NAME="keywords" /> The Anti-Docking Alliance Web Site in the UK = Home Page
Anti-Docking Alliance (A.D.A.)
Campaign against the docking of dogs' tails (and cropping of ears)
 

COUNCIL OF EUROPE'S CONVENTION ON PET ANIMAL WELFARE
and COUNTRIES' OWN LEGISLATION

World Legislation /Code of Conduct
AUSTRALIA

Banned nationally 2004
Australian Capital Territory ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 1992 – SECT 19A
19A Medical and surgical procedures—veterinary surgeons
(1) A veterinary surgeon must not do any of the following for a purpose other than
a therapeutic purpose:
(a) dock a dog's tail;
(2) A veterinary surgeon must not carry out a medical or surgical procedure on an
animal for a cosmetic purpose only.
Victoria State legislation 2008 - Prohibited procedures
Victoria PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (TAIL DOCKING
OF DOGS) REGULATIONS 2004 - REG 4
7A. Tail docking of dogs
(1) A person, other than a veterinary practitioner, must not dock a dog's tail.
(2) A veterinary practitioner must not dock a dog's tail unless he or she reasonably
considers the docking to be necessary for therapeutic reasons.
New South Wales - PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1979 - SECT 12
Certain procedures not to be performed on animals
(1) A person shall not: (a) dock the tail of a horse, bull, ox, bullock, steer, cow, heifer,
calf or dog,
(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.
Northern Territory ANIMAL WELFARE ACT - SECT 9
Prohibited procedures
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not -
(a) dock the tail of an animal;
(2) Subject to the Veterinarians Act and the Veterinarians Regulations , a veterinarian
may perform a procedure referred to in subsection (1) if he or she is of the opinion
that it is reasonable and necessary to do so.
Queensland ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT 2001 - SECT 24
Docking dog's tail
(1) A person, other than a veterinary surgeon, must not dock a dog's tail unless the
docking is done in a way prescribed under a regulation.
(2) A veterinary surgeon must not dock a dog's tail unless--
(a) the surgeon reasonably considers the docking is in the interests of the dog's welfare; or
(b) the docking is done in a way prescribed under a regulation.
Animal welfare law for veterinarians - Queensland's ban on docking dogs' tails

Queensland's ban on docking dogs' tails Performing regulated surgical procedures on animals
( http://www.business.qld.gov.au/agriculture/animal-management/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-law-veterinarians/regulated-surgical-procedures.html )
In Queensland, it is an offence under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to dock a
dog's tail. The only exception is if a veterinary surgeon reasonably believes that the
procedure is in the interests of the dog's welfare. The veterinarian must be registered in
Queensland.
Any non-veterinarian who docks a dog's tail, or any veterinarian who docks for a reason
other than the dog's welfare, is liable for prosecution. A conviction carries a maximum
penalty of $10,000 for individuals and $50,000 for corporations.
Iit applies to puppies and adult dogs. There is no age limit.
All methods of tail docking have been banned, including surgical docking, banding and
any other method. Veterinarians are allowed to tail dock if 'it is in the interests of the
dog's welfare'.
The intention of the legislation is to ban tail docking done for 'routine' or 'cosmetic' purposes,
as is traditional with many dog breeds.
Animal welfare inspectors generally consider a situation justified if veterinarians dock tails
in response to damage, disease or other abnormality, which they believe will otherwise
cause the dog ongoing pain or behavioural problems, or risk the dog's health.
It is generally inappropriate to dock a healthy tail on the basis of a possible future event.
Only therapeutic tail docking is justifiable.
Animal welfare inspectors usually investigate any docking of a healthy tail with a view to
potential prosecution.
Many working breeds have long tails, including cattle dogs, German shepherds, collies
and kelpies. Routine tail docking of working breeds is not necessary.
If you think someone has illegally docked a puppy's or dog's tail in Queensland phone
the RSPCA on 1300 264 625 or Biosecurity Queensland on 13 25 23 to report it.
Routine tail docking of dogs is banned Australia-wide. Non-therapeutic tail docking of
dogs is prohibited, and only veterinarians may conduct therapeutic tail docking.
The ban is in place now because of the combination of:
(a) the weight of scientific opinion about the negative effects of tail docking
(b) changing community expectations about unnecessary surgical procedures on animals
(c) the agreement of all Australian states and territories to implement the ban.
One of the Act's objectives is to protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or
unreasonable pain, distress or suffering - in other words, cruelty. The evidence available
indicates that tail docking may be associated with acute and chronic pain. The only
situation where potentially causing dogs such pain may be considered justified, necessary
and reasonable is if the tail docking is in the interests of the dog's welfare.

South Australia ANIMAL WELFARE REGULATIONS 2000 - REG 6
Ill treatment of animals
(1) For the purposes of section 13 of the Act, a person ill treats an animal if—
(a) except where a veterinary surgeon has certified in writing that any of the following
procedures is necessary for the control of disease—the person—
(ii) docks the tail of a dog; or
(2) However, a person who is a veterinary surgeon may—
(b) dock a dog's tail if satisfied the procedure is required for therapeutic purposes
Tasmania ANIMAL WELFARE REGULATIONS 2008 - REG 5
Prescribed acts constituting cruelty to animals
(2) For section 8(2)(k) of the Act, the following are prescribed acts:
(b) the docking of all or part of the tail of a dog;
2 (c) causing or permitting the docking of all or part of the tail of a dog.
(3) Subregulation (2)(b) does not apply to a veterinary surgeon who, using anaesthesia,
docks all or part of the tail of a dog for therapeutic purposes.
(4) Subregulation (2)(c) does not apply to a person who causes or permits a veterinary
surgeon, using anaesthesia, to dock all or part of the tail of a dog for therapeutic purposes.
Western Australia ANIMAL WELFARE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 2003 - REG 14
Under the Western Australia Animal Welfare (General) Regulations 2003 it now states;
14. Further offences (s. 94) — tail docking
(1) In this regulation tail docking means the removal of one or more of the coccygeal vertebrae,
whether by cutting, ablation, elastration or any other means. (2) A person who is not a
registered veterinary surgeon shall not carry out tail docking of a dog.
(3) A registered veterinary surgeon shall not carry out tail docking of a dog except where
the tail docking is clinically indicated for the purpose of curing or alleviating a disease or
injury from which the dog suffers.

   
AUSTRIA
Legislation varies in different parts of Austria.  In Salzburg there is a ban.
   
