HOD stays with policy against cosmetic procedures

By Malinda Osborne

The AVMA policy Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs remains intact after the AVMA House of Delegates disapproved a resolution to change its wording.

At the HOD meeting Friday, approximately 75 percent of members voted against the resolution proposed by the Utah VMA to retract the AVMA's stated opposition to the procedures.

Dr. Roddy C. Sharp, Utah delegate, said the resolution was introduced to bring the issue up for debate before the HOD.

In November 2008, the AVMA Executive Board amended the policy to state that the AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking when done solely for cosmetic purposes. In addition, the amended policy encourages eliminating mention of these procedures from breed standards.

"To me, it's strictly an emotional thing. With today's anesthesia and sutures, it's relatively painless," Dr. Sharp said. "Somehow we think in veterinary medicine we shouldn't do cosmetic surgery because the animal can't choose. I don't know if it's the AVMA's place to tell an owner what to do."

Dr. Gail Golab, director of the AVMA Animal Welfare Division, said the Animal Welfare Committee recommended the Association oppose the procedures on the basis of policy history and scientific questions.

"In 1976, the policy the HOD passed said action should be taken to eliminate ear cropping and tail docking," Dr. Golab said, adding that this was the AVMA's original policy on the issue and that since then, the AVMA has consistently not supported the procedures.

When reviewing the policy this past year, she said the AWC was unable to identify any science-based benefit of the procedures.

"There isn't a lot of peer-reviewed information on these procedures," Dr. Golab said.

The Utah VMA's resolution acknowledged the lack of a therapeutic basis for the procedures but stated it is imperative that ear cropping and tail docking be performed by veterinarians using current standards of care.

Dr. Warner McFarland, Wyoming alternate delegate, echoed this sentiment during the discussion at the HOD meeting.

"If veterinarians aren't allowed to do this procedure, I don't see where it's in their best interest to have lay people doing this. Until it's illegal, it's something veterinarians should be able to do," he said.

Dr. Theodore J. Cohn, District IX Executive Board member and liaison to the AWC, said he spoke with representatives from AVMA PLIT and the Judicial Council about the issue. They told him because these procedures are not unethical or illegal there's no liability to veterinarians who perform ear cropping or tail docking, even under the current policy.

Return to previous page


	146th AVMA Annual Convention Daily News—Sunday, July 12, 2009—Seattle, WA Convention News > News headlines > Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs HOD stays with policy against cosmetic procedures By Malinda Osborne The AVMA policy Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs remains intact after the AVMA House of Delegates disapproved a resolution to change its wording. At the HOD meeting Friday, approximately 75 percent of members voted against the resolution proposed by the Utah VMA to retract the AVMA's stated opposition to the procedures. Dr. Roddy C. Sharp, Utah delegate, said the resolution was introduced to bring the issue up for debate before the HOD. In November 2008, the AVMA Executive Board amended the policy to state that the AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking when done solely for cosmetic purposes. In addition, the amended policy encourages eliminating mention of these procedures from breed standards. "To me, it's strictly an emotional thing. With today's anesthesia and sutures, it's relatively painless," Dr. Sharp said. "Somehow we think in veterinary medicine we shouldn't do cosmetic surgery because the animal can't choose. I don't know if it's the AVMA's place to tell an owner what to do." Dr. Gail Golab, director of the AVMA Animal Welfare Division, said the Animal Welfare Committee recommended the Association oppose the procedures on the basis of policy history and scientific questions. "In 1976, the policy the HOD passed said action should be taken to eliminate ear cropping and tail docking," Dr. Golab said, adding that this was the AVMA's original policy on the issue and that since then, the AVMA has consistently not supported the procedures. When reviewing the policy this past year, she said the AWC was unable to identify any science-based benefit of the procedures. "There isn't a lot of peer-reviewed information on these procedures," Dr. Golab said. The Utah VMA's resolution acknowledged the lack of a therapeutic basis for the procedures but stated it is imperative that ear cropping and tail docking be performed by veterinarians using current standards of care. Dr. Warner McFarland, Wyoming alternate delegate, echoed this sentiment during the discussion at the HOD meeting. "If veterinarians aren't allowed to do this procedure, I don't see where it's in their best interest to have lay people doing this. Until it's illegal, it's something veterinarians should be able to do," he said. Dr. Theodore J. Cohn, District IX Executive Board member and liaison to the AWC, said he spoke with representatives from AVMA PLIT and the Judicial Council about the issue. They told him because these procedures are not unethical or illegal there's no liability to veterinarians who perform ear cropping or tail docking, even under the current policy. Return to previous page