New Welfare Bill To Allow Docking??

Rommie

I've seen a petition doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment that states the new welfare bill allows anyone who wants to to dock puppies and remove dew claws. Plenty of people are sharing it, but I still haven't seen any proof of this, does anyone have any information on where this is coming from? Last I heard they were trying to ban docking??

SingItOut

It came from the big rehoming centre in Dublin I think, their the only official page I've seen asking people to sign the petition.

Lizard_Moon

This is copied from one of the comments on the petition

"Like many pieces of legislation, the Act takes the approach of banning everything, then allowing certain specific exemptions. In this case, every form of surgery except "veterinary treatment" is banned, unless it receives an exemption (Section 16(a)(i) and (ii)). Because of this approach, at the time that the Act commences the Minister intends to make "animal welfare regulations" (as referred to in Section 16(a)(i)) to permit certain listed procedures. If he doesn't do that, operations such as preventive neutering may become illegal. Unfortunately, the draft regulations that are currently being discussed contain an exemption that will allow unqualified, unregulated lay people to amputate tails and dew-claws of dogs, without even being required to use anaesthesia or pain relief of any kind. The purpose of this petition is have those elements of the draft regulations removed, so that the absolute ban on operations "for cosmetic reasoons" will remain."

The Irish Sunday Times has a quote (from a gun dog/working dog group but I cannot remember the name) saying that "if vets don't get off their high horse and do it, someone has too". The Irish Kennel Club is quoted saying that they want the practices to continue as the dogs look nicer when 'mutilated' (my word) It appears that the Agriculture minister is being lobbied to allow these practices to continue.

The Veterinary Council of Ireland prohibits these surgeries from being carried out by vets for purely cosmetic reasons.

DBB

The new Animal Welfare Act has not had its commencement order signed, because some of the big animal welfare organisations, and the veterinary union, are holding it up. It's to be signed next week.
The reason they're holding it up is because certain hunting lobby groups managed to get an insertion into the Act which allows lay people to dock puppy's tails prior to 4 days old. This was not in the Bill pre-enactment, they have put pressure on and had it changed since.
This Act, in its totality, in many ways reflects the new welfare acts brought in to England, Wales, Scotland, and NI over the past 8 years or so: these are pretty good and effective Acts, allowing for vets only, to dock tails in appropriate surgical conditions, and only if it can be shown that the individual dog is to be a working dog, and only before a certain age (barring amputations later in life, if medically necessary). Docking for aesthetics is not allowed. Dogs that are legally docked get certification to prove this, and people is possession of docked dogs without certification can be prosecuted.
However, in this respect we diverge horrendously from our neighbours: our Act, if commenced next week as planned, will continue to allow lay people, untrained, unqualified lay people, to cut off pup's tails and dew claws.
We could get into a debate about whether docking should be allowed, but a total ban on docking is not going to happen. There will always be cowboys who will do it as long as it is not illegal for lay people to do it.
Instead of forcing people to have it done properly by a vet, and only if their dog is suitable under the law, our new Act is going to allow for a docking free for all, just like we do now. Except now, they'll be doing it with the full backing of the law.
The commencement order is to be signed next week, as I understand it.
I plan to write to the Dept of Ag tomorrow, and every other minister, junior minister, TD and newspaper, to demand that this part of the Act is changed, so that only vets can carry out this procedure, no matter what age the pup is. There are only a few days left to try to push this change, if we sit on our hands we'll be grumbling about it forever more, and indeed dealing with tiny septic pups.
If you're going to write, and I seriously encourage people to, please keep it calm, factual and non-emotive, or you just won't be listened to. Make it clear to them: if this Act is commenced with the tail docking by lay people legalised, you simply won't vote for them, or their party, again.
Otherwise, it's a pretty impressive Act. But this is a serious blot in it that will make us a laughing stock once again when it comes to animal welfare.
Get typing folks!

scudzilla

DBB wrote: »