BELGIUM      
Reservation contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative, dated 12 November 1987,
handed to the Secretary General at the time of signature, on 13 November 1987 and confirmed
at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on 20 December 1991
- Or. Fr.,
and withdrawn by a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium transmitted
by a letter from the Permanent Representative of Belgium, dated 9 August 2002,
registered at the Secretariat General on 13 August 2002 - Or. Fr


The Government of Belgium declares, in accordance with Article 21 of the Convention, that it
avails itself of a reservation in respect of Article 10, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph a of the said
Convention :

1. Surgical operations for the purpose of modifying the appearance of a pet animal or for
non-curative purposes shall be prohibited and, in particular :

a. the docking of tails.    
The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 10(docking), 21
______________________________________________________________________________________
After the prohibition of ear cropping, from 1st January 2006 the prohibition of tail docking
is illegal. This is a reminder of the consequences of breaking this legislation.
L'article 17bis de la loi du 14 août 1986 relative à la protection et au bien-être des animaux stipule :

§ 1. Il est interdit d'effectuer sur un vertébré une ou plusieurs interventions entraînant l'amputation
ou la lésion d'une ou plusieurs parties sensibles de son corps.
§ 2. Le § 1er ne s'applique pas aux :
3° interventions pour l'exploitation utilitaire de l'animal ou pour limiter la reproduction de l'espèce.
Le Roi établit, par arrêté délibéré en Conseil des Ministres, la liste de ces interventions et fixe les
cas dans lesquels et les méthodes selon lesquelles ces interventions peuvent être pratiquées.
Ces dispositions ont été mises en application par l'AR du 17 mai 2001 relatif aux interventions
autorisées sur les vertébrés pour l'exploitation utilitaire de l'animal ou pour limiter la reproduction
de l'espèce, qui est entré en vigueur le 1 er octobre 2001. La coupe des oreilles des chiens n'est
pas reprise dans la liste de cet AR et est donc interdite depuis le 1er octobre 2001. Conformément
aux dispositions de l'arrêté précité, dog tail docking has been forbidden from 1st January 2006.
L'article 19, § 1er de la loi susmentionnée stipule :
§ 1. A partir du 1er janvier 2000 il est interdit de participer à des expositions, expertises ou
concours avec des animaux ayant subi une intervention interdite à l'article 17bis.
It follows that it will be forbidden to participate or to admit to shows etc. with a cropped and
docked dog
De plus, l'article 19, § 2 de cette même loi stipule :
 Ceci signifie que l'organisateur d'une exposition, d'une expertise ou d'un concours doit refuser
la participation des chiens avec les oreilles et/ou la queue coupées, sinon il est en infraction.
§ 3 du même article de la loi stipule :
§ 3. Il est interdit de commercialiser des animaux ayant subi une intervention interdite à l'article 17bis.
Ceci veut dire qu'un chien avec des oreilles et/ou la queue coupées
1) ne peut être mis dans le commerce;
2) ne peut être offert en vue de la vente;
3) ne peut être détenu, acquis ni exposé en vue de la vente;
4) ne peut être échangé ou vendu;
5) ne peut être cédé à titre gratuit ou onéreux.
Enfin, le § 4 du même article stipule :
§ 4. Les dispositions des paragraphes précédents ne sont pas d'application s'il peut être prouvé
que l'intervention a été effectuée avant l'entrée en vigueur de l'interdiction visée à l'article 17bis.
C'est uniquement dans le cas où il peut être prouvé que les oreilles et/ou la queue de l'animal ont
été coupées avant l'entrée en vigueur de l'interdiction ( pour les oreilles, le 1 er octobre 2001,
pour la queue, le 1 er janvier 2006 ) que le chien pourrait participer aux expositions, expertises
et concours et être commercialisé.
Il va de soi que la législation prévoit des dispositions pénales en cas de constatation de violation
d'une ou plusieurs des interdictions précitées. Ceci comprend que, lors de la participation ou de la commercialisation d'un chien ayant des oreilles et/ou la queue coupées et pour lequel il ne peut
pas être démontré que l'intervention a eu lieu avant l'entrée en vigueur de l'interdiction, le
propriétaire ou le vendeur de l'animal ainsi que l'organisateur de l'événement s'exposent à
des poursuites , quel que soit le pays ou l'intervention a été pratiquée.
J'insiste pour que les dispositions légales précitées soient strictement respectées. Des contrôles
par notre service d'inspection ne sont pas exclus. Si à l'occasion d'un tel contrôle des infractions
sont constatées, les mesures nécessaires seront prises contre les personnes concernées.

   
CANADA

It is understood that since 1978 Newfoundland and Labrador has banned tail docking and
cropping
New Brunswick 15/10/08 Tail docking, removal of dew claws and ear cropping will not be
performed in the future. There is a six-month transition period so vets can phase out these
practices. This brings the provincial association in line with the Canadian one. At the 2008
Annual General Meeting of the New Brunswick Veterinary Medical Association, the majority
of members passed a motion. This motion stated that it would be considered unprofessional
conduct for a veterinarian in New Brunswick to perform cosmetic surgery on any animal,
effective March 28, 2009.
This includes:

  1. Tail docking in dogs, horses, and cows.
  2. Tail nicking and setting in horses.
  3. Ear cropping in dogs.
  4. Declawing in species other than domestic cats.
    Our national body (the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association) opposes surgical alteration
    of any animal for purely cosmetic purposes. The NBVMA believes that veterinarians of NB
    should take a strong stance against antiquated
    breed standards and traditions, and be advocates for animal welfare by stopping the practice
    of cosmetic surgery by veterinarians .
    The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association believes that cosmetic surgery is
    unnecessary. Surgical alterations in cases of injury or for reasons of health are not considered
    cosmetic. Examples of cosmetic procedures include:
    1.   Tail docking in the equine, bovine, or canine species;
    2.   Tail nicking/setting in the equine species;
    3.   Ear cropping in the canine species; and
    4.   Onychectomy in species other than the domestic cat.
    The CVMA recommends that breed associations change their breed standards so that
    cosmetic procedures are not required. (Revised, November 2000)
    The CVMA recommends that breed associations change their breed standards so that
    cosmetic procedures are not required. (Revised, November 2000)

    March 2010 The Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association is forbidding its
    members from doing surgeries that alter an animal's appearance solely for cosmetic
    purposes. The new rules go into effect on April 1, 2010 though they won't be
    enforced until October 2010
    . Similar bans on cosmetic surgeries are already in place
    in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island. Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Labrador.
    February 2012 Manitoba became the second province after Newfoundland to ban ear
    cropping by law. Fines start at $5,000. Veterinarians in Manitoba who choose to continue
    ear cropping would be investigated for breaching the bylaw, then receive a letter of
    reprimand or termination of their veterinary license if found to be guilty. Fines for
    performing the surgery could range from $5,000 for a first offense to $30,000 for a
    second offence to an amateur who attempted to perform the surgery on their own dog.
    Vet associations in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have banned their members from
    performing the surgery.

