Memorandum submitted by Joseph Holmes
MRCVS
I wish to make this written submission to your
Committee regarding the proposed Government legislation to either
restrict or completely ban tail-docking in dogs.
MY BACKGROUND
AND QUALIFICATIONS
I have been a practising veterinary surgeon
for almost 30 years, having had small animal clinical experience
throughout the UK, South Africa and Australia. I have been docking
dogs for all of my professional life and I feel that, by virtue
of my qualification and long experience, I am better placed than
most to submit usefully to your deliberations. I consider myself,
above all else, to be clinically competent in the docking operation
and practical in my approach to the debate.
MY VIEW
ON TAILDOCKING
I strongly believe that tail-docking is essential
in many working breeds to prevent tail tip injury in thick undergrowth.
I further believe that it is entirely justified as a cosmetic
operation to maintain traditional breed standards. I consider
that the operation must continue to be carried out by those veterinary
surgeons who are both competent in the technique and willing to
perform it. Having docked hundreds of pups over the years, I can
confirm that the operation lasts little more than a few seconds
and that there are no short or long-term adverse effects on either
the anatomy or quality of life of the docked patient.
Much more than the above, I firmly believe in
an individual veterinary surgeon's right to make clinical decisions
for his patients without external interference by those who have
either no experience of the operation and/or simply oppose it
on emotional grounds.
MY RESPONSE
TO ANTI-DOCKING
ARGUMENTS:
(a) "Docking dog tails is immoral or
unethical: Such arguments did not prevent Parliament legalising
human abortion on demand in 1967. The legislation was introduced
on practical grounds, despite strong moral opposition to it that
continues to this day. Patently, legislators can and do act without
"moral" constraints, real or imaginary, provided the
law makes good, practical sense. There is no good or practical
reason to ban tail-docking by vets.
(b) "Docking causes unnecessary pain":
Any alleged pain is both transient and with no long-term recall
in the patient. One of your committee and my local MP, Mr. Austin
Mitchell, actually took the trouble to visit my clinic and witness
the immediate prelude and aftermath to the operation, lasting
all of 10 seconds. He will vouch that the puppy fell asleep again
immediately after the operation without any signs of distress
whatsoever.
(c) "Docking is an unnecessary mutilation":
Is there such a thing as a necessary mutilation? In any event,
the Collins Dictionary defines "mutilation" as "the
removal of a limb or essential part". A dog's tail is neither,
so "mutilation" is totally inappropriate when applied
to docking. Those who use it seek only to inflame emotional opposition
against the procedure.
(d) "A dog needs his tail to communicate".
Wild and domesticated dogs communicate primarily by scent and
then by vocalisation. Docked dogs do not become canine social
outcasts through poor communication skills! There are naturally
docked breeds, such as the French Bulldog and Boston Terrier.
Such breeds suffer no resultant social or practical disadvantage,
yet anti-docking campaigners do not seek to ban their breeding.
(e) "Docking is a cosmetic operation
with no therapeutic use": Yes, but since when is it wrong
to change dogs for cosmetic reasons? Most modern dog-breeding,
on show at Crufts, is a tribute to generations of genetic manipulation
of the dog for cosmetic reasons. While it remains acceptable to
alter a dog genetically for cosmetic reasons, it cannot be wrong
to change it by operation a few days after birth?
(f) "The majority of the British public
oppose docking". If this were the case, the majority of docked
puppies would be unsellable—in fact and on the contrary,
undocked puppies of traditionally docked breeds are shunned by
the market as a whole and docked alternatives are actively sought.
(g) "The Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons and the majority of vets oppose docking". The College
has NEVER sought my opinion on docking, neither have I EVER been
asked to vote on the issue. The "majority" is made up
nominally by a large number of "politically correct"
vets with less than five years experience in the profession and
absolutely no experience of docking. This group combines with
an even larger sector, the "silent majority" which cannot
be bothered to have a committed opinion either way.
(h) "The RSPCA opposes docking".
The RSPCA opposes just about everything. This self-appointed organisation
has simply poached Royal patronage and become swollen with self-importance.
It remains a fact that the RSPCA can never bring a successful
"cruelty" case to trial without expert veterinary opinion
to support it. I disagree with the RSPCA position on docking and
as a vet, my opinion would defeat it in court.
(i) "Docking is a breach of animal rights".
There is no bigger right than the right to life. While millions
of animals are slaughtered for food every year, the right to a
tail seems pretty feeble. Patently, human and animal rights are
not the same.
CONCLUSION
I would ask the Committee to form a simple view
that would satisfy all vets and owners, (pro and anti-docking),
of traditionally docked breeds. Those who are opposed to docking
should have the unfettered right to refuse to do it or have it
done and vice versa. In due course and if public opinion is so
against docking, demand for docking will naturally decrease in
preference to undocked alternatives. I would particularly ask
the Committee to respect my experience and expertise and support
my right to my pro-docking opinion. It should allow me and my
fellow docking vets to make our own clinical decisions for our
patients as we see fit.
27 July 2004
|
