Wundahoo

I dont really want to see this topic degenerate into yet another debate about the necessity of tail docking for certain breeds, but for confirmation that it is not "only cosmetic" is the the fact that in most countries where tail docking laws have been invoked there has been the retention of legal neonatal prophylactic docking for designated working breeds. Australia is one of the few countries that have not permitted this. Even in the Scandinavian countries where the animal rights movement is huge and powerful leading to the situation where even sterilisation of a dog for anything other than an existing medical condition is illegal, there are rules which permit prophylactic docking for working breeds. Also, please be aware that tail docking in Australia is only illegal for prohpylactic purposes. It is STILL a legal procedure for theraputic reasons. Saying that tail docking in Australia is illegal is (to continue your analogy) like saying that it's illegal to drive a car. Of course everyone knows that it is illegal to drive a car ...... unless you have a drivers licence !!! When requested by the authorities a person must be able to produce that licence as proof that they can legally drive. And so it should be with tail docking. A breeder of a litter should be able to produce the proof that the tail docking procedure has been performed within the current laws. If that's provided then the dogs should be permitted to compete just as any other dog would be able to. To prevent a legally docked dog from competing, in spite of sufficient evidence which proves that the procedure was performed within the law, is unfair and may in fact be open to legal challenge. Let's hope that sense will prevail and that this motion or anything similar, will not ever surface again.

Hi, Go to the DogsNSW website ........Members section, Regulations (you dont have to log in to see this) Part 1 Section 22 and Show Section 14.4, and there is probably another section covering application for registering a docked dog in the Registration Section as there is paperwork available in the forms section to do this. Thanks Showpony. I have read the sections that are relevant and it seems to me that they are fair and reasonable. It addresses the situation very well. The DogsNSW rules allow for those breeders who have done the right thing and sought the procedure through the correct channels to be able to register onto Main, dogs that have been legally docked. A veterinary certificate is required. This then enables any vet who feels that there is something not quite right (ie interference with the tails prior to presentation) to refuse to certify the litter. No certification equals no registration. A vet who feels that there is a manufactured problem with the tails has the opportunity to report it to the proper authorities for further investigation. If the breeders dont follow the protocol then that's their problem and they will suffer the consequence. I think that this is quite sufficient. We dont have such rules in my state but when I needed to dock two neonates I followed a very similar procedure with recording and documenting. Perhaps these rules are what should be adopted by ANKC.

Showpony can you tell me what those rules are please ?

As I said earlier, The accusation has been made. Put up or shut up. Someone needs to be held accountable. For the action or for the accusation. The fact is there isn't any proof that people have been illegally docking, there haven't been a great number of charges laid and quite frankly I can't remember any ANKC exhibitor being charged, after the very first example hung out to dry years ago. So it looks to be nothing more than someone carting out their bucket of sour grapes and chucking it in the direction of the ANKC. The fact is there isn't any proof that people have been illegally docking, there haven't been a great number of charges laid and quite frankly I can't remember any ANKC exhibitor being charged, after the very first example hung out to dry years ago. Hi, There has been a couple of de-registered litters in the Gundog group within the last 2 years ......plus I regularly see Gundogs that have had their tails tipped and currently being shown, even in my breed........I quess unless ppl make an official complaint nothing will happen.......yes there are pups being legally docked in Gundogs, often the reason given is a tail accident.......must be a fair few clumsy dogs around. So why have these litters been "de-registered" ????

Sorry, double post !

Yes exactly. We are dancing a dangerous tango.

Yes I did read them. Is this a "guess on your part" or do you have some hard evidence to that? If it is designed to scare people who are working outside the rules and the law then I doubt that it will have any effect. If you feel that it an attempt at a "scare" then why do it so secretly ? Or do you also believe that the leak was deliberate as well ?? Qiute a conspiracy theory I think and a strange way to go about it. All it has done is upset honest people and cause a huge controversy. Whatever the reason for this motion I feel that it is ill conceived. It's now placed all people who have legally docked dogs under the same cloud of suspicion as those that are the apparent target. If they have specific details and have proof, why do they not act upon this via the rules and regulations that already exist, or simply go to the state authorities or RSPCA ?? I doubt that there are large numbers of breeders deliberately harming puppies in order to obtain a "legal" tail docking procedure. IF this is happening then I personally think that it would be very few. From my own experience with kinked tails I believe that there is probably a high percentage of legitimately occurring kinked tails in certain breeds and bloodlines. It is a complex genetic situation and a difficult one to address for a serious breeder that has over a long period of time developed and refined a top winning bloodline only to find that they have a genetic bottleneck regarding tail conformation which previously was not needed to be considered because they were docked ! People often choose to think the worst of others especially when the politics of competition arises. Cruzzi, read (and attempt to understand) the definition of "chinese whispers". See the bit where I said 'It's is a guess on my part'? That means it's a guess on my part. Thanks for that ! Perhaps you base your beliefs on guesswork. I like to base mine on evidence.

