A Tale of No Tail: Should Breeders Be Allowed to Play Vet?
Earlier this year, I was asked if I would submit testimony against a rule from the Ohio Department of Agriculture that allows high-volume breeders to perform tail dock and dew claw removal procedure in puppies two to five days of age. I agreed immediately because this isn't really an issue of whether you agree or not with removing dew claws or tail docking, it is about allowing a layperson to practice veterinary medicine without a license, and in this case more serious because it involves the surgical amputation of a tail and “thumbs”.
To write this testimony, I reviewed the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) which dictates what acts are legal or unlawful in the state. Everything I read in the ORC stated that only a veterinarian can perform surgical procedures on animals regardless of the age of the animal or state of ownership, and that any individual performing procedures that cause pain that is unjustified or unnecessary is committing an act of torture and cruelty. So, I figured “this is pretty easy and common sense” because after all the law is very clear for who can and cannot do these things. But as I have come to find out today the law is not as clear as what is written and rules that involve animals are not always done in the benefit of welfare.
The Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) has passed a rule by the Joint Commission on Agency Rule Review (JCAAR), OAC Rule 901:1-6-05 (F), that permits high-volume breeders to perform tail docking and dew claw removal surgeries in puppies 2-5 days old. There are stipulations that a veterinarian must draw up a plan or guide to ensure it is being done properly and that the breeders must keep records, but what veterinarian can do this legally? After all, allowing a lay person to do surgery is illegal, so a veterinarian that teaches an unqualified person how to do surgery is breaking the law. There are rules limiting what we can teach veterinary students, but we are expected to teach a breeder how to do surgery in a safe and humane manner?
Despite the ORC being clear, the JCAAR allowed the rule to pass. So, my question is: if I catch someone doing an at-home tail dock and they are charged with animal cruelty, how does this rule apply? I would think that the ODA cannot supersede the ORC, but at this point I am at a loss for what is right and wrong. In the meantime, newborn puppies in Ohio will continue to be mutilated unnecessarily by high-volume breeders whose only purpose in not seeking a veterinarian to do these procedures is to save money. When will welfare outweigh profit?
