Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons | Kennel Club |Wansborough Report | Mission Statement | Countries Banning ||World News |Home News | Docked Breeds List | Pain | Photos of Docking Mutilations | History of Docking +EFRA submission | People's comments on Docking | Danish Report on Tail Docking | Vet John Bower on Tail Docking |Drug/Food Alerts & Travel | Home | About Us |
Inquiry into the draft Animal Welfare Bill by the House of
Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
August 2004
Executive summary
·
The
Anti-Docking Alliance was formed in 2000 to press for a complete ban on the
non-therapeutic docking of dogs’ tails (paragraph 1).
·
The
ADA welcomes the provisions in the draft bill but the proposal to institute a
ban with exceptions by way of regulation will produce uncertainty and
complexity (paragraphs 2-4).
·
Between
50 and 60 of the 200 breeds of dog eligible for registration by the Kennel Club
have customarily been docked. The
practice continues even though the reasons historically advanced for it have
disappeared for the vast majority of pet and show dogs (paragraphs 5-13 and
Annex A).
·
Tail-docking
causes pain during the docking, and has an adverse impact on dogs’
communication, behaviour and balance (paragraphs 14-17).
·
The
reasons advanced for continuing the practice (namely reduction in injury,
improved hygiene and physical appearance/breed standard) do not stand up to
scrutiny (paragraphs 18-25).
·
Docking
is increasingly banned in other countries (paragraph 26 and Annex B).
·
The
ADA urges the Select Committee to recommend to DEFRA a 5-year moratorium on all
but therapeutic tail-docking with an independent review at the end of that period
and no exceptions (paragraph 27).
The Anti-Docking Alliance (ADA)
1.
The
ADA was formed in 2000 to press for a complete ban on non-therapeutic
tail-docking in dogs. A supplementary
activity is to maintain a list of breeders (occasional and regular) who do not
dock; about 180 are currently listed.
The ADA is run as an unincorporated association by a small committee of
volunteers. There is also an honorary
committee. This includes John Bower
BVSc MRCVS, former president of the British Veterinary Association; Beverley
Cuddy, publisher of Dogs Today magazine; and Trude Mostue BVSc MRCVS,
featured in the BBC’s documentary series Vets in Practice. Even with minimal advertising, the ADA’s
membership stands at over a thousand individuals.
2.
The
draft bill contains a prohibition on mutilation, widely assumed to include the
docking of dogs’ tails. However, DEFRA
has indicated that regulations will contain exceptions to a complete ban, in
particular in relation to “working dogs”, i.e. those used in the course of the
hunting/shooting and retrieval of game.
At present, it appears that exceptions would be made for individual
dogs/litters, not entire breeds.
Presumably any vet undertaking docking in these circumstances would
provide a certificate to the owner, to establish that the docking had been
carried out for reasons falling within the permitted exceptions.
3.
The
ADA welcomes the current proposals to the extent that, even with the proposed
exceptions, they will bring about a very significant reduction in the practice
of tail-docking in the UK. However, the
system currently suggested will be complex to enforce, nor is permitting
docking of all dogs in some breeds an acceptable or necessary alternative. This submission will seek to demonstrate
that these, or indeed any, exceptions to a ban are unnecessary. Instead, the ADA suggests a 5-year
moratorium on all but therapeutic tail-docking with an independent review at
the end of that period. Further
regulations could then introduce exceptions if this was scientifically
demonstrated to be required[1].
4.
For
the avoidance of doubt, “tail-docking” in this submission refers to
non-therapeutic docking. Therapeutic
docking is perfectly acceptable, assuming this would only be done if required
to treat a disease or an injury for which amputation is the best treatment.
5. Many reasons have been given why
the practice of docking the tails of certain breeds of dog grew up, including:
·
rabies
prevention (which the Romans believed);
·
to
enable working dogs to be exempt from a general tax on dogs (repealed 1796);
·
to
stop dogs being able to turn direction quickly, when this made them less
effective in e.g. hunting and herding; and
·
to
prevent injury, particularly in
(a)
guard
dogs whose tails might be grabbed by criminals[2];
(b)
terriers
working underground and vulnerable to attack from badgers and foxes[3];
and
(c)
spaniels
and pointers working as gundogs in exceptionally rough terrain[4].