The new Animal Welfare Act has not had its commencement order signed, because some of the big animal welfare organisations, and the veterinary union, are holding it up. It's to be signed next week.
The reason they're holding it up is because certain hunting lobby groups managed to get an insertion into the Act which allows lay people to dock puppy's tails prior to 4 days old. This was not in the Bill pre-enactment, they have put pressure on and had it changed since.
This Act, in its totality, in many ways reflects the new welfare acts brought in to England, Wales, Scotland, and NI over the past 8 years or so: these are pretty good and effective Acts, their allowing for vets only, to dock tails in appropriate surgical conditions, and only if it can be shown that the individual dog is to be a working dog, and only before a certain age (barring amputations later in life, if medically necessary). Docking for aesthetics is not allowed. Dogs that are legally docked get certification to prove this, and people is possession of docked dogs without certification can be prosecuted.
However, in this respect we diverge horrendously from our neighbours: our Act, if commenced next week as planned, will continue to allow lay people, untrained, unqualified lay people, to cut off pup's tails and dew claws.
We could get into a debate about whether docking should be allowed, but a total ban on docking is not going to happen. There will always be cowboys who will do it as long as it is not illegal for lay people to do it.
Instead of forcing people to have it done properly by a vet, and only if their dog is suitable under the law, our new Act is going to allow for a docking free for all, just like we do now. Except now, they'll be doing it with the full backing of the law.
The commencement order is to be signed next week, as I understand it.
I plan to write to the Dept of Ag tomorrow, and every other minister, junior minister, TD and newspaper, to demand that this part of the Act is changed, so that only vets can carry out this procedure, no matter what age the pup is. There are only a few days left to try to push this change, if we sit on our hands we'll be grumbling about it forever more, and indeed dealing with tiny septic pups.
If you're going to write, and I seriously encourage people to, please keep it calm, factual and non-emotive, or you just won't be listened to. Make it clear to them: if this Act is commenced with the tail docking by lay people legalised, you simply won't vote for them, or their party, again.
Otherwise, it's a pretty impressive Act. But this is a serious blot in it that will make us a laughing stock once again when it comes to animal welfare.
Get typing folks!

Not gonna hold my breath for ANY prosecutions.

Docking is completely barbaric, in any form, we have 2 boxers, with tails and dew claws, would never contemplate a docked dog

BillyMitchel

Have dogs ears ever been allowed to be cropped here? Wouldn't get it done on my boy but I am seeing it a lot more these days or would these dogs be imports?

DBB

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

The Irish Kennel Club is quoted saying that they want the practices to continue as the dogs look nicer when 'mutilated' (my word)

I have no time for the IKC, but nevertheless, it needs to be clarified here that Sean Delmar, the president of the IKC, was specifically asked to clarify the IKC's stance on this issue, at the Animal Welfare Forum.
He said that the IKC did not lobby to have the derogation on docking inserted into the Act, as reported in the Sunday Times.
Now, it was then commented that it was great that the IKC does not support docking, at which point Delmar quickly corrected the speaker by saying "I didn't say that. I said we didn't lobby for it". He then went on to say that he personally does not support docking.
A bit of ambiguity there, it has to be said, but he was keen for us to know that IKC did not lobby for docking.

DBB

scudzilla wrote: »

Not gonna hold my breath for ANY prosecutions.

That is the current law in the UK jurisdictions, and I'm certain there have been prosecutions from it.
If you're stating that there wouldn't be prosecutions in Ireland with this new legislation,
I'll disagree with you, and will also say that right now, it's a free for all, people cannot be traced and prosecuted. I'd much rather the law was there than not. At least then your theory could be tested.

Ps, I think Boxers with tails look absolutely fab... Much, much nicer than their poor docked brethren :-)

Gremlin

I'm horrified at this. Writing to Coveney now and any other TD who will listen.

BillyMitchel

Gremlin wrote: »

I'm horrified at this. Writing to Coveney now and any other TD who will listen.

It's always going to be done though. Would you not rather it was done professionally and cleanly than some eejit with an elastic band and a YouTube video?

