Debarking Issues Again

[stormie]

Debarking dogs? - Did you Know

Before you undertake any "debarking" procedures, the dog's owner must supply you with, not 1, but 2 documents as described in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act [2006]. These documents must be filed by you and available should you be requested by the Board's Inspector or RSPCA Inspector

.

7 Prescribed circumstances in which "debarking" is permitted. For the purposes of section 12 (2) of the Act, the prescribed circumstances in which a dog may be operated on for the purpose of preventing the dog from being able to bark are that the veterinary practitioner who performs the operation is, before doing so, provided with:

* (a) a copy of an order issued under section 21 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 requiring the owner of the dog to prevent it from barking, and

* (b) a statutory declaration by the owner of the dog to the effect that, unless the operation is performed, the owner would need to have the dog destroyed so as to comply with the order.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 - Sect 12

Certain procedures not to be performed on animals.

12 Certain procedures not to be performed on animals

* (1) A person shall not:

o (a) dock the tail of a horse, bull, ox, bullock, steer, cow, heifer, calf or dog,

o (b) crop the ears of a dog,

o © operate upon a dog for the purpose of preventing the dog from being able to bark,

o (d) remove one or more of the claws of a cat,

o (e) grind, trim or clip one or more teeth of a sheep,

o (f) perform a clitoridectomy on a greyhound, or

o (g) fire or hot iron brand the face of an animal.

Maximum penalty: 250 penalty units in the case of a corporation and 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both, in the case of an individual.

(2) A person is not guilty of an offence against this section if the court is satisfied that the procedure comprising the alleged offence:

* (a) was docking the tail of a calf less than 6 months old when the offence was alleged to have been committed, or

* (b) was:

o (i) docking the tail of a cow, heifer or female calf,

o (ii) operating upon a dog for the purpose of preventing the dog from being able to bark,

o (iii) removing one or more of the claws of a cat,

o (iv) grinding, trimming or clipping one or more teeth of a sheep,

o (v) performing a clitoridectomy on a greyhound, or

o (vi) firing or hot iron branding the face of an animal, by a veterinary practitioner, and the procedure was performed in the prescribed circumstances and in accordance with any conditions specified in the regulations.

(2A) A person is not guilty of an offence against this section if the court is satisfied that the procedure comprising the alleged offence was the docking of the tail of a dog, was performed by a veterinary practitioner and was in the interests of the dog's welfare.

Can someone please explain the last bolded bits to me? Because it kind of sounds like a big contradiction.

This is from the Vet Practitioners Board, which I'm guessing is targeting this information at Vets, not owners.

[Steve]

I know that at least one vet believes that there are two different ops and only one is technically termed debarking .The other allows the dog to bark but more softly and is done via a completely different surgical procedure. Therefore this vet's belief is that voice lowering isn't illegal because its not debarking.That there is no legislation to cover voice lowering so therefore no paper work is required as it is something decided on by the owner and the vet which they consider to be in the best interests of the dog. the vet in question in this circumstance gave a lecture on this to the owner and made the owner believe it was two different procedures and no paper work was required.

This begs the question is debarking the same as voice lowering when they have a different technical name.

If your vet tells you that you don't need the paperwork because its not the same then wouldn't most of us take that as fact ?

There is also another law pertaining to vets which cancels out all others that allows the vet to make decisions and operate etc when the vet believes its in the best interests of the dog.

Its all well and good to say we are responsible for finding out what teh law is but just this exercise here right now demonstrates how difficult that is .how are ordinary every day dog owners to know if we dont?

[casowner]

I am not saying that I agree with it but when we are faced with being fined/prosecuted etc it does comes down to the powers that be saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for non compliance. I think that there are too many agencies with too many contradicting laws/bylaws/codes of conduct which makes the normal consumer very confused as to what their responsibilities are.

Edited May 20, 2010 by casowner

[Steve]

I am not saying that I agree with it but when we are faced with being fined/prosecuted etc it does comes down to the powers that be saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for non compliance. I think that there are too many agencies with too many contradicting laws/bylaws/codes of conduct which makes the normal consumer very confused as to what their responsibilities are.