6.
In
1991, an amendment to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 made it illegal for
anyone other than a veterinary surgeon to dock dogs’ tails (in force July
1993). In November 1992, the Royal
College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) issued guidance to its members to the effect
that members, i.e. vets, should not undertake docking unless it can be shown to
be required for therapeutic or truly prophylactic reasons, stating:
“The RCVS considers docking of dogs’ tails to be an unjustified mutilation and unethical unless done for therapeutic or acceptable prophylactic reasons. Therapeutic docking to treat tail injury or disease is acceptable in the interests of the animal. Prophylactic docking to prevent injury at some unspecified time in the future is not acceptable unless the Veterinary Surgeon has full knowledge of the breed, the strain and the anticipated lifestyle of the dog. At ten days of age rarely could the lifestyle of the dog be predicted with any certainty”.
7. The consequence of combining the amendment and the RCVS ethical guidance should have been to end the docking of virtually all dogs as puppies.
8.
From
July 2001, the breed standards issued by the Kennel Club were changed to make
it clear that customarily docked breeds may be shown with or without a docked
tail[5]. This change was in response to the increasing
number of dogs of customarily docked breeds from countries in Europe where
docking is banned have been entered at British Shows as a result of the
relaxation of quarantine rules[6].
9.
There
are about 200 breeds of dog currently eligible for registration by the Kennel
Club. Of these, between 50 and 60 have
been customarily docked; this continues to be stated in the breed
standard. A list is attached at Annex
A, including a note of the original purpose for which many of these breeds were
produced.
10.
An
examination of these purposes - which might at one time have been thought to
justify tail-docking - indicates that they are no longer relevant to most dogs
bred in the UK; for example, rodent control (Yorkshire Terrier), badger and
otter hunting (Welsh Terrier, Airedale Terrier), and sheep and cattle herding
(Old English Sheepdog, Welsh Corgi); yet the vast majority of dogs from these
breeds continue to be docked. Where the
original purpose might still apply to a small proportion of dogs bred in the
UK, such as some of the gundogs, there is little consistency between which dogs
are docked and which are not, as well as to the length to which the tail is
docked.
11.
Anomalies
include:
·
In
the Gundog Group, German Shorthaired and Wirehaired Pointers are customarily
docked to about half natural tail length, but only the tip is removed from the
tail of the much longer-haired German Longhaired Pointer, and English Pointers
are not docked at all.
·
English
and Welsh Springer Spaniels are docked, but English Setters, of a similar size
and build, are not; nor are Labradors or other Retrievers.
·
Foxhounds
(along with every other member of the Hound Group) are never docked, even
though they might be expected to be working in very rough terrain, out of close
control.
·
In
the Working Group, Boxers, Rottweilers and Dobermanns are customarily docked
but Dogues de Bordeaux, Mastiffs and Beaucerons are not.
·
Among
Terriers, Australian and Fox (both Smooth and Wire) Terriers are traditionally
docked, but Bedlington, Cairn and Manchester Terriers are not.
·
In
the Pastoral Group, Old English Sheepdogs, Australian Shepherd Dogs and Welsh
(Pembroke) Corgis are customarily docked, but Bearded Collies, Rough Collies
and Welsh (Cardigan) Corgis are not.
·
In
the Toy Group, Yorkshire Terriers are customarily docked, but the equally hairy
Maltese is not.
12.
Despite
these changes in use, legislation, ethical guidance and breed standards, the
practice of tail-docking in the breeds listed at Annex A has continued virtually
unchecked, with the assistance of the Council of Docked Breeds (CDB), an
organisation that campaigns for the retention of docking at will and arranges
referrals to vets who will dock despite the RCVS ethical guidance.
