“The ACT government has gone totally over the top in its draft Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs in the ACT… a deliberate distraction from the disaster that is the ACT budget,” says political columnist MICHAEL MOORE.

For a dog owner, who is also a dog lover, the care and management of our “best friends” is of critical importance. 

However, there is a balance. Whereas the ACT government has gone totally over the top in its draft Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs in the ACT.

It is a deliberate distraction from the disaster that is the ACT budget, and to cover up the poor decisions regarding light rail. 

Alternatively, it might be an attempt to discourage Canberrans from having dogs as pets. The code really does talk down to people. It is lengthy, legalistic, designed for idiots and assumes no common sense. 

There is ample evidence regarding the positive role that pets, and particularly our “best friends” play in improving the mental health and well-being of owners. 

A code of this kind ought to be encouraging dog ownership within a sensible, easy-to-read framework. Instead, it includes issues that seem specifically designed to raise the ire of all but the most extreme animal liberationists. 

The Animal Welfare Act 1992 already requires provision of appropriate food, water, exercise, housing, hygiene, health care and enrichment. The draft code adds “the person in charge of a dog should provide for its physical, emotional, mental, and behavioural needs”.

However, the code cites the mandatory requirement of providing “human contact for a reasonable length of time each day, three hours minimum”. Who is going to police such a mandatory requirement? What does it mean anyway? Is having the dog in the laundry at night providing human contact?

Most Canberrans would agree with the overall objectives that attempts to ensure dogs, that are “sentient beings”, are provided with care that “maximises their health and wellbeing, and they are protected from pain, distress, danger, illness, and injury”. The objectives are excellent, the delivery in this draft code is a different story.

Restrictions on the use of retractable leashes makes no sense. Some dogs exercise much more when they have the flexibility to sniff, run and bounce rather than effectively being kept on a “heel” throughout a walk. And, for many, access to off-leash areas can be quite challenging.

The guideline states “a person in charge should not use retractable leashes as they may result in injury”. Then it provides a note: “A retractable leash limits control, poses risk and could be dangerous to both the dog and the walker”. Could be dangerous! Any walking “poses risks” and “could be dangerous to both the dog and the walker”.

The allowance doesn’t excuse this nonsense: “Retractable or flexi leashes should be selected with care and is only suitable towards well trained dogs who already have good leash behaviour and is under voice control, or for temporary situations such as a toilet break when travelling”.

Dogs need clean water. However, providing a guideline that states “access to clean drinking water should be monitored at a minimum twice daily, supplying fresh water on each occasion”. Ridiculous! There is already a legislative requirement for sufficient fresh and clean drinking water to be available. Why go to the extreme in the guidelines?

Apparently, dogs “should be trained by an accredited training provider” and they ought to be trained using positive reinforcement (treats etcetera) because these are the most effective techniques”. Good idea! However, there are so many Canberrans who are perfectly capable of training a dog to suit their needs and those of the family.

Draft code seems to treat all people like idiots

Under the heading “Vehicles”, it is mandatory that dogs that are travelling in vehicles must be secured with a harness or within a “secured container”. It is not good enough to securely tether one of the commercially available framed canvas enclosures. The code requires “one whole end of the container must be open and covered with bars, weld mesh or smooth expanded metal securely fastened to the container”.

The draft code does seem to treat all people like idiots… and the targeted idiots are not the ones who will read it. 

At least there is an opportunity for residents to have a say – assuming City Services Minister Tara Cheyne will actually pay attention to the feedback!

Now, let’s get back to the issue that we should be discussing… the appalling state of the ACT finances and the absurd budget.

Michael Moore is a former member of the ACT Legislative Assembly and an independent minister for health. He has been a political columnist with “CityNews” since 2006.