What is this survey about?

This survey asks questions about proposed animal welfare regulations on significant surgical procedures to do with: equid castration; blistering, firing, mechanical soring and nicking; dentistry (horse and other equids); and Caslick's procedure (horses).

Definition of Equid: any member of the Equidae family, including any horse, pony, donkey, mule, other wild ass, zebra, and any of their hybrids.

For more details on the proposals, see the full Discussion Paper.

Question Title

* 1. Your personal details

Question Title

* 2. Name of organisation (if you are submitting on behalf of an organisation)

Question Title

* 3. What is the best way to describe your role? (you can select more than one role)

Question Title

* 4. Equid castration

Proposal 8 - Castration of any equid can only be performed by a veterinarian. Equids include donkeys, horses, zebras, other wild equids and any of their hybrids. Pain relief must be used.

Do you agree with the proposal?

Question Title

* 5. Will the proposed regulation change the way you or others operate? If so, how?

Question Title

* 6. Will  the proposed regulation increase costs, and if so, why and by how much?

Question Title

* 7. General Questions (equid castration)
Please provide comment on any or all of the following questions:
  • What is the purpose of the procedure and how widespread is it in New Zealand?
  • What does good practice look like? Are there alternatives to the current practice, and what are the implications of their use?
  • Are there any non-regulatory options that would be more effective?
  • Are there any religious or cultural practices that would be impacted by the proposal?

Question Title

* 8. Penalties and offences – see page 33 of the Discussion Paper.
Please provide comment on any or all of the following questions:
  • Are the penalties appropriate to the severity of the offence?
  • Is the right type of offence (regulatory or infringement) proposed?

Question Title

* 9. An alternative approach would be to revoke regulation 54 of the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018. This would bring equid castration in line with the approach to llama and alpaca castration. Do you prefer this alternative? Why/why not?

Question Title

* 10. Horses and other equids – blistering, firing, mechanical soring and nicking

Proposal 22 - It is prohibited to perform blistering, firing, mechanical soring or nicking of a horse. The owner or person in charge of the animal, must not allow blistering, firing, mechanical soring or nicking of a horse.

Definitions
  • Blistering and firing: procedures which involve the application of chemical, or thermal cautery (hot or cold) to the legs of the horse to create tissue damage to, or an inflammatory reaction on, its legs.
  • Mechanical soring: means the application of devices including chains and weighted platforms, to the hooves or legs of a horse, for the purpose of distorting the natural gait of the horse.
  • Nicking: the cutting of the skin or ligaments of the tail of the horse to make it carry its tail in a raised position.
Do you agree with the proposal?

Question Title

* 11. Will the proposed regulation change the way you or others operate? If so, how?

Question Title

* 12. Will the proposed regulation increase costs, and if so, why and by how much?

Question Title

* 13. General Questions (blistering, firing, mechanical, soring and nicking)
Please provide comment on any or all of the following questions:
  • What is the purpose of these procedures and how widespread are they in New Zealand?
  • What does good practice look like? Are there alternatives to the current practice, and what are the implications of their use?
  • Are there any non-regulatory options that would be more effective?
  • Are there any religious or cultural practices that would be impacted by the proposal?

Question Title

* 14. Penalties and offences – see page 55 of the Discussion Document.
Please provide comment on any or all of the following questions:

  • Is the right person being held responsible for complying with the regulation?
  • Are the penalties appropriate to the severity of the offence?
  • Is the right type of offence (regulatory or infringement) proposed?

Question Title

* 15. To what extent might these procedures become re-established if there was no specific prohibition?

Question Title

* 16. Do the definitions capture the intent of the procedures?

Question Title

* 17. Horses and other equids – dentistry (teeth extraction)

Proposal 23 - two options:


Option 1: A competent person may extract a loose deciduous incisor or cheek tooth from an equid.

All other equid tooth extractions are veterinarian-only. Pain relief must be used at the time of the procedure.

