House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Anti-Docking Alliance

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) [Not printed].

— 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) [Not printed].

— The ADA urges the Select Committee to recommend to Defra a five-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.

CONTEXT

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", ie 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 five-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.[9]

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.

TAIL-DOCKING IN DOGS: HISTORY AND EXTENT

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 eg hunting and herding; and

— to prevent injury, particularly in:

(a) guard dogs whose tails might be grabbed by criminals;[10]

(b) terriers working underground and vulnerable to attack from badgers and foxes;[11] and

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, ie 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 10 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.[13] 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.[14]

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 [Not printed], 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.

THE POSITION TODAY

12. Despite these changes in use, legislation, ethical guidance and breed standards, the practice of tail-docking in the breeds listed at Annex A [Not printed] 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.

Does tail-docking cause pain when it is carried out in puppies of a few days old?

14. Puppies' tails are docked at around two to five 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.[15]

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, eg through increased aggression. The tail also contains scent glands which assist with communication.

How does the absence of a full tail affect balance?

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.

Is there an increased propensity to injury in undocked dogs?

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.

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.

Is hygiene affected by the presence of a tail?

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 eg Afghan Hounds, Maltese, have similarly thick coats and regular care is all that is necessary to maintain good hygiene, eg by clipping the fur around the anus. There is nothing to suggest that the presence of a tail increases the problem.

The aesthetic argument for docking

23. The final claim made by advocates of continued docking (including the CDB)[17] 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.

International experience

26. There are 15 countries around the world who have already instituted a complete ban on docking. A list is attached at Annex B [Not printed].

27. The ADA urges the Select Committee to recommend to Defra that the UK follows the example of these other countries by banning tail-docking completely, initially by bringing in a five-year moratorium on all but therapeutic tail-docking with an independent review at the end of that period; in other words, to state that in the Committee's view, any exceptions by way of regulation are unnecessary.

Further information

28. Further reading on the effects of tail-docking in dogs can be found in:

Cosmetic Tail Docking of Dogs' Tails,

A review of the scientific aspects and veterinary opinions relating to tail-docking in dogs,

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 . . ."

23 August 2004