New AAHA position statement opposes cosmetic ear cropping, tail docking

Recently, the American Animal Hospital Association announced that it has revised its position on ear cropping and tail docking of pets and now opposes these surgical procedures when performed for cosmetic reasons alone.

Moreover, the AAHA supports laws requiring veterinarians to report suspected cases of animal . . . → Read More: AAHA position on tail and ear cosmetic surgery]]> AAHA Position

New AAHA position statement opposes cosmetic ear cropping, tail docking

Recently, the American Animal Hospital Association announced that it has revised its position on ear cropping and tail docking of pets and now opposes these surgical procedures when performed for cosmetic reasons alone.

Moreover, the AAHA supports laws requiring veterinarians to report suspected cases of animal abuse, as long as veterinarians are protected from liability.

The international organization of more than 29,000 veterinary care providers has also stated that the profession is responsible for contributing to solutions for reducing the number of healthy animals euthanatized annually.

These are among a number of new and amended animal welfare position statements the AAHA board of directors approved in October.

New position statements address declawing and canine devocalization, whereas the revised statements deal with animal abuse and reporting, euthanasia, and ear cropping and tail docking.

The AAHA Animal Welfare and Ethics Task Force drafted the statements in response to society’s increased focus on companion animal welfare. The task force “was appointed to prioritize and address issues that would provide leadership and timely guidance for the veterinary profession, related pet industries, and the public,” explained task force chair, Dr. Merry Crimi.

The revised ear cropping and tail docking position statement goes beyond the AAHA’s previous position, adopted in 1998, that advised veterinarians to inform clients about the risks of the surgeries, to oppose both the procedures when done solely for cosmetic reasons.

The AAHA encourages veterinarians to counsel and educate pet owners that these procedures should not be performed unless medically necessary, as well as encourages the elimination of these procedures from breed standards.

AAHA position statements are posted online at http://www.aahanet.org/About_aaha/About_Position.html

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec03/031215e.asp<

Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues

“Since it is not customary in our society to remove limbs or appendages from animals arbitrarily, it may be expected that tail docking served some important function in the past. Indeed, if tail docking was associated with established benefits in the past, it might be assumed that . . . → Read More: Tail docking]]>

Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues

“Since it is not customary in our society to remove limbs or appendages from animals arbitrarily, it may be expected that tail docking served some important function in the past. Indeed, if tail docking was associated with established benefits in the past,
it might be assumed that those currently calling for a ban on the procedure have a burden of proof to justify why a change to existing practices is necessary. It is argued later in this paper that there are no established benefits associated with tail docking in dogs and that, for several reasons, the burden of proof actually lies with those who support the procedure to demonstrate however, it is worthwhile considering the arguments most commonly used to justify calls for a ban on tail docking.”

PC BENNETT and E PERINI
Animal Welfare Centre, Department of Psychology, Clayton Campus, Monash
University, Victoria 3800. Email: p.bennett@med.monash.edu.au

http://www.psychology.org.au/units/interest_groups/animal_welfare/taildocking_issues.pdf

<

AVMA Position

“Canine cosmetic surgery has reached epidemic proportions. Over 130,000 puppies undergo an unnecessary cosmetic surgery in the United States each year. This article will describe the procedures of tail docking and ear cropping, the history of the procedures, their place in modern . . . → Read More: AVMA position on ear & tail docking]]> Cosmetic surgery : Ear Cropping and Tail Docking

AVMA Position

“Canine cosmetic surgery has reached epidemic proportions. Over 130,000 puppies undergo an unnecessary cosmetic surgery in the United States each year. This article will describe the procedures of tail docking and ear cropping, the history of the procedures, their place in modern veterinary care, and discuss the positions of advocates both for, and against these procedures. Additionally, this article will explain the ways in which the law is being used internationally in preventing these unnecessary procedures, and the ways that current and future American anti-cruelty laws can be used to put a stop to this epidemic.”

http://www.companionanimalclinic.com/archives/taildock.htm

AVMA RESOLUTION ON EAR CROPPING AND TAIL DOCKING

In July of 1999, after a great deal of debate, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) approved a resolution regarding the issues of ear cropping and tail docking. In short, the resolution addresses requests from veterinarians and veterinary students for their professional organization to clarify its position on these surgeries. First, the resolution itself, then some discussion.

The AVMA resolution reads as follows:

“Ear cropping and tail docking in dogs for cosmetic reasons are not medically indicated nor of benefit to the patient. These procedures cause pain and distress, and, as with all surgical procedures, are accompanied by inherent risks of anesthesia, blood loss, and infection. Therefore, veterinarians should counsel dog owners about these matters before agreeing to perform these surgeries.”

Unless you work closely with animals, you may not be familiar with how contentious this issue has become. Breeders, some dog owners, and breed registry organizations argue that ear cropping and tail docking maintains the unique qualities of a given breed; some believe that these procedures contribute to the health and/or safety of the dogs (for instance, an upright/docked ear may reduce the risk of infection, or a guard dog with cropped ears may appear more threatening and thus decrease the likelihood of an intruder getting close enough to harm the dog or its owners). Others feel that the use of cropping and/or docking is an arbitrarily applied form of mutilation and has no bearing on the well-being, function, or value of the dog.

As with any emotional issue, there’s no clear compromise between the two extremes. Even within the AVMA, opinion was divided. The final vote for approval was 315-259, far from unanimous. The problem was most likely not a question of whether these surgeries are medically beneficial (I’ve seen no evidence that they are), but more whether they should be regulated and whether the AVMA should be the organization to make a statement. On one hand, members view the AVMA as a source for ethical guidance for veterinary students; on the other, there has always been resistance to the AVMA dictating specifics about how veterinarians should practice. While most veterinarians do not like to perform these procedures, a concern with a restrictive resolution was that banning these surgeries would result in people without proper training performing them.

The AVMA resolution, in the end, is a reasonable effort by a quality organization to take a stand on a difficult issue without passing moral judgement on people who continue to advocate these procedures. For more on the AVMA you can look at their web site at www.avma.org. To look at breed standards, go to the American Kennel Club site at www.akc.org.

See also:
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/dduscroppingdocking.htm<