill
iii (Eds.), Psychologists’ Desk Reference. (2nd ed., pp. 93-98). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic Hapiness. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P, Park, A. C., & Steen, T. (2004). A balanced
psychology and a full life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society London – Biological Sciences, 359, 1379-1381.
About the author
A former Veterinary Nurse, Vanessa is a Monash
University PhD candidate studying owner attitudes
towards responsible dog ownership behaviours. She
currently holds a position as Research Officer at
Monash University.
Contact
Vanessa Rohlf
Email: vanessa.rohlf@monash.edu
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

106 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
21
Beach education intervention: Implementation and evaluation of a social
change campaign
Dani Scuteri and Vanessa Rohlf
City of Charles Sturt, SA
Anthrozoology Research Group, Monash University
Through regular Animal Management Patrols, the
City of Charles Sturt identified the need to address
the issue of non-compliance of dog owners along
the 13km of foreshore. Undertaking a tailored
survey along the foreshore it was identified that the
main issue of non-compliance relating to animal
management was dog owners’ lack of knowledge.
In collaboration with Vanessa Rohlf from Monash
University the survey results were analysed and
collated to assist in creating a tailored strategy
to address the real issue along the foreshore.
Behavioural observations of non compliance with
on leash requirements have decreased since the
implementation of the intervention suggesting that
the campaign has been successful in its overall goal.
The implemented strategy will be discussed with
particular attention paid into the preliminary results
of the tailored strategy and the observation of the
differences in dog owners’ behaviour, knowledge and
perceptions.
Introduction
The City of Charles Sturt is located on the western
side of the Adelaide City Cbd. It is one of the
State’s largest Councils covering an area of 5557
hectares with a population of 105,573 people and
14,937 registered dogs. Ideally located within the
western suburbs the City of Charles Sturt is close
to the City of Adelaide, the beach, the River Torrens
Linear Park, the airport, shopping facilities and
entertainment venues. The City is characterised by a
diversity of land use having a balance of residential
including high density, industrial and commercial
activities; and a diversity of people in terms of
culture, age and socioeconomic character.
One of the particular highlights of the City of Charles
Sturt is its coastline. The City boasts 13 kms of
coastline which are divided up into six beach areas;
Grange, Henley, Henley South, West Beach, Tennyson
and West Lakes. These beaches are very popular,
particularly in the summer months, and are used
for a variety of recreational purposes by the City of
Charles Sturt residents as well as visitors to the
area.
The Council welcomes dog owners to all six beach
areas. In order to balance the needs of other beach
users with those of the dog owners the council
allows dogs to be off lead but only during designated
times. These are during the daylight savings period,
before 10am and after 8pm. Further to this when
dogs are off lead owners must ensure that their
dog is under effective control. This means that
the person in control of the dog must be able to
demonstrate voice control of the dog and it must
be within close proximity of and within sight of the
person in control of the dog.
These requirements are important because they
ensure the safety of all dogs and people.
Having received a number of complaints (Gorka,
2001; Williams, 2011) concerning non-compliance
with leash laws and nuisance dog behaviour together