13. Most dogs from customarily docked breeds in the UK today are bred either for the show ring or as family pets. However, docking still takes place in the vast majority of litters from these breeds at the instigation of their breeders (since it is carried out at a few days old). It is difficult to see how a whole litter of puppies of certain breeds only are being docked for genuinely prophylactic reasons. There is no reason to suppose that any one of those puppies may have a tail injury later in life for which an appendage needs to be chopped off at such an early age just in case. Therefore, the most likely reason why the practice continues in 2004 is cosmetic preference on the part of breeders. This is not sufficient reason for continuing with a practice that has multiple disadvantages for dogs and no objective justification.
14.
Puppies'
tails are docked at around 2-5 days of age using surgical instruments or a very
tight rubber band. Advocates of tail docking
claim that it does not cause pain or discomfort, as the nervous system of
puppies is not fully developed. This is
not the case. In articles published in
medical and veterinary literature over the last 25 years, there remains no
doubt that neonatal animals, including puppies, are capable of feeling pain. In
fact, due to differences in physiology, they may even experience a greater
degree of pain than an adult subjected to the same procedure.
15.
Docking
a puppy's tail involves cutting through muscles, tendons and up to seven pairs
of highly sensitive nerves, and severing bone and cartilage connections. It is not comparable to circumcision, which
involves the removal of skin only.
Anaesthesia is rarely used.
Puppies give repeated intense shrieking vocalisations the moment the
tail is cut off and during stitching of the wound, indicating that they
experience substantial pain[7].
What effect does tail-docking have on
dog communication and behaviour?
16. Dogs communicating with one another or interacting with people make use primarily of body language, a complex set of signals encompassing everything from the orientation of the dogs’ bodies relative to one another, to the extent to which the eyes are widened. One of the highly visible aspects of canine body language involves the carriage and the movement of the tail. Dogs without tails and those with are likely to find efficient communication difficult, which can affect the way they behave towards one another, e.g. through increased aggression. The tail also contains scent glands which assist with communication.
17. The tail forms an important function as a counter balance when a dog is moving at high speed, turning sharply, balancing on a narrow ledge, jumping or climbing. It is logical to assume, (and has been stated by veterinary professionals dealing with dogs participating in competitive sports), that a dog deprived of this counter balance will find greater difficulty in performing these actions accurately.
18.
The
claim that docking prevents tail damage in hunting/gundogs is the main reason
given by advocates of continued docking and is presumably why DEFRA is
contemplating permitting exceptions by regulation. Yet most docked puppies are kept as family pets and are never
used for hunting (although they may be free when walked to roam in very similar
terrain as that encountered by gundogs).
Furthermore, many breeds of hunting/gundogs do not have docked tails,
and the length of the tail in docked breeds varies according to the breed
standard.
19.
Reliance
is placed on two main sources:
a)
A
small number of photographs/case studies of tail-injured dogs. It is interesting to note that the same 15
or so examples are used throughout the world by advocates of docking, and
appear to originate with the UK CDB.
They include non-UK examples of injury as well as tail injuries in
non-gundog breeds and even in breeds that are not customarily docked,
including one mongrel. This tends to
suggest that the CDB has been unable to find many documented examples of injury
in gundogs, even in those countries which have had a complete ban on docking
for a number of years. The ADA does not
dispute that tail injuries will occur, as do injuries in paws, ears, muzzles,
etc., and endorses genuinely therapeutic tail-docking to address serious injury
or disease. However, the CDB cases show
that tail injuries can occur in any breed, customarily docked or not, working
gundog or not. The logical conclusion
to their approach is that all puppies of all breeds should be
docked soon after birth just in case a later tail injury occurs. Although tails can be difficult to heal,
they are not necessarily more so than chronic injuries in other parts of the
body, such as paws.
b)
A
report into tail injury in undocked German Shorthaired Pointers in Sweden
after the banning of docking in 1988.
This was a survey by the breed society, which opposed a ban. The study was a 2-year study but in the
second year reports were received on only half the original 50 litters
surveyed; these appear to have been self-selecting. Some of the pointers were used for sledding, rather than as
gundogs. The study claimed to show a
high proportion of tail injuries, and 7 of 299 dogs born in 1989 had injuries
serious enough to require amputation[8]. In 1996, the Swedish Board of Agriculture
reviewed the study at the request of the breed society and rejected it as
unscientific; no other study indicating injury is quoted anywhere. However, Norway banned all
tail-docking in 1987, and a Norwegian contributor to the CDB website states,
apparently in 2002: “… I am very much involved with the
spaniel club, and know that it [tail-injury] has not been a big problem”.
