Gun Dog Forum

The proposed law requires tail docking and dew claw removal to be done by a licensed vet. A public hearing is scheduled on March 27th: http://www.akc.org/press_center/article ... le_id=5379

Some breeders do their own docking/dew claw removal. This law will ban the practices.

Educate me - why is this unreasonable?

Why is it necessary? MD has much more important things to worry about than this nonsense..... Like not wasting all its citizens money and freedoms.

How would they ever be able to regulate or enforce this?

birddog1968 wrote:Why is it necessary? MD has much more important things to worry about than this nonsense..... Like not wasting all its citizens money and freedoms.

Certainly would not disagree on that premise, but that is a much larger issue in and of itself.

Not so sure about the de-barking thing and will not comment on that. With respect to the tail, ears, etc...what is wrong in assuring these things happen under the guidance or with the help of a trained professional? An accommodation was made to the strict guideline taking into account the anesthesia use on young dogs etc..I mean they left wiggle room for a judgement call.

This is not to say that a "professional" doesn't botch a docking or dew claw removal sometimes - I'm certain most here have seen that first hand - the law itself just doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Tail docking and dew claw removal are very easy if done within the first few days. Taking a tiny puppy to the vet's office puts it under stress and exposes it to all kinds of desease. This law will do nothing but add cost to law abiding owners, and stress to tiny puppies. The law is also unenforceable.

Well MD isn't a very big state so if it passes drive across the border and do it yourself. Still I would fight it just because it's one more way of gov taking control. As for debarking, one never debarks a dog. De-vocalize yes, but the dog still gets the pleasure of barking its head off, it's just a whole lot quieter.

rinker wrote:Tail docking and dew claw removal are very easy if done within the first few days. Taking a tiny puppy to the vet's office puts it under stress and exposes it to all kinds of desease. This law will do nothing but add cost to law abiding owners, and stress to tiny puppies. The law is also unenforceable.

+1

I didn't do my own litter, but I may as well have, with the greenhorn vet that did mine. Thankfully they all healed beautifully. My drahthaar friend is on his "O" litter, does his own, and I guarantee he had more docking experience than she did. If it hadn't been for a timing issue, he would have done them for me. When I asked my normal vet, why the greenhorn vet docked them that way, he told me that they honestly don't give much time on docking or dews in vet school because the practice is frowned upon.

It's probably not a good analogy, but I thought of when will the day come that they legislate that you have to take your car to a licensed mechanic for a tire change or a brake job, because the amateur cant' possibly get it right, and harm will come to someone down the line because of it.

I think this is a planned step towards banning docks and dews...

+1 ....somethings require legislation....some don't.

More gov control isn't needed here and I question where this bill came from. Sounds HSUS'ish. A beginning to an end.

All good points and I think you're right - just more of the same do nothing laws that would require even more "help" from the Govt down that slippery slope. Another regulation that simply cannot be enforced without further regulation.

On it's face it strikes me as being well intended. Sporting dog owners are a very small group here in MD and there are serious problems w/backyard breeding although the problem seems to be minor with the breeds primarily discussed on this forum.

This is all in the vein of hsus's policy to overburden dog breeders with so much regulation as to make more and more pure bred breeders fold up.

Anyone seen this form from USDA?

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/mig ... 070314.pdf

Anyone seen this form from USDA?

That form is from Ireland which recently passed a ban on tail docking/dew claw removal with an exception for working dogs: http://agriculture.gov.ie/press/pressre ... 12,en.html
Scotland has a total ban on tail docking, but in the remainder of the UK you would also have to fill out similar paperwork to get the dogs docked. Many vet associations across the planet oppose tail docking and dew claw removal which
they consider to be cosmetic surgeries, and as a result, the numbers willing to do the procedures are declining. Because these laws mandate only vets can dock, breeders are liable to be charged with practicing veterinary medicine without a license if they attempt to do it themselves. There is a Scottish study about to be published regarding tail injuries and working dogs. It is expected to show
that in Scotland, tail injuries have increased significantly as a result of the docking ban: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 2014_02_08

I see....it was posted to another forum and I assumed it was something USDA worked up....my fault.

In my small town we have 3 vets in about 40 minute drive and none of them will even do tail docking. Many of my friends who are vets avoid it. If I could see into the future, I would saw that law would eventually lead to having to have a certification that was very hard to come by practically. Not banning it outright but a massive reduction. Many vets really do not know that much about it.

All above said, I have always had vets do it, the job has always been good lengths (because I WATCH) and so-so tail tips. But they do a clean job and do it much faster than I could which is easier on the puppy.

Why is this a concern? The Canadian Kennel Club has called for a review of breed standards regarding tail cropping/dew claw removal: http://www.ckc.ca/en/Default.aspx?tabid ... prevID=202

As stated "For several years, tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal has been a topic at the forefront of purebred dog discussions. The declarations by various provincial veterinary regulators that practitioners within their jurisdiction can no longer provide these services has sparked some angst for many active CKC members. At the same time, legislative and societal changes dictate a need to accommodate those that choose not to crop, dock or remove dewclaws - including many who wish to participate in CKC events. It is about providing options."

The more that undocked dogs are accepted, the greater the opportunity to have a total ban on docking, dewclaw removal etc. advanced in legislation that will make it a crime for breeders to do so. AKC breed clubs will also be reviewing their standards sometime in the future.

Animal rights and hsus's plan of death by regulation.....it won't stop at docking and dew claws. Look at the ban on prong collars and e collars....this is a full assault and elected officials are allowing themselves or ate fully complicit in allowing a radical minority to dictate what good people can do. The goal no dogs at all, and of course no hunting period.

MD Update: Debarking, BSL, Crop/Dock Bills Heading for Final Vote- Contact the Senate Today!

...House Bill 665 - As introduced, this bill would have required veterinarians to perform ear cropping, tail docking, dewclaw removal or surgical births and require that they use anesthesia. The AKC expressed concerns that this would not be in the best interest of dogs, as tail docking is often done when puppies are too young for anesthesia. To address these concerns, the bill was amended to state that anesthesia would only be required “when appropriate.” All these procedures must still be performed by a licensed veterinarian or by a registered veterinary technician employed by and under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. The companion Senate Bill 659 has passed the House and Senate.

Action needed: Contact the Senate with any comments on House Bill 665.
More info on this and other MD dog laws in the works: http://www.akc.org/press_center/article ... le_id=5406