Yep I know ignorance is no defence but is the onus on the owner ? Is it against the law to ASK for the op if you dont have the paper work?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I am not saying that I agree with it but when we are faced with being fined/prosecuted etc it does comes down to the powers that be saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for non compliance. I think that there are too many agencies with too many contradicting laws/bylaws/codes of conduct which makes the normal consumer very confused as to what their responsibilities are.

i disagree. i pay professionals for their skills, experience and knowledge. if i followed what you have said then before i bought a house i should have studied real estate law to make sure not only i but the real estate agent and my conveyencer were all doing the right and legal thing.

that just doesnt work. we have an expectation that the professionals we pay give us the correct advice.

you cant use the drunk driving situation because we have been educated and there are campaigns in the media to let us know its not ok to do this

[Steve]

I am not saying that I agree with it but when we are faced with being fined/prosecuted etc it does comes down to the powers that be saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for non compliance. I think that there are too many agencies with too many contradicting laws/bylaws/codes of conduct which makes the normal consumer very confused as to what their responsibilities are.

i disagree. i pay professionals for their skills, experience and knowledge. if i followed what you have said then before i bought a house i should have studied real estate law to make sure not only i but the real estate agent and my conveyencer were all doing the right and legal thing.

that just doesnt work. we have an expectation that the professionals we pay give us the correct advice.

you cant use the drunk driving situation because we have been educated and there are campaigns in the media to let us know its not ok to do this

Yes that where I'm coming from too. And if it is illegal to ask if a vet will do the op how are you meant to know until you do ask?

[dogslife]

With regards to the Stat dec. I did a stat dec on an issue 20 years ago. About 10 years ago I was asked if I had a copy of that stat dec still.

Now I am sure it is somewhere in the disaster that is my filing system but ??????

But we got around the issue by writing a new stat dec that stated that 20 years ago I wrote a stat dec that said "#####"

This was accepted as the required document.

In this case, if they believed that they did do a stat dec for the procedure to take place then they can simply write that out in a new stat dec

Paper work does go missing.......... ( even my dogs have been known to eat my paper work if left unattended :D )

[casowner]

I agree the vet is completely in the wrong if they performed the op without the paperwork and I feel for the owner, but my point is that while I hope that the powers that be see that as a reasonable excuse for going ahead with the procedure they also may find the owner to be the easy target. And as I said their are so many contradicting laws that you need a degree in debarking how many times have people been prosecuted for things that they were unaware was illegal, it would be more common place than we would think. I believe there should be info sheets given to people when they register their dogs about the laws on microchipping, desexing, debarking, restricted breeds etc - not full on legal jargon but basic points that direct pet owners to the appropriate sources.

[Steve]

I agree the vet is completely in the wrong if they performed the op without the paperwork and I feel for the owner, but my point is that while I hope that the powers that be see that as a reasonable excuse for going ahead with the procedure they also may find the owner to be the easy target. And as I said their are so many contradicting laws that you need a degree in debarking how many times have people been prosecuted for things that they were unaware was illegal, it would be more common place than we would think. I believe there should be info sheets given to people when they register their dogs about the laws on microchipping, desexing, debarking, restricted breeds etc - not full on legal jargon but basic points that direct pet owners to the appropriate sources.

There is something very very wrong with this and it makes you start to notice other things you didn't before. Did you know that unless you have written paperwork from your vet that you HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE VET TO NOT vaccinate your dogs and cats for distemper,hepatitis,parvovirus and canine cough [for dogs] feline enteritis and feline respiratory disease [for cats] as per MANUFACTURERS recommendations that you are breaking the law? NSW LAW BREEDING DOGS AND CATS section 8.2.1.6.