20.
One of the
CDB’s case studies is a police sniffer dog which suffered tail injury requiring
amputation. This is used to advance the
argument that Cocker and Springer Spaniels when searching in confined spaces constantly
strike their tail against solid objects, such as walls, causing the end of the
tail to split. However:
·
Some police forces do use undocked spaniels, and numerous
police forces use Border Collies/Labradors alongside spaniels as specialist
firearms/drug/explosive detection dogs which though undocked and presumably
working in identical conditions, do not appear to suffer tail injury;
·
The UK Fire
Service Search & Rescue Dog Teams and others also use undocked dogs such as
Border Collies to work in confined and hazardous environments such as the
earthquake in Iran in January 2004, and the Glasgow factory blast, May 2004.
·
Countries
such as Sweden which have banned docking altogether do not make an exception
for sniffer dogs, yet there are no reports of injuries.
21.
Far
from reducing injury, docking can cause it.
Badly executed docking can require painful corrective surgery or may
even cause the death of a puppy – and allowing exceptions makes it easier for
unauthorised docking to continue unchecked.
In addition, studies indicate that removal of the tail in an immature
puppy may lead to improper development of the rectal and anal muscles, leading
to an increased risk of faecal and urinary incontinence.
22.
It
is claimed that some heavy coated breeds need to have their tails docked for
hygiene reasons, to prevent faecal contamination of the anal region and
fly-strike. However, many undocked
breeds e.g. Afghan Hounds, Maltese, have similarly thick coats and regular care
is all that is necessary to maintain good hygiene, e.g. by clipping the fur
around the anus. There is nothing to
suggest that the presence of a tail increases the problem.
23.
The
final claim made by advocates of continued docking (including the CDB[9])
is that breeders have not been breeding for tail carriage, and that the
different tail carriages which appear are somehow defects requiring docking to
remove them. This is docking for
entirely cosmetic purposes.
24.
Most
dogs bred for showing already end up as pets because they do not meet the
required standard in one way or another.
Tail carriage is only as likely to affect suitability for showing as any
other physical feature. In any event,
variations in tail carriage could be allowed for in breed standards until it
becomes clear which is preferred/is most common.
25.
It
is claimed by those advocating continued docking that “the public” do not want
undocked dogs. ADA members’ experience
is the opposite; those with undocked dogs from customarily docked breeds are
often greeted by dog owners with docked dogs with phrases such as “I wish I’d
been able to find one with a tail”. ADA
listed breeders find good homes for their puppies with tails.
28.
Further
reading on the effects of tail-docking in dogs can be found in:
a)
Cosmetic Tail Docking of
Dogs’ Tails, Robert K Wansbrough BVSc
(Melbourne), Australian Veterinary Journal Vol 74, No. 1,
July 1996; available at: http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_4.htm
b)
A review of the scientific
aspects and veterinary opinions relating to tail-docking in dogs, Animal Welfare Veterinary Division, DEFRA, 16 October
2002, available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/domestic/awbillconsulttaildocking.pdf
29.
The
ADA is very willing to provide further information and to give oral evidence in
support of this submission, should the Committee regard this as helpful, and
particularly if those advocating the continuation of docking are called. Contact details have been provided in
the covering e-mail.
30.
The
ADA’s case is summed up by the personal experience of an ADA member and breeder
from Scotland:
“I
no longer dock and have people queuing up for pups with tails. I used to give people choice if they booked
before pups were born but now nothing is docked and it makes life much less
stressful for pups and us. I could not
bear to hear my pups squealing in pain at the Vet’s and then having this bloody
mess of squealing pups handed back to me.
It is very cruel. Pups with
tails get up on their feet much quicker.
I will never go back to docking….”
Anti-Docking Alliance
http://anti-dockingaliace.co.uk