Three Hours a Day: Are We Finally Getting Serious About Pet Welfare?
The ACT government’s proposal requiring dog owners to spend at least three hours daily with their pets has sparked quite the debate online, and honestly, it’s about time we had this conversation. While scrolling through the various reactions, I found myself nodding along with some comments while shaking my head at others.
The immediate question everyone seems to be asking is: how on earth would you enforce something like this? It’s a fair point. You can’t exactly have council officers with stopwatches hiding behind every garden fence. But I think people are missing the bigger picture here – this isn’t really about creating a pet police force.
What struck me most in the online discussion was someone describing a corgi in Melbourne kept on a balcony 24/7, with the owner spending just five minutes daily refreshing food and water. The RSPCA apparently can’t act because technically, the dog has food, water, and shelter. That’s heartbreaking, and it highlights exactly why we need clearer standards around what constitutes adequate care.
My daughter’s been pestering us for a dog for years, and every time I explain that a pet isn’t just a cute accessory – it’s a living being that needs attention, exercise, and companionship. The number of people who seem genuinely surprised by a three-hour minimum tells me we’ve got a fundamental problem with how some folks view pet ownership.
The enforcement question is actually quite clever when you think about it. This law creates a clear standard that can be applied when neighbours report neglect or when authorities investigate complaints. It’s not about randomly checking on every dog owner – it’s about having concrete criteria when someone’s clearly not meeting their responsibilities. Think of it like speed limits; we don’t have police monitoring every driver constantly, but the law gives them a clear benchmark when they do need to act.
I’ve watched this play out in my own neighbourhood. There’s a house down the street where the owners go away for days at a time, leaving their dog in the backyard. The barking starts around 6 AM and continues intermittently throughout the day. Council can act on noise complaints, but if the dog wasn’t barking, there’d be no recourse for what’s essentially abandonment. This new law would change that equation.
The pushback from some quarters is telling. One comment asked if the government should also mandate wiping your own arse – completely missing the point that pets are dependent beings we choose to take responsibility for. It’s not about government overreach; it’s about acknowledging that pet ownership comes with genuine obligations.
What frustrates me is how we’ve normalised treating pets as accessories rather than companions. The same people who’d be horrified at leaving a child alone for days somehow think it’s fine to abandon a dog with just an auto-feeder and a water bowl. Dogs are social animals – they need interaction, stimulation, and companionship to thrive.
The comparison to parenting that came up in the discussion is apt, though perhaps not in the way the commenter intended. Yes, some people don’t spend enough quality time with their kids either, but that doesn’t mean we should lower the bar for pet care. If anything, it suggests we need better standards across the board.
From my IT background, I appreciate that this law is essentially setting a baseline requirement that can be enforced when needed. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step toward recognising that pets deserve more than just basic survival needs. The fact that it’s sparked such discussion suggests we needed this conversation.
Will this law single-handedly solve pet neglect? Of course not. But it sends a clear message about expectations and gives authorities tools to act when things go wrong. Sometimes that’s how progress happens – one imperfect but necessary step at a time.
The real test will be whether this encourages people to think more carefully before getting a pet. If you can’t commit to three hours a day of interaction, maybe you’re not ready for a dog. And frankly, that’s probably a good thing for everyone involved.