FYI- BC Pro ear cropping/tail docking petition

[Sharon]

The OP and the petition are talking about the 'legal' aspects...should the CVMA be allowed to restrict Vets from providing the 'cosmetics' services.....not the moral/ethical of cropping.

Have you have a link to suggest the 'anti-cropping' crowd is forcing the CVMA to adopt their stance on cosmetic surgeries?

Got it. Back on topic.

I don't understand why the CVMA would even be teaching new vets the cropping procedure. What if a dog goes in with a damaged tail that needs to be "cropped"? Makes no sense to me.

[MikePal]

What if a dog goes in with a damaged tail that needs to be "cropped"? Makes no sense to me.

The Ontario reference makes the distinction...they call it "medically unnecessary (or “cosmetic”) veterinary surgery (hereafter referred to as MUVS). NO vet (hopefully) would refuse to remove a damaged tail.

[MikePal]

I was interested in finding out why the BC vets had taken this action, so I did a little reading.

I found this letter that summarizes what appears to the root issue...the proposed changes by the CVBC are being requested to protect the vets from possible 'animal cruelty' charges.

I think the petition information is rather misleading, if this is indeed the real issue. I wasn't overly surprised that the petition doesn't provide any cross reference to the applicable documents that it is fighting against. I guess they don't want people to really know what is going on.

Always the other side of the story eh !!!

Dear Editor,

In Bernard Rollin’s May 2013 Veterinary Medical Ethics column in (CVJ 2013;54:430) he commented on breed or industry standards as not being an ethical excuse for tail docking and ear cropping.

To date, the only defense veterinarians had against cruelty to animal charges being recommended against them for ear cropping and tail docking was that it was considered to be a generally accepted practice of veterinarians. However, position statements of the CVMA and College of Veterinarians of BC (CVBC) state that cosmetic surgery is no longer an acceptable practice and has no benefits to the animal.

The Chief Prevention and Enforcement Officer for the BCSPCA and a senior crown counsel reviewed the cosmetic issue recently, including the CVBC position statement, and agreed with the proposition that a good argument could be made that a veterinarian who performed these types of surgeries was in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) and that the “generally accepted” exception was no longer valid. As such, charges could be recommended against veterinarians performing cosmetic surgery in this province even though it is not yet banned by the CVBC.

Recent changes have also occurred in British Columbia based on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, which requires that veterinarians must report to a BC SPCA constable if they suspect any distress of an animal.

Given the above, not only could veterinarians who perform cosmetic surgery be placing themselves at risk of potential animal cruelty charges, but there is a duty on the part of veterinarians to report their colleagues if they suspect they have done it.

The CVBC is making inroads into drafting of bylaws banning ear cropping and hopefully tail docking, but veterinarians who continue to perform cosmetic surgery should be aware that they may already be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. I am confident that cosmetic surgery will soon be a thing of the past in Canada for the reasons stated in Bernard Rollin’s column of “our ability to transcend historically sanctified absurdities.”

Sincerely,

[MikePal]

I should add.....if you really want to know what the Bill is proposing , this is the draft;

http://www.cvbc.ca/temp/201411881381..._Standards.pdf

[welsh]

Pardon my late arrival, as I've been with a client all day.

Have you have a link to suggest the 'anti-cropping' crowd is forcing the CVMA to adopt their stance on cosmetic surgeries?

I didn't suggest that ... just said that the movement to restrict docking and cropping comes from dog owners, not some outside group. What's happening in BC, including the legal machinations, is just a continuation of what's been going on in Europe for years. Same with e-collar bans.

I case you missed it, this petition is being put forward by the organization called
“The Association for the Preservation of Purebred Dogs” (APPD).

What I loosely referred to as the "anti-purebreed" crowd would more accurately be described as opposed to the show fancy. Of course they aren't opposed to purebred dogs per se; they're opposed to breeding and show practices -- and especially to conformation standards -- which they view as harmful to dog welfare. And this goes along with the point I made: these are people who own dogs, who care about the welfare of dogs, and who in many cases are much more knowledgeable than the average dog owner.

The fact is that most cropping and docking is entirely unnecessary and is done purely for the sake of appearance. Whether it actually is cruel is an open question, but it is rarely defensible on the basis of necessity.

