Printable View
QC's order of veterinarians have banned cosmetic surgery, so now only vets in Alberta and Ontario are allowed to perform: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02...26.html?m=true
I suspect it is just a matter of time before such surgeries will be banned in those provinces as well.
I am quite confused why the same logic does not apply to spaying and neutering. I had two beagles neutered and one female spayed. The only health benefit was the vets retirement fund.
This might hurt Quebec breeders. My Brittany is a tail docked breed and I would buy from the USA instead if having a pup with a tail. I don't think I would be the exception.
I don't have spaniels anymore, but I am curious would the breeder (not a vet) chopping pup's tails be in violation of some law..?
It will be illegal to dock your own pups.
In French: http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...561#post955561
English google translation:
Ban believes the Quebec Order of Veterinarians for cosmetic surgeries on animals
February 4, 2016
The Board of Directors of the College of Veterinary Surgeons of Quebec adopted on 19 January a position prohibiting the practice of cosmetic surgeries on animals.
Indeed, from 1 January 2017 it will be forbidden to veterinarians in Quebec to practice following surgery for cosmetic purposes or for breeding practices and considers the ouster practices cropping of ears and tail docking in dogs and cats ; tail docking of cattle; docking in horses.
Tail docking is to shorten or to the removal of the tail of the animal. The cropping of ears, for its part, is a procedure in which an animal's ear is cut.
Any person - other than veterinary surgeons - who performs these surgeries in Quebec will be prosecuted for illegal practice of veterinary medicine and exposed the consequences prescribed by law.
To read the position statement, click here...
Spay and neuter has practical utility. Cosmetic surgery does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart22
Before anyone starts ranting about tail injuries in dogs: in doing so, you're saying the procedure is not cosmetic. That's the argument Quebeckers need to make to their vets: that the surgery in their case is not for cosmetic purposes or for breeding standards.
I have a breed that is normally docked, with an undocked tail. No issues. I'm inclined to look on all the fuss over this with a jaundiced eye, based on personal experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Welsh...the stand of the Quebec Veterinary College is docking that it IS cosmetic. Considering that for rare breeds most pups go to households that do NOT hunt, it might be difficult for a breeder to justify getting the pups docked...that is assuming that you can find a vet, willing to challenge the policy of the veterinary association and risk losing his/her license to practice.
Is tail docking cosmetic? I thought it was done for practical reasons...
That may be a fine line differentiating the two , cosmetic and practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
Do you have a source on that? I don't see that in the original article and the machine translation posted above doesn't suggest it, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
The problem that arises with these rules, usually, is the difficulty of finding a vet who understands that there is a utility argument for docking working dogs.
In most breeds, it is purely cosmetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
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.
This is a link to a summary of the Scottish study which has prompted the review of the law in Scotland: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0404221858.htm To read the full study you'd need a subscription to the veterinary record.
And of course animal welfare groups are opposed to amending the law: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...elfare_groups/
Also, I erred in that the the quote study in the Canadian Veterinary Medical Assn was not from the Scottish study. It was from Diesel G, Pfeiffer D, Crispin S, et al. Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain. Vet Rec 2010;166:812-817. It can be accessed here: https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...PnI4Rw&cad=rja
There also is an Swedish study of tail injuries in German Shorthaired Pointers: http://www.cdb.org/countries/sweden.htm
The reporting of that research has always been flawed. In fact, there are two separate papers, and most reports on this stress the results of the first and ignore the results of the second.
The first was a survey of owners, which is not a "study" at all. It relies on accurate self-reporting from a community known to be strongly opposed to the law. And the results, finding that over half of undocked spaniels suffered tail injuries in a single season, simply beggar belief.
The followup study confirms that the survey numbers are fishy. Here's the money quote:
To prevent one such tail injury in these working breeds around 232 dogs would need to be docked as puppies, calculate the authors. And to prevent one tail amputation in spaniels, 320 spaniel puppies would need to be docked.