SillyMangoX

I would much prefer the system that they have in England, where vets perform the procedure. It really isn't something that should be performed by a lay person, especially when it comes to dew claw removal. Even when it is done by a vet under necessary circumstances it really isn't a nice procedure.

Also this ad showed up while I was looking at this thread..

ZiabR

scudzilla wrote: »

Not gonna hold my breath for ANY prosecutions.

Docking is completely barbaric, in any form, we have 2 boxers, with tails and dew claws, would never contemplate a docked dog

But dew claws can cause problems on the rear legs as they can get caught on things and practically torn off.

I should note I am against tail docking.

Knine

logik wrote: »

But dew claws can cause problems on the rear legs as they can get caught on things and practically torn off.

I should note I am against tail docking.

Agree. Dew claws on the back legs of active breeds are a nuisance & very likely to get injured. Some breeders also remove the front ones. If you were ever unfortunate to see such an injury you would more then likely prefer them to be removed.

Pumpkinseeds

This country is going backwards with regard to animal welfare. I always smile when I see a tail on a breed that is often docked. I don't know how anyone who claims to love dogs could buy a dog with a docked tail. Until the market for docked dogs dries up the practice won't stop.

ZiabR

Knine wrote: »

Agree. Dew claws on the back legs of active breeds are a nuisance & very likely to get injured. Some breeders also remove the front ones. If you were ever unfortunate to see such an injury you would more then likely prefer them to be removed.

Unlike the rear dew claws, the front ones are usually attached to bone and can be used like a thumb to hold things. I would never get my dogs front dew claws removed, they use them far to much to have them removed.

The rear dew claws are usually not attached to bone and are just flapping around as the dog runs. The dog cannot use the rear dew claws because of this and this is reason that they should be removed. My dogs were born without rear dew claws so it has not been a problem this time around.

Rips

Knine wrote: »

Agree. Dew claws on the back legs of active breeds are a nuisance & very likely to get injured. Some breeders also remove the front ones. If you were ever unfortunate to see such an injury you would more then likely prefer them to be removed.

Yes - they can cause injury, but they should only be removed by a vet providing anaesthesia and analgesia.

Suggesting otherwise, is to suggest that you routinely inflict the same pain of a torn dewclaw on every animal.

It is commonplace for nuisance dewclaws (on the hind limbs, mainly) to be removed when dogs are neutered at any early age. This is the best practice.

Any conscientious vet that makes a note of a dewclaw that may be a nuisance should offer to remove it at the same time. The same goes for retained temporary teeth. Sometimes if you mention it, you could get it included in the price, but even if it it charged separately, it should only cost about €10 extra.

Rear dewclaws can can contain bone, its just not as common.

Gremlin

BillyMitchel wrote: »

It's always going to be done though. Would you not rather it was done professionally and cleanly than some eejit with an elastic band and a YouTube video?

If it has to be done, of course it should be done by a vet. Hopever vets realise that it is un-necessary and are precluded from doing this by their own code of ethics. What we are facing now is the legalising the status of that eejit with the rubber band and youtube video. My preferred approach is to specifically outlaw it and outlaw the showing of dogs with docked tails or removed dew claws.

Knine

Rips wrote: »

Yes - they can cause injury, but they should only be removed by a vet providing anaesthesia and analgesia.

Suggesting otherwise, is to suggest that you routinely inflict the same pain of a torn dewclaw on every animal.

It is commonplace for nuisance dewclaws (on the hind limbs, mainly) to be removed when dogs are neutered at any early age. This is the best practice.

Any conscientious vet that makes a note of a dewclaw that may be a nuisance should offer to remove it at the same time. The same goes for retained temporary teeth. Sometimes if you mention it, you could get it included in the price, but even if it it charged separately, it should only cost about €10 extra.

Rear dewclaws can can contain bone, its just not as common.

Where was I suggesting otherwise? Your post is a tad preachy. Maybe you did not intend to come across that way? I see lots & lots of dogs due to the fact I do ring craft classes.

