A SIGNIFICANT DECISION
A Senior Public Prosecutor declined to prosecute a tail docking charge. The reasons in brief:
- There is no evidence that docking is illegal and it would be very difficult to prove.
- There is no evidence that the puppies suffered any ill effects.
- Banding of tails are described as 'uncomfortable and distressing', a description that can also be applied to the first use of any kind of choke chain.
- The SPCA officer signed a document admitting that the puppies he seized were in excellent health and condition.
- There does not appear to be any evidence of cruelty as envisaged by the Animal Protection Act.
It is very sad to note the behaviour of the SPCA officer in this case. It is doubtful that he really had the welfare of the dogs at heart.
- Healthy, well cared for puppies were removed from their home and Dam and placed in a kennel between rescued dogs. This potentially exposed them to transmittable diseases at a very young age, not to mention the stress of being taken from their Dam and warm interior housing and placed adjacent to potentially aggressive and strange dogs.
- They were moved loose in a van with nothing to contain them, no floor cover, no box, no crate, the windows were broken so it was cold. Did he care at all that they would be flung around on the drive and could have been seriously injured as a result?
- His behaviour towards the breeder was extremely threatening.
- He was not truthful in his application for a court order to seize the puppies.
It would appear that the only cruelty towards the puppies in question was by the SPCA.
The officer's behaviour was unacceptable for anyone acting in an official capacity.
Another issue is the behaviour of some veterinarians.
It is really sad to hear that a veterinarian refused to treat dogs 'because tails were docked'. Why the refusal to treat animals allegedly mistreated? One would have thought that a vet has more of an ethical obligation to treat an animal they feel was mistreated than any other? It is rather obvious that the vet in question did not really feel the dogs needed treatment/were mistreated and the refusal to treat them was no more than a misguided attempt to punish the breeder!
See the attached description of the experience of the breeder.
Opinion:
The Animal Protection Act was not designed or intended for use in any case of tail docking but has been deliberately miss- applied by the SPCA for their own ends.
If the SPCA wishes to continue to campaign against tail docking, they must endeavour to change the law, not twist current laws to suit their purpose. This would mean a proper period of consultation with all interested parties before enactment through the proper democratic channels. They cannot be allowed to continually threaten and harass decent, caring breeders and make threats to their person, their animals or their practices.
Any person subjected to this harassment is quite within their rights to take legal action against the SPCA and any individual representing the SPCA for harassment.
