Ear cropping. Veterinary profession finally speaks out.

Veterinary profession finally speaks out on ear cropping and banning import of ear cropped dogs.

It has taken sixteen years for the veterinary profession to make a stand over ear cropping.

The UK Veterinary Animal Welfare Coalition announced recently that they are supporting the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and leading animal charities to close all the legal loopholes in the law that allow ear cropped dogs to be imported into the country thus circumventing the ban on ear cropping in the UK.

The loopholes are threefold. It is not illegal to sell, import or take a dog abroad to have their ears cropped which has been the ludicrous situation since the Animal Welfare Act 2004 came into being. The BVA wants UK vets to report any incidents of ear cropping that turn up at their surgeries which should have been happening anyway.

The veterinary profession are only taking more interest because of all the campaigning by animal charities and the present level of public opinion has given them the confidence to do so. They have had sixteen years to point out the shortcomings of the law regarding ear cropping and take a lead on the issue but have kept in the background.

Dog with cropped ears

Vets need to speak out about animal welfare problems.

The veterinary profession themselves have pointed out that they should not sit on the fence over welfare issues or wait until public opinion reaches a point which forces them to live up to their supposed animal welfare credentials. But they continue not to heed their own advice. To quote the BVA Animal Welfare Strategy of 2016:

“If we do not speak out about systemic animal welfare problems or if we only do so reactively once a critical mass of favourable public opinion has been achieved, then this can lead to accusations of weak morality and, worse, complicity in animal welfare problems. There are risks if veterinary professionals are not seen to be advocates for animal interests when the rest of society is increasingly willing to be”.

The moral and ethical conundrum of certain procedures carried out by vets have dogged the profession for decades. A US study way back in 1989 (Herzog) questioned veterinary students on various moral, ethical and welfare issues which they had encountered during training which they felt worried or stressed about and amongst the most prominent were ear cropping, tail docking, de-flighting birds and declawing cats.

There is yet another petition.

It is difficult to gauge how concerned the public are. There was an online petition last year aimed at stopping the import of cropped dogs but this failed to get half of the 100,000 signatures required. There is now a new petition with BVA backing which seems to be faring better which runs until the 24 August 2021. Paradoxically there is also a competing petition to re-legalise cropping to benefit all the dogs that are presently unprofessionally cropped and save them suffering. Sensibly it has not attracted much support so far.

Although everyone is fixated on ear cropping at the moment, tail docking appears to also be on the increase and must have been spotted by UK vets so perhaps they could take a lead on this issue as well?

Vets and Exotic Pets

The British Veterinary Association (BVA), The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE)  and even the British Veterinary Zoological Society (BVZS) plus most other governing veterinary organisations worldwide have stated they are concerned about this burgeoning trade. They believe that ownership is a threat to native species, is a cause of population and habitat decline and that owners may not be able to care for them compromising their health and welfare. The animals can be a risk to human health as well as a danger to the public if they escape. Wild caught animals and birds are caused stress during capture, are poorly acclimatisation and suffer high mortality during transport and holding. So how come the trade and hobby continues?

NTCA’s – the veterinary professions’ acronym for exotic pets.

Vets have come up with the novel acronym of NTCA’s or ‘non-traditional companion animals’ to describe exotic pets which not only gives the impression that they can be described as suitable companion animals, but also gives their sanction to keep them.

There are some species whose five welfare needs are so specialised they could rarely or never be met in a domestic environment. Other species should only be kept under licence or for defined and authorised conservation purposes.” We support the keeping of species as companion animals for which there is reasonable expectation based on published evidence and professional experience, that their five welfare needs can be met by suitably informed people. However, some NCTAs, such as reptiles, have exacting husbandry requirements, e.g. for humidity, lighting, nutrition and temperature, others such as birds have complex social, cognitive and nutritional needs, all of which must be fully researched and understood before acquisition’.

BVA Policy on exotic pets December 2015
Wild caught African Grey parrots being shipped in overcrowded containers destined for pet trade.
Veterinary profession does little to stem the trade.

Despite the fact that there is plentiful scientific evidence of the unsuitability of most exotic animals as pets and that the veterinary profession accepts that there is a need for some control, they appear to do little to stop it and are actively embracing this lucrative pet owning trend. It is particularly surprising as the profession prefers to look upon itself as a scientific body but in the case of exotic pets they choose not act on the evidence. They do not support any kind of ban choosing instead to suggest compiling lists of ‘suitability’ as well yet more research when all the evidence has been sitting there for years

The keeping exotic animals and their suitability has been a contentious subject for decades, but there has been little initiative to curtail it. Our desire to own something unusual results in the suffering and deaths of millions of animals worldwide, even before they get into the hands of inept owners. ‘Specialist exotic pet veterinarians’ have been quoted as stating that most of the illnesses, deaths and injuries they deal with are caused by the owners lack of understanding of the needs of the animals. These include inadequate diet, either too high or low heating and humidity, dehydration, lack of sufficient live food, poor handling and many other factors.

I have witnessed this first hand having been an animal health inspector at Heathrow Airport during the high point of the wild bird trade in the 1970’s and been part of a campaign to ban it. I watched birds and other animals being transported round the world destined for the pet trade dying in front of me in their hundreds. The trade in wild caught birds is thankfully over in Europe and America, but has been replaced by the reptile trade which is just as bad.

wild bird trade, cruelty to birds, pet bird trade, caged birds, exotic pets
Cages full of wild caught birds in Indonesia destined to spend their short lives in tiny cages. Photo: John Brookland/animalrightsandwrong.suk

Vets cash in on treating exotic pets.

Veterinarians have been quick to embrace the situation and provide for this lucrative pet owing trend by opening specialist referral exotic pet hospitals. These are staffed by veterinary surgeons who have seen the opening in the market and obtained a certificate qualifying them to treat exotic animals and even an extra three year course to be able to call themselves specialists. Many vets are taking this pathway because the numbers being kept and requiring treatment are constantly rising and there is a great demand for their services.

Treating exotic pets doesn’t come cheap and although it is laudable for vets to step in and alleviate the suffering, treating exotic pets doesn’t come cheap and it could be argued that many animals are left to die or are abandoned because owners cannot afford the fees. Of course the insurance companies want a part of the action and were quick to provide policies. None of this though is of help in the long-term as it only encourages the trade to continue.

There is no legitimate reason for these animals to be kept captive in a home environment and there is more than adequate scientific evidence available to warrant the banning of their ownership, particularly in the case of reptiles.  The potential for suffering and neglect is extreme and the numbers dying or being discarded is immense.

Why is it then that authorities worldwide are so slow at making any attempt to ban or restrict trade in them? Could it be anything to do with the fact that the trade composes a large part of the huge money-making pet industry which has a powerful lobby behind it to defend its continuance and because governments earn a lot of tax dollars and pounds because of it. What is needed is action rather than more research and compiling lists. Why can’t we stick to owning genuine companion animals – we have enough problems regulating them.