The AKC and AVMA disagree on whether ear cropping is humane.
In recent months, the American Kennel Club (AKC) and the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have been involved in a disagreement over
whether ear cropping, tail docking and other types of cosmetic surgery on dogs
should be encouraged.
AVMA toughens stance on ear crops, tail docks
In November, 2008, the AVMA executive board made a decision to strengthen
their stance opposing the cropping of ears and docking of tails as well as
other surgeries performed on pets for purely cosmetic reasons. This decision
was made amid a great deal of controversy, with the Utah Veterinary
Medical Association (UVMA) even submitting a resolution to the House of Delegates
of the AVMA asking for a more tolerant stance toward these surgical
procedures.
The resolution, also supported by the AKC, was eventually voted down by the
House of Delegates and a new position statement opposing cosmetic
surgeries such as ear cropping and tail docking was adopted by the AVMA.
AKC creates Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel
Following the defeat of the resolution asking for a softer stance on the
performing of cosmetic surgeries, which the AKC supported, a new panel was
created by the American Kennel Club. This 12 member panel, dubbed the AKC
Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel, is made up of individuals gathered
from all over the United States with a wide variety of credentials, each
bringing his/her own knowledge and experiences to the newly created panel.
According to the AKC, the purpose of the panel is to "strengthen
opportunities for the public to admire, love and own purebred dogs and to foster
greater public education about health concerns relevant to all dogs." The
panel's goal, according to a press release issued by the AKC, will be "to
provide factual and impartial information by creating a forum for proactive
discourse based on scientific and ethical concerns".
Though the AKC did not mention the recent policy debate concerning ear
cropping and tail docking in certain breeds of dogs, it seems likely that this
panel will address the issue at some point in the near future.
Monday, July 27, 2009
California Mandatory/Spay Neuter Bill Held in Committee
California Mandatory/Spay Neuter Bill Held in Committee
7/15/09
An outpouring of opposition by California sportsmen has applied the brakes
to a bill that would trample the rights of sportsmen and dog enthusiasts.
Senate Bill 250, which would with few exceptions mandate that all dogs be
spayed or neutered, appeared on the fast track this year. It passed the
Senate last month and recently cleared the Assembly Business and Professions
Committee. However, during a hearing on July 15, more than 100 opponents
turned out and rallied afterwards. During the rally, they heard from
numerous speakers including longtime sportsmen's supporter, Sen. George Runner (R-
Lancaster) a member of the Outdoor Sporting Caucus.
The bill remains "suspense file" which is where bills with a fiscal
impact go. Once a bill has been placed there, legislators must vote to remove
it before the bill can be considered again.
"The turnout today as well as the calls, letters, and emails from
sportsmen and dog enthusiasts made a difference," said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance (USSA) vice president for government affairs. "Although we're
not out of the woods yet, this kind of grassroots support is what can really
get the attention of legislators. "
In addition to USSA, opposition has come from dog and sporting groups
across California, including key partners such as the California Outdoor
Heritage Alliance (COHA), Masters of Foxhounds Association of North America, NRA,
California Rifle and Pistol Association, and Pet Pac.
Take Action- California sportsmen should continue contacting their
Assembly members and inform them of your continued opposition to SB 250 without
full protections for sporting dog owners.
7/15/09
An outpouring of opposition by California sportsmen has applied the brakes
to a bill that would trample the rights of sportsmen and dog enthusiasts.
Senate Bill 250, which would with few exceptions mandate that all dogs be
spayed or neutered, appeared on the fast track this year. It passed the
Senate last month and recently cleared the Assembly Business and Professions
Committee. However, during a hearing on July 15, more than 100 opponents
turned out and rallied afterwards. During the rally, they heard from
numerous speakers including longtime sportsmen's supporter, Sen. George Runner (R-
Lancaster) a member of the Outdoor Sporting Caucus.
The bill remains "suspense file" which is where bills with a fiscal
impact go. Once a bill has been placed there, legislators must vote to remove
it before the bill can be considered again.
