Memorandum submitted by Dr Peter Shaw
Animal rights activists hold the view that animals
have intrinsic rights and that Mankind should have no precedence
over these. Others disapprove of any operation which could be
considered cruel. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS)
allows the mutilations listed below, but is opposed to the docking
of dogs tails.
Some of these views conflict with practicality.
Farmers and others argue that it would not be economic to forego
certain mutilations such as the castration of bullocks, rams etc
or the removal of sheeps' tails. While such operations could be
made relatively painless by use of anaesthetics this is not done
presumably for economic reasons. So, what advantages do such procedures
have? Castration makes animals more easily handled, and saves
the hassle and cost of keeping entire males separate from the
females. Animals' "right" to procreate is thus denied.
Fowling of sheeps' tails and the danger of being fly-blown could
be minimized by constant dipping but it is more practical and
economical to dock tails. The animals' "rights" are
therefore denied partly for their own good but also because this
is a price they pay for the security and husbandry given by their
owners.
Colts lose their "right" to procreate
when castrated and the owner gains the ability to handle a gelding:
to do the same with a stallion calls for much greater skill and
strength. What would be the alternative? Presumably most colt
foals would have to be put down.
How do animal rightists judge the intrinsic
right of animals? Presumably they empathise and contemplate a
situation as they think an animal might see it. In the case of
the colt the owner offers him life as a gelding or death. Surely
most men, faced with such a choice would opt for life? A horse
might find the choice easier because it would be made before sexual
awakening.
However these mutilations are regarded, they
are done primarily because they enable the animals to live happily
under the conditions which their owners provide, and could be
regarded as a price they pay for these. Equally they are for Mankind's
convenience and best regarded for the mutual benefit of man and
beast.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
DOCKING OF
DOGS
The RCVS has been the chief protagonist of these.
Primarily it believes that docking is done for cosmetic reasons.
This stems from pronouncements dating as far back as 1854 when
a vet (William Youatt) said that it was done `because the tail
of the dog does not suit the fancy of the owner'. The view was
expressed at a time when most dogs were kept in kennels and therefore
could not reflect the present situation when dogs generally live
in the same house as their owners.
Other reasons for keeping tails have been listed
as "for balance" (Veterinary Record 3 October 1992)
and their use as "a rudder" (quoted in the RCVS Advisory
Committee Report to Council 1995). Both these are nonsensical.
For a tail to act as rudder (in air) a dog would have to move
as quickly as an aeroplane; presumably it would be useful in a
denser medium such as water, but for most dogs this would be on
rare occasions. The mass of a tail is relatively small in comparison
with that of the body and movement of the tail could only produce
a small balancing effect, possibly useful on a tight-rope! The
1992 article also mentions the importance of tail-wagging in stimulating
anal glands and in registering friendly feelings to humans and
other dogs; it concedes that even docked dogs fulfill these functions
by wagging their stumps.
Surprisingly there appears to be no mention
of tails' greatest use viz, when clamped by bitches to discourage
randy dogs, and in dogs to protect their genitalia in fights (hence
the saying that a beaten dog retires with `its tail between its
legs'). Under proper domestic supervision neither of these uses
should be necessary.
ARGUMENTS FOR
DOCKING
It appears that a dog is not deprived of any
vital need when it loses its tail and it is logical to decide
whether or not docking should be retained by consideration of
the practicalities of dog owning. Then, the same principles governing
mutilation of other animals can be applied.
The following list of reasons for docking were
obtained by asking spectators of different docked breeds at Dog
Shows. Many felt that tails were a liability in small houses or
flats, but wanted dogs for companionship and safety and were passionate
about the necessity of docking.
1. Tail Damage. This has been extensively
dealt with by the Council for Docked Breeds (CDB), especially
for dogs injured in field-work. Dogs not used for out-door activity
damage their tails in domestic domain, largely by wagging against
hard corners of walls or furniture or being caught in car doors
etc.
However, the CDB pays little attention to the
domestic consequences. A damaged wagging tail can produce havoc
by throwing blood about through centrifugal action and it is difficult
to bandage. In general a dog will bite at a damaged tail, especially
if bandaged, so that treatment also involves the use of large
conical head collars or muzzles to prevent this. Dogs are distressed
when wearing these. In the worst cases tail amputation is necessary,
and dogs then need to wear collars for up to six weeks during
which the owner has to stay with dogs when they are fed (with
muzzle or collar off). The cost of such an accident can run into
several hundreds of pounds.
Using empathetic argument, a dog which has undergone
such treatment could well wish that, as a puppy, it had been docked!
The short interval of pain at that time would more than compensate
for the weeks of distress and pain caused by tail damage and amputation.
(2) Hygiene. The CDB discusses this in terms
of the ill effects upon the dog. However a more worrying aspect
is the distribution of dirt, including faecal matter, in the home.
This can be quite extensive, particularly if the tail is wet when
wagged. Areas over a greater range than those exposed by general
shaking can be contaminated. These are often outside the range
of normal household cleaning but accessible to small children
whose health may be at risk.
(3) Safety. Many tape recorders and electric
sockets are set at low level. They are not generally water proof
and water from a wet tail could start a fire or promote electric
shock if touched. The danger of wet sockets is reflected in Building
Regulations which ban them from bathrooms, and also under Health
and Safety Regulations which ordain that sockets must be placed
so as to avoid being wetted. A wet socket is potentially lethal
to small children.
Many dog-owners feel strongly about this. Weight
to their feelings can be given by a simple actuarial argument.
A risk is determined by the product of (the probability of an
event) multiplied by (the cost of the damage caused). In this
case the probability is very small, but the value that a parent
places on a child's life is very large, and, in emotional terms,
infinite. The product is then infinite too. This quasi-actuarial
argument is very coarse, but it puts the risk in proper perspective.
It would be ludicrous to ignore it.
Well-disciplined dogs can be trained not to
jump up or knock into people, but they cannot be taught to stop
tail-wagging. This can knock over small children and under some
circumstances (eg, at the top of a staircase or near an electric
fire) could have serious consequence.
CONCLUSION
There seems to be no a priori reason
for not docking dogs. Such operation would be done on puppies
under more scrutiny than the docking of lambs' tails; while both
offer some benefit to the animals, both contribute to the ease
with which they fit under the aegis of human care. This argument
is generally accepted when applied to other mutilations practiced
on dogs such as spaying and castration, and it is inconsistent
to except docking.
To allow the docking of lambs' tails while banning
that for dogs would show blatant discrimination.
A ban would deprive dogs owners of the choice
between an undocked or a docked breed; without the first, many
would forego ownership entirely, leaving them without the companionship
and safety which dogs confer.
GENERAL COMMENTS
ON THE
DRAFT BILL
Summary
The Bill is amorphous in many respects. For
example, while it considers in detail various aspects of inspection,
it merely lists (Clause 6) the scope of its application and many
will be disappointed that regulations to promote welfare are not
detailed. For example, many hoped that the Bill would specify
regulations to improve the lot of animals in transport (particularly
that of horses to France).
The principles to be applied in defining acceptable
boundaries in the relationship between man and animal are inadequately
covered.
(A) While it may be general practice in drawing
up a Bill, it is surely illogical not to define terms used in
(say) clause 1 until clauses 53 and 54. Earlier definition would
make for more coherent reading.
(B) It is unfortunate to use "Cruelty"
as the heading of clause 1. It gives the impression that all the
operations etc under this article are cruel, whereas many are
legitimate providing that the caveats are observed.
The term may not be appropriate to suffering
caused (say) by negligence. Cruelty implies a deliberate pleasure
derived from suffering. A less emotive heading (Suffering?) would
be better and less likely to be used by animal rights groups as
a means of raising emotional temperatures.
(C) Clause 1 is not consistent in its balance
between various sub-sections. For example it gives instances where
suffering may be legitimate (l,(3),(c)) and it is surely important
for the bill to outline principles which can be applied in deciding
the acceptability of mutilations? To have an Animal Welfare Bill
without defining the limits of Animal Welfare is ludicrous!
Taken together Clause 1, (4) and (5) signify
nothing! Surely those mutilations conferring mutual advantage
to animal and Man could be listed? l,(4) appears to be a sop to
animal rightists and it is important that somewhere the Bill discusses
the needs of the carer or owner of animals.
I have suggested criteria for the acceptability
of some mutilations in the enclosed note about tail-docking of
dogs, but the Bill should surely invoke the principles involved
in deciding the acceptability of mutilation. The national authority
will have to make decisions about this anyway, so why hide them
from the very Bill defining animal welfare
(C) Clause 13 (4) Veterinary is mis-spelt.
(D) Annex G.
This is far from clear. Does the restriction
on docking apply only for prophylactic purposes? Does this mean
that docking intended to make for safer home environment will
be allowed? I suspect that the thinking behind Annex G is so polarised
that all the implications of a docking ban have not been taken
into account, In particular a ban may not be consistent with other
regulations regarding domestic safety.
Some relevant considerations are set out in
the enclosed note "Mutilation with Reference to Docking of
Dogs".
It is lamentable that the economic consequences
of a ban are even considered. The Bill is about the welfare of
animals, not of their vets. If the Committee felt otherwise, I
should be pleased to give it a breakdown of the economic consequences
for breeders.
August 2004
| 