    TORONTO , Feb. 16, 2012 /CNW/ - The Canadian Kennel Club (CKC), in response
    to recently announced changes to the Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association's by-laws
    banning cosmetic ear cropping plus pending directives to veterinarians in other provinces
    would like to reiterate to the larger community of veterinarians, dog breeders, dog owners
    and the general public that none of the 175 Canadian Kennel Club breed standards
    require that a dog should have cropped ears.
   
CYPRUS

1991    
CZECH REPUBLIC Reservations contained in the instrument of approval deposited on 23 September 1998 - Or. Engl.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government of the
Czech Republic makes the following reservations :
  b. regarding Article 10, paragraph 1.a, the docking of tails without anaesthesia shall be permitted
in the Czech Republic in respect of piglets, lambs and pups under the age of eight days, provided
that the operation is carried out by a competent person within the prescribed time-limit.
Period covered: 24/3/1999 -
The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 10(docking) , 21, 6
   
DENMARK
DANISH FLAG
1991 - 2005 Docked dogs cannot be shown
Reservation made at the time of signature, on 13 November 1987 - Or. Engl.
The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark further declares that, in accordance with Article 21
of the Convention, it reserves its position in respect of Article 6 and Article 10, paragraph 1,
sub-paragraph a of the Convention.      
The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 10(docking), 21, 6
Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification, deposited on 20 October 1992 - Or. Fr.
Denmark makes a reservation in respect of Article 10 paragraph 1.a, concerning the docking of tails.
Period covered: 1/5/1993 -
The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 10 (docking) , 21

According to Danish legislation , tail docking, ear cropping and removal of dewclaws
with the purpose of changing the dog's appearance are forbidden:
Danish bred ear cropped
dogs born after 1 January 1985 and ear cropped dogs bred in a country where ear cropping was
prohibited when the dog was born cannot be shown. It is possible to procure further information
at the show secretariat regarding the state of affairs of ear cropping in other FCI countries.
Tail docked dogs born after 1 June 1996 cannot be shown, regardless of the dog's country of birth.
The prohibition also includes dogs that have been docked for veterinary reasons, irrespective of
whether a veterinary certificate is presented. The following breeds are excepted from the tail
docking
prohibition: Brittany spaniel, German shorthaired pointer, German Wirehaired
Pointer, Vizsla and Weimaraner
. If a dog has been born stump-tailed (with a natural bobtail)
it must as far as Danish bred dogs are concerned appear from the dog's pedigree certificate.
As far as foreign-bred dogs are concerned, a veterinary certificate issued in English in the
country where the dog has been bred must be presented, certifying that the dog has been
born stump-tailed. For dogs born after 1 October 2004, only the following breeds can have
inserted in the pedigree certificate that the dog has been born stump-tailed (with a natural
bobtail): Australian Shepherd, Boston Terrier, Bouvier des Flandres, Danish/Swedish farm dog,
English Bulldog, Entlebucher Sennenhund, French bulldog, Gos d'atura catala, Jack Russell Terrier,
Karelian Bear Dog, Mudi, Old English Sheepdog, Perro de Agua Espanol, Polski Owczarek
Nizinny, Pyrenean shepherd dog, Pyrenean Sheepdog (smooth faced), Swedish Vallhund
(Västgötaspets), Welsh Corgi Pembroke. Dogs without tail or with only a part of the tail
born after 1 October 2004 of all other breeds than the above are considered missing a part
of the body and consequently they cannot be shown (must be disqualified). Furthermore,
according to Danish legislation removal of dewclaws with the purpose of changing the dog's
appearance is forbidden. As legislation regarding docking/other surgical interventions varies
from country to country, the judge must not when judging consider whether the dog has in
accordance with the breed standard been docked or had its dewclaws removed.

   
ESTONIA
Docking is banned from ?2001    
FINLAND

Docking banned  - no exceptions ?2001
Finland has banned all dogs with docked tails or cropped ears from competing in dog shows,
as they were concerned that exhibitors may try to bend the rules by exporting their stock to
countries where docking is still allowed, and then re-importing them to show.  This closes the
loophole in a country which has benned docking and cropping.

   
FRANCE
france
Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 3 October 2003 - Or. Fr.
Pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government of the French Republic
declares that is is not bound by Article 10 (docking) , paragraph 1.a.
Period covered: 1/5/2004 -
Annexe 3
Principales interventions chirurgicales destinées à
modifier l'apparence d'un animal de compagnie
La coupe d'oreille ou otectomie est réalisée exclusivement chez le chien. Elle est effectuée en
général à deux mois et est alors réalisée sous anesthésie générale dans des conditions d'insensibilité
totale. Les races de chien concernées sont essentiellement des races de chien de berger (Berger de
Beauce, Berger de Brie, Berger des Pyrénées...), des races de chien d'utilité (Boxer, Doberman,
Schnauzer, Bouvier des Flandres...) ou plus exceptionnellement des races de chien de compagnie
(Griffon Belge). Toutefois, depuis une vingtaine d'années, une dérive à laquelle la Convention
permettra de mettre fin, se manifeste par la réalisation de coupes d'oreilles par les éleveurs
eux-mêmes ce qui constitue à plusieurs titres des infractions : au regard de l'exercice de la
médecine vétérinaire d'une part, de l'interdiction de la pratique d'intervention de convenance
d'autre part, et, enfin, bien entendu, des mauvais traitements envers les animaux, réprimés par
le code pénal français.
La coupe de queue ou caudectomie est réalisée aussi exclusivement chez le chien. Elle est effectuée
dans les dix premiers jours de vie de l'animal, alors que la myélinisation de la queue ne se termine que
15 jours après la naissance; En conséquence une caudectomie précoce n'est pas plus douloureuse
qu'une injection. Les races de chien concernées sont nombreuses. Ce sont les races de chiens de
chasse (des chiens d'arrêt: Epagneul Breton, Braque Allemand, des chiens Broussailleurs ou
Springers : Cocker Anglais ou Américains, Welsh Springer Spaniel, des Terriers: Airedale Terrier,
Fox Terrier, Yorkshire Terrier) et plus rarement des chiens de Berger ou d'utilité (Bobtail,
Ddoberman, Boxer). Ces interventions sont actuellement réalisées par les vétérinaires ou
les éleveurs eux-mêmes. Pour ces derniers, un certificat de compétence devra confirmer la
possibilité de poursuivre ces pratiques.
   
