|
Pages: 1
|
 |
|
 Poll
|
| Question: |
Should the ATA require breedings with TS to be done "under the supervision" of a veterinarian?
| Yes, leave regulation as is |
|
   6 (42.9%) |
| No, regulation should be changed |
|
8 (57.1%) |
|
|
| Total Votes: 14 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Opinion AI and the ATA regulations (Read 1288 times)
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
 Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
OK guys, I am test-driving the "poll" feature of the board.
Under current ATA breeding regulations, when you breed using transported semen, the insemination has to be conducted "under the supervision of" a licensed veterinarian. In our experience with various vets, "under the supervision" means that the vet has to do it; in other words, a vet would be loathe to let the mare owner inseminate and sign the certificate as having supervised. The vets we have used don't want to give up the revenue or the responsibility from the insemination. Charee had told me that she had bred her own mare before, with her vet's OK, when he was out of town and the mare needed insemination. I think that is a pretty rare occurence, or at least a pretty rare vet, at least in our experience.
Personally, we have had situations where we missed a mare because the vet was 1) on vacation, or 2) in other appointments and not able to get out to our place. In these circumstances we have had stallion owners give us the OK under their contracts to inseminate the mare ourselves, but registration rules would prohibit doing so without a vet's OK.
Since all foals bred with TS are dna typed along with the sire and dam, it seems this is not an issue of proving parentage. Is the ATA's rule designed to protect the welfare of mares from mareowners bumblings? Is it a holdover from some time when parentage was not verified (I think that verification by dna or blood has always been an ATA requirement with TS, but correct me if I am wrong)? Or is there some other reason?
I would like the ATA to get rid of this requirement for the convenience of breeders in situations when competent licensed veterinary services are not available. Unless there are issues of uterine clearance, etc. or a mare that requires sedation, insemination is not rocket science and the conscientious mare owner should be able to do the deed.
So the question is, assuming that your contract with the stallion owner permits it, should mare-owners be able to inseminate their own mares with TS without veterinary "supervision"?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 27, 2002, 05:53:22 PM by Tannenwald Trakehner »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
fuzzy
Guest
|
Ugh, I screwed up. I voted 'yes', I guess I should have voted 'no'. I think the rule should be expanded to vet assistants and AI techs for the reasons Tannenwald points out so you have more options on people to work with. But there should be some professional invovement because if a dope like me who knows nothing much about AI were allowed to do my own, I would likely screw it up and be a real nuisance to the stallion owner needing repeated doses when a vet, assistant or tech might have gotten the job right the first time. If you are the breeder AND an AI tech you should not have to have other involvment since the parentage has to be verified anyhow. I think they're worried about deliberate fraud but a vet's involvment can't help the mare owner is the stallion owners OOOPS sends the wrong semen.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
Mary, I understand your point about wasting the stallion owner's time, and that is specifically why I mentioned non-veterinary breeding when it is OK under the contract with the stallion owner. I know there have been times when doing repeat breedings and being foiled because the vet had an emergency call that my stallion owners would have been fine with me doing the insemination, rather than all of us having wasted our time.
For those of you voting "yes," wanting to keep it the way it is, can you elaborate on why?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
Wow, you guys are gonna laugh! 
At least we have established that the polling feature on the board works...
Alert and loyal member Heather (Sovereign Farm) pointed out that we are debating a moot point. Apparently, the ATA has dropped the requirement that a vet perform inseminations. Heather knew this because she got a letter stating the fact in April of this year, along with new breeding certificates which do not reflect a requirement of veterinary-supervised inseminations. At my request Heather dug through paperwork and came up with the following:
The amendment was voted on last year at the 2001 ATA meeting. It was the 6th Amendment. The sections to be deleted read as follows "Insemination of the mare must take place under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian"... there is also more language about renumbering paragraphs or something. Anyway... then in the next newsletter Jan/Feb 2002 it says very briefly that "the proposed amendments to the ATA Corporate Regulations were discussed and passed except for the change relating to Youth Members."
In formulating the poll, I checked the regs on the ATA site (assuming that would be the most up-to-date full copy available) and saw that the veterinary requirement is still listed in Part II, Article XI, §§3-5. I assume that the regs must have been updated, so hope the ATA can do a bit better in keeping the online version of the regs up to date. After all, this change apparently took place over a year ago and has been in effect for the last breeding season!
So, at least we know polls work, and those of us who voted to change won, sort of!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 29, 2002, 12:05:54 PM by Tannenwald Trakehner »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DK
FEI
Offline
Posts: 138
Kammerland Trakehners
|
*grin* and here I was about to get all hot under the collar! 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
QUICK--let's think of something else to debate!
Incidentally, while perusing the Breeding regulations, I saw a requirement that all fillies and colts must be separated by 11 months! What the heck is THAT doing there? You mean because I have a 12 month old colt in with a filly I could be subject to disciplinary action from the ATA? This seems almost like one of those laws that says you can't keep an ostrich in a coat closet....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sherry
ata
FEI
Offline
Posts: 223
I love Trakehners!
|
Well, the joke's on me as well--I voted to leave the regulations alone--meaning that any competent person should be able to do it--too funny
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1
|
|
|
|
 |
