Thread: Review of the Animal Welfare Act regarding Tail Docking

what about a boxer x lab litter or a cocker x poodle..... it's a time of caution as the anti's are waiting for that test case.
as per the thread title the anti's are after anything to support a total ban.

The anti's can't touch it as long as it's done under 4 days old by banding by and accredited docker. Regardless of what you may have heard the law consists only of that simple paragraph I posted from the code of welfare.

Besides there has already been one case in Australia that I know of that the RSPCA tried to prosecute a breeder for banding and the judge dismissed it because of a lack of evidence that any cruelty resulted from the banding.

On a separate note, all the scientific research that I have found conducted on the matter supports docking.

The arguments against are nothing but emotional appeals based on poor practice that have no scientific backing. Studies have conclusively determined that it prevents injury, causes pups very little or no pain at the time of the procedure and the procedure has no impact on the behaviour of the dogs.

Is it not somewhat curious that while the Veterinary Council are against tail docking, they are the very ones who will execute the amputation of a damaged tail...

It would be very interesting if a vet challenged the NZVA's restriction of vet's docking because I believe it would be very soundly shot down in court

Yes, but the quirk side is that there are vets who have and who would continue to dock puppies...

Glad to hear it

Originally Posted by Tussock

Funny how you never hear anything about circumcising babies.

We couldn't find anyone willing to do our Son,its considered genital mutilation now Despite it being much cleaner/healthier

Here is another communication from the NZKC president. I am a bit disappointed that the issue of tail docking and dangerous dog breeds is sort of lumped together...it is as if the Companion Animal Council is using the dangerous dog issue to push for the ban on tail docking...which I see as being highly suggestive and emotive..and allows a possible conclusion that all docked dogs must be dangerous...for me this issue is about maintaining the right to dock historically docked breeds as they have been for centuries. The point made herein is, that no matter what the Act may say, there will be those who continue to dock puppies and it is better for transparency than covert docking....Please help with this cause...


Guidance for letters to media and MPs
The September issue of Dog World will contain a set of six tear-off postcards for sending to members of Parliament as they’re considering the Animal Welfare Act review.

Please support this initiative even if you do not have a breed involved in the issues under discussion. The whole dog world will be diminished by the loss of supporters if the right to control tail length is lost, apart from the fact that the opposition to the practice is irrational and an intrusion on the rights of breeders.

Breed-specific legislation (BSL), so-called ‘dangerous breed’ law is bad law, misdirected, wasteful of resources and unfair to the owners of any dog, pedigree or mixed breed, that has certain widely misunderstood characteristics. It distracts lawmakers and animal control authorities from the real source of dog problems – bad owners. We must all do everything in our power to educate the policymakers away from BSL and towards laws that target the bad owners out there – not us, and not the many excellent dog owners outside the NZKC.

I hope that you will all get behind this writing campaign and will encourage your dog owning friends and neighbours to do the same. This campaign is aimed principally at politicians in September but there’s no reason why you can’t start writing now. Here’s what will be published with the cards……..



How to use These Cards

Letters are the best way to communicate with politicians. If you have the time they are preferable to these cards. Let the cards guide you, but write an old-fashioned letter. Postage to Parliament is free. Whether you use a letter or the cards please remember the essential principles;

Be brief, a page or less, clearly set out to be skimmed in seconds with the main points obvious
Preferably only make one point, four maximum, bullet pointed and concise
If you want to make more points, write more letters
Be polite – if it’s unpleasant to read it won’t be read
Don’t mention your opponents’ arguments, just state your own
Say ‘banding’ not ‘docking.’ We oppose docking too; but we support access to banding by accredited persons within 72 hours of birth for those breeders who choose it
Say ‘breed-specific legislation’ rather than ‘dangerous dog legislation:’ the point we are making is that breeds are not inherently dangerous
Conclude with thanks for having read it
How to use the cards (or your letters)

Send one on each topic, breed-specific legislation and banding, to the Minister and also to the Associate Minister. These cards are pre-addressed for you.

Send one on each topic to the MP for your area.