GERMANYgermanflag Reservations contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative, dated 27 May 1991,
handed to the Secretary General at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification on the same
day - Or. Engl./Fr./Germ.
Having regard to Article 21.1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals,
the Federal Republic of Germany declares that contractual relations between itself and the other
Parties to this Convention will not extend to Article 6 (age-limit on acquisition of pet animals)
and Article 10.1.a (prohibition of tail-docking) of this Convention.
Period covered: 1/5/1992 -
The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 10 (docking), 21, 6

Ausstellungverbot für tierschutzwidrig kupierte Hunde
Nach der neuen Tierschutz-Hundeverordnung gilt ab 01. Mai 2002 ein Ausstellungsverbot für
folgende Hunde aus
dem In- und Ausland:
1.  Ohren kupiert nach dem 01.01.1987
2.  Rute kupiert nach dem 01.06.1998 (Ausnahme: Jagdliche Verwendung gemäß deutschem
Tierschutzgesetz).
3. Das Ausstellungsverbot gilt nicht in den Ausnahmefällen, wenn eine medizinische Indikation
vorliegt; eine entsprechende Bescheinigung ist der Meldung beizufügen. Stichtag für Meldungen
kupierter Hunde mit medizinischer Indikation ist der
offizielle Meldeschluss 29.03.2006 . Die Gutachten zur medizinischen Indikation müssen zum
offiziellen Meldeschluss in
der VDH-Geschäftsstelle in Dortmund vorliegen

In accordance with the "Tierschutz-Hundeverordnung" (animal protection dog regulations) from
1st May 2002 the following
dogs will be banned from participating at dog shows both at home and abroad:
1. Ears cropped after 01.01.1987
2. Tails cropped after 01.06.87 (exception: dogs used for hunting in accordance with German
law for the protection of
animals)
3. The ban is not enforced in exceptional cases if a medical indication is known, the corresponding
certification must be
enclosed together with the entry.
   
INDIA

Chandigarh-based Society for Prevention of Cruelty against Animals (SPCA) has written to the
Animal Welfare Board of India to stop the "unjustified mutilation". December 2010
2011 The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) has issued an advisory against the docking of
tails and cropping of ears of particular breeds such as the Doberman, Cocker Spaniel and Boxers,
among other dog breeds. According to the advisory, such non-therapeutic acts will henceforth be
considered mutilation, which falls under the ambit of cruelty and therefore a punishable offence
under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. The advisory has urged the
Veterinary Council of India to issue directions to all their registered veterinarians (government
and private), state veterinary councils and colleges to stop the practice of tail docking and ear
cropping. Such acts are punishable under Sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code.
The advisory sent out by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) to veterinary councils,
colleges, kennel clubs and other institutions likely to carry out such procedures states that
practices like docking of tails and cropping of ears will now be punishable with a fine, or
imprisonment, or both. http://innovationindia.weebly.com/1/post/2011/9/tail-docking-and-ear-
cropping-of-dogs-are-punishable-offence-awbi.html

   
ICELAND
Total ban since 2001    
IRELAND/EIRE

http://www.lovemypet.ie/tail-docking/ Alan Rossiter, President Veterinary Ireland
' Veterinary Ireland has a long standing policy that tail docking should be prohibited by law, this
being in line with the policy of European and world veterinary associations ( FVE and WSAVA ).
In addition the Veterinary Council of Ireland has ruled that tail docking should not be performed
by a veterinary practitioner, be that for cosmetic or so called ‘prophylactic' reasons in working dogs,
and any vet performing this procedure is liable to investigation and censure by the Council. Thus if
a vet is that if asked to dock puppies' tails by a client they must refuse to do so. ..... Indeed in a
recent survey undertaken by Veterinary Ireland revealed that 44% of all tail injuries seen by vets
were as a direct result of tail docking itself. On the other hand a paper published in the Veterinary
Record 1 concluded that the incidence of tail injury is so low (about 0.2%) that it would be
necessary to dock 500 pups to prevent one tail injury. Clearly the current situation  - where a
vet cannot dock tails but anyone else can, where the risk of tail injury is tiny, and where a large
proportion of tail injuries are due to this procedure – is ridiculous. The very good news though
is that tail docking will be prohibited in the Animal Health and Welfare Bill which is currently
passing through the Oireachtas...... To justify the pain and risk of tail docking of all working
dogs it is necessary to demonstrate that full-tailed working dogs suffer significantly more tail
injuries than full-tailed non-working dogs. From the available scientific evidence and experience
of the veterinary profession, our organisation does not support this claim and therefore the
Veterinary Ireland position is that there must be no exceptions in the Bill or in subsequent
regulations for prophylactic docking of working breeds. References: 
1 Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain” ( Ref: Veterinary Record 2010
Jun 26;166(26):812-7)
2. “Association between tail injuries and docking in dogs” (Ref: Veterinary Record 1985;
116: 409),
3. A recent survey of the profession undertaken by Veterinary Ireland revealed the
following opinions of Irish vets:
  • 98.8% of vets said tail docking caused pain
  • 93% of tail injuries seen by vets are caused by reasons other than working/hunting,
    with 44% of tail injuries
    seen by vets were as a result of the tail docking procedure itself (infection/chronic pain)
  • 89% of vets said tail docking should not be permitted for working dogs

    March 2014 - Simon Coveney TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine
    announced today that he has signed the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013
    (Commencement) Order 2014 which brings into operation the core elements of the
    Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013
    . The Prohibition on Tail Docking and Dew
    Claws (Dogs) Regulations 2014 which will regulate the limited circumstances under
    which a dog may have its tail docked or dew claws removed. Under the Act, tail
    docking of dogs for cosmetic purposes is being banned outright, a move that will
    cover most dogs in the country. The Prohibition on Tail Docking and Dew Claws
    (Dogs) Regulations 2014 will allow tail docking and dew claw removal in very
    limited cases and will be restricted by age, breed and function of the dog. In cases
    where the removal of tails or dew claws is justified on the grounds of breed and
    activity the procedure may only be carried out by a  veterinary practitioner or
    veterinary nurse.  This closely matches the approach in Northern Ireland. With
    regard to these regulations the Minister said “I will refer this issue to the
    Scientific Advisory Committee on Animal Health and Welfare when new
    scientific evidence becomes available
    ”.
   
ISRAEL
(6/01) Legislation under the "Cruelty to Animals (Animal Protection) Law" has amended by the
addition of a ban on the performance of surgical procedures in animal tissue "for cosmetic
purposes". The ban includes the docking of tails or cutting of ears in dogs.
   

ITALY, ROME

ITALY, TURIN

25/11/05  Byelaw.  Owners must exercise their pets regularly  and must not dock their tails for
aesthetic reasons.

29/4/05 Owners will be fined up to €500  if they don't walk their pets at least three times a day.
  Ban on dyeing pets' fur
or any form of animal mutilation for aesthetic motives such as docking dogs' tails.

   
LATVIA
Tail docking banned but some exemptions made for hunting dogs but not for shows    
LUXEMBOURGLuxembourg Reservation contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Grand-Duchy
of Luxembourg, dated 13 November 1987 and registered at the Secretariat General on
16 November 1987 - Or. Fr. - and withdrawn at the time of deposit of the instrument
of ratification on 25 October 1991 - Or. Fr.
The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg reserves the right not to apply sub-paragraph a of
paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Convention.    