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 107
with Vanessa Rohlf from the Anthrozoology Research
Group, Monash University (Rohlf, 2010) we developed
and executed a survey to identify the real issue of
non-compliance along the Charles Sturt coastline.
The survey we developed was aimed at identifying
the real problem and its magnitude. Both dog owners
and non-dog owners were surveyed to explore
compliance with on lead requirements, the frequency
and perceptions of potential nuisance behaviour,
as well as knowledge of on lead requirements and
effective control. We also sought to determine
whether non-dog owners and dog owners differed
in terms of their perceptions towards potentially
problematic behaviours and whether the frequency
of non-compliance with on-lead requirements
and potentially problematic behaviours differed
across the six beach areas surveyed. (Rohlf and
Vukoje, Beach Education Survey – A Social Change
Campaign, 2011)
The aim of this paper is to discuss the implemented
strategy with particular attention paid into the
preliminary results of the tailored strategy and
the observation of the differences in dog owners’
behaviour, knowledge and perceptions. I will
conclude by outlining the need to utilise effective
research and implement tailored strategies when
dealing with real world issues.
Survey results
In response to complaints about non-compliance
with leash laws and the existence of problematic
behaviours along the 13km stretch of coastline we
designed and implemented a survey to determine the
extent of the problem and identify factors underlying
these issues.
According to the survey there was a definite issue
with non-compliance of leash laws across all six
beaches with a third of the participants surveyed
having witnessed non-compliance. Even 17% of the
dog owners surveyed admitted that they don’t always
have their dog on leash when they are supposed to.
It is also likely that these rates of compliance are
an underestimate because dog owners may have
been reluctant to report acts of non-compliance,
especially to a representative of the council. One of
the major impediments to compliance appears to be
a lack of awareness of the leash laws at this beach.
Only 53.9% of dog owners knew what the on lead
times were. Even those that thought they knew what
the times were incorrect.
The survey results also reveal the existence of
potentially problematic dog behaviours across
all six of the beach areas with dog owners and
non-dog owners being equally affected by these
behaviours. Approximately 43% of the beach users
surveyed reported that dogs run up to them at
least sometimes and 36% reported that dogs jump
up on them at least sometimes. Despite this, few
people actually reported these dog behaviours are
problematic. On the contrary, many were amused by
dogs running up to them (26.6%) or jumping up on
them (30.7%). Clearly then if the majority of people
are not bothered by the incident dogs owners are not
likely to be motivated to change their dogs behaviour
because the behaviour is being positively reinforced
by people’s amusement. The fact that some people
were annoyed and frightened by these antics
however should not be ignored. Dog owners need to
be made aware that there are people out there that
do not appreciate these dog behaviours.
Overall though, most dog owners are believed to be
responsible. Dogs in general are also believed to be
friendly and obedient with both dog owners and nondog
owners sharing similar views.
Implemented strategy
Taking into consideration the results of the survey
the intervention we implemented was designed
with a focus on education and social influence.
The strategy was implemented during the daylight
savings period during 2011/2012. As knowledge was
found to be lacking in relation to the on leash / off
leash laws the first strategy we implemented was
educational banners along the 13km of coastline.
The banners featured key messages to address the
issues that were raised within the survey. These
included:
• yInforming dog owners on the leash times.
• yEducating dog owners on what ‘under effective
control’ means. This is because the survey
revealed that only about 40% correctly understood
this term effective control. Highlight that it’s more
than just being able to recall your dog.
• yPromote dog obedience because, according to the

108 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
survey, only about 61% say that their dog returns
always when they recall the dog.
• yRemind dog owners to be mindful of other beach
users. Their dog might be cute and cuddly to them
but there are others who may be afraid of their
dog especially if the dog runs up to them or jumps
on them.
• yRemind dog owners that dogs can be scared and
need their attention and support.
Having identified the Henely Beach Jetty, as a central
part of the coastline, with the largest number of
people and dogs, we created a large banner that was
placed on the Henley Jetty.
As knowledge was found to be lacking in relation
to the on leash / off leash by laws the strategy
will be tailored with a focus of educating beach
users of these laws. The banners were placed on
star droppers and were moved along the 13km of
coastline by the Beach Education Officer during his
roster shifts. This ensured the banners were moved
along the foreshore at different times and days.
Along with the banners the Beach Education Officer
had increased hours. The rostered hours were
for both morning and afternoon shifts to provide
opportunity to communicate with a range of beach
users at different times. Furthermore the Animal
Management Officers’ were also undertaking daily
patrols along the foreshore during the day.
The Charles Sturt Dog Owners Association was
also briefed with the new foreshore strategy
and encouraged to speak to dog owners about
responsible dog ownership and promote positive
beach culture in regards to animal management.
Charles Sturt Dog Owners association consists
of mainly animal management volunteers and
animal owners alike that are passionate about
positive animal management. Their support has
been instrumental in promoting responsible animal
management in particular along the foreshore
through the inclusion of a Council column within
their newsletter as well as a positive voice in the
community.
Beach education officer observations
Beach Education Officer observations outlined a
noticeable decrease in the number of dogs off the
leash in comparison to last year.
The mobile banners on the beach were noted as
attracting a bit of attention from both dog owners
and non-dog owners alike. This added exposure has
been received quite well so far, with non-dog owners
in particular strongly in favour of the education
initiative. Dog owners are not quite as happy, and are
generally more neutral regarding the presence of
the banners; however there have been no complaints
against them.

