[Wylie's Mom]

4. DOES TAIL-DOCKING PREVENT INJURY?

4.1 Evidence from veterinary clinic records

A common argument of the proponents of tail-docking is that dogs with undocked tails are likely to suffer tail
injuries. This view is not supported by the evidence that exists from records of dogs attending veterinary clinics,
which indicate that tail injury requiring veterinary attention is a relatively rare event. In addition, although there
is a lack of large-scale controlled studies of docked and undocked dogs of the same breed, the evidence that
exists does not support the claim that undocked dogs are at higher risk of tail injury.

The records of over 12,000 dogs in the small animal practice teaching unit of the Royal (Dick) School at
Edinburgh, included only 47 cases of tail injury. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in
the rate of tail injuries (fractures, lacerations, skin problems, etc.) between docked and undocked dogs.11,4
In Australia an analysis of 2000 visits to an animal emergency clinic found only 3 cases of tail injuries, all of
which were due to problems that arose just post-docking.

A 1996 study of veterinary records from 10 clinics in Denmark found that out of 70,000 dogs treated in a year
there were 26 incidents of tail injuries (i.e. a rate of 4 tail injuries per 10,000 treated dogs). The report
commented that tail injury is a ‘relatively rare injury’.12 On the basis of these records, there was no difference
between the number of tail injuries in undocked dogs from traditionally docked breeds (i.e. traditionally docked
before a ban in 1991) and in traditionally undocked breeds.

In addition, it has not been demonstrated that tail damage in adult dogs is particularly difficult to treat and
that it creates more suffering than the acute, and possibly chronic, pain caused by docking of neonatal dogs.4
The review of tail-docking in 2002 by Defra’s Animal Welfare Veterinary Team pointed out that basic first aid
would probably be adequate to treat most cases of tail injury.

4.2 ‘Working dog’ breeds and lifestyle

A common argument of the proponents of tail-docking is that the lifestyle of dogs of ‘working breeds’ puts them
at increased danger of tail injury. This is unconvincing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of dogs
of traditionally working breeds are now kept as companion animals or for showing, rather than for work.
According to Defra’s review of the issue, ‘true working animals constitute only a very small portion of dogs
within the UK... It is also both improper and unsubstantiated to suggest that all puppies in any litter, working
or non-working, will suffer tail injury in later life and thus should all be docked soon after birth as a
precautionary measure’.8

There is considerable inconsistency in the arguments put forward for docking certain breeds and not others.
These relate both to the claim of increased risk of tail injury and to the claim that long-haired breeds become
soiled with faeces around the tail area. According to a 2003 review of the issue in the Australian Veterinary
Journal, for almost all breeds that are docked, there is a corresponding breed that traditionally engages in the
same kind of activities but is not docked, which ‘calls into question the veracity of the argument’.4

The review of tail-docking by Defra’s Animal Welfare Veterinary Team in 2002 pointed out a number of
inconsistencies that strongly suggest that the motivation for docking is cosmetic, more one of breed standards
and tradition than of preventing injury or fouling of the dog:8

• Foxhounds and sheepdogs are the most common working dogs that are undocked, yet have an
extremely active life involving moving in woodland and scrub. The Defra review states that
there appears to be no evidence that they suffer damaged tails.
• A number of breeds of spaniels (Cocker, Springer, etc.) and terriers (Jack Russell, Airedale,
West Highland, etc.) and Old English sheepdogs are still docked, but there are anomalies within
each variety. Thus some spaniels -Cavalier King Charles, Irish Water and others - are undocked.
Although many terriers are docked, others - such as Bedlington, Bull, Skye - are not docked.
Many large breeds, similar to the Old English, that were formerly used as guard dogs for sheep
flocks, such as German Shepherd, Pyrenean, and others, are undocked.
• Border terriers, trained to kill foxes and move underground, may be docked or undocked.
• The fox itself is a canine that has no trouble moving above or underground with a full tail. The
Defra review points out that there is no evidence that foxes suffer tail injuries related to their
physical form or behaviour.

The fact that some breeds of working dog are docked and that other breeds that work in similarly rough
terrain are not docked suggests that it is not necessary to dock working dogs’ tails to prevent injury and that
in reality docking is being carried out for cosmetic reasons. Moreover, most docked dogs are kept as companion
animals or as show dogs and there can be no argument for docking their tails.
Some claim that docking is necessary to prevent long-haired breeds becoming soiled with faeces around the
tail area. The Defra review stresses that Afghan hounds, Bearded Collies and Maltese terriers have long-haired
coats and tails and do not require docking to avoid fouling of the tail region, ‘but rather proper and careful
grooming which can include clipping hair in that region by the owner. This is non-invasive, less painful and
indicative of a better approach to animal welfare’.

5. VIEWS OF THE VETERINARY AND RELATED PROFESSIONS (please see the link for this part)