The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 10 (docking) , 21

   
NEDERLAND
2000    
NORWAY

1987    
POLAND
2010 Polski Klub Psa Rasowego (Polish Purebred Dog Kennel Club), the second largest canine
organization in Poland, fulfilling the requirements of Animal Protection Act, on the basis of General
Assembly resolution, being the first in Poland to do so, bans all dogs with docked tails or cropped
ears from competing in dog shows,
beginning with 20.02.2010.
   
PORTUGALPortugal Reservation contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Portugal, dated 12 November
1987, handed to the Secretary General at the time of signature - Or. Fr. - and confirmed in the
instrument of ratification, deposited on 28 June
1993 - Or. Fr.
Portugal, availing itself of the possibility mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 21, does not accept
sub-paragraph a of
paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Convention.
Period covered: 1/1/1994 -
The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 10 (docking), 21
   
ROMANIA

http://proanimals.ro/en/category/legislation/ Law 9/2008
Law no. 205/2004 modified and completed through law no.9/2008 concerning animals
protection

Chapter 1.
General dispositions
Art.1-
(1)This law stipulate necessary measures to assure conditions of life and welfare of the
animals with or without owner
. (2) Managing of strays population from Romania is stipulated trough a special law.
Art 2
Through this law, animals keeper means the owner, the person who is keeping with any
available title and also any
physical or juridical person in whom carrying is the animal. 
Art.3
The owners have the obligation to assure appliance of sanitary-veterinary norms and
zoo-hygiene concerning sheltering ,
carrying , reproduction , protection and welfare of the animals.
Art.4.
The owners have the obligation to have a behavior without brutality against animals ,
to assure elementary conditions in
the aim for which are raised, to not abandon them.
Art.5. (1)
The owners have the obligation to assure to the animals, function of their ethological
needs: species , race, sex, age,
and production category , the following:           
(a) an adequate shelter           
(b) enough food and water           
(c) enough possibility to move           
(d) carrying and attention           
(e) medical assistance
(2)
To the animals owners is prohibit to apply mal treatments and cruelties.
Art.6. (1)
Maltreatment means brutal behavior , abusing to use animals , supposing the animals
to inutile efforts and not assure
the conditions of article 5, paragraph (1)           
(2) Cruelty against animals
means:           
(a)killing of the animals , with intention           
(b) practicing the animals shooting on domestic or wild animals           
(c) organizing fights  between or with animals           
(d) using alive animals to train animals or control them the aggressive behavior           
(e) using animals for exhibitions , shows, advertising, making movies if these activities are making
to suffer physical or psychological (f)  abandoning an animal of whom existence depends on humane
care           
(g) administer substances to stimulate physical capacities of animals, whiling of sportive competitions           
(h) maltreating and torturing of animals           
(i)  surgical interventions to modify animal's aspect : docking tail, cut of ears , nails and tooth           
(j) offering physical and psychological pain trough different ways           
(l) catching of animals trough another methods than the illegal ones          
(m) using of tranquilizer guns for another situation than to catch the animals          
Art.6' Abandon
is to let an animal who is in charge of humane care and propriety , on public
domain without food , shelter and medical treatment.
Art.7   
Animals used in experimental purpose must have specific protection norms , without
make them to suffer. Art.7'  It is prohibit dogs, cats or other animals euthanasia , excepting
animals with incurable maladies , saw by vets.
Art 8.
(1) National Sanitary- Veterinary Authority represents national authority in animals
protection domain.           
(2)
Conditions ofkeeping, sheltering, caring of animals are establishing trough an Order of
National Sanitary-Veterinary Direction President
CHAPTER II 
Conditions concerning animal's keeping     
Art.9 (1) Animals owners can keep wild animals , conforming with law , only if they are
authorized by Sanitary- Veterinary Direction of the county and also Bucharest.          
(2) 
Conditions concerning keeping of wild animals are established trough an Order of Woods
and Environment Minister to proposing of National Sanitary- Veterinary Authority          
(3) 
Owners can keep wild animals for a determined period to take care and physical recover
for the animals who are sick with National Sanitary- Veterinary Authority agree
Art 10. (1)
Animal's owners have obligation to take care and treat in the right way an animal
sick or hurt.
(2)
Sanitary- Veterinary Authority can allow slaughtering or killing of an animal sick or hurt to
not suffer anymore physic or psychological in conditions established by an Order of National
Sanitary-Veterinary Authority president (3) Provisions from paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)
are not applying to the animals used in scientific purposes or another experimental purposes.
Art 11.
Animals owners who are selection an animal for reproducing have obligation to respect
anatomical , behavior characteristics of race and species in that way that to not affect
performance, health and welfare of the descendents.
Art 12.
Person who has a contribution in training of an animal have the obligation to use
training ways that will not produce psychological or physical traumas and also not use methods
which can affect animal health or welfare.
CHAPTER III
Conditions concerning animals trade , animals transport and also using
of them in advertising purpose, shows, exhibitions, competitions or other manifestations.