So, when we actually look at dogs coming into veterinary clinics, the number of tail injuries (and certainly of serious tail injuries) is much, much lower. Dogs with undocked tails may be twice as likely to suffer tail injuries (and this is significant) but dogs are extremely unlikely to suffer tail injuries in the first place. Certainly the risk of an injury requiring amputation is very low.
Edited to add remarks on Spinster's second post: the study the Canadian association is relying on is clearly inappropriate to the question of whether there's a utility argument for docking in working dogs, as it looked at the general population, not working dogs. The authors' conclusion that working status is not a significant factor may not be statistically supportable, given the low number of working dogs in the study, and the fact that this number included a number of breeds not normally docked. Indeed, given that the robustness of a dog's tail is arguably related to breed and that docking is done on a breed basis, I would suggest that looking at a general population of working dogs (n = 11 for case and 17 for controls) is simply junk.
There is a lack of good research on this, but the general conclusion we can draw is the risk of serious tail injuries is very low.
When lobbyists start working the sympathetic public, sensationalist news media, are unknowledgeable politicians get involved making it appear they are earning their big dollars the tax payers are donating to them. To them taking a three day old puppy and reducing the size of the tail is painful and traumatic to the puppy. It will not manner that studies over years show that there was rational for docking tails, and that the pain, and trauma in a pup are minimal to what a mature dog will occur.
It is easy for the agenda to be built against a sweet pup , that the weathered up mature dog that has seen hours a field behind a hunter..
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
Thanks. :)
None of those things are involved here. This is about vets reconciling their duty to promote the welfare of animals in their care.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDH
Phew, another good reason I don't live in Quebec. LOL.
I like having dogs with a docked tail. If cosmetics are what they are calling it, then I think all pug nosed breeds and toy breeds should be immediately banned and no longer bred...may as well say the same for unusually short legged ones too...and giant breeds while we are at it because of their health problems....see where this goes?
very well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
When I purchased my rottie, the breeder told me all they do is set a tie on the tail and it loses circulation and dies and falls off within a day, and the dog doesn't even notice... Maybe he was trying to sugar coat the process and telling me a story, but that scenario hardly seems traumatic... Compared to say, human circumcision, which really is traumatic:)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDH
I admit I prefer the dock for cosmetic reasons and unless it was proven to me to be incredibly stressful on the dog, would opt for it again, when the time comes to get another one one day. But I've been looking at pictures of Rottie's with tails and I would still get one of those if no other options where available as I really like the breed...
I've heard ear cropping is more brutal, but don't really know for sure... Not a fan of Doberman's anyhow, even though they come in part from Rottie stock.
Agreed. If I was getting another spaniel I would avoid a dog without a docked tail. I would just rather be safe than sorry. I know how badly my guy gets torn up during hunting. I can't imagine what would happen if he had a long tail. That thing goes a million miles a minute when he's on scent.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
Vizsla Canada has posted that "Effective January 1, 2017 tail docking of Vizslas will be banned in Quebec"
They posted the QC Veterinary College position on tail docking and ear cropping in English: http://vizslacanada.ca/sites/default...r-cropping.pdf
Scotland has begun its consultation on lifting the tail docking ban for working dogs: http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Tai...tion-2275.aspx
My understanding is that anyone can comment. Interesting article on the web today: http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/loc...-dogs-1.926220
Attachment 32223Sorry about the pic quality. That said, the downside of the long-tail is reflected in this pic which is why I didn't understand the misleading adjective "cosmetic" surgery. Let's be honest, I know why they use that word.
In the least, it should be called elective surgery AND there should be restrictions as to when tails should be done, as in shortly after birth before the development of tactile sensation in their tails. I completely understand the health advantages as it applies to certain breeds. Getting tails done later on in life can lead to all manner of issues.
As I alluded to previously, if the anti community is spearheading this notion, it follows that tails should not be docked.
I have had conversations with the QC Griffon Club regarding this and they are actively trying to fight this bill, not sure how successful their efforts will be but at least they are trying.