The Australian constitution makes no mention of native animals. Responsibility for animal welfare is largely retained by the states and territories via a fragmented, complex, contradictory, inconsistent system of regulatory management. Given that most jurisdictions have expressly made the possession of wildlife unlawful, the action of taking and possessing an animal, to rehabilitate it, defies the regulatory process. In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to microchip, band, or mark an animal, meaning that no reliable method is available to monitor an animal. Each year, a minimum of 50,000 rehabilitated native animals are released back to the wild, with little post-release monitoring. Where required, the assessments of behavioural and health requirements to confirm suitability for release may be undertaken by people with either negligible or questionable qualifications. Whilst it can be appropriate to rehabilitate and release injured native animals back to the wild, there may be moral, ethical, and practical reasons for not releasing hand-reared orphan native animals. This article examines the evolution, and explains the consequences, of decentralised regulation on wildlife carers and rehabilitating animals. It recommends that the practice of placing hand-reared native animals into the wild, and the regulatory framework that provides for it, should be reviewed.
In Australia, the UK and the US dog ownership is prevalent with an estimated 40% of Australian households, 25% of UK households, and 50% of US households owning a dog. Once acquired, a dog usually becomes a family companion so, unlike a faulty product, it can rarely be returned or resold without some emotional impact on both the acquirer and the dog. Regarding the reality of dog relinquishment, there is a growing need for cross-disciplinary research that considers how dog owners are making their acquisition choices and, if prioritising different attributes, leads to more optimal acquisition choices. This research collected data from 2840 dog owners via an online survey and examines how owners prioritised various attributes when acquiring their latest dog. The Pearson-Blotchky analysis of survey results show owners are split into two groups, with each group prioritising different attributes or characteristics in their search for a new dog. The first group are those dog owners who prioritised: the ability to rescue a dog, how compatible the dog was on the first meeting, and how compatible they believed the dog would be with their household. The second group are those owners who prioritised: a dog’s morphology, temperament predictability, and breeding practices. While each group prioritised different attributes, neither group made substantially more optimal acquisition choices in terms of overall satisfaction with the dog that they ultimately selected.
It is estimated that around 40% of Australian households currently own dogs that have been acquired from a variety of sources, including purpose-bred litters. However, little is known about how litters are being planned, whelped, and raised and less still on what motivates breeders to adopt their current practices. The current study used on online survey to explore the motivations and aims of Australian dog breeders; the breeding and selling practices Australian dog breeders favor and the extent to which breeders classify their breeding in terms of business, or hobby. Responses from breeders (n = 275) revealed that whilst most did not commence breeding to make financial gain, 86% of participants who answered the question confirmed that the making of money when they breed was a very important aim. Most breeders did not view their breeding as a commercial activity, despite nearly 20% of them confirming that they had declared income from the breeding and selling of puppies to the Australian Taxation Office.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.