Art.13.
National Sanitary- Veterinary Authoritybecause of animals protection reasonsor to
protect animals species from territory
of the country can improve some conditions , limit or prohibit import ,export, animals trade
taking account the community norms
Art 14. (1)
Transporters have obligation to transport animals in adequate conditions , function
of species, sex, age, production category to avoid hurting of physical/psychological tiring of
the animals.            
(2)
 Conditions concerning animals transport are establish to an order of National Sanitary-
Veterinary Authority President.
Art. 15.
Animals can be used in advertising purpose , shows, exhibitions, competitions or
another manifestations, only if: a) the organizer assure conditions from art.5 b) health and
welfare of animals is not put in danger.
Art. 16.
(1) Whiling competitions or in another occasions it is prohibit to be administered to the
animals, substances or to be obligated trough some methods to increase or decrease natural level
of their performances.               (2) Commission for organizing competitions will include obligatory
a representative of animals protection association.
CHAPTER IV
Surgeries Art. 17. (1) The animals will be exposed to a surgery only in motivated
cases               (2) Surgeries are made only with local anesthesia, by vets. (3) Surgeries which can
produce suffer to animal must be made by vet
Art.18.
Exceptions from art 17, paragraph (2) in cases of animals used for scientific purposes or
another experimental purposes , surgeries or other treatments can be made by another persons
who have necessary qualify.
CHAPTER V
Slaughter and killing of animals
Art.19.
The animals must not suffer in case of slaughter or kill
Art.20.
Slaughtering or killing of animals will be made respecting legal provisions into force.
Art. 21.
Provisions of article 20 are not applying to the animals who because of some accidents or
illness, must be slaughter or kill immediately
CHAPTER VI
Using of animals in scientific or experimental purposes
Art.22.
Animals can be used for scientific researches, producing of some medicines or biological
products when the aim of activity can be developed trough another methods which not involve
using of animals.
CHAPTER VII
Sanctions Art.23 (1) Are constituting contraventions the followingfacts:             
a) not respecting art 12 dispositions              
b) not respecting art. 5, paragraph (1) dispositions             
c) suppose an animal to maltreatments              
d) not respecting art.26, paragraph (3)              
e) suppose an animal to cruelties
(1)'
Are constituting offencesthe following facts:               
a) keeping and trading of wild animals by physical or juridical persons not authorized , excepting
of zoos                b)               
c) facts from art.6               
d) organizing battles between or with animals               
e) using alive animals to train another animals or control their aggress            
(2)
Contraventions from paragraph 1 are punish :             
a) that ones from letter a) with fine from 800lei ( almost 240 Euro) to 1000 lei ( almost 300 Euro)             
b) that ones from letter b) – e) with fine from 1000 lei (almost 300 Euro) to 1500 lei ( almost
450 Euro)             
3)
Offences from paragraph 1' are punish :               
a) that ones from letter a) with prison from one month to one year or with penal fine from 500 lei
( almost 150 Euro ) to 10 000 ( almost 3000 Euro) and animals are being confiscated.               
b) that ones from letter b) with prison from 3 months to one year or with penal fine from 500 lei
( almost 150 Euro ) to 6000 lei (1800 Euro) and animals are being confiscated               
c) that ones from letter c) with prison from 6 months to 3 years or with penal fine from 1000 lei
( 300 Euro) to 10 000 (3000 Euro) and animal's confiscate.               
d) that ones from letter e) with prison from 3 months to one year or with penal fine from 500 lei
( 150 Euro) to 2000 lei ( 600 Euro ) and animal's confiscate.
Art.24. 
 In cases of accomplish for two times of facts from art.23 paragraph (1) lit (a) and
(b) by the animal's owner , besides contravention fine is applying animal's confiscate. I this case,
all animals will be sheltered in shelters which are functioning beside Local Councils for adoptions
or to turn to account in law conditions. Art 24'.   In case of an offence finding out the Instance
can dispose to owner prohibit to keep animals for a period of 5 years.
Art.25. (1)
Finding out contraventions and offences applying are made by persons empowered
conforming with service
attributions from National Sanitary- Veterinary Direction.              
(2)
The offender can pay in that moment or in 48 hours from date of proceedings signing , or after
case, half of minimum fine preview at art. 23 paragraph (2) agent who wrote will mention this
possibility in proceedings. CHAPTER VIII  Final dispositions Art.26  (1) National Sanitary-
Veterinary Authority , Administrative Reform and Intern Minister trough specialized institutions
with animals protection organizations are supervising apply of this law.             
(2)
To accomplish provisions of this law , specialized persons conforming with their attributions
from National Sanitary- Veterinary Authority and Interns Minister have access in buildings , shelters,
and other places where are kept the animals and also they have the right to ask any information
and necessary documents of control and take proofs for researches and laboratory analysis.           
  (3)
In situation in which the place where are kept animals to the residence of owner, the access of
persons from paragraph 2 in this space is made with owner agree. If the agreement not exist, the
owner must proof that he is respecting article 5 dispositions.
Art.26'
Methodological Norms to apply this law are approved in 60 days trough a common Order
 of Interns Minister and National Sanitary- Veterinary Authority with consulting of animals
protection organizations representatives.  
Art.27
. Orders from article 8, paragraph 2, article 9, paragraph 2, and article 14 paragraph 2
are disposed in six months from date of law publication in Official Monitor of Romania, Part. 1.
Art.27' (1)
Radios and Romanian televisions are promoting programmes of animals protection.
(2)
Education Research and Young People Minister to civic education classes will promote
actions of animals protection.
Art 28.
This law will come into force after 10 days since it is publish in Official Monitor of
Romania, Part 1.

   

SOUTH AFRICA

Animal Protection Act June 2008. Anyone caught tail-docking an animal faces a fine of R4000
or two years in prison sentence..
http://www.savc.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123&Itemid=276
   
SPAIN
spanishflag

17/3/17 The National Parliament voted in favour of a motion to ban docking for aesthetic reasons
or in order to improve the efficiency of hunting dogs. It will also make it illegal to crop dogs' ears,
cut vocal cords or remove teeth and claws. This brings Spain into line with the 1987 Eiropean
Convention
Docking, cropping and removal of dewclaws has been banned in the communities of Barcelona
(since 1998) and Andalucia outright. No one can legally do it, not even vets.

   
SWEDEN

1988 and ratified 1992    
SWITZERLAND
Banned 1997
Animal Protection Ordinance 8  Animal Protection Ordinance (TSchV) Amendment of
June 27, 2001
The Federal Council, resolves:
The Animal Protection Ordinance of May 17, 19811 will be amended as follows: Chapter 9:
Prohibited Practices
Article 66
(extract)
a. strike animals in the eyes or genitals, or to break or crush their tails;
h. dock dogs' tails or crop dogs' ears as well as to operatively produce semi-pricked ears in dogs;
i. promote, sell or exhibit dogs with cropped ears and docked tails if such were achieved under
violation of the Swiss
Regulations on animal welfare or if the dogs were imported under violation of the Swiss Regulations
on animal welfare;
http://www.bvet.admin.ch/themen/tierschutz/index.html?lang=en
Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA - Federal veterinary office FVO
Intenational affairs
Doc. 07/09-2 Import of dogs – cats – ferrets from third countries 1/3
Version Feb. 26th, 2007 (effective for imports from July 1st 2007 onwards)

Note: It is forbidden to import dogs with docked ears and/or cropped tail. The only exceptions are
dogs of owners who live abroad and come for holidays or short stays in Switzerland or relocate
to this country. The latter applies only to those animals which have already been kept by the relocating
person for a long time before moving to Switzerland, and they must in principle be imported at the
same time as the person relocating. Please enquire with the relevant customs authorities in good
time BEFORE importing such a dog as to the precise formalities and whether the criteria regarding
holidays or relocation apply in your case. Some information on animals in the case of relocation
can also be found at www.zoll.admin.ch => Zollinformationen Private => Umzug, Heirat,
Erbschaft (not available in English). If these criteria are not met, dogs with docked ears and/or tails
will be turned back at the border.
Dossiers on the evaluation of “animals amputated for medical reasons” must be submitted to the
FVO BEFORE the animals are imported. Without extensive documentation providing clear evidence
(incl. official confirmations) medical reasons cannot be recognized.
http://www.bvet.admin.ch/index.html?lang=en
   

