Memorandum submitted by the Council of
Docked Breeds (CDB)
1. We note the Government's intention (annex
G) to ban or restrict the docking of dogs' tails for prophylactic
purposes. We wish to place on record our total opposition to this
proposed course of action, and draw to your attention the overwhelming
number of responses submitted during your consultation process
by dog breeders and breed societies who reject a ban on tail docking.
We point out the lack of any conclusive scientific evidence of
pain in altricial neonate puppies as currently docked by veterinary
surgeons, and we highlight the clear difference of opinion which
exists within the veterinary profession regarding the procedure,
referring in particular to the submission made by the group "Vets
for Docking".
2. We note that under S1 (5) an Order may
be made creating exemptions from the offences indicated at S1
(4) (mutilating a protected animal or causing or permitting such
mutilation), and note the indication given at RIA paragraph 17
that such an Order might be made in relation to working dogs.
3. Clearly we would welcome any exemptions
provided by such an Order. However, if docking does not compromise
the welfare of working dogs, then we do not see that an identical
procedure performed on a non-working dog, for example to prevent
future hygiene problems, compromises the welfare of that dog either.
Either docking compromises welfare or it does not: if the former
then no exceptions should be made, and if the latter, then regulated
docking should continue to be permitted. Our submission is that
not only does docking not compromise a dog's welfare, but that
it adds to a dog's future welfare by preventing tail injury, damage
or disease.
4. We note (RIA 18) that farming and commercial
groups did not support a ban on docking of sheep and pigs. If
the Government intends to respect the views of these professional
groups, we wonder why it intends to disregard the views of professional
dog breeders.
5. We note that it is the Government's view
that the sporting shooting lobby would be likely to support a
ban on docking for cosmetic reasons. We are familiar with the
views of the sporting shooting lobby and we do not see anything
that suggests the likelihood of any such support.
6. In our view, the likelihood is that a
ban on the docking of non-working dogs will result in a substantial
number of breeders ceasing to breed dogs of the customarily docked
breeds. Registrations of docked breeds will fall, and there will
also be a very considerable loss from the dog world of the huge
experience built up by experienced breeders over many decades.
It is our view that, in consequence, the breeds themselves will
suffer.
7. We therefore urge that the Government
to reconsider its position on the docking of dogs' tails and introduce
instead an exemption under S1 (5) allowing the docking of the
tail of a puppy, provided:
(i) the puppy is of an age at which its eyes
are not yet open;
(ii) the procedure is undertaken by a registered
veterinary surgeon who has care of the litter or registered lay
people; and
(iii) the veterinary surgeon has reason to
believe that to dock the puppy is in the best interests of its
future welfare.
8. We welcome the Government's view (RIA
21) that the resolution on harmful characteristics within the
Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals
is flawed and that it needs to be overhauled before it could become
a basis for legislation.
9. We have great concern over the powers
of Inspectors appointed under S44, which are in most cases equal
to those of a constable. The role of the police in enforcing legislation
is well understood and accepted by the public, and moreover constables
have to operate within the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act. However, Inspectors (who we surmise would by and large by
those employed by the RSPCA or other private charities) that are
not bound by the same constraints as the police and who are employed
by non-statutory bodies which had broader objectives, including
those related to political campaigning, publicity and fund raising
are, we believe, granted excessive powers by the present Bill.
The Bill runs the risk of being seen to create an unaccountable
"Animal Police".
10. We note that at Sections 11, 13, 14,
39, and 40 the powers of Inspectors are equal to those of a constable.
We believe that especially in relation to search and entry onto
premises and the taking into their possession of animals, Inspectors
should not have the power to act independently and should be accompanied
in each case by a constable.
11. Conversely, we note that under S47 (Power
to stop and detain vehicles) an Inspector must be accompanied
by a constable in uniform. The Government does not satisfactorily
explain the distinction between the powers of Inspectors in relation
to vehicles as against their powers in relation to private property.
We believe that the constraints at S47 (Inspector must be accompanied
by constable) are also appropriate to the main body of the Bill.
In summary, the Council of Docked Breeds:
— Registers its total opposition to
a ban on the docking of dogs' tails and does not believe sufficient
case has been made for such a ban.
— Points out that that the Government's
acceptance of the case for exceptions underlines the weakness
of its case for a ban in the first instance.
— Points out the inconsistency of allowing
exceptions to a ban on docking in the case of farm animals whilst
imposing a ban on the docking of dogs which again underlines the
weakness of its case for a ban.
— Questions the validity of the Government's
claim that the sporting shooting organisations would welcome a
ban on "cosmetic" docking.
— Points out the adverse consequences
to the customarily docked breeds of a docking ban.
— Urges an alternative regulation of
docking which allows it to be permitted provided that it is carried
out by veterinary surgeons or registered lay people who have reason
to believe that they are acting in the best future welfare interests
of the dog.
— Welcomes the Government's view that
the resolution on harmful characteristics within the Council of
Europe Convention on the Protection of Pet Animals is flawed and
that it is not presently a suitable basis for legislation.
— Expresses strong concern about the
powers of Inspectors appointed under S44.
26 August 2004
| 