Yes I did read them. Is this a "guess on your part" or do you have some hard evidence to that? If it is designed to scare people who are working outside the rules and the law then I doubt that it will have any effect. If you feel that it an attempt at a "scare" then why do it so secretly ? Or do you also believe that the leak was deliberate as well ?? Qiute a conspiracy theory I think and a strange way to go about it. All it has done is upset honest people and cause a huge controversy. Whatever the reason for this motion I feel that it is ill conceived. It's now placed all people who have legally docked dogs under the same cloud of suspicion as those that are the apparent target. If they have specific details and have proof, why do they not act upon this via the rules and regulations that already exist, or simply go to the state authorities or RSPCA ?? I doubt that there are large numbers of breeders deliberately harming puppies in order to obtain a "legal" tail docking procedure. IF this is happening then I personally think that it would be very few. From my own experience with kinked tails I believe that there is probably a high percentage of legitimately occurring kinked tails in certain breeds and bloodlines. It is a complex genetic situation and a difficult one to address for a serious breeder that has over a long period of time developed and refined a top winning bloodline only to find that they have a genetic bottleneck regarding tail conformation which previously was not needed to be considered because they were docked ! People often choose to think the worst of others especially when the politics of competition arises. Cruzzi, read (and attempt to understand) the definition of "chinese whispers".

For the ANKC to retain creibility it shouldn't "encourage" members to break the law by turning a blind eye to it either. Anyone who is a showie would have heard chinese whispers similar to the allegations made of deliberate tail breaking to enable a "legal" operation to take place. The more the people whispered the louder it became. This proposal is the reaction of one delegate to the noise. It remains to be seen if others think the same way. It does seem a remarkable coincidence that the breeds most affected by the dreaded tail breakinjg syndrome are those of the previously docked variety however. "Chinese whispers" is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread, or, more generally, for the unreliability of human recollection. Would ANKC retain any credibility if it acted each time there was a wave of "chinese whispers" circulating within the dog world ? As a long time enthusiast of a breed affected by the change in docking laws I can tell you that there is high degree of heritability of kinks and bends in tails. I believe that this is actually one of the numerous reasons that my breed was docked originally, not just the "injury during work" argument. I also believe that these kinks are polygenic and that there is not just a single gene responsible for it. This makes it hard to breed away from. I have one particular bloodline which will always produce one or two puppies in a litter with kinks or deviations in the tail. I still retain that bloodline because of the many other desirable points within it which I believe are more valuable to the breed than possessing a perfectly straight tail. Since the change in docking laws I have needed to dock only 2 tails because of severe kinks that would lead to problems. However I can see how certain breeds, and bloodlines within those breeds, may have reached a point genetically where there was a large number of puppies born with kinks that would be a problem in adult life. The current tail docking laws retain the ability for these pups to be docked legally ie theraputically. It's quite possible that the supposed "large numbers" of dogs still appearing in the rings have come from quality bloodlines that do regularly produce a heritable form of kinked tails. In days past, this would not have been a problem because these tails would have been tradionally docked. With the current situation breeders and those who wish to obtain a quality dog would be faced with the possibility of moving away from those bloodlines and attempting to breed tails that are perfectly straight. Not an easy task if the gene pool for that breed is heavily saturated with the gene(s) which produce the undesirable trait. Also contributing to the percieved "large numbers" of docked dogs still appearing in the rings is the fact that the docking laws in Western Australia have only recently been changed (mid 2010) to remove the reference to prophylactic docking. Until that point there were many breeders all over Australia taking the option of prophylactic docking in W.A. Dogs that were prophylactically docked in that state would only now be reaching their prime as show dogs and I assume that they will still be appearing in the rings all over Australia for many years to come.

There's theraputic and then there's snipping a bit of the dog's tail off to get a better set in the show ring, which is what the motion is about. No that's not all that its about. That may well be the impetus, but it certainly wil not be all that is impacted. I'm astounded that people are stuck on conversations about imports. This will also have an effect on those dogs ** legally and therapeutically** treated by tail amputation BY a vet and who are owned by dog sport competitors. Yes exactly ! It will have a far reaching effect on many dog owners, not just those who breed and show and import. It has the potential to affect even the pet owner who purchases a pet puppy which has been legally docked as a neonate in this country. As the wording stands it's possible that those owners will not be able to take their pet puppy to any obedience classes run by an ANKC affiliated dog club nor to participate in any event held on the grounds of any ANKC affiliate.

