Purebred Concerns and the SVMA

Transcription

1 Purebred Concerns and the SVMA re: SVMA proposed ban on cosmetic surgeries The Canadian Kennel Club (or C.K.C.) A member-based, non-profit organization incorporated under the Animal Pedigree Act. Provides registry services for 174 breeds. Recognizes 674 accredited clubs (185 all breed, 365 specialty, 23 obedience, 106 field trial) Issues titles in conformation events and obedience/working trials. Maintains breed standards for purebred dogs in Canada, but does not author them. Breed standards are written descriptions of the ideal structure, gait, external characteristics, and temperament. These standards originated with and are amended under the guidance of breed clubs, and are based upon the breed's history and original purpose. In addition to inherited characteristics, breed standards may include man-made traits such as approved coat trims, as well as docked tails, dewclaw removal, and cropped ears. Over 60 breed standards refer to ear cropping and/or tail docking. All describe both the desired natural ear and cropped variations. A few allow for docked vs undocked tail. Canadian Dog Breeders And Their Contributions Only a minority of purebred dogs are produced by show/performance breeders. Most are produced by small scale commercial breeders and family pet owners who largely ignore breed standards. (Many, possibly most, dogs represented as purebred at time of sale are actually crosses, or lack the documentation required for registration.) Show/performance (incl. hunting dog) breeders come from all income levels and walks of life, including professional, business, agriculture, and the veterinary profession itself. As with purebred horses, cattle, and other domestic species, those who breed for competitive purposes are traditionally the developers and guardians of distinct family bloodlines. These distinct family lines are recognized by population geneticists as being essential to preserving genetic diversity within closed gene pools. Show/performance breeders and their organizations provide the lion's share of canine health research donations in Canada and the US. Most of the dna and tissue collected for disease research is provided by show breeders. Many also participate directly in university research projects. Most research into canine genetic disease serves as animal model for human disease research. In addition to the economic activity that results from sales, exports of semen, and canine events, dog shows support secondary economic activity through employment for handlers and judges, veterinary specialists, etc. Dog clubs and their volunteer members are the principle providers of breed education and obedience training classes for the public at the local level.

2 Historical Origins And Purpose Of Cropping/Docking/Declaw Removal Injury prevention in hunting or work environments: ears were vulnerable when dispatching predators or vermin, and bleed profusely or form painful hemotomas when torn or injured. Cropping puppies to remove the most easily damaged portions prevented more serious injury in adulthood. Dewclaws (small hanging claws on the inside of the lower leg) were removed as they are are easily torn, while an untended claw can grow into the leg. Self injury. Some breeds exhibit rapid, violent tail wagging behaviors that can break tail vertebrae and skin. Tails were routinely shortened in puppies to prevent chronic injury. Hygiene. As in heavily coated breeds of sheep, docking tails reduced fly/hygiene problems in certain breeds. Functional aesthetics. Cropped ears created a more alert, imposing appearance for a guard/protection dog persuading criminals to try elsewhere. If that failed, the trimmed ear offered less opportunity for a hand hold. Historical aesthetics. Breeders who developed new breeds, or miniaturized existing working breeds often borrowed from the ancestral working traditions. The Procedures Tail docking and dewclaw removal are performed at about 3 days of age, when the nervous system of a puppy is immature and pain perception not fully developed. Docking is done by amputation, or with the use of constricting bands (painless). Bleeding is usually minimal and puppies are returned within minutes to their mothers. Many breeders do their own tails and dewclaws. Ear cropping is done under general anesthesia between 7 12 weeks of age by veterinarians who are experienced with the procedure (some of whom exhibit dogs themselves). Puppies receive post-operative pain medication and ears are usually healed in a week to 10 days. Some breeds require bracing of the ears with support tapes for a few days or weeks to ensure they stand correctly. Skilled veterinarians (ear length/style varies by breed) are few. Show breeders often travel to other provinces or meet with lay practitioners in the USA to have show prospects cropped. There is only one vet in Saskatchewan currently doing ear cropping (to the best of my knowledge). Competitive Norms And Negative Consequences Canadian dog shows are small in comparison to many other parts of the world; shows in Saskatchewan average around 250 entries per day. Serious breeders must compete in other parts of Canada and the US to promote their bloodlines. It's not unusual for Canadian exhibitors to rub elbows in the winners circle in Los Angeles, Philadelphia or South America. Despite the small numbers, Canadian show dogs have earned world class reputations in a number of breeds, and are exported world wide. Saskatchewan breeders are no exception. In most of the traditionally docked breeds, a natural tail is a serious handicap to successful competition at all levels.