(There is a list of MPs in this issue of Dog World or at New Zealand Parliament - Members of Parliament)

You will have an electorate MP but there may be one or more list MPs in your area too. Why not get some more cards or write letters and communicate with them as well?

Write your name and address in the ‘sender’ panel. The more handwriting the better to prevent the cards looking impersonal and mass-produced.

Randomly select up to four points on each topic from the lists here (or make up more if you have any). Random selection is important to ensure that all of the points are covered in the total volume of letters and cards that are received at Parliament. Vary the wording a little to individualise your communication. If you have favourite points to make or you just want to say more than four, write letters as well or ask the Kennel Club for more cards.

Write your own concluding sentence thanking the Member for reading the card or some similar courtesy.

Ensure that you sign at the end.

The Kennel Club has more cards and copies of these instructions available. Please ask for more and distribute them among friends and family. Clubs, as well as encouraging individual members to write, submit cards as a club also. Better still, write on letterhead paper.

Thank you for your support. Together we can preserve access to banding for those breeders who choose it and we can ensure that where tails are shortened the process is carried out painlessly and correctly by competent persons using the proven and safe method of banding within 72 hours of birth. As well we can protect our bigger and/or stronger breeds from the unjust consequences of being wrongly branded ‘dangerous.’

Banding

Persons accredited by the council of docked Breeds are experienced and competent.
The Accredited Banders Scheme is audited by the New Zealand Kennel Club to ensure compliance with agreed protocols and the Code of Animal Welfare
Only those breeds that have traditionally had tails shortened may be banded; no other method of tail shortening is recognised by the NZKC and no non-traditional breeds may have their tails shortened.
All accredited banders are NZKC members and subject to its disciplinary process in the event of any breaches of protocol
Parliament has previously accepted that banding does not cause pain. Since that time more evidence demonstrating this fact has emerged.
Evidence of infection after tail shortening relates to shortening by cutting and/or in pups older than 72 hours.
The NZKC knows of no evidence of complications arising from properly performed banding.
The NZKC supports the principle of access to tail shortening when it is performed by accredited banders within 72 hours of puppies’ birth and in no other case (except treatment by qualified veterinarians of injury).
The claim that dogs are disadvantaged by not having tails is emotive and not supported by evidence.
Many breeds are without tails naturally. Dogs with shortened tails live totally normal and healthy lives, as do the natural bobtails.
As a society we consider human cosmetic surgery fashionable. In the agricultural context we permit shortening of tails on dairy cows, lambs and shire horses. To argue against tail shortening in dogs is perverse and an infringement on the breeders’ freedoms.
Dogs have an economic value. Inability to shorten tails would restrict their market. E.g. exports of dogs with shortened tails to Australia have increased significantly since tail shortening was banned there.
Of twenty-eight dog breeds considered ‘endangered’ by the Kennel Club in London, the tails of thirteen have traditionally been shortened. Banning tail shortening will provide a strong disincentive for enthusiasts to continue breeding these dogs, which will become further endangered.
Tail injuries in dogs can be painful and difficult to treat. Such injuries are prevented by shortening of the tail in the first hours of life (particularly true of working breeds).
Canine enthusiasts place high value on the appearance of their dogs and banning tail shortening has led many in other countries to give up canine sports, a loss to recreation generally and to canine sports bodies in particular.
Dog shows bring an economic benefit to communities in which they are held: a reduction in the number of participants means a corresponding reduction in the benefits. The introduction of a ban on tail shortening in NSW reduced registrations of breeds with shortened tails by 73%, in Sweden by 51%.
If tail shortening is banned an ‘underground’ movement to continue it will spring up and will operate without supervision or quality control.
Tail shortening is an established practice over centuries and is effectively a ‘cultural practice’ within the dog fancy. We seek the same recognition of our tradition and culture that is shown to other groups.
Prohibition of tail shortening would be expensive and very difficult to enforce. Some breeds spontaneously produce occasional ‘bob tailed’ dogs. Identifying natural bob tails from dogs whose tails have been shortened is usually impossible.
Experience shows that pups are unaware of the presence of a tail band that is properly applied in the first few days of life.
Scientific evidence indicates that pups’ nervous systems are so undeveloped at birth that they display no pain reaction in their extremities for ten days or more.
A banded tail withers and drops off painlessly in around 36 hours.
Studies on lambs, pigs and other farm animals do not generalise to dogs. The animals’ nervous systems and post natal development patterns are fundamentally different.
Any identifiable example of a cruel tail shortening procedure can be prosecuted as it arises. There is no need to ban the correct use of banding to shorten tails. This would outlaw something that is not the cause of the problem government seeks to solve.