UNITED KINGDOM
England, N.Ireland, Scotland, Wales

England (cropping never done) docking banned wef 6th April 2007,  - excluding therapeutic and
for certain truly working breeds governed by regulation  .  Dogs born after 6th April 2007 cannot
be shown with docked tails at public fee paying shows in England and Wales but can be in Scotland.
Wales (cropping never done) docking banned wef 28th March 2007 - excluding therapeutic and
for certain truly working breeds governed by regulation (see below).  Dogs born after 6th April
2007 cannot be shown with docked tails at public fee paying shows in England and Wales but
can be in Scotland.
Scotland (cropping never done) docking banned wef 30th April, 2007. They cannot be taken
across borders to be docked.  Dogs in whelp taken across borders could be subject to the
Council Regulation (EC) no 1/2005. 
N. Ireland - (2011) Docking of dogs' tails N.I. wef 1.1.2013
6 —(1) A person commits an offence if that person—
(a) removes the whole or any part of a dog's tail; or
(b) causes the whole or any part of a dog's tail to be removed by another person.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) that person is responsible for a dog,
(b) another person removes the whole or any part of the dog's tail, and
(c) the first-mentioned person permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way
of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent
that happening.
(3) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if the whole or any part of
a dog's tail is removed—
(a) by a veterinary surgeon for the purpose of medical treatment; or
(b) in order to prevent or remove an immediate danger to the life of the dog in circumstances
where it is not reasonably practicable to have the tail, or, as the case may be, any part of the tail,
removed by a veterinary surgeon.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the dog is a certified working dog that is not more than
5 days old.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), a dog is a certified working dog if a veterinary surgeon has
certified, in accordance with regulations made by the Department, that the first and second
conditions mentioned below are met
(6) The first condition referred to in subsection (5) is that there has been produced to the veterinary
surgeon such evidence as the Department may by regulations require for the purpose of showing
that the dog is likely to be used for work in connection with law enforcement, lawful pest control
or the lawful shooting of animals.
(7) The second condition referred to in subsection (5) is that the dog is of a breed specified in
Schedule 1 for the purposes of this subsection.
(8) The Department may by regulations add to, or remove, breeds of dog from the list in
Schedule 1.
(9) It is a defence for a person accused of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) to show
that that person reasonably believed that the dog was one in relation to which subsection
(4) applies.
(10) A person commits an offence if that person—
(a) owns a subsection (4) dog, and
(b) fails to take reasonable steps to secure that, before the dog is 8 weeks old, it is identified
as a subsection (4) dog in accordance with regulations made by the Department.
(11) A person commits an offence if that person takes a dog, or causes a dog to be taken, from
a place in Northern Ireland for the purpose of having the whole or any part of its tail removed,
otherwise than for the purpose of medical treatment administered by a veterinary surgeon.
(12) A person commits an offence if—
(a) that person shows a dog at an event for which that person pays a fee or to which members
of the public are admitted on payment of a fee,
(b) the dog's tail has been wholly or partly removed (in Northern Ireland or elsewhere), and
(c) the removal took place after the coming into operation of this section.
(13) Where a dog is shown only for the purpose of demonstrating its working ability, subsection
(12) does not apply if the dog is a subsection (4) dog.
(14) It is a defence for a person accused of an offence under subsection (12) to show that that
person reasonably believed—
(a) that the event was not one for which that person paid a fee or to which members of the public
were admitted on payment of a fee;
(b) (b) that the removal took place before the coming into operation of this section; or
(c) that the dog was one in relation to which subsection (13) applies.
(15) A person commits an offence if that person knowingly gives false information to a veterinary
surgeon in connection with the giving of a certificate for the purposes of this section.
(16) The Department may by regulations make provision about the functions of inspectors in
relation to—
(a) certificates for the purposes of this section, and
(b) the identification of dogs as subsection (4) dogs.
(17) Before making regulations under this section, the Department must consult such persons
appearing to the Department to represent any interests concerned as the Department considers
appropriate.
(18) In this section “ subsection (4) dog ” means a dog whose tail has, after the coming into
operation of this section, been wholly or partly removed without contravening subsection
(1), because of the application of subsection (4). 3. The Bill will ensure that animals should
not be subjected to any kind of mutilation, except where it is justified to avoid suffering or as
part of medical treatment by a veterinary surgeon. TAIL DOCKING of dogs will be banned,
except as part of medical treatment by a veterinary surgeon or in circumstances to save the
life of the dog. There will also be an exemption for certified working dogs. It will be an offence
to take a dog to another jurisdiction to have the tail docking procedure carried out.
4. There will be an increase in the current fines and penalties for welfare offences as follows:–·
On summary conviction to a maximum of 6 months imprisonment and / or a maximum fine of
£5,000;
On conviction on indictment (trial by jury) to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment and / or
an unlimited fine.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nidsr/2012/9780337988134/regulation/2
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nidsr/2012/9780337988134/regulation/3
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nidsr/2012/9780337988134/regulation/4
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nidsr/2012/9780337988134/regulation/5
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nidsr/2012/9780337988134/note
http://www.dardni.gov.uk/draft_ria_-_docking_of_working_dogs_tails-2.pdf
   
USA

AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (AVMA)
a) Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
Ear cropping and tail docking in dogs for cosmetic reasons are not medically indicated nor
of benefit to the patient. These procedures cause pain and distress, and, as with all
surgical procedures, are accompanied by inherent risks of anaesthesia, blood loss,
and infection. 
Therefore, veterinarians should counsel dog owners about these matters before
agreeing to perform these surgeries  http://www.vin.com/VINDBPub/SearchPB/Proceedings/PR05000/PR00014.htm
Dec 2008 - In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control ordinance requiring
mandatory pet sterilization, permits to own intact dogs and cats, mandatory microchipping and
pet ownership limits. The ordinance also bans tethering of dogs and imposes strict requirements
for keeping dogs outdoors. Home inspections also are authorized.
The ordinance: · Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition. The cost
of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no
grace period or exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including
participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors can be cited.
Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.
· Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a
half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals
could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be
allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit.
The ordinance applies to anyone who "harbors" more than six dogs, which includes many
visitors and participants in dog shows and other events.
Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits to unannounced inspections.
This would include participants in dog shows or other events.
· Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of visitors.
· Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except "for a period no longer than
necessary for the owner to complete a temporary task."
Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or designed doghouse
for a dog confined outdoors.
And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other penalties.

