WHO'S RESPONSIBLE?
Not only local government
Local government has the main
responsibility for MPM. But communities, petowners, other levels
of government and specialists also play their part.
Pet management is really people management
Few people would deny that pet
ownership in our communities brings an array of problems spanning
public nuisance issues, human health issues and animal welfare
issues.
The statistics show that many of
the problems are not trivial. But each is resolvable Ö if
effective MPM policies are implemented. Whose job is it to solve
pet problems in our cities and towns?
Well certainly not the pets!
Responsible pet management is really people management (Cartoon).
A recent television ad sells tyres
that give an extremely comfortable ride. The child sitting in the
back seat is so comfortable that he inadvertently goes to sleep.
He wakes with a start, asking ëWhoís responsible?í In this
section we discuss who is responsible for making MPM run smoothly
in a municipality.
Communities are responsible for MPM
Ideally, communities need to adopt
pet-owning routines that are so good that no-one notices the bumps
any more. But it would be naive to expect such an idyllic state to
happen by accident. Good tyres donít just happen and neither do
contented neighbourhoods where pets are not a problem. Everyone
needs to take responsibility for building tolerant neighbourhoods.
Pet owners are responsible for MPM
To succeed we need responsible pet
owners, citizens who respect their own pets and respect their
neighbours and do the right thing. (See: Responsible owner
(photograph)) But what is doing
the right thing?
The notion of
responsible pet ownership has been at the forefront of the MPM
debate for some years. Many lists have been published, each with a
slightly different slant on the responsible ownership issue.
For further insights on responsible
pet ownership, see:
State governments, as well as local governments,
have responsibilities for MPM
Some aspects of MPM cannot be
implemented by individuals, no matter how committed they might be.
With urban consolidation, decreased backyards and increasing
competition for public space, conflicts between pet owners and the
rest of the neighbourhood are difficult to avoid with goodwill
alone. Not that every pet owner can be relied upon to display
goodwill. According to the 80:20 rule, about 20% of owners will
not show consideration to their neighbours even when problems are
pointed out to them.4 For some situations, Government
solutions at state government and local government level are
needed to resolve conflict between dissenting pet owners and
neighbourhoods.
Because pet problems are community
problems, local government is the most appropriate level of
government to deal with the day-to-day issues of MPM.
However, not all local governments
agree that they should be in the front line, some feeling that
they are getting an unfair deal
compared with state government authorities.
The allocation of responsibility
for MPM at government level differs from state to state. In
Western Australia, AMREX, a commercial venture supported by local
councils, offers many of the umbrella services provided by state
boards in some other states. (See: Some government solutions, incl.
Community specialists have MPM
responsibilities
The notion of responsible pet
ownership has been at the forefront of the MPM.
We also need authorities to
administer pet-owning programs that maximise the benefit for
everyone and minimise the problems. The authorities need to call
on specialists to help
them develop and implement good policies; they also need competent
PMOs who are effective MPM operatives.
It is local
government, however, which plays the main role in managing effective MPM.
1.
Companion Animal Task Force. 1991. Report on Dog Control: [independent report to Brisbane City Council]. Brisbane.
2.
Hindle A. 1992. Designing community education programs to promote animal welfare: the RSPCA's experiences. In: Murray RW, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the First National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Brisbane, 1992). Mackay QLD: Chiron Media: 11-27.
3.
Jennens GW, Raine TG. 1992. Your Dog's Behaviour and the Law in Western Australia. Perth: Published and distributed by the authors.
4.
Judson J. 1996. The Australian Canine Good Citizenô Program. In: Murray RW, Penridge HE, editors. PetPlan [CD-ROM for Windows]. Mooloolah Qld: Chiron Media.
|