erykah1310
January 29th, 2011, 12:59 PM
I'm not a fan of cropping and docking personally but does anyone else see this resulting in yet again the less than reputable breeders doing it themselves? I really think that more effort should be placed with re writing animal cruelty laws to the effect of having caged breeding dogs NOT be suitable form of housing and enforced as cruelty.
*sigh, just seems like too many parties really dont see the bigger problems than a surgury ( with the exception of docking) under anesthetic...
XPOSTED:
This is on the NS SPCA site:
PROSECUTION OF PARTIES: DOCKING AND CROPPING
The Nova Scotia SPCA supports the decision of the Nova Scotia Veterinary
Medical Association to amend the Code of Ethics to include the following
section related to Cosmetic Surgery:
"No member of the Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association shall perform
cosmetic surgery on an animal for the purpose of having the animal's
appearance confirm to a breed standard or tradition. Cosmetic surgery is
defined as non-therapeutic surgical procedures, which alter the appearance
of an animal for purely cosmetic purposes..."
Tail docking and ear cropping are included in this legislated amendment,
which came into effect April 1, 2010 with a 6 month implementation period
(ending October 1, 2010).
The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association also opposes surgical
alternation of any animal purely for cosmetic purposes.
The Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) 445.1 (1) (a) states that one cannot
wilfully cause, or being the owner, wilfully permit to be caused unnecessary
pain, suffering or injury to an animal. Case Law provides that such
suffering need not be substantial if it is not "justified" or is considered
unnecessary "as being inflicted without necessity" (402 (1) (a)). A
conviction under the CCC requires that two things must be proved: first that
pain was inflicted and that second, it was inflicted cruelly, that is,
without necessity, or in other words as cited by Case Law "without good
reason." It is further noted in Case Law that the amount of pain is of no
importance, inclusive of duration and severity, if the pain is inflicted
wilfully.
In the province's Animal Cruelty Act, an animal in distress is defined in
Section 2(2)(b) as being injured, sick, in pain, or suffering undue
hardship, privation or neglect. Section 21(2) states that no owner of an
animal or person in charge of an animal shall permit the animal to be in
distress. Section 21(4) outlines that if such distress, pain, suffering or
injury results from an activity carried on in the practice of veterinary
medicine, or in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices
of animal management it is exempted. In this case, the NSVMA and CVA as
stated above, agree that the activity does not meet this qualification as an
exemptible procedure or practice.
This position does not apply to animals currently with docked tails or
cropped ears. This statement reflects the Nova Scotia SPCA position on cases
of reported docking and cropping which have occurred after the NSVMA's
amendment to the Code of Ethics, which will be investigated as cases of
alleged cruelty. Cases involving veterinarians will be referred to the Nova
Scotia Veterinary Medical Association.
*sigh, just seems like too many parties really dont see the bigger problems than a surgury ( with the exception of docking) under anesthetic...
XPOSTED:
This is on the NS SPCA site:
PROSECUTION OF PARTIES: DOCKING AND CROPPING
The Nova Scotia SPCA supports the decision of the Nova Scotia Veterinary
Medical Association to amend the Code of Ethics to include the following
section related to Cosmetic Surgery:
"No member of the Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association shall perform
cosmetic surgery on an animal for the purpose of having the animal's
appearance confirm to a breed standard or tradition. Cosmetic surgery is
defined as non-therapeutic surgical procedures, which alter the appearance
of an animal for purely cosmetic purposes..."
Tail docking and ear cropping are included in this legislated amendment,
which came into effect April 1, 2010 with a 6 month implementation period
(ending October 1, 2010).
The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association also opposes surgical
alternation of any animal purely for cosmetic purposes.
The Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) 445.1 (1) (a) states that one cannot
wilfully cause, or being the owner, wilfully permit to be caused unnecessary
pain, suffering or injury to an animal. Case Law provides that such
suffering need not be substantial if it is not "justified" or is considered
unnecessary "as being inflicted without necessity" (402 (1) (a)). A
conviction under the CCC requires that two things must be proved: first that
pain was inflicted and that second, it was inflicted cruelly, that is,
without necessity, or in other words as cited by Case Law "without good
reason." It is further noted in Case Law that the amount of pain is of no
importance, inclusive of duration and severity, if the pain is inflicted
wilfully.
In the province's Animal Cruelty Act, an animal in distress is defined in
Section 2(2)(b) as being injured, sick, in pain, or suffering undue
hardship, privation or neglect. Section 21(2) states that no owner of an
animal or person in charge of an animal shall permit the animal to be in
distress. Section 21(4) outlines that if such distress, pain, suffering or
injury results from an activity carried on in the practice of veterinary
medicine, or in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices
of animal management it is exempted. In this case, the NSVMA and CVA as
stated above, agree that the activity does not meet this qualification as an
exemptible procedure or practice.
This position does not apply to animals currently with docked tails or
cropped ears. This statement reflects the Nova Scotia SPCA position on cases
of reported docking and cropping which have occurred after the NSVMA's
amendment to the Code of Ethics, which will be investigated as cases of
alleged cruelty. Cases involving veterinarians will be referred to the Nova
Scotia Veterinary Medical Association.