In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-2 to approve AB1634, which
now will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If this committee approves, it will be
sent to the legislature for a vote. This bill allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any
dog owner for an unsubstantiated violation of any animal law. If any animal control officer agrees,
the accused person will have a choice between paying a fine or sterilizing the animal. It is said that
there will be no right to defend nor to appeal.
"The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited
and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any
fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance." In the first
sentence, the committee substituted "may" for "shall," which appears to leave the issuance of
a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined·
"The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30
business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if,
within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a
licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered." It appears that there is no provision
for a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is allowed. If you
are accused, you are guilty. · " 'Complaint' means an oral or written complaint to a local
animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division,
any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance.
`Complaint' also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control
agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision
of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance."
" `Local animal control agency' means any city or county animal control agency or other entity
responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances." This is said to
include Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal
cruelty or other dog laws.
In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to approve HB2532, which is a
de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping. In the absence of proof that
the procedure was performed by a veterinarian, the mere possession of a dog that has had one
of those three procedures subjects an owner to a criminal citation for animal cruelty. This bill
would destroy many rescue operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in
Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This bill now goes to the full
House for a vote, and then to the Senate. Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture
Committee approved amendments to the state dog and kennel law . The actual text of this
legislation was not available at this writing, and a follow-up report will be issued when the
revised legislation is available. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the
Senate.
HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels in the state.
It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote. It appears that the final bill reflects
some of the promises made to
dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations.
The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several
amendments has not been published yet.
The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a partial or complete ban on
tail docking
, ear cropping and dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian.
The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three days of age, and to
remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the burden of proof is placed on a
dog's owner to prove that this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian.
The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a veterinarian, and anyone who
is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal
cruelty in the absence of proof.
For all of these procedures, HB 2532 has a provision that would exempt dogs if their owners
filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.
The bill now moves to the full House for a vote.
Link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?
txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billT yp=B&billNbr=2532&pn
=4030
See this link for recent proposed legislation 1/09 http://mnlreport.typepad.com/ If you are
against docking and cropping please write to these Legislatures

FEBRUARY 2009 - ILLINOIS - Senate Bill 139. The bill, introduced by Senator Terry Link,
the majority caucus whip, seeks to severely limit the practices of tail docking and ear cropping
in the state. If SB 139 becomes law, ear cropping and tail docking would be considered
"animal torture" under Illinois criminal law and would be allowed only for medical purposes.
Senator Terry Link, and their elected representatives in Springfield, and respectfully yet
strongly urge them to oppose this attempted infringement on individual liberties.

Please support Senator Terry Link and contact him or your state representative. The senator's
contact information by clicking here .
Bill sponsor Senator Terry Link
Springfield Office:
321 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: (217) 782-8181

District Office:
906 Muir Avenue
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
Phone: (847) 735-8181
FAX: (847) 735-8184

For a copy of the full legislation, please click here .

--------------------------
NEW YORK FEB/MARCH 2013
Section 1. The agriculture and markets law is amended by adding a new
section 365-a to read as follows:


S 365-A. DOCKING DOG TAILS; UNLAWFUL. 1. ANY PERSON WHO CUTS THE
BONE, TISSUES, MUSCLES OR TENDONS OF THE TAIL OF ANY DOG, OR
OTHERWISE OPER ATES UPON IT IN ANY MANNER FOR THE PURPOSE OR
WITH THE EFFECT OF DOCKING OR OTHERWISE ALTERING THE NATURAL
CARRIAGE OR LENGTH OF THE TAIL, OR ASSISTS, PROCURES, PROMOTES OR ENCOURAGES SUCH CUTTING OR OPERATION FOR REASONS OTHER THAN
TO PROTECT THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE DOG AS DEEMED NECESSARY
BY A DULY LICENSED VETERINARIAN, IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR
PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
2. ANY PERSON WHO SHOWS OR EXHIBITS A DOG, THE TAIL OF WHICH
HAS BEEN CUT, ALTERED OR OPERATED UPON IN THE MANNER REFERRED
TO IN SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, AT A SHOW OR OTHER
EXHIBITION IN THIS STATE OR WHO ENCOURAGES, PROCURES OR SPONSORS
SUCH AN EXHIBITION, IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY A
FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
3. ANY DOG OWNER WHO IS INJURED OR DAMAGED IN ANY WAY BY A
VIOLATION OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, OR ANY
NEW YORK ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, MAY INSTITUTE AND
MAINTAIN IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE A PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION, INCLUDING A PROCEEDING FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
TO OBTAIN REDRESS FOR SUCH INJURY OR VIOLATION.
4. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY DOG OR
PERSON WHO IS THE OWNER OR POSSESSOR OF ANY DOG WHOSE TAIL
HAS BEEN CERTIFIED AS HAVING BEEN DOCKED, CUT OR ALTERED PRIOR
TO AUGUST FIRST, TWO THOU SAND THIRTEEN.
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD04563-01-3
A. 3428 2
S 2. This act shall take effect August 1, 2013; provided, however, if this act shall
become a law after such date it shall take effect immediately and shall be deemed
to have been in full force and effect on and after August 1, 2013.

TEXAS Amarillo - 5/2014 - draft legislation -
(b) It is an offense:
(1). For any person to perform Ear cropping or Tail docking, except as allowed in
this subsection.
(2). For an Animal owner to perform or allow Ear cropping or Tail docking of his or
her Animal, except by a person authorized in the preceding subsection.
(c) Exception: It is not an offense when Ear cropping or Tail docking are performed
by a licensed veterinarian or one acting under the supervision of a veterinarian in a
clinical setting.

AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB - AKC http://www.akc.org/events/conformation/faqs.cfm
Surgery, Allowable Procedures, Cropping, Docking, Debarking, Declaws

Why does the AKC allow surgical procedures like debarking, ear cropping, tail docking,
and dewclaw removal?

The American Kennel Club recognizes that ear cropping, tail docking, and dewclaw removal,
as described in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and
preserving the breed character and/or enhancing good health. Appropriate veterinary care should
be provided.
AKC rules do prohibit changes in appearance "except as specified in the standard for the breed.
" If a breed standard provides for ear cropping, tail docking, or dewclaw removal, it is permitted.
No AKC breed standard has a disqualification for any of these alterations.

Ear cropping is a decision made by a dog's breeder or owner. While it is true that some breeds
are shown with their ears
cropped, there is nothing in AKC rules and in fact nothing in any breed standard that
compels an owner to have
this procedure performed as a prerequisite to entry at a dog show.
Even if it is traditional
in a particular breed that
the dogs have one of these alterations, it has the same potential to win as any other dog of the
breed and will only be
judged based on the compliance of that dog to the breed standard.
(what obfuscation! )

   
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
6/5/2005  - The V.I. Senate overrode the veto of the  Senate's version of the legislation yesterday.
This means that docking ears and tails is considered first-degree animal abuse. Because this was
a veto override, it automatically becomes law.
   


123 • 4 • 5 << PreviousNext >>