Perhaps this might be better as a separate topic of its own.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was. Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections. Fair enough. On that point was anyone from Victoria consulted before one of their delegates put the motion to ANKC on the official DogsVIC letterhead. I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure you will find no-one from Victoria will reply they were consulted. This motion should have been decided by the state members before being put forward on DogsVic letterhead and making it an official order of business put forward by the entire DOGSVIC which it seems it is not. Seeing as there are only 8 delegates on ANKC with a few states with two votes and a few with only one vote it needs only two states out of seven to cause a tie in an election on this matter. Reality is three states could vote yes and five states could vote no and the yes could still win. There is no requirement for an ANKC delegate to vote as instructed by their relevant state controlling body. It's possible for a delegate to ignore instructions from their Council and to vote as THEY personally wish. I wonder what will happen if the Vic Council instructs their delegate to vote against the very motion that he has put ????

There's theraputic and then there's snipping a bit of the dog's tail off to get a better set in the show ring, which is what the motion is about. I'm sorry Sheridan but nowhere in this motion do I see a reference to that. It states quite clearly and categorically "a motion that any dog whelped on or after I July 2014 is ineligible for exhibition at ANKC approved events if the tail of the dog has been docked". This motion encompasses far more than just the show ring. It is a proposed ban for all ANKC events. The show ring is the only area where there could possibly be an advantage obtained by docking...... if the motion was truly about that, then it would refer only to the show ring. You and Megan have made statements pertaining to the legality (or otherwise) of docking in this country which have been inaccurate and cast aspersions on those who have been forced to dock tails for theraputic and humane reasons. Tail docking is still legal in Australia under certain circumstances. Please get it right. Please get over it and accept it. Please ensure that when you make statements (or ask a rhetorical question) that you have facts. If you have proof, genuine and irrefutable, that someone has deliberately damaged tails in order to obtain a docking procedure then offer that proof. If not, then it's just rumour and inuendo, hearsay and scuttlebut. It's wrong that we should be governed by rules based on gossip rather than on hard evidence.

Megan, It is NOT illegal to dock dogs in this country for theraputic purposes. Therefore it is possible for dogs bred in this country to have a docked tail, either done as a neonate or as an adult and for the procedure to comply with the law. Please be aware of the FACT !!! Edit for spelling.

I feel that I need to point out that it is NOT illegal in this country to dock tails of neonatal pups. It can still be done but only by a vet and ONLY for theraputic purposes. I have a 4 month old puppy which was BORN with a severe deviation of its tail. This puppy had 2 severe kinks in its tail. Within several days of its birth, it was clear that as it grew, it would never be able to posture correctly and lift its tail away when defecating. This pup was one of a litter of seven. All other pups in the litter had normal tails. At a few days of age, the puppy was docked within the law and it has been carefully documented via a statement from the veterinarian who did the procedure as well as accompanying photographs. The tail has also been preserved in formalin and has been kept in case of any future issues or questions from "authorities". All this has been done to protect both the veterinarian and myself from wrongful accusations. However, it seems that no matter how careful we have been to accurately document the situation we cannot fully protect ourselves from inuendo and unsubstantiated false claims !! I guess that now it will be presumed that I must have done "something" to the tail to deliberately damage it so that it could be docked !! I feel that it is quite wrong for people to make claims about deliberate damage to tails without proof..... the rumour mill always seems to run riot in the dog world. As to the motion that has brought about this discussion, I'm astounded at its content and the accusations that accompany it. It seems to me that the person who has proposed this motion is not very smart nor do they have a fair and reasonable understanding of the requirements of investigation. If such accusations were to be put to a controlling body in the form of a formal complaint against a member, it would be thrown out because of a complete lack of ANY evidence. However, because this person is a Director of the ANKC it seems that they can say whatever they wish about fellow exhibitors (without naming names) and not have to offer a scrap of proof. Making such unsubstantiated claims and using them as an argument for the need of such a ruling should not be permitted. Obviously this ruling if accepted, will have major ramifications for the many breeds in this country that have a need to import quality dogs from countries where docking is still legal. It will be just one more thing that will make it harder to increase the genetic diversity of the purebred dogs in this country. It is probably just the tip of the iceberg and we can expect more and more knee jerk regulations to come. Christina, dont bank on compulsory sterilisation. Things may swing in the opposite direction if a particular quarter of the animal rights activists have their way..... in numerous European countries it's ILLEGAL to sterilise dogs unless there is a medical reason to do so. It's said that the procedure is done for the convenience of owners and is a manipulation of natural behaviour which prevents dogs from interacting in a normal way with members of their own species.

For Parkeyre and any others who need "proof". In W.A. tail docking was legal for PROPHYLACTIC purposes until 2010 when the regulations were changed to remove the wording that previously permitted prophylactic docking. Here is your proof, chapter and verse, Government Gazette page 978. http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/gazette/GAZETTE.NSF/gazlist/7514FCCD295917CA482576E7001411B2/$file/gg038.pdf Sorry to hijack the thread a little and not intending to turn it into another TD debate but there are those who were never convinced of the legality of tail docking in W.A. prior to the ammendments in March 2010. This covers both situations, giving the "old" wording and the new ammendment.