"The turnout today as well as the calls, letters, and emails from
sportsmen and dog enthusiasts made a difference," said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance (USSA) vice president for government affairs. "Although we're
not out of the woods yet, this kind of grassroots support is what can really
get the attention of legislators. "
In addition to USSA, opposition has come from dog and sporting groups
across California, including key partners such as the California Outdoor
Heritage Alliance (COHA), Masters of Foxhounds Association of North America, NRA,
California Rifle and Pistol Association, and Pet Pac.
Take Action- California sportsmen should continue contacting their
Assembly members and inform them of your continued opposition to SB 250 without
full protections for sporting dog owners.
AVMA House Rejects Policy Change on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
AVMA House Rejects Policy Change on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009, 7:46 p.m., EDT
The _American Veterinary Medical Assn.'s_ (http://www.avma.org/) House of
Delegates on July 10 rejected Resolution 4, which would have revised its
policy on ear cropping and tail docking of dogs.
The action came during the legislative body's semi-annual session, held in
Seattle, Wash., before the AVMA's annual convention.
Submitted by the Utah Veterinary Medical Assn., the resolution would have
eased the AVMA policy, adopted by the executive board in November 2008, that
opposes ear cropping and tail docking when done solely for cosmetic
reasons.
The revision would have noted that the procedures, though offering limited
or no therapeutic value, are condoned by the _American Kennel Club_
(http://www.akc.org/) and many members of society. Because of that acceptance,
the policy would have stated that it is "imperative that the procedures be
performed by trained, licensed and caring veterinarians using current stand
of care" while continuing to support the elimination of those procedures
from breed standards.
In addition, the resolution would have revised AVMA policy to ensure that
association members "conform to all state mandates concerning the
procedures."
The November 2008 policy significantly altered the AVMA's position against
the two procedures; previous policy recommended only that veterinarians
discuss with clients the cosmetic nature of the procedures before performing
them.
A major reason for the resolution was to defend veterinarians willing to
perform such procedures who might otherwise be ostracized by the profession
for going against AVMA policy.
In its argument in favor of the resolution, the Utah VMA said the AVMA
should be wary of restricting pet owners' rights because it supports the
concept of pet ownership.
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009, 7:46 p.m., EDT
The _American Veterinary Medical Assn.'s_ (http://www.avma.org/) House of
Delegates on July 10 rejected Resolution 4, which would have revised its
policy on ear cropping and tail docking of dogs.
The action came during the legislative body's semi-annual session, held in
Seattle, Wash., before the AVMA's annual convention.
Submitted by the Utah Veterinary Medical Assn., the resolution would have
eased the AVMA policy, adopted by the executive board in November 2008, that
opposes ear cropping and tail docking when done solely for cosmetic
reasons.
The revision would have noted that the procedures, though offering limited
or no therapeutic value, are condoned by the _American Kennel Club_
(http://www.akc.org/) and many members of society. Because of that acceptance,
the policy would have stated that it is "imperative that the procedures be
performed by trained, licensed and caring veterinarians using current stand
of care" while continuing to support the elimination of those procedures
from breed standards.
In addition, the resolution would have revised AVMA policy to ensure that
association members "conform to all state mandates concerning the
procedures."
The November 2008 policy significantly altered the AVMA's position against
the two procedures; previous policy recommended only that veterinarians
discuss with clients the cosmetic nature of the procedures before performing
them.
A major reason for the resolution was to defend veterinarians willing to
perform such procedures who might otherwise be ostracized by the profession
for going against AVMA policy.
In its argument in favor of the resolution, the Utah VMA said the AVMA
should be wary of restricting pet owners' rights because it supports the
concept of pet ownership.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Article - California tax officials target breeders via Internet
California tax officials target breeders via Internet Article - California tax officials target breeders via Internet) June 29, 2009By: Timothy KirnFor The VIN News Service
California tax officials are surfing - the Internet, that is.It is not unusual for authorities, potential employers, bankers and others to use the Internet to investigate people.And now California tax officials are targeting potential breeders that way.
According to a letter from the California Board of Equalization, board officials visited the American Kennel Club Web site and linked to individual dog clubs to identify potential breeders living in the state.Board officials are not sure if these dog club members are breeders, but they could be.Tax board spokeswoman Anita Gore confirmed that 361 individuals will receive the letter. She would not say how or why those particular individuals were identified, however.Gore also said the board was unapologetic about using the Internet to identify potential breeders.
