REGISTRATION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Indicators show poor registration compliance

According to the recent NSW Companion Animals Green Paper most dogs are not registered.¹ The Green Paper stated that about 2% of dogs are registered nationally. This might have been a misprint: it does seem an incredibly low figure. The Green Paper also stated that despite the statutory requirement that all dogs over 6 months of age in NSW should be registered annually, only about 30% of metropolitan Sydney dogs were registered at that time. If these figures are correct, it is obvious that registration isnít happening properly in Sydney. This probably reflects the situation in the rest of Australia. Certainly McCann found similarly poor results in South Australia in 1992. In New Zealand, registration rates may be a little better. For example, a survey of Auckland councils reported 50% compliance rates.²

Facing the reality

In Chapter 5 we pointed out that effective strategists always aim to understand the system in which they are operating. Any council genuinely wishing to achieve full registration must first be realistic about the shortfall in local registration compliance.

But each Australian council does not need to do a McCann-type study to come up with a reliable performance assessment of their registration system. We know that there is close to one dog per five people in Australia.³ By dividing municipal populations by five, the number of dogs that should be registered locally can be estimated. Comparison with actual registrations will reveal the local shortfall.

Another method of registration performance assessment is to keep track of the proportion of impounded dogs that carry correct registration details. It should always be remembered that a dog not carrying the official form of registration ID device is not properly registered. Also, if the owner details applying to the ID tag/chip are not current and correct, then, once again the dog is not properly registered. As we pointed out before, when all impounded dogs are correctly registered, there is no need for a pound at all; owners can be immediately located and straying dogs returned to them.

Yet another way of assessing local compliance with registration laws is by strategic checking on a door-to-door basis at home or on a dog- by-dog basis in public places. Councils that find that all dogs surveyed in these ways are in fact properly registered, have an effective registration system.

Reasons for poor registration performance

For all the reasons already outlined in this chapter, full registration is fundamental to effective MPM. Why is it, then, that so little council effort seems to be directed at achieving full registration?

We discuss five main reasons for poor registration compliance:

ï low priority

If half the dogs in the locality arenít registered, the public neither know nor care. They donít understand that the Council canít begin to deal with all the other kinds of problems mentioned without an up-to-date, across-the- board dog registration database. The only people who seem to understand are the people trying to find remedies to the problems.

ï low commitment

Most councillors who shape local policy on MPM are coming from occupational backgrounds that have nothing to do with MPM. It is not surprising then that these councillors struggle to grasp the significance of registration.

ï inequity

Where the registration system is only capable of achieving partial compliance, the dog owners who pay are clearly not getting a fair go.

ï lack of funding

It is true in some councils, that revenue generated by registrations is insufficient to pay even the salaries of the people whose task it is to see that dogs are registered.

ï vested interests

There are all sorts of commercial enterprises that depend entirely on selling goods and services for pets and pet owners. People associated with these industries obviously feel threatened by anything they think might impact negatively on their business.

The way ahead

We have argued that registration is intended to be a user-pays arrangement for identifying dogs and maintaining a complete and up-to-date municipal dog database. Four things will determine if a registration system pays its way or makes a loss:

ï compliance rate

Are all the dogs registered? What proportion are falling through the cracks? Is the local law adequate? Are there better ways of ensuring full compliance?

ï fee setting

Is the registration fee sufficient? Has somebody done the sums?

ï administrative efficiency and effectiveness

Is the process being managed efficiently?

ï allocation of registration revenue

Are registration funds being used wholly for maintenance of the registration database or are they being used in part for some other aspect of MPM or even some other council activity?

It is not really very complicated. But then sometimes even the simplest principles can get run off the rails by contrary interests.

For further insights, click to see:

ï McCann on dog registration performance in South Australia

ï More reasons for poor registration compliance

1. New South Wales Companion Animals Working Party Advising the Minister for Local Government. 1996. New South Wales Companion Animal Green Paper.

2. Standards for the Keeping and Custody of Dogs and Cats: Notification No.28, July 16 1975 of the PM's Office, Pt IV, Conservation of the Living Environment.

3. BIS Shrapnel. 1995. Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian Economy. 2nd ed. BIS Shrapnel.