Breed-specific Laws

Breed-specific laws do not protect communities: instead of holding all dog owners accountable for their behaviour, breed-specific laws only place restrictions on the owners of certain types of dogs.
An owner intent on using his or her dogs for improper purposes, such as dog fighting, or to enhance a “tough guy” image will simply switch to another type of dog with similar characteristics to those of the prohibited breed.
The list of regulated breeds or types could grow indefinitely without ever addressing the underlying issue of responsible dog ownership. Deeds, not breeds, should be addressed in laws.
Ideas about which breeds are dangerous vary with fashion, not fact. Breeds that are now regarded as legitimate pets and working dogs such as German Shepherds have been popularly regarded as ‘dangerous’ in the past.
Ideas about which breeds are dangerous are not rational when compared across breeds. The ‘bull’ type terriers are regarded as dangerous by some people on the grounds that they were originally bred for hunting and/or bull baiting and/or fighting and they have short muzzles and wide strong mouths for biting. Boxers are (rightly) regarded as loveable family pets. Boxers were originally bred for hunting and have been used for bull baiting and fighting and as military attack dogs in World War I. They have short muzzles and wide strong mouths for biting.
Ideas about which breeds are dangerous are not rational when compared across time. The current prejudice against strong medium-sized dogs with broad faces, short muzzles etc. has only been in vogue since the adoption of such dogs by street gangs, drug dealers etc. in the nineteen seventies brought them into disrepute. Before that the prejudice was against the ‘military/police’ type dogs such as Dobermans, Rottweilers and German Shepherds.
Ideas about which breeds are dangerous are not rational when compared across time. Thirty or so years ago when there was widespread prejudice against the ‘military/police’ type dogs such as Dobermans, Rottweilers and German Shepherds the prejudice did not extend to Airedale Terriers, Boxers and Giant Schnauzers yet those breeds were used by military and/or police forces in many countries.
Ideas about which breeds are dangerous are not rational when compared across breeds. Knowledgeable dog owners know that there are several breeds that are capable of inflicting as much injury as the so-called ‘dangerous’ breeds that are regarded very favourably by the public at large.
Ideas about which breeds are dangerous are not rational when compared across breeds. Several breeds that are recognised by the New Zealand Kennel Club have been used as fighting dogs in their history. Only two of these are nowadays regarded (wrongly) as ‘dangerous.’ Not all of the several breeds are physically large or strong although some of them are larger and stronger that the two breeds that are (unfairly) regarded as ‘dangerous’.
Regulations that target specific breeds force animal control officials to focus their valuable time on breed identification. This task requires expert knowledge of the individual breeds and is compounded when the law includes mixed breeds.
Identifying breeds represented in a mixed breed dog without DNA testing is impossible. A Boxer/black Labrador cross for example will look as though it has Staffordshire Bull Terrier in its parentage. If it happens to be bulky and have slightly longer facial characteristics it is likely to be regarded as ‘part pit bull’ by some observers. Both ‘identifications’ will be false.
Several breeds of dog if parent to a mixed breed pup will produce offspring that observers are likely to think has “bull type” terrier in it because of its shape. For this reason most reports that dogs that have bitten people were crosses with “bull type” terriers are wrong.
Legal challenges to local bodies’ actions in impounding dogs solely because of their breed will usually succeed because of the impossibility of accurately identifying the parentage of mixed breed dogs and the inherent injustice of enforcement based on breed – that cannot be proven – rather than deed.
The DNA testing required to settle arguments about parentage of mixed breed dogs is very expensive.
Even if traces of a ‘dangerous’ breed are found in the DNA of a mixed breed dog there is room for legal and logical argument over how much of the breed concerned is required to make an individual dog a member of the ‘dangerous’ breed.
Dog A has 60% of a ‘dangerous’ breed in its makeup but has bitten nobody, dog B has 10% of a ’dangerous’ breed in its makeup and has nipped a posties’ ankle and Dog C has no ‘dangerous’ breed in it but has seriously bitten a person. What has been proven and how can breed-specific legislation address this?
Most dog bite incidents involve mixed breed dogs so laws aimed at pure breeds are misdirected.
Eliminating a ‘dangerous’ breed will not remove its genes from the mixed breed dog population so mixed breed dogs with the same or similar characteristics will be as numerous ever.
It is very difficult for public officials to enforce such provisions in a fair and effective manner.
Breed-specific laws are unfair to responsible dog owners. Many owners of the targeted breeds are extremely responsible and loving towards their pets.
Breed-specific laws may prevent responsible owners from freely interacting with, showing, breeding or providing pet therapy with their dogs, such as visits to schools, hospitals, and nursing homes.
Some forms of breed-specific legislation may cause financial hardship to responsible owners e.g. differential fees.
Denver Colorado introduced ordnances against certain breeds and the number of dogs impounded increased five-fold without making any difference to the number of dog bite incidents that occurred in the city. The laws were repealed.
Holland repealed breed-specific legislation after five years because experience showed that it made no difference to the number of dog bite incidents in Holland but increased enforcement costs and alienated responsible dog owners.
Italy repealed breed-specific legislation because experience showed that it made no difference to the number of dog bite incidents in Italy but increased enforcement costs and alienated responsible dog owners.
Breed-specific laws can increase costs to the community as citizens abandon pets of the targeted breeds because of inability to comply with the breed-specific laws. Adoptable dogs of the targeted breeds could not be adopted out and would have to be euthanised at public expense.
Breed-specific laws make the banned breed more attractive to those interested in improper activities by publicly declaring the breeds concerned to be ‘dangerous’ thereby increasing their appeal to gang members and dog fight organisers.
Breed-specific laws often cannot withstand legal challenges.
A better solution is available. Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), generic guidelines on dealing with dangerous individual dogs and increased public education to promote responsible dog ownership are all better ways to protect communities from dangerous animals.
A better solution is available. Increasing public education efforts will address the root cause of the problem (irresponsible dog owners).
A better solution is available. Uniformly enforced animal control laws will force all owners, regardless of the breed of dog they own, to be responsible animal owners while preventing irresponsible owners from simply turning to a different breed.