Consider the Springer. The breed club in the US insists that dogs must be docked because docking is essential to their working qualities in the field. But the breed club in the US also represents only bench-bred Springers, which are not used in the field, and insists on a standard that actually docks the tails to half the length (2/3 docked) of field-bred Springers, which have longer (1/3 docked) tails because ... the longer tails are better in the field. And the majority of Springers are bred neither for show nor as hunting dogs, but as family pets, and docked. The breed club's defence of docking makes no sense at all. On the other hand, working Springers may risk tail injuries (based on reports from the UK) if tails are not docked, so there are arguments for continuing to alter working dogs.

Incidentally, I own & hunt with an undocked example of a breed that is traditionally docked. From my experience, she is unlikely ever to injure her tail, so I tend to be skeptical of docking.

[spinster]

In the UK, with the exception of Scotland, tail docking of working dogs is allowed, provided the breeder does much paperwork. Those docked dogs are not allowed in the show ring. I hear that trying to find a vet that does the procedure is problematic. Someday, if these kinds of laws pass nationwide, I imagine that would be the case here, even if working dogs were exempt. The CVMA has been against "cosmetic" procedures for years...nothing new has changed. Fear that one would be charged with animal cruelty is a lame excuse since it hasn't happened (to my knowledge) in provinces where it is legal. Legality is a matter of politics plain and simple...and politics runs on voices being heard, pro and con. One can choose to speak up or remain silent.
I only post on the topic since it is of interest and fellow dog people should be aware of what is happening in the animal welfare movement in this country as it relates to dogs (btw, animal welfare and farm animals are also the subject of veterinary moves worldwide). I am of an age that I will likely get my last pup in a year or two, and I'm sure I can find a docked one in the US if the procedure ultimately becomes banned in Canada.

[J.K.B.]

Have you have a link to suggest the 'anti-cropping' crowd is forcing the CVMA to adopt their stance on cosmetic surgeries?[/QUOTE]

Found many links from USA show that the Animal Rights are pressuring Veterinarians, but not so much information being shared in Canada.
Clearly states that Canadian Veterinary Medical association works with CFHS, SPCA groups and other Animal Rights groups DATED DEC 2003 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''----. ."Participate more in the animal
welfare movement as an
independent voice
Veterinarians are already engaged with the animal
welfare movement: clinicians work with or for
humane organizations, and the CVMA includes a
delegate from the Canadian Federation of Humane
Societies (CFHS) on its Animal Welfare Committee
and has worked quite closely with the CFHS on
Bill C10-B. Nevertheless, the profession has tended
to keep some distance from the animal welfare
movement, providing some advice and clinical
expertise but less solidarity and leadership. Some
veterinarians may avoid the animal welfare movement due to fear of extremism and fruitless
exchanges. There may also be a sense that while
welfare groups lobby the public and the government, the profession should avoid such advocacy
and any confrontation. Lobbying may not be part
of the profession’s mandate, but the issuing of clear
public statements on controversial issues is a reasonable expectation. In the absence of a more
appropriate national veterinary body, the CVMA
might host meetings with groups in the animal
welfare movement (CFHS, Canadian Farm Animal
Care Trust) and make public statements on areas
of both agreement and disagreement. “Animal
rights” groups need not be excluded" https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/.../how-might...

Here is link to CFHS on ear cropping tail docking http://cfhs.ca/athome/ear_cropping_and_tail_docking
Here is link to spca on ear cropping, tail docking http://www.spca.bc.ca/assets/documen...-and-other.pdf

[Waftrudnir]

Personally, I’ve never been a supporter of the docking, let alone ear cropping. I’m sure a good bunch of you disagree with me, but that won’t change my opinion that it is done to fit some standard, which is more or less based on ideals and traditions than on real life situations that 99% of dogs will ever experience.
So personally, I couldn’t care less if hands-on docking by breeders/owners is outlawed. However, if someone wants it so badly to pay a vet serious money to do it properly, who am I to throw the first stone (obviously the person does care about their pet quite a bit).
If you continue to entertain that animal well fair train of thought, you should sue a vet for treating a degenerated breed of dog as they would enable such breeding standards to continue and prevent natural selection to take care of the matter; leading to more puppies with a long list of chronic health issues.