Not all dogs are neutered or spayed at an early age. If I was unfortunate enough to have a litter with back leg nuisance dew claws they would be removed by a vet at a few days old. Retained puppy teeth are also sorted long before spaying/ neutering as they can affect a dogs bite.

I have a customarily docked breed. I don't have them docked as I prefer them with natural tails as well as the welfare aspect. This same breed used to be shown with hind leg dew claws. These are now removed.

DBB

Can I encourage poeple to write an email to your local minister, and your local TDs, as soon as you possibly can?
The commencement order for this anti-welfare clause in an animal welfare act is happening in the next few days, and if it passes into law, that's it... we have legalised amateur tail docking.
Petitions are not good enough, they are not taken seriously. The only real way to let your local representatives know that you want this changed is to write to them.
Just few lines. Tell them you want to see that if tail docking is to be allowed at all, that it must only be carried out in a clinical setting, under anaesthesia, by a vet. No exceptions.
In the UK and NI, only dogs who are declared as working dogs (hunting, vermin control, or law-enforcement) can be considered for docking, and so it means that a fair few breeds are not be allowed to be docked at all: Boxers, Dobermann, Rottweilers, Old English Sheepdogs, Australian Shepherds, etc do not fall into any of the above categories, in Ireland or the UK in any case.
I know it's not perfect, I know docking is seriously abhorrent, but jesus, we must make sure that if it's going to be done, that it's done properly

Rips

Knine wrote: »

Where was I suggesting otherwise? Your post is a tad preachy. Maybe you did not intend to come across that way? I see lots & lots of dogs due to the fact I do ring craft classes.

Not all dogs are neutered or spayed at an early age. If I was unfortunate enough to have a litter with back leg nuisance dew claws they would be removed by a vet at a few days old. Retained puppy teeth are also sorted long before spaying/ neutering as they can affect a dogs bite.

I have a customarily docked breed. I don't have them docked as I prefer them with natural tails as well as the welfare aspect. This same breed used to be shown with hind leg dew claws. These are now removed.

Well your post was very unclear...

Some breeders also remove the front ones.

Your statement also happens to be the main reason cited by people who want to justify inhumane tail docking/dewclaw removal '' if you don't have them removed now, they will cause injury''. You never clarified who, or how you thought it should be done.

You are clearly a responsible breeder if you intend to take care of such issues at a young age but lets face it, the reality is, most people attain their pets at an older age, where it would be impractical to remove them with only local anaesthetic, and impractical for them to undergo a general anaesthetic solely for this purpose. As regards temporary teeth, again, are you suggesting another intervention at some point between 3 and 6 months, when the teeth may come out on their own accord anyway? It very much depends on the breed, but it would be unusual for any dog to still have retained teeth at 6 months.

Bullseye1

A carefully worded text might be helpful for people to cut and paste.

Knine

Rips wrote: »

Well your post was very unclear...



Your statement also happens to be the main reason cited by people who want to justify inhumane tail docking/dewclaw removal '' if you don't have them removed now, they will cause injury''. You never clarified who, or how you thought it should be done.

You are clearly a responsible breeder if you intend to take care of such issues at a young age but lets face it, the reality is, most people attain their pets at an older age, where it would be impractical to remove them with only local anaesthetic, and impractical for them to undergo a general anaesthetic solely for this purpose. As regards temporary teeth, again, are you suggesting another intervention at some point between 3 and 6 months, when the teeth may come out on their own accord anyway? It very much depends on the breed, but it would be unusual for any dog to still have retained teeth at 6 months.

I don't remove front dewclaws however I regularly examine dogs who have had it done. If a puppy has retained teeth yes I will have them removed if I think they are going to cause a problem with a dogs bite. By 6 mths a retained tooth could have pushed teeth out of alignment. I spoke to an owner today & retained teeth have caused an issue with one of the dogs canines.

Any puppies I have here have their mouths checked all the time.

Yes I agree that older dogs/rescue dogs etc should not be put under GA for those purposes.

boomerang

Retained deciduous teeth also trap food debris so there is an oral health issue also, as well as a correct scissor bite.