Annual Conference on Animal Management AIAM Proceedings 2012 109
There is a noticeable ‘beach culture’ among dog
owners, in particular during the morning. The same
people tend to walk the same stretch of beach most
days of the week, and most seem to know each other
fairly well. This adds a good sense of community
amongst dog owners, as they have no problems with
other dogs coming up to them or their pet. This same
culture is not quite as apparent in the afternoon. This
group has been very receptive to the new education
initiative and appears more compliant to the leash
requirements along the foreshore in comparison to
last year.
With the introduction of a new casual beach uniform
that featured “Animal Management” on the back of
a white top the officer was recognised easier as a
Council employee by beach users. In comparison to
last year people are more receptive and accepting
of the education officer and in particular him
encouraging dog owners to ensure dogs are kept on
the leads and are practicing effective control. Last
year people were found to be not quite as accepting
of this education.
Setting up the banners each shift did take some time
to set up and take down. However, the mobility of
the banners allows for them to reach more beach
users, and so spread the council’s message more
effectively. During the time involved in setting up
the banners each shift people have approached
the education officer to converse about the banner
messages and express their opinion or ask
questions. This served as a good opportunity to build
rapport with the public, and act as a ‘friendly face’ of
the council.
It became quite noticeable that most people would
immediately put their dog on the leash if the beach
education officer was near. Most people would also
do this if they walked past the education banners
however some would still continue to keep their dog
off the leash.
While the banners may help, it seems that the
combination of a Council presence greatly increases
compliance of dog owners on the beach.
During the 16 shifts the officer undertook prior
receiving the banners, he spoke to 30 dog owners
who had their dogs running free during leashing
times. In the next 16 shifts, this number increased
to 35 dogs. While this may suggest that the banners
are having no impact, anecdotal evidence from beach
users, in particular non-dog owners, indicates that
the banners may be having some influence, or at the
bare minimum indicating to beach users than the
council is attempting to minimise the incidence of
off-leash dogs.
Results
The Beach Education Officer was asked to monitor
and record the number of dogs witnessed off leash
and the number not under effective control during
his patrols. Those dogs not under effective control
were mainly recorded during the designated offleash
times.
The table below shows a comparison of results from
this year to last.
Year
Patrols
Undertaken
Off Leash
during the
On Leash
times
Not
Under
Control
totAL
offences
2011 32 74 14 88
2012 47 78 13 91
Although there is a slightly larger number of dogs
witnessed off leash, as the number of patrols have
been increased this would indicate that this number
has actually decreased.
To compare the two we divided the number of
offences by the number of patrols to give us the
number of offences observed per patrol.
In 2011 2.3 offences were observed per patrol in
comparison to 2012 where only 1.6 offences were
observed per patrol.
The number of dogs witnessed not under effective
control has also decreased taking into consideration
the number of increased patrols.
Conclusion
Establishing why dog owners fail to abide by leash
laws is a difficult task however by implementing
a survey to find the real issues behind the lack of
compliance provides us with the tools required to
move forward with a tailored strategy. Taking into
consideration that the intervention implemented
was prompted by community concern the newly
implemented strategy is showing positive results
not only in compliance but also in acceptable by
the community as a whole as well as dog owner
behaviour.
Conferences like those organised by AIAM give
participants’ opportunity to not only share ideas and
present findings but to look at ways to collaboratively
tackle existing issues facing Councils. Through my
work with Vanessa we were able to locate the root

110 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
of the issue regarding non-compliance along the
Charles Sturt foreshore through our combined skills
and knowledge. Through our continual work together
we developed a tailored strategy towards increasing
compliance that will ensure ongoing successful
outcomes.
References
Gorka, B. 2011. ‘Problem pooches’ Weekly Times Messenger,
February 23, p. 26.
Rohlf, V. Why pet owners don’t always do the right thing. Paper
presented at the 4th AIAM annual conference on urban animal
management, Glenelg, Australia, 6-8 October, 2010.
Williams, K. 2011. ‘Beach is for all’, Weekly Times Messenger,
March 2, p.21
About the authors
Dani Scuteri
Dani is the Urban Animal Management Project
Officer within the City of Charles Sturt. Dani’s
background is in education and customer service
having a Bachelor of Education from the University of
South Australia. She currently works as a member of
the Animal Management Team of Charles Sturt and
coordinates, monitors and evaluates the strategic
Urban Animal Management Plan which is designed
to set the direction for the management of urban
animals within our community. Furthermore the
project officer is responsible for developing and
implementing various educational programs and
providing guidance and support to the Animal
Management Officers in relation to strategies
surrounding animal management within the City.
Contact
Dani Scuteri
City of Charles Sturt
Email: dvukoje@charlessturt.sa.gov.au
Vanessa Rohlf
A former Veterinary Nurse, Vanessa is a Monash
University PhD candidate studying owner attitudes
towards responsible dog ownership behaviours. She
currently holds a position as Research Officer at
Monash University.
Contact
Vanessa Rohlf
Email: vanessa.rohlf@monash.edu
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Australian Institute
of Animal Management Inc
PO Box 4137, Weston Creek ACT 2611 • ABN 70 123 365 245
Phone (02) 6161 9024 Email membership@aiam.com.au
Fax (02) 6161 4719 Web www.aiam.com.au