3 In some breeds, uncropped and cropped dogs compete on an equal footing, but in highly competitive breeds in which cropping is the competitive norm (Boxer, Doberman Pinscher), uncropped dogs face a severe handicap at higher levels of competition, making national rankings and championship titles in the USA virtually unattainable. In order to compete, breeders who are unable to obtain veterinary services in province will have to take litters elsewhere at considerable expense and inconvenience, forcing many to reduce or end their competitive breeding programs. Breeds with drop ears (Fox Terriers, Collies) are often subjected to surgical intervention when ears fail to fold correctly. To assume that banning ear cropping will end cosmetic alteration of ears for the show ring is a fallacy. The practice of banging ears is certain to expand under proposed bans, as exhibitors attempt to remain competitive. Breeds with undocked tails have descriptions for length, shape and carriage. Faulty tails often have tail tendons surgically altered to correct carriage. As with ears, it is a fallacy to believe that ending docking will end surgical alteration of tails in show dogs. It is unknown how many family lines in traditionally cropped/docked breeds possess the genetics required to produce desirable ear and tail carriage in their offspring. Imposing new selection criteria on gene pools may have long term unintended consequences, should only a minority of breeding animals possess the genes required. As occurs in endangered species, a sudden collapse in a breeding population can result in reduced genetic diversity and higher disease rates. Attracting newcomers to these breeds will become difficult, due to the competitive handicaps imposed. Without new breeders, gene pools are not sustainable. In Europe, tail docking bans resulted in significant numbers of established kennels ceasing operation, with resultant drops in registrations. In the commercial puppy farms that supply pet stores, cropping is often performed by clipping the ears with scissors at a few days of age. This is regarded as an inappropriate practice, but under the SVMA proposed ban, pet stores can continue to offer imported, home cropped puppies to purchasers who desire them, while reputable local breeders cannot. Ethics VS Agenda The proposed ban under SVMA consideration argues that these elective procedures are not medically necessary. The SVMA ethical contradictions, from the viewpoint of dog breeders; The declawing of cats is not mentioned under the proposed ban. This surgery can be painful and traumatic, is of no medical benefit, and motivated by the owner's desire to prevent damage to household furniture. However, declawing is performed by a large number of veterinarians and represents significant clinic revenues. This suggests that the SVMA position re: ear/tail alterations are more political activism than pure professional ethics. The practice of spaying and neutering is endorsed (and often mandated) by responsible breeders when they sell pet stock. However, as dogs do not reproduce asexually, spaying and neutering exist primarily for the convenience and benefit of the pet owner behavior modification, elimination of messy heat cycles, odor reduction. These are all desireable outcomes, but they provide no medical benefit to a healthy animal. In females, spaying is invasive abdominal surgery with considerable post-operative discomfort. (In some European countries elective sterilization of pets is prohibited unless medically necessary, so the example

4 is not esoteric.) This is not intended dispute the benefits of sterilizating pets, but to illustrate that the SVMA's definition of medical necessity is an arbitrary one. These procedures are legal. For the SVMA to arbitrarily prohibit a legal medical procedure is the professional equivalent of the College of Physicians and Surgeons prohibiting their members from prescribing the morning after pill, or performing circumcision on the grounds of medical necessity. To date, the SVMA has made no attempt to include provincial clubs and breeders in this process, despite the potential for proposed bans to inflict financial cost and unknown damage to gene pools, deprive us of the ability to compete at the highest international levels, and strain client relationships with supportive practicing veterinarians. Precedent For Future Activism The current board of the CVMA is critical of certain physical traits described in breed standards. Yet, veterinarians receive no formal training in breed identification, breed standards, or the unique histories of purebred gene pools. In so doing, CVMA officials have signaled an intent to expand their agenda beyond this issue, to assert authority beyond their professional jurisdiction as medical providers. There is concern that SVMA may next target specific breeds by prohibiting their member veterinarians from artifically inseminating those with high risk of caesarian section. At a meeting between the CKC and CVMA last year, this issue was specifically mentioned in the context of English Bulldogs. The general public enjoys a variety of sporting events that rely on the performances of trained and untrained animals: rodeo, horse racing, sled dog racing to name but a few. These events are frequently criticized for the risk they expose to animals. Many routine farm and ranch management practices cause pain and stress to animals, including tail docking, castration, dehorning, etc. Around the world the pattern is similar: animal rights agendas have expanded into farm management after establishing legitimacy in companion animal practices. The strategies used by animal rights activists are well established. Acceptable practices are first misrepresented, then redefined, then prohibited. The agenda becomes more politically powerful as public perception of their legitimacy grows. The arbitrary prohibition of cosmetic surgery in show dogs would establish a precedent and launch pad for further animal rights activism within the veterinary community. The tactics being employed by the SVMA against the interests of purebred dog breeders could be applied as easily to chuckwagons, calf roping, or Marquis Downs by simply prohibiting member veterinarians from supporting them with their services.

5