Archive for workinghprs.myfastforum.org Chat forum for owners of working HPR and Versatile gundog breeds.
 

What's new? The latest myff announcements


       workinghprs.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Breeding Issues
Helen

PUPPIES' TAILS CUT OFF - VET QUIZZED

http://www.thisisgloucestershire....folderPk=80785&pNodeId=139317

correct me but I thought it wasn't going to be illegal until next year?

Helen
Mike

I think a few people have got a few facts wrong!
weima

As I understand it from a vet who is part of the Vet Defence team, the vet had done nothing illegal but someone, who it is believed to be either a worker at the vet practice or the puppies owner, did not like the way the tails had been docked Shocked Therefore, the vet was reported.
josie

This sort of thing is really bad because it's only going to discourage other vets from docking under the new legislation, for fear of being reported, even if they believe they're within the law and docking working dogs.
munstyman

Quote:
This sort of thing is really bad because it's only going to discourage other vets from docking under the new legislation


I think that is the idea (ban it by the back door Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad ) Which is why each and every one of us should support the vets that continue to dock, and keep debating the argument to those that don't Wink
Peter
weima

I am saddened to read the front page of Dog World today

"Docking Vet In Trouble"

A vet has been taken before the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Committee because he docked a litter of Weimaraner pups.

I am saddened at this as it is still LEGAL to dock in this country until 2007 & this 'crime' was committed in January 2006 How can the RCVS take such action when the vet hasn't actually committed an offence?

The breeder of the pups, Joanna McNaught, rang her own vet first, to ask him to dock the tails, & he said he wouldn't. That is his perogotive. SAhe then looked in the Yellow Pages & found a vet who would. I assume Ms McNaught is taking further action on the matter because 2 of the pups died afterwards & one developed an infection.

I have seen 100's of puppies docked over my lifetime in dogs & never have I known a puppy to die from being docked. In my last litter, a tail did look infected although after a few days bathed in salt water it sorted itself out.

"Mr McKenna (the vet in question) admits there were no thereapeutic reason but doesn't admit lack of prophylactic reasons" he said. He did not enquire about the dogs' lifestyles.... but he amputated all 11 tails. There was no evidence it was done without due care but no anaesthetic was used"

Now, I have never known a litter of pups be given anaesthetic to have their tails docked & also didn't know that the dogs' lifestyle should be common knowledge to the vet as yet.

It goes on to say that Weimaraner tails are usually given a long dock, but Mr McKenna docked the fully. Weimaraners are not Vizslas & do not have a long dock so I can only assume that the 'docked fully' meant that they were like Dobermans.

If the vet is found guilty, he will be struck off as a vet. Is it any wonder that vets don't like docking, for fear of their careers being ruined.
josie

The pups could have died from unrelated causes, and re the infection it also doesn't say that it was an infected tail/docking site.

I predict that when the ban comes into place, we'll see loads more high profile cases like this with lots of publicity and it will scare more and more vets into not docking at all. In the end, there will be so few vets willing to continue docking, even working dogs, that they will have to travel some distance to litters and breeders will have to pay them a huge amount of money due to the distances travelled Sad
weima

The vet has been given a 28 day suspension from the register. The case can be read here:

http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Shared_ASP...8D56F2_McKenna,JohnF_judgment.pdf
josie

I was just going to post that link - I wish we could copy the contents but it's too long to do so, but everyone please read the above .pdf file - it's a bit terrifying!!!!!! At this rate, it would mean that pups of working dogs can't be docked unless the breeder is 100% sure, at 3 days old, that that particular pup is going to be worked. Even if a breeder is keeping a pup from a litter to work themselves, at 3 days old they haven't chosen one yet!!!! ARG!!!!!! And there's a particularly snide comment about Weims not being worked very often, so therefore it was unlikely the pups would be worked etc etc!!!
tashap

I have a sneaking feeling that peter might be right. Most of the laws brought in lately have been very much down to interpretation rather than clear and concise.
josie

What is scary though is this - this isn't about the law, it's about a vet being chucked out of the RCVS for 28 days because he docked a litter of Weims. He hasn't broken the law, because the docking law hasn't come into being yet. In fact, he's done nothing different to what zillions of other vets have been doing for years - it's just that the RCVS knows that the docking law is about to go through and is using this poor vet to make an example of.

The terrifying things are in the conclusion:

"1. The 1996 and 2004 RCVS Guides to Professional Conduct state "Docking cannot be defined as prophylactic unless it is under taken for the necessary protection of the GIVEN DOG from risks to THAT DOG of disease or of injury which is likely to arise in the future from the retention of an entire tail...Similarly, docking cannot be described as prophylactic if it is undertaken merely on request or just because the dog is of a particular breed, type or conformation. Council considers that such docking is unethical."