The owner or person in charge of the animal has responsibility to ensure that only competent people perform this procedure.


Option 2: A competent person may extract a finger-loose deciduous incisor or cheek tooth in an equid that has obvious visual recession of the gingiva and is protruding above the occlusal surface, but may not use tools or other equipment.

All other equid tooth extractions are veterinarian-only. Pain relief must be used at the time of the procedure.

The owner or person in charge of the animal has responsibility to ensure that only competent people perform this procedure.


Please indicate which option you prefer and why

Question Title

* 18. Will either of the proposed options change the way you or others operate? If so, how?

Question Title

* 19. Will either of the proposed regulations increase costs, and if so, why and by how much?

Question Title

* 20. General Questions (horses and other equids - dentistry)
Please provide comment on any or all of the following questions:
  • What is the purpose of the procedure and how widespread is it in New Zealand?
  • What does good practice look like? Are there alternatives to the current practice, and what are the implications of their use?
  • Are there any non-regulatory options that would be more effective?
  • Are there any religious or cultural practices that would be impacted by the proposal?

Question Title

* 21. Penalties and offences – see page 57 of the Discussion Paper.
Please provide comment on any or all of the following questions:
  • Is the right person being held responsible for complying with the regulation?
  • Are the penalties appropriate to the severity of the offence?
  • Is the right type of offence (regulatory or infringement) proposed?

Question Title

* 22. Do you think non-veterinarians should be able to continue to remove wolf teeth with pain relief being provided to the horse?

Question Title

* 23. What do you think the impact would be if non-veterinarians can no longer remove wolf teeth?

Question Title

* 24. Do you think teeth should only be removed for therapeutic purposes (that is, to respond to injury or disease)?

Question Title

* 25. Do you think that wolf teeth should be able to be removed to address behavioural issues?

Question Title

* 26. Do you have any concerns about accessing the services of a veterinarian or equine dental technician?

Question Title

* 27. Should regulations be made to allow non-veterinarians to extract teeth from species other than equids?

Question Title

* 28. Horses - Caslick’s procedure

Proposal 24 - Surgically closing a mare’s vulva is a veterinarian-only procedure. Pain relief must be used.

Competent non-veterinarians may open this seam for foaling or servicing with pain relief, and where no tissue is removed. The owner or person in charge of the animal has responsibility to ensure that only competent people perform this procedure.


Do you agree with the proposal?

Question Title

* 29. Will the proposed regulation change the way you or others operate? If so, how?

Question Title

* 30. Will the proposed regulation increase costs, and if so, why and by how much?

Question Title

* 31. General Questions (Horses - Caslick's procedure)
Please provide comment on any or all of the following questions:
  • What is the purpose of the procedure for surgically closing a mare's vulva and how widespread is it in New Zealand?
  • What does good practice look like? Are there alternatives to the current practice, and what are the implications of their use?
  • Are there any non-regulatory options that would be more effective?
  • Are there any religious or cultural practices that would be impacted by the proposal?

Question Title

* 32. Penalties and offences – see page 60 of the Discussion Paper.
Please provide comment on any or all of the following questions:
  • Is the right person being held responsible for complying with the regulation?
  • Are the penalties appropriate to the severity of the offence?
  • Is the right type of offence (regulatory or infringement) proposed?

Question Title

* 33. Does the proposal correctly identify which aspects of practice surrounding Caslick’s procedure, if any, may be performed by non-veterinarians?

Question Title

* 34. Should provision be made for a competent non-veterinarian to open a Caslick’s suture to facilitate artificial insemination?

Question Title

* 35. Other comments on horses and equid proposals

Please add any further comments you have on the horses and other equids proposals:

Question Title

* 36. Grounds to withhold information in this submission

Tell us if you think there are grounds to withhold specific information in your submission (such as commercial sensitivity or personal information). However, any decision MPI makes to withhold information can be reviewed by the Ombudsman, who may require the information be released.

0 of 36 answered
 

T