Sufficient unto the day

From this morning's Herald
Docking ban on the docket Cosmetic alterations among issues in consideration for animal protection law By AMY SMITH Provincial ReporterTue. Nov 18 - 5:38 AM
Nova Scotia should ban cosmetic procedures on animals such as tail-docking and ear-cropping, the legislature’s law amendment committee heard Monday.
Sean Kelly, a member of the board of the Nova Scotia SPCA, said animal protection legislation before the House should be amended to make altering an animal for cosmetic reasons illegal. He said that would include declawing and removal of vocal cords.
"When it’s done properly by a veterinarian and the animal is properly anesthetized, everything is usually fine. However, there are a lot of people taking this into their own hands," he said after his presentation. "There is no way to crop a dog’s ears humanely without anesthetic."
Mr. Kelly said removal of the vocal cords prevents an animal from communicating when it is in pain. He said the New Brunswick Veterinary Medical Association has recently stopped all cosmetic surgery for animals, adding the majority of vets in Nova Scotia don’t crop, dock or remove vocal cords.
Lendra Barker, an owner and exhibitor of Dobermans, said she fears such a ban would drive some people to do the cosmetic procedures themselves.
She said she has always had her dogs’ ears and tails done by a vet under anesthetic and doesn’t think the practice is cruel.
"I have had Dobermans for 30 years, and the general public wants them cropped and docked," Ms. Barker said. "I guess it’s just a look that we prefer."
Lee Steeves, director of the Canadian Kennel Club for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, said the club is reviewing best practices for purebred dogs.
"Will we see changes over the next few years? Absolutely. Is it something that should be mandated by a legislature? Absolutely not," Ms. Steeves said.
Agriculture Minister Brooke Taylor said he will review the suggestion.
"Some (procedures on animals), I think, are quite ethical but then there might be others that, in fact, might be inappropriate."
The minister seemed a bit more receptive to another of Mr. Kelly’s suggestions — to make it against the law to put an animal in the back of an open pickup truck without a crate or safety harness.
"If it’s more safe and more humane, then I would be for that," the minister said.
Mr. Kelly told the committee there should be an entire section in the act to wipe out animal fighting and prohibiting the possession of an animal for fighting. It should also be illegal to attend, fund or profit from animal fights, he said.
Mr. Kelly said NFL quarterback Michael Vick, in jail for bankrolling a dogfighting ring in Virginia, might have gotten away with it if the case had been in Nova Scotia.
The minister, who called dog fighting abhorrent, said he will speak to his staff about bringing in the rules that Mr. Kelly spoke about.
A group from Dalhousie University also made a presentation, saying it’s not necessary to have the SPCA oversee care of research animals because that is already done by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. The council and SPCA both oversee animal testing, but amendments to the legislation would remove the SPCA.
But Mr. Kelly said there needs to be oversight by an organization that isn’t affiliated with animal testing.
( asmith@herald.ca)
First I do have to say that the proposals offered by SPCANS are a big step forward. A few months ago we wouldn't have seen this .... the bill would have gone through, like everything else, without any input/support/ discussion from the society at all.
The group from Dalhousie would have disabled the SPCA's ability to protect research animals. Why they would even want to do that is an interesting question I think and should raise a red flag or two. In my opinion its a very good thing that Mr Kelly was there to provide input on that issue.
The whole issue of cosmetic alterations is going to play a very important role in the next few years everywhere. It boils down to the concept that animals are property and that people have the right to alter their property. Until animal cruelty is moved to a separate section of the criminal code and out of the property offences sections, this type of thing is always going to rear its ugly head. Until then, the issue will be opposed by the same type of archaic attitudes that refuse to surrender their right to chain dogs, be a backyard breeders, run a puppy mill or be legally obliged to just plain treat their animals in a kind and humane way.
In a rural province like this, its a real step forward to protect the many animals who ride in the back of pickup trucks. At one time it was common to see a gaggle of teenagers in the back of pickups. We know better than that now and should recognize the danger in it for dogs. My friend Joan is forever snapping shots of that whenever she has her camera in hand.
We all get that the ban on dogfighting needs to be included. Once again that is such a good start that will be more effective when the federal law recognizes that animals should be protected because they are living breathing sentient beings and not lumped in the same boat as property.
Are there more things we'd like to see in the Bill? Of course there are.... puppy mill bans, pet stores selling animals, mandatory spay neuter, etc are only the top of a very long list.
But for this middle aged granny, it is sufficient unto this day that SPCANS even stepped up to the plate at all.