Tail docking letter

[Guest Nov]

This email has been forwarded to me, it is a letter sent to all MPs.

 

I thought some members might want to have a read.

 

 

Dear Member,

 

It seems virtually universal among MPs that "cosmetic" docking should be banned. Traditionally docked dogs are usually arbitrarily divided between working breeds, such as the springer spaniel and non-working breeds, such as the Rottweiler or Boxer.

 

It seems a reasonable and logical argument that working breeds would be more susceptible to tail injury working through bramble and thick undergrowth, so routine docking is a practical, prophylactic, welfare decision on veterinary advice.

 

At this point, I must emphasize that tail injuries do not heal in the same way that a similar injury would on all other parts of the body. Trauma to the tail tip damages fragile, local blood vessels, causing haemorrhage, swelling and throbbing pain. Furthermore, the injured part is continually re-traumatised by both tail wagging against hard surfaces and continuous licking/chewing by the dog. Because of the particular anatomy/circulation of the tail, it is impossible to treat damage medically and surgical amputation of the whole tail is mandatory. This operation involves the added risk of a general anaesthetic, post surgical discomfort and protracted healing time.

 

Even if a particular Spaniel is sold as a "pet", it will still behave by genetic imprint as a working dog and will only be happy losing itself in thick cover following a scent. "Pet" Springer Spaniels are therefore at the same risk of tail injury whether they are "officially" working or not.

 

The second group of dogs, which include the Rottweiler and Boxer, does not include traditionally working breeds and it is often assumed, incorrectly, that all these breeds are traditionally docked for purely cosmetic reasons. I believe that these breeds should continue to be docked prophylactically by veterinary surgeons for two reasons:-

 

(a) All of these breeds have exceptionally long and muscular tails. Invariably, the tail is longer than the length of the dog's body. In these breeds, tail damage arises because of the momentum of the tail tip,

(generated by multiplying the mass of the tail tip with the acceleration of the wag), is much greater than breeds that have either shorter, heavy tails or longer, light tails. It follows, therefore, that traditional docking of the non working breeds is not a cosmetic exercise, but a prophylactic measure to prevent the likely tail injury arising from the particular anatomy of their tails.

 

( I believe it is pertinent to consider why traditionally, non working breeds, such as the rottweiler or boxer, have been docked historically, while other non-working breeds have not. I would suggest that it is reasonable to assume that these traditionally docked, non-working breeds, when undocked in the past, suffered significant tail injuries for the reasons stated in paragraph (a) above and that docking was the only reasonable and practical solution to painful tail tip injuries in adulthood.

 

It has always been exceptionally difficult for those veterinary surgeons, who believe prophylactic docking should continue as a legal procedure, to make their case heard because of the nature and intensity of the anti docking campaign. Given the mis-information within that campaign, it would be understandably easy for MP's to deliver a reflex *** on docking purely on animal welfare grounds. However, I would ask that you consider carefully the case that I am presenting here and accept that a total *** on prophylactic tail docking for both working and non-working breeds would represent a likely increase in animal suffering through tail injury in adulthood. This would be anathema on animal welfare grounds.

 

Docking remains, when performed at 3 to 5 days of age by a competent veterinary surgeon, a simple procedure that guarantees long term tail welfare in the adult dog in traditionally docked breeds. Even if you believe that docking the neonate puppy causes "pain", I can verify that a small injection of local anaesthetic before the operation would remove all docking "pain" completely. I have no objection to a change in the law that would require local anaesthesia in neonatal puppies and indeed, I think this would be a positive welfare decision that all parties to the debate would welcome.

 

In conclusion, I would appeal to you to reconsider this issue in the light of the clinical and scientific arguments that I have presented above. I trust that you will then conclude that the current law, allowing prophylactic docking by experienced veterinary surgeons, requires no change because it provides a simple, preventative option that prevents tail injury and suffering in all traditionally docked breeds, working or not.

 

You will no doubt realise that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons still permits veterinary surgeons to dock for genuinely prophylactic reasons, so my case actually falls in line with official policy within the profession. The RCVS does not seek a legal *** on such prophylactic docking.

 

If I have convinced you through my arguments, I would be very grateful if you could spread the message to your fellow MPs, preferably by a speech in the House at the Report Stage of the Bill.

 

I do not expect a reply to this email, but would welcome one if you so wish.

 

 

Thank you for your time.

 

 

Yours sincerely,