As to tail docking, this procedure was still legal in W.A. until March 2010.

Quote from "Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats" compiled by the Vaccine Guidelines Group of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA). "The recommendation of the VGG is for initial vaccination at 8–9 weeks of age followed by a second vaccination 3–4 weeks later, and a third vaccination given between 14–16 weeks of age. By contrast, at present many vaccine data sheets recommend an initial course of two injections. Some products are also licensed with a ‘10 week finish’ designed such that the second of two vaccinations is given at 10 weeks of age. The rationale behind this protocol is to permit ‘early socialization’ of pups. The VGG recognizes that this is of great benefit to the behavioural development of dogs. Where such protocols are adopted, great caution should still be maintained by the owner – allowing restricted exposure of the pup to controlled areas and only to other pups that are healthy and fully vaccinated. The VGG recommends that whenever possible a third dose of core vaccine be given at 14–16 weeks of age." The full document is too large to post a link but anyone interested in reading it is welcome to email me and I will send it to you.

Just wanted to say that the Cocker Spaniel Club of WA is running an event on Saturday 4th August in the York vicinity. It will be a "mock" Spaniel and Retriever Trial. This is the first of its kind in WA and there will be an expert from South Australia in attendance to help instruct anyone who might be interested in trying this type of field trial. We have Dogswest approval for this event and although it's not sanctioned (ie no points for titles etc etc, it will be a fun learning day for all concerned. There is an entry fee to be paid to the Club. For further information please contact the Club Secretary on 9398 7857 or you can send me an email via DOL and I can point you in the right direction !!

Just wanted to say that the Cocker Spaniel Club of WA is running an event on Saturday 4th August in the York vicinity. It will be a "mock" Spaniel and Retriever Trial. This is the first of its kind in WA and there will be an expert from South Australia in attendance to help instruct anyone who might be interested in trying this type of field trial. We have Dogswest approval for this event and although it's not sanctioned (ie no points for titles etc etc, it will be a fun learning day for all concerned. There is an entry fee to be paid to the Club. For further information please contact the Club Secretary on 9398 7857 or you can send me an email via DOL and I can point you in the right direction !!

GUIDELINES FOR THE VACCINATION OF DOGS AND CATS COMPILED BY THE VACCINATION GUIDELINES GROUP (VGG)OF THE WORLD SMALL ANIMAL VETERINARY ASSOCIATION (WSAVA) http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf "We should aim to vaccinate every animal with core vaccines, and to vaccinate each individual less frequently by only giving non-core vaccines that are necessary for that animal."

Hi FHRP We intend that this will be the forerunner to formally sanctioned ANKC events and this day is hoped to to foster interest in the work. In order to be able to successfully run ANKC events we need firstly to introduce the concept to those owners who might consider participation. We have organised for Maurice Pattinson of SA to attend as well and this is hoped to be a great opportunity for interested perople to get some expert opinion and asistance in training for these events.

Just wanted to add that this day is open to owners of all spaniel and retriever breeds...... and of course the dogs are very welcome to attend. It should be fun and something a bit different too.

I thought that I would let any interested West Aussies know that on Saturday 4th August the Cocker Spaniel Club of W.A. will be holding a Demonstration and Activities Day centred around Spaniel and Retriever Field work. There will be a demonstration of a mock Spaniel and Retriever Field Trial. This will be a non-shooting event. We would hope that owners and observers would then be given the opportunity to assess their dog’s suitability and aptitude to train for this form of field trial competition. We also foresee the possibility to include some basic instructions for owners/handlers regarding training techniques for this type of field trial work and it's planned to have an interstate Spaniel and Retriever trial "guru" present to offer helpful instruction. The Club envisions this day as the forerunner to formal sanctioned Spaniel and Retriever Field trials in W.A. This is a "first" for W.A. and we hope that there will be as many people and dogs as possible come along to take a look or have a go ! For further information please contact me via PM.

http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf http://www.ava.com.au/policy/67-vaccination-dogs-and-cats It is interesting to note that the WSAVA vaccinations group recommend that anything more than core vaccines (ie C3) should be given only after consultation with the owner and animal on an individual basis........ quote "We should aim to vaccinate every animal with core vaccines, and to vaccinate each individual less frequently by only giving non-core vaccines that are necessary for that animal." It's therefore reasonable to assume that a general blanket recommendation of C5 for every animal as a standard vaccination is outside of those guidelines. The WSAVA guidelines have been ratified as "Policy" in many countries, particularly the USA and UK. Australia has been one of the last of the developed countries to change recommendations.