[casowner]

I agree the vet is completely in the wrong if they performed the op without the paperwork and I feel for the owner, but my point is that while I hope that the powers that be see that as a reasonable excuse for going ahead with the procedure they also may find the owner to be the easy target. And as I said their are so many contradicting laws that you need a degree in debarking how many times have people been prosecuted for things that they were unaware was illegal, it would be more common place than we would think. I believe there should be info sheets given to people when they register their dogs about the laws on microchipping, desexing, debarking, restricted breeds etc - not full on legal jargon but basic points that direct pet owners to the appropriate sources.

There is something very very wrong with this and it makes you start to notice other things you didn't before. Did you know that unless you have written paperwork from your vet that you HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE VET TO NOT vaccinate your dogs and cats for distemper,hepatitis,parvovirus and canine cough [for dogs] feline enteritis and feline respiratory disease [for cats] as per MANUFACTURERS recommendations that you are breaking the law? NSW LAW BREEDING DOGS AND CATS section 8.2.1.6.

:D That is what I mean so many different laws that are so confusing, if you went through every law and had a list of what you had to do or couldn't do then your head would spin. I am not saying that I personally agree with the statement but as a lawyer has told me about an unrelated issue many people do not see ignorance as an excuse and as you have shown there are many "laws" that we wouldn't even be aware of.

[raz]

There is something very very wrong with this and it makes you start to notice other things you didn't before. Did you know that unless you have written paperwork from your vet that you HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE VET TO NOT vaccinate your dogs and cats for distemper,hepatitis,parvovirus and canine cough [for dogs] feline enteritis and feline respiratory disease [for cats] as per MANUFACTURERS recommendations that you are breaking the law? NSW LAW BREEDING DOGS AND CATS section 8.2.1.6.

What the??? So it's not illegal for me to not vax my kids and infact it's not even illegal for me to not have the 'compulsory' yellow fever vax when I've been to a prescribed country but it's illegal for me to not vax my dogs? Absolutely laughable.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I am not saying that I agree with it but when we are faced with being fined/prosecuted etc it does comes down to the powers that be saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for non compliance. I think that there are too many agencies with too many contradicting laws/bylaws/codes of conduct which makes the normal consumer very confused as to what their responsibilities are.

i disagree. i pay professionals for their skills, experience and knowledge. if i followed what you have said then before i bought a house i should have studied real estate law to make sure not only i but the real estate agent and my conveyencer were all doing the right and legal thing.

that just doesnt work. we have an expectation that the professionals we pay give us the correct advice.

you cant use the drunk driving situation because we have been educated and there are campaigns in the media to let us know its not ok to do this

Yes that where I'm coming from too. And if it is illegal to ask if a vet will do the op how are you meant to know until you do ask?

exactly!!!

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I agree the vet is completely in the wrong if they performed the op without the paperwork and I feel for the owner, but my point is that while I hope that the powers that be see that as a reasonable excuse for going ahead with the procedure they also may find the owner to be the easy target. And as I said their are so many contradicting laws that you need a degree in debarking how many times have people been prosecuted for things that they were unaware was illegal, it would be more common place than we would think. I believe there should be info sheets given to people when they register their dogs about the laws on microchipping, desexing, debarking, restricted breeds etc - not full on legal jargon but basic points that direct pet owners to the appropriate sources.

i totally agree with this. if i was not a member of dol how would i know about debarking? would i ask the council?...maybe would I ask my vet?...definately because he would be the one doing the procedure....oh dear, i have just broken the law....now that is crazy

lets think this out...if the council gives dog owners information about debarking as a leaflet, have they also broken the law...curiouser and curiouser

[Steve]

I am not saying that I agree with it but when we are faced with being fined/prosecuted etc it does comes down to the powers that be saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for non compliance. I think that there are too many agencies with too many contradicting laws/bylaws/codes of conduct which makes the normal consumer very confused as to what their responsibilities are.

i disagree. i pay professionals for their skills, experience and knowledge. if i followed what you have said then before i bought a house i should have studied real estate law to make sure not only i but the real estate agent and my conveyencer were all doing the right and legal thing.

that just doesnt work. we have an expectation that the professionals we pay give us the correct advice.

you cant use the drunk driving situation because we have been educated and there are campaigns in the media to let us know its not ok to do this

Yes that's where I'm coming from too. And if it is illegal to ask if a vet will do the op how are you meant to know until you do ask?

exactly!!!