Vet was telling me she recently saw a working Springer Spaniel with a thorn embedded in his eye. The eye was horribly infected by the time the owner brought it in. The dog was referred to a vet ophthamologist.

Well there's an argument for docking eyes, right there.

Gremlin

I made representations to several TD's and directly to Minister Coveney regarding this. As a result, Deputy Finian McGrath (Dub.Nth Ctrl) raised the issue with Minister Coveney under a parliamentary question. I attach the reply from Minister Coveney. I'm not sure this is the answer we wanted to hear but at least it has some positive sound bites.

DBB

Well done Gremlin,
I got a reply from the minister's office, a generic letter sent to whoever wrote to him on the issue, but the response you got via your route is more informative. It looks like he's considering going down the route the UK went to allow "working dogs" to be docked.
I can only assume this'll just turn into a good old Irish loophole :-(

boomerang

Can only see it affecting the spaniel and pointer gundog breeds then, at least - Boxers, Dobes, Jack Russells etc. could hardly be seen as requiring prophylactic docking. At least that's something.

ETA Just saw he is proposing to include terriers in this loophole. WTF.

I read an article recently about conjoined twins who were surgically separated within 24 hours of being born. Both were on a morphine drip for analgesia. So explain to me why human newborns are capable of feeling pain, but not other mammalian neonates? I hate that argument. They are just altricial so can't offer any resistance.

DBB

If they go with the UK model, it will mean that JRTs and other traditionally docked terriers can still be docked, because "vermin control" dogs are defined as a working dog, as are law-enforcement dogs.
The latter means that in theory, Dobies, Rotties, Giant Schnauzers etc could continue to be docked, although making the case for any of these as law enforcement dogs in either Ireland or the UK would be tenuous, as they're rarely/never used in these countries in this role.
I still have seen nothing from the department explicitly stating that if they're going to permit docking (and I'm pretty sure they will to some degree), that it can only be done by a vet, under anaesthesia etc. There's a very real threat that they'll word it in a way that permits lay people to do it... Legally.

Shark

Just seen this posted on Dogs Trust facebook page:


Dogs Trust Ireland
BREAKING NEWS: At the AGM of Veterinary Ireland this morning, Mr Simon Coveney TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine announced that under the new Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 the docking of dogs Tails and removal of Dew Claws by non veterinary professionals will NOT be permitted. Minister Conveney also confirmed that any procedures carried out for purely cosmetic reasons will also NOT be permitted. Consideration will be given to the docking of certain breeds but ONLY if scientific evidence shows that it is of a welfare benefit. The three national animal welfare organisations, Dogs Trust, the ISPCA and the Irish Blue Cross which lobbied together with the Veterinary community welcome Minister Coveney’s announcement and congratulate him and his officials on the Animal Health and Welfare Act which is the most extensive piece of animal welfare legislation since the foundation of the state.

Very good news! Lots of happy wagging tails!!!

Toulouse

Big sigh of relief! That's great news!

Rips

Seems like a very dangerous statement to me - no matter the breed or the circumstance, it should not be allowed to be carried out by a layperson, without anaesthetic and analgesia.

Its seems a very simple thing; classify it as an act of veterinary surgery (thereby preventing any layperson from carrying this out, at any age, on any dog) and leave the discretion to the vet as to whether it is necessary on a case by case basis.

(whether for working dogs, or damage etc)

Anything else, is just skirting around the issue and wasting tax payers money writing crap laws that won't be adhered to.

DBB

Does it not say that though Rips? That it is to be a veterinary procedure only?
This is a great victory for the welfare of dogs, though there will have to enforcement of the legislation to make sure laypeople who dock tails are prosecuted.
Our new Welfare Act is by no means perfect, but it represents a huge improvement on what we had. This docking and dew claw issue was a major flaw which, thanks to a lot of pressure by groups and individuals, seems to have been ironed out... Once again, scientific evidence has saved the day!
Thank you Shark, for the update :-)