The Internet is a research tool, like any other, and a fairly popular one, she said.Though a few blogs have speculated that the state might be groping gracelessly for funds with this effort, due to the California government's financial distress, Gore said the letters are a typical education and outreach effort that the board periodically makes.Breeders are in the spotlight because "quite often people who sell animals are not aware of this tax obligation," Gore said.According to California tax law, anyone who sells more than two animals a year must have a seller's permit and pay the state a sales tax.
Fifty letters have been sent out so far, Gore said. The rest will be mailed in the coming weeks. The letter states that the recipient must respond and let the board know whether he or she has a permit, would like to apply for one or does not need one because he or she does not sell animals.Board members have received no complaints about the letters, Gore said. But at least a few are concerned.
Dawn Capp, an attorney and animal advocate, said the fact that the board has used the American Kennel Club Web site and other dog club Web sites is going to upset some people who will ask not to be listed so they cannot be targeted. That will limit resources for the general public, as people visit club Web sites searching for information and help."It definitely is going to have a chilling effect on information," said Capp, founder of the Coalition of Human Advocates for K9s and Owners (CHAKO).
Capp_posted a notice about the letters on the CHAKO blog_ (_http://news.http://news.http://news._ (http://news.vin.com/Link.plx?ID=70527) ) and alerted a number of other bloggers about the issue, who have also posted notices.Capp said it is heavy-handed of the state to target people just because they are members of a dog club.
She also said that when she called the board, she was told that it will pursue people who do not respond to the first letter with a second letter and might investigate if that second letter is ignored."The problem is that this is a very Big-Brother type of mentality," she said. "They don't know whether anyone is a breeder. There are all kinds of dog clubs out there. It sends the message that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent."
California tax officials are surfing - the Internet, that is.It is not unusual for authorities, potential employers, bankers and others to use the Internet to investigate people.And now California tax officials are targeting potential breeders that way.
According to a letter from the California Board of Equalization, board officials visited the American Kennel Club Web site and linked to individual dog clubs to identify potential breeders living in the state.Board officials are not sure if these dog club members are breeders, but they could be.Tax board spokeswoman Anita Gore confirmed that 361 individuals will receive the letter. She would not say how or why those particular individuals were identified, however.Gore also said the board was unapologetic about using the Internet to identify potential breeders.
The Internet is a research tool, like any other, and a fairly popular one, she said.Though a few blogs have speculated that the state might be groping gracelessly for funds with this effort, due to the California government's financial distress, Gore said the letters are a typical education and outreach effort that the board periodically makes.Breeders are in the spotlight because "quite often people who sell animals are not aware of this tax obligation," Gore said.According to California tax law, anyone who sells more than two animals a year must have a seller's permit and pay the state a sales tax.
Fifty letters have been sent out so far, Gore said. The rest will be mailed in the coming weeks. The letter states that the recipient must respond and let the board know whether he or she has a permit, would like to apply for one or does not need one because he or she does not sell animals.Board members have received no complaints about the letters, Gore said. But at least a few are concerned.
Dawn Capp, an attorney and animal advocate, said the fact that the board has used the American Kennel Club Web site and other dog club Web sites is going to upset some people who will ask not to be listed so they cannot be targeted. That will limit resources for the general public, as people visit club Web sites searching for information and help."It definitely is going to have a chilling effect on information," said Capp, founder of the Coalition of Human Advocates for K9s and Owners (CHAKO).
Capp_posted a notice about the letters on the CHAKO blog_ (_http://news.http://news.http://news._ (http://news.vin.com/Link.plx?ID=70527) ) and alerted a number of other bloggers about the issue, who have also posted notices.Capp said it is heavy-handed of the state to target people just because they are members of a dog club.
She also said that when she called the board, she was told that it will pursue people who do not respond to the first letter with a second letter and might investigate if that second letter is ignored."The problem is that this is a very Big-Brother type of mentality," she said. "They don't know whether anyone is a breeder. There are all kinds of dog clubs out there. It sends the message that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
