Updated: October 07, 2018
South Africa presents another case in which attempts to enact outright bans on d/c/dc have proven highly problematic, In this case, enforcement of ill-lunderstood regulations has led to confusion and legal grey areas.
The South African Veterinary Council (SAWC) has, since 2008, deemed tail docking to be against the law. In doing so , none of the legislative requirements to enforce such a declaration have been followed. The following excerpt for South African legal opinion synthesizes the point:
As it stands, there is not notification of the resolution. which has been taken by the SAVC. There is no notification in the Government Gazette nor is there MIisterial approval as required byu the Veterinary and Para Veterinary Professions act 19 of 1982.
Rules as contained in Section(30) of the Veterinary and Para Veterinary Professions Ac tNo. 19 or 1982 make provision for the Council (SAVC) to make certain rules. Section 30(1) (g) authorises the Council to make rules on any matter which the council deems necessary of expedient for the promotion of its objects or for the exercise of its powers or for the performance of its functions.
The SAVC has resolved to ban tail docking on ethical considerations. This ban would accordingly be a rule., which falls within the council's power in terms of Section 30 (1) (g). In terms of Section 30(2), the rule created under Section 30(1) (g) would primarily be for vets who deal with domestic pets. Section 30 (3) , which states that no rule made in terms of Subsection (1) or any amendment or withdrawal there of shall be of force and effect until approved by the Minister and published in the Gazette by the Registrar. Because the rule has not been published in the government Gazette or been given Ministerial approval., (through search of the Government website re: Government Gazettes and telephone call to Ms Singh of the SAVC it has no effect, the law has not been change. (Legal opinion: Attorneys Mason Inc,
Pietermaritzbery - Mr Petrus Coetzee)