Kylie Lang: Hold people who euthanise their pets out of ‘convenience’ accountable

To kill a pet because it has become an inconvenience is not “humane” in my book and those who do it deserve to be punished, writes Kylie Lang.

Pet owners who have their pets put down simply they’ve become an inconvenience should be punished.

Tell me this: If an animal’s owner can be fined $306,000 – or face three years behind bars – for a breach of duty of care that includes death, why are people who demand their perfectly healthy pets be euthanised getting off scot-free?

What is wrong with the reporting process and animal protection law that stops these callous individuals from being held to account?

These are fair and reasonable questions, however the responses I’ve received from the state government and the RSPCA this week leave me no closer to a solution for unwarranted euthanasia.

Why are people who demand their perfectly healthy pets be euthanised getting off scot-free?

Following my coverage last week on holiday-makers asking vets to kill their dogs and cats so they can avoid kennel costs, readers shared myriad other terrible excuses.

These included a puppy having an overbite and therefore considered a blight on a breeder’s reputation; a dog being disliked by a person’s new partner (ditch the guy, save the dog, I say); and ignorant people choosing breeds unsuitable for their surroundings (Kelpies do not belong in units!).

An academic with previous experience working with the RSPCA asked if the enforcement system could be improved and, where there were loopholes in the legislation if the law could be tightened and amended further.

Louise Floyd, associate professor of Law at James Cook University, also says the rewards would be wide reaching.

“It is not just animals who benefit from robust regulation – the wellbeing of society is enhanced when we address these issues,” Dr Floyd says. “I think it was (Mahatma) Gandhi who once said the measure of a society is how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable.”

This is true.

As it stands now, vets are bound by a professional code of conduct to carry out an owner’s wishes – which include euthanasia – but what if vets reported people who request unnecessary killings to the RSPCA?

Its inspectors handle complaints about pets and prosecute offenders, with the state government picking up the tab.

RSPCA Queensland’s general manager of inspectorate and rescue Rachel Woodrow says “unnecessary euthanasia has not been raised with the RSPCA previously as an area of concern and therefore we have not advocated for amendments (to the Animal Care and Protection Act) associated with this”.

According to section 18 of the act, it is an offence if a person “unjustifiably, unnecessarily or unreasonably injures or wounds an animal”.

However, Ms Woodrow says euthanasia by a vet is a humane method of killing an animal so the act does not apply.

Asked if the legislation should be revised or tightened, she says no.

“Vets already have such a significant burden on them and legislation like this could add more pressure and would then open them up to potential prosecution,” she says. “We want to encourage more people into the veterinary industry, not give them more reasons not to.”

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries says it will “continue to engage with veterinary groups, animal welfare organisations and other stakeholders to discuss how the welfare of animals can be better protected”.

To kill a pet because it has become an inconvenience is not “humane” in my book.

Admittedly, having a pet injected with enough anaesthesia to stop it’s heart is less traumatic for the animal than “being left to rot”, as one vet put it, for days in a stressful “kill shelter” or being abandoned at home without food or water.

But to kill a pet because it has become an inconvenience is not “humane” in my book.

Joanne Burton, a canine educator and owner of Paw & Order Noosa, believes existing laws don’t account for people who consider dogs “disposable”.

“Until we get the message across that dogs are sentient beings capable of thought, emotions, fear, anxiety, clinical depression and the ability to make choices just like us, they will continue to be seen as goods and chattels and people will be able to do whatever they want with them,” she says.

A 2022 amendment to the act states the maximum penalty of $309,600 or three years’ imprisonment “covers actions the community would perceive as cruel and unacceptable”.

They include leaving an animal in a hot car. Surely, “unacceptable” also applies to the extermination of animals because they get in the way of the precious plans, goals or whims of humans.

The department spokesperson also says: “Queenslanders expect that animals be treated with care and respect.”

That we do, so start investigating unwarranted euthanasia and do something about it.

Kylie Lang is associate editor of The Courier-Mail

[e-mail]