[What this means is that if you call a vet to dock a litter of pups, the vet has to know that each precise pup, at 3 days old, is guaranteed to be a working dog - it's not good enough for the dam to be a working dog, or because it's a working breed - if the vet can't prove this, then he runs the risk of being struck off the register by the RCVS. Which means that no vets are going to dock now, whatever exemptions are put through by the government, because no vet is going to want to risk being chucked out of the RCVS.]

"2. The Committee does not accept Mr McKenna's assertion that the risks of later injury in some dogs justifies the docking of all puppies of breeds which may be worked."

"5. While defined as a working breed Weimaraners are not extensively used to work in the field. Mr McKenna should have known that it was unlikely that all 11 puppies would end up as working dogs."

Hmm, so this seems to suggest that Weims are going to be harder to get docked than other breeds, because breeders are going to have to fight against the notion that they are less likely to work than other breeds. In addition, at 3 days old, how can any vet be sure of which pups are going to end up as working dogs??

"6. By Mr McKenna's own admission, neither Mrs McNaught nor he had any knowledge of the puppies' future owners or the likelihood of their becoming working dogs"

Not surprising really, considering they were 3 days old.

"He agreed that he docked all the puppies because he thought that there was a possibility that some of the dogs may become working dogs and might be injured."

Well, isn't this the reasoning behind the docking of every dog you see docked, until today? Nothing has changed in terms of the RCVS rules or the law (yet), yet this guy has been hauled up!

I really think this signals disaster for us all and am v depressed now. I think this means that, even if an exemption for working dogs goes through in law, the RCVS (which has always been anti docking) is going to take NO docking as acceptable in reality. And no vet will want to risk being struck off the RCVS. End result - no docking at all. That's what their plan is Sad
karenb

josie - I really think this signals disaster for us all and am v depressed now. I think this means that, even if an exemption for working dogs goes through in law, the RCVS (which has always been anti docking) is going to take NO docking as acceptable in reality. And no vet will want to risk being struck off the RCVS. End result - no docking at all. That's what their plan is

I fear that that will be the case and was always on the cards once the campaign to keep docking split into a campaign for a working exemption only= it is an unworkable plan.

I can't imagine many vets wanting to risk the wrath of the RCVS for docking under the exemption as how can anyone know that the pup WILL be a working dog. Docking under the safety of anonimity has gone as each pup will have to be issued with paperwork which states who has docked.. further down the line if that pup is presented to an anti-docking vet as a "pet" complaints could be made against the vet. Who is going to risk their professional practice to dock in this situation???

Karen - Gamebourne GSP's
josie

Sad Sad Sad

Right, we're moving to the US NOW!!!!! Laughing
Mike

Hate to disagree but IMHO the position for working dogs will be better once this law comes into force, vets will not be able to be disciplined for undertaking a lawful act, regardless of the RCVS's opinion on the subject. As long as the vet and the owner of the litter comply with the regulations the RCVS wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally. The requirements IIRC are only for a working bitch, letter from gamekeeper or landowner and it be LIKELY that they will be worked.
josie

But Mike, the RCVS can make whatever rules and regulations for people to be members as they like.

Just like the WA and the WCGB say that a bitch should only have 3 litters etc, the RCVS can take a completely anti stance to docking and can throw out vets who don't abide by this (as has just happened with this case).

Of course the vet can't be prosecuted and isn't breaking a law and it won't go to court, but the RCVS is THE society for vets and no vet is going to want to risk being thrown out of it. Sad
Mike

No, I am pretty sure it doesn't work like that. They have to prove professional misconduct in a legal sense (the RCVS isn't just a club it's a regulatory body) IIRC correctly during one of the debates Ben Bradshaw was picked up o this very point and he made it very clear that it isn't up to the RCVS to make law and that it is the role of the government to determine what is and isn't legal in this country. The RCVS tried to have a vet removed a while ago ('90's?) and weren't allowed to at the time.

As I see it there are currently a number of Vets who are indifferent to tail docking at the moment but will not carry out the procedure for fear of disciplinary action, who will in future be able and willing to carry out the procedure because it is tightly defined within a legal framework. Those that are currently willing I see no reason why they would be more reluctant to carry out the procedure, again because it will be so tightly regulated. As long as they comply with the rules I fail to see how anyone could be struck off.

