This is not the case; the basic nervous system of a dog is fully developed at birth. Evidence indicates that puppies have similar sensitivity to pain as adult dogs.
Tail docking is usually carried out without any anaesthesia or analgesia pain relief. Puppies give repeated intense shrieking vocalisations the moment the tail is cut off and during stitching of the wound, indicating that they experience substantial pain. Inflammation and damage to the tissues also cause ongoing pain while the wound heals. There is also the risk of infection or other complications associated with this unnecessary surgery.
Tail docking can also cause unnecessary and avoidable long term chronic pain and distress to the dog. For example, when a chronic neuroma forms at the amputation site.
Neuromas are often very painful. The tail is a major communication tool between dogs. Thus the tail also serves as a protective mechanism for dogs, part of the various strategies employed by dogs to communicate with one another; establish boundaries and to avert aggressive encounters. The tail also communicates important messages to humans during human-dog interactions. Thus the tail plays an important role in public health and safety.
Therefore tails must not be removed for any reason other than for therapeutic purposes. The few remaining advocates of tail docking give a range of unconvincing explanations to defend their views. For instance, they say that some heavy coated breeds need to have their tails docked for hygiene reasons even though many undocked breeds have thick coats and regular care is all that is necessary to maintain good hygiene.
The practice is illegal in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, however, there are some exemptions, such as removal of the tail by a vet for medical reasons or for certain breeds of working dogs. By law, owners are not allowed to show dogs docked in dog shows where the public pay to enter, unless they are demonstrating working ability.
In , Scotland reversed a decade-old ban on tail docking for some breeds of puppy if there is sufficient evidence that they will become working dog, despite concerns raised by veterinary and animal welfare organisations.
Tail docking should be banned as a procedure for all breeds of dogs, unless it is carried out by a veterinary surgeon for medical reasons eg injury. Puppies suffer unnecessary pain as a result of tail docking and are deprived of a vital form of canine expression in later life.
Research published in Vet Record found that approximately dogs would need to be docked in order to prevent a single tail injury. We continue to call for a complete ban on tail docking of puppies for non-therapeutic reasons across the UK.
In addition, the puppy is subjected to a series of post-operative visits where the ear is stretched, reshaped, and re-taped. In some cases, if a dog's ears do not stand up after the crop, the dog will be subjected to a second crop.
The reasons for ear cropping and tail docking are antiquated and no longer relevant to modern veterinary care. These practices are propagated by organizations such as the American Kennel Club AKC which requires ear cropping, tail docking, or dewclaw removal for certain breeds to conform to the AKC's breed standards. To this end, the AKC has established exacting requirements for what each dog should look like, and assigns "faults" for physical characteristics that do not conform perfectly to the established AKC breed standard.
In addition, the AKC seems concerned only with the "look" of a dog, which, in addition to unnecessary canine cosmetic surgery, has lead to serious problems resulting from inbreeding. The WSAVA considers amputation of dogs' tails to be an unnecessary surgical procedure and contrary to the welfare of the dog.
The WSAVA recommends that all canine organizations phase out any recommendations for tail amputations docking from their breed standards. The WSAVA recommends that the docking of dogs' tails be made illegal except for the professionally diagnosed therapeutic reasons, and only then by suitably qualified persons such as registered veterinarians, under conditions of anesthesia that minimize pain and stress. Similarly, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal rights released the following position statement:.
The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is opposed to various surgeries done to meet "breed standards" or to correct so-called vices. Procedures such as ear cropping, tail docking, or debarking in dogs, or declawing in cats are unacceptable because of the suffering and disfigurement they cause an animal are not offset by any benefits to the animal. If such a procedure can be shown to be necessary for medical or humane reasons, then it is permissible.
The "breed standards" for dogs must be altered to allow the animals to be shown without being surgically mutilated.
These position statements reflect a call to ban cosmetic surgeries on animals. In the scheme of animal rights issues, this may appear unimportant - but it must be noted that over , puppies undergo these painful procedures in the U.
Many different countries have responded to this epidemic in a variety of ways. For example, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association released a statement indicating that it opposes the "surgical alteration of any animal, for purely cosmetic reasons. Lindy Scott, animal welfare consultant for the AVA stated that the "mutilation of animals for cosmetic non-veterinary purposes was strongly opposed by the majority of the veterinary profession.
Recently, in England, two dog owners and their associate were fined and jailed three months each after eleven rottweiler puppies died during a tail docking procedure. In the United States, however, although this procedure may constitute cruelty under many American statutes, successful prosecutions of tail dockers are unlikely.
For example, in People v. Rogers , 67 a defendant who docked a puppy's tail using a rubber band was charged with violating an anti-cruelty statute, but was not convicted.
