Euthanising animals on multiple properties and roadside top concern for WA vets at Firearms Act inquiry

Labor’s contentious firearms reforms have left WA veterinarians scratching their heads over conflicting licensing rules and advice for euthanising animals across multiple property types and the roadside. The third day of hearings of the parliamentary inquiry into the Firearms Act heard from agriculture stakeholders and industry leaders. David Marshall, a veterinarian at Dog Rock Veterinary Hospital in Albany and representative of the Australian Veterinary Association, told the inquiry on September 17 WA vets were concerned about their ability to carry out their job in relation to euthanising livestock in rural areas. He said the AVA was looking for a “relatively straightforward way” for vets to hold a firearms licence for euthanasia purposes, proposing that registered vets and practices be prescribed as a business for the business licence category. “When we looked at the legislation — and other vets have done this independently of myself — it seemed that the business licence category was the logical category given that it defines euthanasia and sedation of animals,” Dr Marshall said. “We had one vet, that I recently spoke to, say that when they applied for that (a business licence) that they’ve actually been steered into applying for a primary producers licence, because they happened to own a farm themselves. “The question and concern we have around that is what protection is there then for euthanising an animal on another property. “I personally have enquired about a business licence and have been steered down the hunting permission because my own property has qualified for hunting permission.” The gun reforms came into effect on March 31 after being enshrined into law in June last year, drawing the ire of WA’s shooting community who argue that the laws are too strict on law-abiding shooters including farmers, feral pest hunters and others. Dr Marshall told the inquiry the AVA was afforded “zero” opportunity for consultation with WA Police before the introduction of the legislation. Recalling his own experience in applying for a licence as a vet, Dr Marshall said he instead received an email directing him to apply for temporary hunting permission when an animal needed to be euthanised on another property. “Well that doesn’t work if it’s on a roadside and it doesn’t work if it’s on a hobby farmer’s property that doesn’t have a hunting permission or a property that isn’t registered,” he said. “It’s creating a lot of logistics and administration around what historically has been a pretty straightforward Act.” Firearms are often used as a last resort when euthanising an animal when other methods are not appropriate or available. “It’s all very well to say we’ll call in a professional shooter — but he’s off the back of woop woop getting kangaroos for pet food or whatever he’s doing,” Dr Marshall said. “It’s about having people who have the expertise and the capability, and are accessible, and vets are in a bit of a unique position to both assess and then also perform euthanasia.” The bipartisan inquiry into the Act launched in May and began its first round of hearings on September 10. More than 20 stakeholder groups shared their thoughts on the legislation across four days. The Legislative Committee hearings have been closed to the public, and come after 38 of the 2670 submissions detailing stakeholders’ thoughts on the laws were released on the WA Parliament website earlier this month. In a submission to the inquiry before the hearing, AVA senior advocacy officer Dr Robyn Whitaker outlined how firearms can present a safer and more humane way of euthanising an animal than methods such as lethal injection or captive bolt devices. “The AVA acknowledges that the primary intent of the Firearms Act 2024 is to enhance public safety by promoting the responsible ownership and use of firearms within the community,” she said in the submission. “Nonetheless, the association remains keen to ensure that veterinarians will continue to have appropriate access to firearms where required for the humane euthanasia of animals, and that increased regulatory measures do no inadvertently compromise animal welfare outcomes.”