TAIL DOCKING: Why prophylactic tail docking is wrong.

Tail docking

Introduction

The majority of UK vets would like to see tail docking banned except for therapeutic reasons.
(For example: In October 2004, Advocates for Animals published the results of an opinion survey of Scottish vets on how animal welfare legislation should be improved. 78% of respondents said that all tail docking of dogs should be banned except for therapeutic reasons. Most thought that tail docking is unnecessary and that the notion of how certain breeds should look should not dictate the removal of an animal's body part.)

However a minority of UK vets argue that it is acceptable to deliberately injure the tails of a great many puppies in the belief that this will prevent perfectly treatable tail injury occurring in a small minority of these same dogs when adult. It is a strange proposition for caring professionals to support, and should really be seen for what it is, which is an attempt to justify fashion in appearance.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons calls puppy docking an ‘unjustified mutilation’ and considers vets who perform this operation on demand to be acting unethically. Despite this, prophylactic docking continues, and pro-docking vets are active in promoting the activity. Arguments based around the prevention of tail injury are not very convincing. These statements are made by practising vets who are treating skin and ear injuries successfully on a daily basis in their clinics. The same vets are also presumably treating tail injuries in undocked breeds, when such injuries occur, with equally acceptable effectiveness. Yet they continue to dock 1-4 day-old puppies of certain specific breeds by removing the tails without anaesthetic in case some of these tails may possibly get damaged in later life.

Prophylactic docking - an unjustified mutilation

Since puppies obviously have nervous systems, we must assume that some sort of response to injury is present. Recent research supports this, and suggests that the immature nervous system may even be hypersensitive to pain. An assumption of pain being present during injury or surgery is also the cornerstone of good clinical veterinary practice and ensures humane treatment by always giving patients the benefit of the doubt.

Prophylactic docking should therefore be stopped because it is an unnecessary and unjustified mutilation. If tails get injured we should treat them using the effective techniques that are a basic part of every vet’s daily work skills. The basic rule and ethic of medicine, whether animal or human, is: First, do no harm. Docking harms a healthy animal by subjecting it to an unnecessary injury that is unrelated to the treatment of any existing disease.

The Council of Docked Breeds

‘Hygiene problems can be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether by docking.’ Statement from Council of Docked Breeds website.

This statement is used to support the docking of Yorkshire Terriers, Old English Sheepdogs and any other long or thick-coated breed. It is easily disproven by those owners and breeders who refuse to dock their dogs, but who undertake instead to attend to some very basic periodic grooming and coat management in their pets. To suggest tail mutilation as a means of skipping such basic care and management is insupportable and at odds with all concepts of responsible dog ownership.

‘Other non-working breeds which have an enthusiastic tail action, are also liable to damage their tails, even in the home.’ Statement from Council of Docked Breeds website.

Beware happy dogs, seems to be the sad message of this sentence. What an indictment on dog owning society and modern veterinary science, that we can’t cope with dogs that wag their tails a lot! Is it possible to predict how much a puppy of less than 5 days old will wag its tail when an adult? And even if it was, could such a mutilating procedure possibly be justified in the manner that the CDB is suggesting? Choosing appropriate breeds as pets, and removing sharp edges would be a more sensible solution.

Banning docking has also been proposed as a threat to the maintenance of breed standards - the mainly physical/anatomical characteristics which breeders, show judges and others deem desirable in dogs. However breed standards should always be secondary to animal welfare and the avoidance of creating suffering in the individual animal. It is well known that certain breeds are frequently in need of medical or surgical intervention to alleviate distress caused by in-bred characteristics. Such breed related problems include breathing difficulty, painful eye problems and ear disease - to name just a few of the commonest ones. With regard to the banning of prophylactic tail docking, the claim that ‘some breeds could disappear for ever’ is simply scare mongering and should be seen as that within the context of the serious medical and welfare problems already caused by some developed breeds. For this reason, ‘maintenance of breed standards’ sounds a somewhat disingenuous reason.

Arguments such as those mentioned above, even when put forward by members (albeit a minority) of a respected profession, cannot adequately justify tail docking. In a country generally noted for its progressive attitudes towards animal welfare, what do such statements really say about our attention to and respect for the dignity due to companion or working animals?

Sporting dogs - a special case?

Further information on docking