As for the case that this thread is about I am amazed that the vet concerned hasn't appealed. And he hasn't been thrown out but suspended for 28 days. In reading the judgement found here: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Shared_ASP...McKenna,JohnF_findingsreasons.pdf

It seems unlikely to me that the RCVS would attempt to bring a vet to book IF he had followed the correct procedures. This guy screwed up by using the word "cosmetic" in his letter to the owners, if he had gone the usual route of asking for a letter stating they all were likely to be going to working homes there is nothing the RCVS could have done about it.
karenb

Mike I hope you are right but I don't I'm not going to hold my breath.

My understanding is that the "legal position" and the "professional position" are too different things. It may well be legal to dock if the requirements of the exemption are met BUT the RCVS is unequivocal in its position that docking is not acceptable and is against their code of professional conduct. The RCVS is the registering body for practicing vets and if they can make a case for breach of that code with regards to ethical practice they can de-register vets.

I agree that it would be difficult to bring a case of misconduct against a vet where the dog could be proved to work BUT if a particular vet was identified has being responsible for the docking of a dog that was clearly NOT used for work they may be in a difficult position, especially if a number of other non working dogs had also been docked by the same vet.

I agree that the paperwork/proofs required "should" help protect vets as it does start that the onus is on the person presenting the proofs to ensure the validity however I still feel that most vets will be a tad worried that once identified with a docked pup it may just come back to bite them in the *** ...

I guess only time will show what effect this has for working dogs as a whole, for me personally I am resigned to the fact that my next litter will have tails. I can meet the requirements for docking under the exemption but I am sure my vet will stop docking once the AWB is made law, AND as I show as well I could no longer exhibit.
I also wonder what the market for docked puppies will be post AWB - how many people with HPR's sell all their pups exclusively to working homes? How many pet owners will want the hassle of a docked dog when they will potentially have to produce evidence that it is a legally docked animal every time they go out ??

Karen
josie

I really hope it's the way you say Mike, but my understanding of it is more along the lines of what karen says.

If it is how you say, what is this case about? I don't get it - just take a look at Champdogs or the dog press, or anywhere which advertises Weim litters and has advertised them over the past few years. All these litters are docked (all the ones I've seen anyway) and I don't understand what this vet did any differently to what any other vet has been doing for the past years?! It's just all a bit weird. Ok, so some pups developed infections but only one of those is said to be from the tail, and there's nothing to prove that infection was due to a "bad" docking as opposed to a "good" docking. I just don't get it.

PS - What's in it for vets to continue docking? It doesn't earn them much money, does it?
karenb

PS = I am a nurse I have to abide by the NMC rules and code of conduct in order to practice. I can be disciplined and de-registered at ANY time if I am found to have broken those rules and yet I may not have committed any "illegal acts". I presume the veterinary position is the same.


Karen
Mike

oops took to long adding to my earlier post, sorry!
josie

Karen, I think that just about clinches it Sad But I still hope Mike is right Laughing
karenb

I have never wanted to be proved wrong so much in my life Exclamation
karen
Mike

Quote:
1) On the subject of docking, the 1996 and 2004 RCVS Guides to Professional Conduct
state, “Docking cannot be defined as prophylactic unless it is undertaken for the
necessary protection of the given dog from risks to that dog of disease or of injury
which is likely to arise in the future from the retention of an entire tail. The test of likelihood is whether or not such outcome will probably arise in the case of that dog if it is not docked.
Similarly, docking cannot be described as prophylactic if it is undertaken merely on request, or just because the dog is of a particular breed, type or conformation.
Council considers that such docking is unethical.”


The RCVS guides for the Professional conduct state specific reasons when a dog can have it's tail removed, therefore if the law says X, Y and Z are sufficient reason i.e. if it is of a set breed and likely to be going to a working home then I really cannot see what the RCVS can do about it. The legal argument on whether or not damage is likely to occur in working dogs has already been won, that is precisely why they have an exemption in the AWB.

Needless to say I could be wrong, we will have to wait and see.

Personally I would be more concerned about having an undocked dog and working it. The act has provision for a preventative measure and if you choose not to take it then it doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that you could be prosecuted for failing in your duty of care should your dog damage it's tail.

Once again we are going to be saddled with a badly thought out and worded piece of legislation.
josie

"if the law says X, Y and Z are sufficient reason i.e. if it is of a set breed and likely to be going to a working home then I really cannot see what the RCVS can do about it."

They can chuck the vet out, or suspend him/her. (Why could they not? Their rules don't have to equal the law and can be more exacting than the law, as with karen's example with nurses.)