Still not much point in us chatting about it I suppose this poor girl looks like she may be done in by it 4 years after the event!

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I am not saying that I agree with it but when we are faced with being fined/prosecuted etc it does comes down to the powers that be saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for non compliance. I think that there are too many agencies with too many contradicting laws/bylaws/codes of conduct which makes the normal consumer very confused as to what their responsibilities are.

i disagree. i pay professionals for their skills, experience and knowledge. if i followed what you have said then before i bought a house i should have studied real estate law to make sure not only i but the real estate agent and my conveyencer were all doing the right and legal thing.

that just doesnt work. we have an expectation that the professionals we pay give us the correct advice.

you cant use the drunk driving situation because we have been educated and there are campaigns in the media to let us know its not ok to do this

Yes that's where I'm coming from too. And if it is illegal to ask if a vet will do the op how are you meant to know until you do ask?

exactly!!!

Still not much point in us chatting about it I suppose this poor girl looks like she may be done in by it 4 years after the event!

seriously?

[Steve]

I am not saying that I agree with it but when we are faced with being fined/prosecuted etc it does comes down to the powers that be saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for non compliance. I think that there are too many agencies with too many contradicting laws/bylaws/codes of conduct which makes the normal consumer very confused as to what their responsibilities are.

i disagree. i pay professionals for their skills, experience and knowledge. if i followed what you have said then before i bought a house i should have studied real estate law to make sure not only i but the real estate agent and my conveyencer were all doing the right and legal thing.

that just doesnt work. we have an expectation that the professionals we pay give us the correct advice.

you cant use the drunk driving situation because we have been educated and there are campaigns in the media to let us know its not ok to do this

Yes that's where I'm coming from too. And if it is illegal to ask if a vet will do the op how are you meant to know until you do ask?

exactly!!!

Still not much point in us chatting about it I suppose this poor girl looks like she may be done in by it 4 years after the event!

seriously?

Looks like it.

[tdierikx]

Hang on... is she being done by regs in the "Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act [2006]"?

If so, what month in 2006 did that Act become law?

She may get very lucky and have beaten it by a month or two?? Seriously, they can't backdate laws/regs to suit their own purposes this far down the track...

Worth a looky Steve!

T.

[mita]

With regards to the Stat dec. I did a stat dec on an issue 20 years ago. About 10 years ago I was asked if I had a copy of that stat dec still.

Now I am sure it is somewhere in the disaster that is my filing system but ??????

But we got around the issue by writing a new stat dec that stated that 20 years ago I wrote a stat dec that said "#####"

This was accepted as the required document.

)

I wondered about this, too.

I notice that the Australian Veterinary Association said about debarking in the Fed Gov's Animal Welfare Strategy paper (July 2006):

Debarking of Dogs (ventriculocordectomy)

The AVA believes that debarking of dogs should be performed only for veterinary reasons or as alternative to euthanasia.

It's a last stop alternative for an owner to be asking a vet to perform a bark lowering. So surely a Stat Dec can be given now, that that was the reason for going to the vet 4 years ago. A reason which had to meet veterinary ethics, too.

Edited May 20, 2010 by mita

[stormie]

What a ridiculous world we live in, if someone can be done for animal cruelty, by having a procedure done under GENERAL ANAESTHETIC by a registered veterinarian. How is it any different to putting a dog under to remove its testicles, so that it can no longer reproduce, yet that is acceptable.

What a load of #$%^

[Rysup]

Up until recently I was of the belief that we could debark provided we gave the vets a stat dec saying that this was an alternative to euthanasia. In my eyes, it has just been this year 2010 that the law has changed. However I know of vets still doing debarkings.

How can someone who had their dogs debarked 4 years ago be in trouble for it now? Just get them to do a stat dec saying they provided a stat dec at the time of the procedure, and that it was the last resort.

This dog ownership thing is becoming a big giant joke.