Response from the NBSPCA

I just received a response from Glen McGuire, Executive Director of the NBSPCA, concerning the New Brunswick Veterinary Medical Association (NBVMA)'s members' recent decision to ban their performing of ear cropping, tail docking and dew claw removals on dogs in New Brunswick. I'd written out of concern over responses to this decision from people who make a living off of the breeding of purebreds, and who've seemed to be asserting that breeders and show dog owners will likely resort to going out of province or to getting someone else to butcher his or her way through the procedures and then see the vets (legitimately) to heal the damage that's been done. I asked him what the NBSPCA's response would be to someone's docking or cropping dogs' tails or ears -- what the legal repercussions would be.

Note: By CC of C Section 446, Mr. McGuire means the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 446 concerning cruelty to animals.

He wrote:

Hi M,

Thank you for your letter re: Our position on the NBVMA resolution adopted last week. As you can imagine, we are never in agreement with any unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted upon animals. Many of the veterinarians in the Province have refused to do this type of cosmetic alteration as a matter of principle. With the adoption of last week's resolution, it will now be a prohibited procedure.

This then goes to your question as to what we would do in the event that people decide to perform surgical alterations without the benefit of a veterinarian. According to our Chief Inspector, we would have to charge people under CC of C Section 446. Causing undue pain and suffering. To do this we would need witnesses and confirmation that this had been done. We would also need to have the Crown seize and prosecute the case.

We will of course be raising this issue in our ongoing talks with the Government with the view, if necessary to adding or amending regulations to address this potential problem. Thank you for your concern.

Sincerely,

Glen McGuire
NBSPCA

Cropping and Docking: A Backgrounder and the Global Status Quo

I decided to research this topic further and found that the American Veterinary Medical Association's stance on cropping and docking is for vets to counsel people requesting them that the procedures cause ''pain and distress'', but AVMA stops short of condemning them.

According to the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (which does indeed condemn both), the procedures have been illegal in Newfoundland and Labrador since 1978 and are outlawed in many European countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand. There are, of course, exceptions for medically justifiable reasons.

In Indiana, in 2002, a defendant was convicted of animal cruelty for cropping the ears of several puppies with office scissors without anesthesia. Furthermore: The court held that the evidence supported conviction for cruelty under the definition of "torture." Further evidence supported conviction for unauthorized practice where defendant engaged in a traditional veterinary surgical procedure and received remuneration for his services. I wonder if there've been similar cases in Canada?

For more information on the issues surrounding the practices of ear cropping and tail docking, check out "Cropping and Docking: A Discussion of the Controversy and the Role of Law in Preventing Unnecessary Cosmetic Surgery on Dogs" at the absolutely amazing Animal Law Web Centre. It discusses the history and legal status of the procedures. The UK's Anti Docking Alliance website features an article from a 1996 issue of the Australian Veterinary Journal that goes into greater detail about the medical issues related to tail docking, as well as the pain and suffering inherent in the procedure.

I commend the NBVMA's members for having taken the stance they have. I hope that the rest of the veterinary associations in Canada follow suit soon.