The defendant sold the puppy to a neighbor who became concerned about the condition of the tail; the infection of the tail was so severe that the puppy was ultimately euthanized. The criminal charges, however, were dismissed because the court found that the language of the anti-cruelty statute 68 was vague, and that the law did not specifically speak to, or include, tail docking. In the decision, the court stated the following:.
There is justifiable maiming or mutilation causing physical injury not specifically prohibited by statute such as the clipping of a dog's ears so long as it is done in a manner defined by statute under an anesthetic and performed by a licensed veterinarian and, in this case, the clipping of a dog's tail, The procedure for which the law is silent.
The defendant engaged in "docking" or a newborn puppy's tail by putting a rubber band around it. This procedure is no more of a maiming or mutilation causing injury to a dog resulting in similar physical pain or suffering than is found when a dog's ears are clipped. Both are common practices and are not proscribed by the statute. The law requires ear clipping to be done in a certain manner by a veterinarian using a painkiller, while there is no such requirement when a dog's tail is docked.
Implicit in the requirement of a veterinarian involvement in ear clipping is the prescription that the procedure is to be done painlessly and that there will be professional care of the wounded area to be sure that during the after care period the dog will be relatively pain free and the wound heals completely. The act of docking a dog's tail does not require professional supervision so an ordinary person of common intelligence is only required to avoid unjustifiable physical pain and suffering.
The act of docking a dog's tail is not "conduct calculated to cause harm," but rather "essentially innocent conduct" and the "legislature may not validly make it a crime to do something which is innocent in itself merely because it is something done improperly. The court's comments are interesting because the court first characterizes ear cropping as "maiming and mutilation," acts which are generally prohibited in anti-cruelty statutes. The court, however, does say that it is "justifiable.
In reality, these concepts are mutually exclusive; under the cruelty statute an act cannot constitute mutilation and remain legal. In addition, the court states that the pain suffered during a tail docking is analogous to an ear cropping procedure. The court, however, held that since the legislature did not proscribe veterinary care for a docking procedure then it was not for the court to apply a strict interpretation of the anti-cruelty statute. Finally, the court did not even hold that a person who undertakes a surgical procedure should be held to a higher standard.
This court had a real opportunity to hold that tail docking, particularly when conducted by non-veterinary professionals, violated the animal cruelty statute. But it failed to do so, thereby tacitly affirming the practice. This is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that the New York anti-cruelty statute specifically prohibits the maiming or mutilation of animals - and though the court characterized the defendant's actions as such, did not hold him accountable for the life of the young puppy.
It did, however, send a message to the legislature that "if the legislature wants to prohibit the practice of docking a dog's tail as in the case of the horse or prescribe how it can be done legally as in the case of clipping a dog's ears , then the appropriate legislation should be passed.
Since it is unlikely that the courts will take any proactive steps in the fight against cosmetic surgery on animals, the responsibility falls to the legislature. Although all states have anti-cruelty statues, the statutes are generally broad enough so that a person who crops or docks can dodge prosecution.
It is likely that any other cases involving ear cropping or tail docking will be met with outcomes similar to Rogers. The problem is that the laws are not likely to change without there first being a popular movement towards banning these procedures.
Since , dogs with cropped ears have been ineligible to compete in shows in the United Kingdom under kennel club rules. Conversely, in the United States, AKC breed standards still encourage, or even require, that ears are cropped or tails docked before the dog can be shown. Progress, however slow, is being made. In Maine, the cropping of dogs' ears is prohibited, as behavior constituting unlawful mutilation. In , State Representatives from Georgia propose a bill that would have banned cropping and docking within the state.
Although the bill did not pass, it represents a growing grassroots movement opposed to cosmetic cropping and docking. The Michigan Humane Society recently reported two tail-docking cases where the defendants were found guilty.
One woman was found guilty of cruelty after allowing rubber bands used for docking to become embedded in the tails of four puppies. In another case, the tail of a four-week old puppy was amputated after his tail had been improperly banded for the purpose of docking.
Two recent cases have opened the door to successful animal cruelty prosecutions for ear cropping and tail docking. First, in Hammer v. American Kennel Club , 74 a dog owner brought a discrimination suit against the AKC alleging that a docked tail standard effectively excluded his dog from participating in competitions, as the owner believed tail docking to be a form of animal cruelty. Although the court dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, 75 and this case had no effect on the previous decision in Rogers , the court did specifically state that the anti-cruelty law could be construed to prohibit tail docking for cosmetic purposes as unjustifiable mutilation.
Additionally, in a pointed dissent, N. Supreme Court Appellate Division Justice Ellerin states, "Assuming arguendo that the protection of hunting dogs against tail injuries justifies docking the tails of hunting dogs, it is not a justification for docking the tails of non-hunting dogs.
Second, in Elisea v. State , 77 an Indiana Appellate Court upheld convictions for animal cruelty and practicing veterinary medicine without a license, after the defendant performed amateur ear cropping procedures on twelve pit bull puppies.
0コメント