The RCVS say about this case that: "He agreed that he docked all the puppies because he thought that there was a possibility that some of the dogs may become working dogs and might be injured." and that they don't accept "may" and "might" or "likelihood" as valid - it has to be definite. Well, no one's going to be definite about which pups will be worked when they are 3 days old. Which means no one can have them docked. Which means docking will effectively stop.

Can vets practise if they are not members of the RCVS, or is it like the GMC for doctors and they must be members to practise? If vets have to be members of the RCVS to practise, this is far too risky for them to get involved in this whole docking debacle for the sake of a few extra quid a year. I just don't see what's in it for the vets, and there's a whole lot to lose. Anyway, time will tell!!!!
munstyman

My last post on this issue I think spells out my position regarding this and many other issues regarding country sports and the politics that we are currently surrounded by. Josie is quite right Mike, professional bodies can have their own disciplinary proceedures, and codes of conduct which they not the law police. It does not make them legally un accountable, but `practically' so Evil or Very Mad . After all which individual can take on such large organisations, with both the financial and legal artillary that these organisations can bring to bare. Even if they know they will ultimately loose, they can draw proceedings out through endless appeals. Once the matter is `legally' resolved, what is to stop them effectively `blacklisting ' the individual from future positions. IMO the lack of appeal in this instance may have just the sought of backroom pressure I have indicated Wink .
I am afraid I have seen this coming for a long time, I warn you all now, that those that seek to deny us our sport, have learnt from the Hunting debacle, and that outright, (Upfront) banning is not the best way to achieve their goals. They do now however have sufficient `foundation' legislation to attack us from a variety of angles. We should all be aware and alert to any proposed legislation that could, no matter how obscure and initially unlikely, effect our freedoms.

Quote:
Personally I would be more concerned about having an undocked dog and working it. The act has provision for a preventative measure and if you choose not to take it then it doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that you could be prosecuted for failing in your duty of care should your dog damage it's tail.


Now yout getting the idea Cool

Feeling depressed Crying or Very sad , well don't be Confused Laws based on opinion and bad facts are notoriosly badly drafted, and often even extremely difficult to both police and prosecute. Add to this that those of us who have strong country connections ( lifestyle not purely habitation) and understandings, tend to be more wi'ly and inventive in the face of adversary, ( when the going gets tough...and all that Laughing ) I think we will once again find a way around it ( I already have one theory, which I will reveal at the appropriate time Exclamation Wink Cool ) Aren't you glad I'm not on the other side Question Grumpy, sly old fox's have their uses Exclamation Laughing Laughing
Peter
Mike

Quote:
Josie is quite right Mike, professional bodies can have their own disciplinary proceedures, and codes of conduct which they not the law police


Quote:
They can chuck the vet out, or suspend him/her. (Why could they not? Their rules don't have to equal the law and can be more exacting than the law, as with karen's example with nurses.)


You are both quiet right but I think you are also missing the point in this case.

This is a summary of what happened to the ONLY other vet to have been disciplined for this.

Quote:
The first UK veterinary surgeon to face disciplinary action for docking puppies tail was cleared of all charges of disgraceful professional conduct on 8 September, 1995.
Marshall Dale, of Hockley Essex, was alleged to have performed the procedure on at least six occasions for cosmetic reasons, in breach of a code of conduct laid down by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Mr Dale, a practising vet for 26 years, acknowledged docking Yorkshire Terrier, Old English Sheepdogs and Giant Schnauzer puppies at his surgery, but said it was for legitimate welfare reasons.
The four day hearing was the first since the college, which sets professional standards, issued a code of conduct in 1993, aimed at banning the procedure except in restricted circumstances.
Simon Wheatley, Mr Dales' Council accused the College of bringing the case because of political expediency, saying: "The issue had been ducked by the Government and the College, so it now falls to the individual vet to resolve an issue which is seen as so important, but which has been handled politically so maladroitly"
Mr Wheatley said that Mr Dale had docked only for acceptable prophylactic reasons. The Yorkshire Terriers for instance, belonged to a breeder who mainly sold dogs to older women. "It is a fact of life that ladies of high reputation do not think it appropriate to concern themselves with the rear end of the Yorkshire Terrier", he said. "There is therefore, a high risk of them suffering problems connected with soreness and fouling".
Simon Wheatley also explained why Marshal Dale docked the Schnauzer. "This is a very small numerical breed. Mr Dale went through his books and read up and tried to find out the size of the breed. He learned how the breed had long thin sparsely coated tails like the Irish Wolfhounds. He deduced that there was a possibility of injury, like the Irish Wolfhound. He explained how he has had two Wolfhounds in his practice who had to be docked because of tail end splitting. They are very hard to heal and eventually had to be docked as adults. Can he be deemed to be wrong"?
The defence costs which were in excess of £25,000.00, were covered by the Council of Docked Breeds from their Legal Fighting Fund.


