Post by safaritours on Nov 8, 2007 2:55:15 GMT 1
Details and a link below regarding yet another attempt to ban docking of Tails and dew claws in NewZealand,
NZKC disappointed that draft Code of Welfare proposes tail docking ban
PUBLIC DRAFT
17 September 2007
National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
C/- Animal Welfare Group, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, PO Box 2526, Wellington8.12.2
For a complete outline of animal welware draft click on the Link below ,to read Tail docking extract scroll down.
www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/strategy/consultation/draft-code-of-welfare-dogs.pdf
Removal of dew claws
Dew claws are vestigial digits which may be found on the inside of the lower limbs of a dog.
Minimum Standard No. 16 – Dew Claws
Dew claws of dogs over four days old must only be removed by a veterinarian using
appropriate analgesia.
Recommended Best Practice
(a) Articulated dew claws should not be routinely removed.
(b) If any dew claw is to be removed and the pup is four days old or less, the procedure should be
carried out by a veterinarian.
General Information
While most front dew claws are firmly and closely attached to the leg, hind dew claws may be large
and loosely-attached and therefore more likely to be subject to injury, so that preventive removal of
these claws may be justified, particularly in working dogs.
DRAFT only – not Government policy
PUBLIC DRAFT Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare
17 September 2007 39
Negative impacts on the health and welfare of the dog can be reduced by having this procedure
conducted at the same time as surgical neutering.
8.12.3 Tail docking
Tail docking is performed in order to ensure that dogs meet breed standards, or because it is
believed that it prevents damage from occurring to the tails of working dogs in particular situations, or
to reduce soiling around the anus and tail. Tail docking of dogs is restricted or prohibited in several
countries, including England, Wales, Scotland, Germany, Australia, Israel, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden and Norway.
Minimum Standard No. 17 – Tail docking
(a) Tail docking must not be performed on puppies or dogs, except where required to
manage existing damage or disease to the tail or malformation which harms animal
welfare.
(b) Tail docking, when conducted in the situation described above, must only be
performed by a veterinarian using both appropriate pain relief and post-surgical
follow-up to manage risks to animal welfare.
Recommended Best Practice
Injury of the tail can lead to serious complications and any injury to the tail, as with other injury,
should be examined by a veterinarian.
General Information
Tail injury in many breeds has traditionally been prevented by tail docking according to breed
standards and practical requirements. Tails can be injured in the home and while dogs are working.
Tail injury can be painful and debilitating and will necessarily resolve itself. Care needs to be taken to
ensure that damage to the tail is minimised and that any injury or damage is treated appropriately.
See also section 8.11 and Minimum Standard 15.
Hygiene around the tail and anus has traditionally been managed by tail docking in some breeds.
Careful attention to hygiene can prevent risks to animal welfare that arise from soiling in dogs with
tails, particularly those with long hair. See also section 8.7 and Minimum Standard 12(a).
NAWAC comment for public consultation:
NAWAC does not make any final decisions on codes of welfare before it has received public
submissions. The above standard on tail docking is a proposal for public discussion. It is proposed
because there is evidence that tail docking causes pain and distress that may or may not be
transient. The degree of pain or distress likely varies with the age of the dog at docking. Additionally,
dogs use their tails for behavioural communication and removal may have impacts on normal
behaviour. Removal may also have further impacts on health. The alternatives to tail docking are
amending breed and judging standards to accept entire tails, removal of the tail only following any
injury or disease, and attention to hygiene and regular care. The procedure itself, and any potential
pain and distress arising from it, could thus be considered unreasonable and unnecessary. The
proposed minimum standard would ensure that unreasonable and unnecessary pain and distress did
not occur and that the spirit of the Animal Welfare Act is upheld.
NZKC disappointed that draft Code of Welfare proposes tail docking ban
PUBLIC DRAFT
17 September 2007
National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
C/- Animal Welfare Group, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, PO Box 2526, Wellington8.12.2
For a complete outline of animal welware draft click on the Link below ,to read Tail docking extract scroll down.
www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/strategy/consultation/draft-code-of-welfare-dogs.pdf
Removal of dew claws
Dew claws are vestigial digits which may be found on the inside of the lower limbs of a dog.
Minimum Standard No. 16 – Dew Claws
Dew claws of dogs over four days old must only be removed by a veterinarian using
appropriate analgesia.
Recommended Best Practice
(a) Articulated dew claws should not be routinely removed.
(b) If any dew claw is to be removed and the pup is four days old or less, the procedure should be
carried out by a veterinarian.
General Information
While most front dew claws are firmly and closely attached to the leg, hind dew claws may be large
and loosely-attached and therefore more likely to be subject to injury, so that preventive removal of
these claws may be justified, particularly in working dogs.
DRAFT only – not Government policy
PUBLIC DRAFT Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare
17 September 2007 39
Negative impacts on the health and welfare of the dog can be reduced by having this procedure
conducted at the same time as surgical neutering.
8.12.3 Tail docking
Tail docking is performed in order to ensure that dogs meet breed standards, or because it is
believed that it prevents damage from occurring to the tails of working dogs in particular situations, or
to reduce soiling around the anus and tail. Tail docking of dogs is restricted or prohibited in several
countries, including England, Wales, Scotland, Germany, Australia, Israel, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden and Norway.
Minimum Standard No. 17 – Tail docking
(a) Tail docking must not be performed on puppies or dogs, except where required to
manage existing damage or disease to the tail or malformation which harms animal
welfare.
(b) Tail docking, when conducted in the situation described above, must only be
performed by a veterinarian using both appropriate pain relief and post-surgical
follow-up to manage risks to animal welfare.
Recommended Best Practice
Injury of the tail can lead to serious complications and any injury to the tail, as with other injury,
should be examined by a veterinarian.
General Information
Tail injury in many breeds has traditionally been prevented by tail docking according to breed
standards and practical requirements. Tails can be injured in the home and while dogs are working.
Tail injury can be painful and debilitating and will necessarily resolve itself. Care needs to be taken to
ensure that damage to the tail is minimised and that any injury or damage is treated appropriately.
See also section 8.11 and Minimum Standard 15.
Hygiene around the tail and anus has traditionally been managed by tail docking in some breeds.
Careful attention to hygiene can prevent risks to animal welfare that arise from soiling in dogs with
tails, particularly those with long hair. See also section 8.7 and Minimum Standard 12(a).
NAWAC comment for public consultation:
NAWAC does not make any final decisions on codes of welfare before it has received public
submissions. The above standard on tail docking is a proposal for public discussion. It is proposed
because there is evidence that tail docking causes pain and distress that may or may not be
transient. The degree of pain or distress likely varies with the age of the dog at docking. Additionally,
dogs use their tails for behavioural communication and removal may have impacts on normal
behaviour. Removal may also have further impacts on health. The alternatives to tail docking are
amending breed and judging standards to accept entire tails, removal of the tail only following any
injury or disease, and attention to hygiene and regular care. The procedure itself, and any potential
pain and distress arising from it, could thus be considered unreasonable and unnecessary. The
proposed minimum standard would ensure that unreasonable and unnecessary pain and distress did
not occur and that the spirit of the Animal Welfare Act is upheld.