Originally Posted by RCGSP

You would be hard pressed to find an accredited docker willing to dock lab pups though

Accredited tail dockers would not band Labrador puppies, RCGSP...they are permitted only to dock those breeds which have been historically docked. A Labrador needs his tail to communicate PIE PIE!!

and to clarify the the nzkc and council of docked breeds requirements the pups must be or from NZKC registered parents.

they are including a few bullet points in the next kennel gazette so the position is made clear.

Just try and get all those opposed to docking, to walk through some gorse or mataguri with one of their arms waveing back and forth. Males who are opposed can wave something else.


I once had a female vet ask if I would like my one of my fingers or arms cut off when I asked her opinion about docking
I said if I whirled it around like a set of helicopter blades everytime I went into the gorse I probably would.

good reply !!! R93 .People are slowly and smartly being brainwashed by PC detergent in every day life and if they dont leave the city for a hunt have no idea of the possible injuries that can occur --mind they also can retort dogs have done well before humans with tails too.

Originally Posted by el borracho

mind they also can retort dogs have done well before humans with tails too.

Before humans, dogs didn't exist.

Originally Posted by el borracho

good reply !!! R93 .People are slowly and smartly being brainwashed by PC detergent in every day life and if they dont leave the city for a hunt have no idea of the possible injuries that can occur --mind they also can retort dogs have done well before humans with tails too.

This doest just apply to tail docking, It applies to ALL back country activity's on OUR PUBLIC LAND