Page 437 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
consequently animals have an advantage in having a tail. Thus tail docking—and we are talking mostly about dogs—which was banned only recently, can cause confusion in dog communication and can lead to dogs misunderstanding other dogs without tails as being unfriendly, when in fact the poor creatures just do not have a tail to raise. I am glad to say that in November 2000 the ACT was the first jurisdiction in Australia to ban tail docking.
Mr Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me what people will do to very young animals and, for that matter, even young persons. Of course, animals are often seen by owners as a reflection of themselves. It was only in the 1980s that a doctor came up with the theory that premature babies feel pain. Until then all surgery around the world on premature babies was performed without anaesthetic. Babies were given only a paralysis drug to prevent movement during surgery. The doctor, looking at the poor survival rate post surgery, realised that immense pain might be a factor. Funnily enough, using anaesthetic has greatly increased the survival rate of premature babies after surgery.
The progress in these practices leads me to question the standard practice of removing without anaesthetic dog tails and dewclaws in the first few days of a puppy’s life. However, it has now been proven—surprise, surprise!—that puppies do suffer pain, not only from the chopping but also during the healing time of the wound. Tail docking was banned in all states and territories by early 2003 unless carried out by a veterinary surgeon for therapeutic and prophylactic reasons. Yet I am not aware of any prosecutions to date. Unfortunately, legislation like this, as shown by the lack of prosecution, is rarely enforced. However, as a crime, tail docking is visible and should be policed to a greater extent.
One of the arguments for tail docking, apart from cosmetic reasons for show competitions, is to prevent dogs from harming their tails later in life. This same argument applies to dewclaw removal. Although claws that stick out and hang badly can lead to nasty accidents, many dogs do just fine with their claws attached their whole life. Australia is yet to make a clear decision on dewclaws. The European Union has banned their removal except for therapeutic reasons.
In places where tail docking is still legal, people argue that as long as it is done when dogs are very young, little pain is felt. However, this is now generally agreed to be a furphy. I suspect that dewclaw removal could be in a similar boat. The argument is that the puppy’s nerve endings have not developed enough to cause pain and that their bone is still soft cartilage. Thus, the amendment in this bill which reduces the days from 10 to four after which a puppy cannot have it dewclaws removed by people who are not vets is a reasonable compromise for the time being. I would like to request that the Animal Welfare Authority look into how much pain is caused to a four-day-old puppy when having its claws removed, and that the minister report back to the Assembly on its findings.
I am pleased to see that the bill contains the following amendments: the owner of the premises as well as the owner of the animals can be prosecuted in respect of animal fighting and baiting—obviously the owner of the premises may stand to receive financial or other gain through allowing those activities to occur; all conditions of licences for research, teaching and breeding must now abide by the directions of an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .