Memorandum submitted by Ron Henney
I have been a dog breeder for some 50 years
and prior to retirement, for 25 years the proprietor of a boarding
kennel. During that time I was and still am closely involved in
the debate regarding the docking of dog's tails. I would like
to comment on the subject and maybe fill you in on an item or
so of the background that you and your committee may not be aware
of.
I have asked my MP John Maples to forward these
observations directly to you as I, along with the rest of the
dog breeding population, have lost all confidence in Defra's ability
to deal, without distortion and dispassionately, with the subject.
The current debate on docking started in the
late 60s by disgruntled vets offended by the provisions in the
Vet; Act allowing, subject to certain provisions lay persons to
undertake docking. The debate rumbled on, culminating in the amendment
to said Act by Stat: 1412 in 1991. I will not go in to the pros
and cons of the debate and consultation leading to that amendment
save to say by any standards they were severely distorted.
I have attached alongside this letter a PDF
I have made of a RCVS report on the Mutilation of Animals circa
1987 [not printed]. I doubt you will have seen a copy of this
report but I think you and your committee might find it informative
for your deliberations. It is self-explanatory but I would like
to draw your attention to a couple of points.
1(i). The report really had only one objective:
BAN DOCKING. It fails to analyse the whys and wherefores. In fact,
all the report does say on the subject is on page 10—Docking
College's views already known.
Page 11. Firing (horses) The only other procedure
in the report considered worthy of condemnation (if anything even
greater than of docking). The relevance of this item to that of
my interest is that after the amendment to the Vet Act the RCVS
council held a meeting in November 1992 to consider a resolution
on two items to be included in their code of conduct. One related
to docking and the other "Firing". At the conclusion
of the meeting they had formulated a resolution declaring docking
unethical and describable conduct. The equine vets [who you will
appreciate have for understandable reasons far more clout than
dog breeders] had the Firing question set aside. As far as I know
it has not been resurrected!
The attempt to use the resolution to intimidate
their members has not met with success. In spite of being legally
warned that trying to prevent a vet docking on prophylactic grounds
would risk effective legal challenge they proceeded to carpet
one of their members. The case failed.
The College's difficulty is that if docking
is a clinical matter, they can not dictate to the extent of fettering
a vet's professional judgement. So the RCVS President of the day
declared, when questioned, that "docking is not a clinical
matter". Now if it is not "clinical" what has it
to do with the RCVS if the said practice is legal?
To find a vet guilty of offending they would
be required to provide evidence that a dog's welfare had been
compromised. This lack of ability of ability, alone, must say
something about the rights and wrongs of the case for docking.
The real difficulty is they don't really know
why or on what grounds they want to ban docking. Or if they do
they have not told the dog breeders. In the same year I presented
to the RCVS President on behalf of the CDB a comprehensive document
prepared by that organisation on the subject of docking.
The only thing of note about that presentation
was the outrage expressed by the President against the dog breeder
vet who accompanied me as adviser to the organisation. It was
made very clear he was considered a renegade. The only view given
against docking [without explanation] was "Because it is
unethical!" Repeated five or six times. All very professional
and scientific.
The basis of the case against docking and the
source information used by Defra in the document.
"Information on tail docking provided for
the animal welfare division" comes, in the main, from two
sources. An "article" in the Veterinary Record by one
Professor Morton of the Biomedical ethics department of Birmingham
University on the ethics of the subject and one by an Australian
vet, Wansbrough, in the Australian Veterinary Journal who considers
the veterinary surgeon "The guardian of animal welfare".
Professor Morton, as far as I can ascertain,
has but a passing interest in canine affairs but he is interested
in promoting the interest of those like himself who would be judge
and jury of our ethical behaviour. [As they for their purposes
care to see it]. His ambition is not hidden. Reference to his
submission to the consultation paper makes clear that his ethical
grouping should be given a prime position in determining right
from wrong. I am not quite sure from whom they developed such
divine wisdom but when studied closely you find their subjective
judgements are slanted in favour of the conclusion they wish to
reach. Likewise they can be as accommodating or as lenient as
their own interests require.
I suspect that you will receive ample rebuff
of both these self-penned views from those very many in the Veterinary
profession who approve of docking. I would comment on Wansbrough
that if all the many ills he thinks emanate from docking were
well founded then practices throughout the country should be able
to produce ample statistics to prove his points. One might just
have expected this tendency to produce even a slight increase
in defects, which would have been noticed by breeders, who spend
a great deal of time and money on the wellbeing of their animals.
It is in their own interest to do so.
The only factual evidence presented is known
as the Edinburgh Report dated 1984. This report is flawed in that
it is not known if the dogs in the statistics had or had not been
docked at the time of treatment. In spite of the fact that during
the past 20 years this defect could have been rectified no such
further study seems to be forthcoming.
A great deal has been made out of pain and suffering.
So great, we are told, that experiments to establish the facts
are out of the question as a licence would not be granted. What
licence is required? Docking is legal. Strange that such like
experiments are carried out regularly on sheep and pigs at and
an agreed, far more developed stage. On this point it is interesting
to note how Ministers can be deceived by the information they
receive from their departments: when one of our associates presented
the CDB docking video [which I hope you have seen] the Minister
Ben Bradshaw replied,
"I have to say that in a paper prepared
by Defra veterinarians to inform debate on the issue of tail docking
it does state that whilst a puppy may show no outward sign of
pain, or quickly stops making any noises after his tail has been
docked does not mean that he feels no pain. Due to their inherent
preservation instinct animals tend to be more stoic than humans
and although they may cease showing any outward signs this does
not mean the pain has stopped. Dogs have a very similar nervous
system to man and feel pain in the same way. The initial pain
from the direct injury to the nervous system caused by docking
would be acute and at a level that would not be allowed to be
inflicted on a human."
[Some will believe anything. Probably the best
indicator is, in fact, the demeanour of the mother bitch]
Well now! Given that information and applying
it to the near 50 process in the Mutilation paper, on far more
developed animals?????????????
Views expressed by those who responded to the
consultation process:
— More than half of the 33 vets who
responded on the question of docking said it should not be banned.
— All 113 dog breed clubs which responded,
representing 12,744 members, said docking should not be banned.
— 1,590 members of the public commented
on docking 82% opposed a ban on docking.
If I understand correctly, the convention on
consultation processes are that whenever such an invitation is
extended it should be with a receptive mind. There is little evidence
in the draft bill that the views of those concerned with this
issue have been taken on board.
It seems that since the consultation period
was over a number of quite recent meetings have taken place to
consider exemptions to the bill, the minister being somewhat concerned
not to upset the Field Sports connection. The principal body who
over the last 20 years has comprehensively represented the interests
of the docked breeds are the CDB. As evidence of this fact and
its worldwide connections I invite you to visit www.cdb.org
Following the consultation, the organisation
was invited to one Defra general meeting. However at these more
recent meetings no representation was invited. I understand the
KC was represented but they are not the organisation paramount
on this issue. They are in fact a private club.
Again I have to ask the question why?
Why should docking be stopped? Others may belittle and call it
what they may but from the Breeders perspective docking is a matter
of animal welfare. It is carried out for one or both of two purposes:
to prevent future painful damage to the tail of vulnerable breeds
or to open up the breed pool to include a number of dogs who would
otherwise, due to tail faults, be unsuitable for breeding.
The Draft makes great play of its intention
to be proactive in preventing animal suffering and placing on
owners the obligation to safeguard their present and future welfare.
Its first flagship act is to prevent dog breeders from doing just
that! why? If we fail to protect our animals in the best way we
know, then we will, by the stand of the act, be committing an
offence.
Please remember you are dealing with the united
opinion of breeders world-wide.
Organisations such as the RSPCA and RCVS walk
the corridors of power pontificating, but dog breeders tend to
be private individuals living and caring for their canine interest.
Please also remember it was largely the RSPCA advising government
that brought about the "Dangerous Dogs Act"
May I turn more to the generality of the Bill:
I wonder if you would think me flippant if I
suggest this bill would be better called "The RSPCA Enabling
Act".
The 1911 Act was a relatively simple, catch
all Act which allowed discretion and determination by the courts.
It worked and over time courted little amendment. In my view a
good piece of legislation. Now we have to replace reality with
subjective thinking and unsubstantiated elitist views thus producing
this prescriptive draft bill. The main offence being not to obey
a preconceived set of regulations. A Christmas tree on which the
minister can hang gifts to the various lobby groups who shout
loud, with scant attention paid to those affected. This has the
questionable advantage of not straining a court's decision process.
Or maybe we could introduce on the spot fixed penalty fines and
not bother the courts!
Defra's intentions are thinly veiled. The RSPCA
become its prosecuting authority. Its inspectors will become in
due course The Animal Police. Over the top suggestion? Not so,
read the wording and combine it with the prosecuting powers handed
to them recently under The Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act
2000 Effective 1 September 2004.
I wonder how many MPs knew they had voted for
them to be granted those powers. Further how can a Private Charity
become a statutory arm of Government and still remain a charity?
If power is granted to this organisation to
further dictate [as I believe they have done in this draft] and
allowed to actively implement policy then Government is on a very
slippery slope. I feel for the many small charities and organisations,
working on a shoe sting, with much criticism but little or no
help, that are going to find themselves under the cosh!
It is a bit ironic that as I write this goat
farmers are on TV complaining they are going out of business due
to totally unrealistic Defra regulation. Wait till the RSPCA gets
their hands on them.
To dog breeders the most offensive was the value
analysis, particularly that contained in Annex G.
If this is the sort of criteria that Defra regards
as appropriate then I despair and I hope you do too.
The act is purported to be concerned with the
Welfare of animals, not the effect on vets' incomes.
Where is the section providing a cost benefit
analysis related to the dog of removing its right to be docking
by arrangements made its breeder?
Then we have: Who would agree to what! Sheep
and pig farmers seem to be strong enough to tell Defra to get
lost. Clearly the minister has been told to lay off what might
be the Countryside lobby. Never mind, at best exhibition dog breeders
number only about 20,000. They are wholly united against a ban,
but we have to give the RSPCA something and they amount to about
only 30 per constituency. So let it be done!
Is this draft bill the criteria for modern-day
legislation? If it is I have to tell you I for one prefer 1911!
You will have gathered by now, and I am sure
that you will understand, that breeders resent being robbed of
the ability to protect their dogs' interest. Even more especially
when that right is taken away without good reason. Disinterested
parties are then allowed to horse trade between themselves as
to what should be done. This seems to me to show a blatant disregard
of civil liberties.
I wish you and your Committee well in its examination
of the draft, sincerely hoping you will tell Defra and the Minister
to take it back and think again.
August 2004
| 