Having said that it appears that the CDB also hold your views that this recent case is to scare RCVS members into not performing the procedure.

Quote:
THE COUNCIL of Docked Breeds deplores the recent decision by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to discipline vet John McKenna for docking a litter of puppies.

As reported in the media, on or around January 26th 2005 at his Gloucestershire practice, Mr McKenna docked the tails of a litter of 11 Weimaraner puppies, at the request of their owner. In the RCVS's view this procedure was carried out for 'cosmetic' reasons, although Mr McKenna maintained that the puppies were destined to be working dogs, so the procedure was not 'cosmetic'.

Despite evidence presented to back up Mr McKenna's defence, the RCVS Disciplinary Committee found Mr McKenna guilty of 'disgraceful professional misconduct in a professional respect', stating that, in their opinion, Mr McKenna's 'ignorance of the RCVS guidance on the docking of dogs’ tails falls so far short of acceptable and responsible practice that it amounts to disgraceful conduct' .

However, in finding him guilty, the Disciplinary Committee go onto say that there was 'no evidence to show that he frequently and regularly docked puppies’ tails, nor that he had a reputation for so doing. There were in fact certain docked breeds e.g. Dobermanns and Rottweilers, which he would only dock for therapeutic reasons.

One must ask the question why then, nearly two years after the event and a full five months before the Government's much-trumpeted Animal Welfare Act and its total ban on the docking of dogs' tails (with an exemption for working dogs, including Weimaraners), the RCVS seek to bring charges against one of it's own members, especially one who seldom docked? In the CDB's view, the RCVS is 'flexing its muscles' in advance of the AWA becoming law and thus feeling confident to take only its second such prosecution of one of its members.

Ginette Elliott, Secretary of CDB comments: "It seems that the RCVS does not agree with the recent Government legislation and it shows that the RCVS is in danger of flouting the Animal Welfare Act for those who continue docking, even for working dogs. In this way, the documentation and looking over one's shoulder is going to be constant worry for vets until precedent is established by some unfortunate member being hauled up and pleading that what he has done is legal because he has followed all the correct procedures in the legislation and retained all the correct declarations and documentation. On this judgement, considering the reasons given, I think it would still be ruled as disgraceful conduct. In other words, the RCVS cannot lose.

"Their actions towards Mr McKenna amount to a witch hunt. Who wants to appear on a charge when you are blindfolded, have your hands tied behind your back, the plank is already pointing over the side and the RCVS has already decided that, regardless of any law, the verdict will be to walk?

"It seems that the Disciplinary Committee had a completely closed mind and that a guilty verdict was a pre-determined judgement not open to reasoning - Internationally this would be a clear case of an unfair trial and be taken up by Amnesty International or the Court of Human Rights!"


So maybe i've got it wrong, as you say we will have to wait and see. Having said that I know the vet who docked our pups really couldn't give a sh*t about what the RCVS thinks and will still be docking dogs when the AWB comes into force.
karenb

Can vets practise if they are not members of the RCVS, or is it like the GMC for doctors and they must be members to practise?

Joise - a vet must be registered with the RCVS to practice in this country quote
"The RCVS as a statutory regulator - undertaking the statutory responsibilities set out in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 - to maintain a register of veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK; to regulate veterinary education and to regulate professional conduct;"

They are god !

Mike - Personally I would be more concerned about having an undocked dog and working it. The act has provision for a preventative measure and if you choose not to take it then it doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that you could be prosecuted for failing in your duty of care should your dog damage it's tail.

I would prefer to dock my tails and believe it is in the best interest of my dogs BUT the law is not allowing to act in the best interest of my dogs.
Make no mistake the RCVS and the various Animal Welfare organisations wanted a complete ban and the exemption was tolerated but not welcome. In the circumstances I find it hard to believe that any action would be taken against an owner whose dog had tail damage as those who police welfare in this country do not believe in the case for prophylactic docking ! That doesn't mean the situation is ethically correct but then bad law = bad outcomes ....
karen
tashap

its not good is it when a governing body can effectively put into practise something that is being legislated for.

You'd get some pretty pee'd off keepers if they had to keep signing documents for puppies to be docked and the only thing I can see is this becoming an illegal practise of fraud. Anything that will earn money will eventually find a criminal element Sad
weima

karenb wrote:
Can vets practise if they are not members of the RCVS, or is it like the GMC for doctors and they must be members to practise?


No.

       workinghprs.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Breeding Issues
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum