Here is a google translation of the QC veterinary college positions on different issues(scroll down): https://translate.google.ca/translat...df&prev=search
There is no mention of an exemption for working dogs.
Printable View
Here is a google translation of the QC veterinary college positions on different issues(scroll down): https://translate.google.ca/translat...df&prev=search
There is no mention of an exemption for working dogs.
I'll have to look up the original French on that. Note that the actual resolution says, "The College of Veterinary Surgeons of Quebec forbids veterinarians [to] practice [the] following surgery for cosmetic purposes or for practical livestock...."
I suggest "practical livestock" is Google translate mangling the sense of "working animals," and that "for cosmetic purposes" also suggests an out for working dogs.
I'm not debating this point purely to be argumentative. As I said before, the problem we will face when this comes to Ontario (as it will) is finding vets who understand that the purpose of docking a hunting dog is not cosmetic. I suggest that rather than defending cosmetic docking and ear-cropping, our energies are better spent in presenting a case to the college of veterinary surgeons that docking in working dogs serves a practical purpose that reduces injuries, and ought to be exempt, so that this will be in the guidelines to vets.
A little more info this morning;
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...a-free-country
Welsh...this is how the Canadian Veterainary Medical Assn has reported the QC announcement: http://www.canadianveterinarians.net...geries-animals Note that "the ban is consistent with CVMA's long standing positions on matters of animal welfare." The go to see what the CVMA's position is: http://www.canadianveterinarians.net...tic-alteration. Clearly it states, "4. There is no scientific evidence that cosmetic surgeries provide any welfare or medical benefit to animals (8-10). There is evidence to suggest that some cosmetic procedures cause acute and chronic pain (9-12), as well as behavioural evidence that cosmetic alteration may be detrimental to canine behavior (10,13). In one study using a small dataset from Great Britain, it was found that there was a decrease in risk of tail injuries for docked dogs (0.03%) compared with non-docked dogs (0.23%). The very low incidence of tail injuries in all groups, however, shows that tail docking does not provide sufficient protection against injury to justify tail docking of all animals (according to this study, it would require 500 tail-dockings to prevent 1 injury) (9)."
Welsh, I recall seeing stats from UK for sharply increased number of tail amputations due to injuries after the docking ban.Quote:
I have a breed that is normally docked, with an undocked tail. No issues.
Being cynical...I'm sure that's what the paper work said...Quote:
Originally Posted by vom Dufenshmirtz
They may become suspicious when the same breeder keeps having to get her dogs tails amputated because of accidents. :)
You are correct. However, that is the study that the CVMA cites above that tail docking does not provide sufficient protection against injury to justify tail docking of all animals (according to this study, it would require 500 tail-dockings to prevent 1 injury.Quote:
vom DufenshmirtzI have a breed that is normally docked, with an undocked tail. No issues.
Welsh, I recall seeing stats from UK for sharply increased number of tail amputations due to injuries after the docking ban.
So they don't buy it. The good news for Scottish working dog owners is that based on that study, the Scottish ban on docking all dogs is being revisited and hopefully they will find that working dogs be exempt.
purely practical reasons, of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by dilly
for example, if you had both you would know that the dog wagging the docked tail will not clear the couch table unlike the complete dog. therefore, it is a topic of utmost importance to people who care to have tea parties to show off their pet.
seriously, how could you have a pointer without a docked tail - that's always been that way! hey, don't look at the English Pointer now, that's totally different. remember, it's always been that way - period. and don't start arguing why we moved to smokeless powder, that's different too.
back to the topic, not docking tails would be like driving your a 3/4 truck without lift kit and oversize mud tires and calling yourself a hunter.
The CVMA is not setting the policy here, so their second-hand reporting of the Quebec college's policy is really of no relevance to the question of whether the Quebec college exempts working animals. This is why I want to see the actual policy, which in Google translation refers to an exemption for "practical livestock."Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
Then I'd say the case is weak, unless someone does a study that shows otherwise. But it's not clear that this study actually separated working from non-working dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
Suppose the study is accurate. Is docking then justified?
If the study included both working dogs and other dogs, then I say the case for docking is weak also.
Is there a link for that study Spinster?
JRTs are a good example of "Is docking necessary?" The breed standard calls for a docked tail... Parson Russell terriers and Russell terriers - not called JRTs anymore. The number of JRTs that go-to-ground to hunt in Canada could be counted on fewer than 10 fingers.