Another tail docking survey in Scotland

[Stacey]

I said in a previous post - it's not ok to chop bits off living animals if it is not going to benefit them.

Apache In what way does it benefit sheep to have their tails docked and in what way does it benefit Ram lambs, Bullocks, Stallions and Dogs to be castrated you are chopping bits off animals. The only benefit I see is it benefits vets as they get paid to do it.

Jimbop

Mostly all of the lambs get 'rung' by the farmer or lamber. It benefits them greatly as the number of undocked sheep that I've seen that have been covered in maggots terrible.
My BMH had to get quite a lot of her tail docked not due to me wanting it done, but she spilt the tip of it open and it wouldn't heal but it has benefited her greatly by getting it docked.

stacey

 

[phitt]

Tail docking lambs is for the prevention of "potential" fly strike.

Yes phitt being a country boy I know it's because of possible fly strike as sheep crap down their tails so, do beef cattle and cows they don't get docked. As a young boy my job was to wash cows udders prior to milking. numerous times the udders and teats were covered in crap but udders and teats were not cut off as it would not have been beneficial to the milk production.

Jimbo

Was just trying to emphasise "potential" hence the quote marks. Wasn't telling you what is was for, I reckoned you'd know.

 

[Jimbo 30 06]

Mostly all of the lambs get 'rung' by the farmer or lamber. It benefits them greatly as the number of undocked sheep that I've seen that have been covered in maggots terrible.
My BMH had to get quite a lot of her tail docked not due to me wanting it done, but she spilt the tip of it open and it wouldn't heal but it has benefited her greatly by getting it docked.

stacey

Well done stacy your reply was the one I was looking for all along Lambs tails are ringed by the sheperd or farmer. So why does tail docking of dogs have to be done by vets. Prior to it being compulsory to be done by vets it was done by breeders and vets dock them no different.

Jimbo

 

[Gazza]

Prior to docking being banned in Scotland many experts, the men and women who have bred and worked spaniels for years, gave evidence as to the benefit to a working spaniel of being docked. I for one don't think that the data obtained by the Glasgow survey proves anything. 230 pups would have to be docked to save one tail injury? What exactly does that mean. In real terms - nothing. If one spaniel is saved the agony of serious tail damage by allowing vets to dock one third of a tail then that data should be more than sufficient. Tail docking is referred to by the Royal Vet College as unnecessary mutilation yet they are quite happy to castrate mainly for behavioural issues that could be sorted with adequate training.

What a ludicrous situation we find ourselves in. Spaniels in England and Wales can be legally docked yet not in Scotland. This is entirely political and nothing to do with the welfare of our working dogs.


In reality if I was going to source a spaniel to work in Scotland it would be bought from England. Most people who are serious about the welfare of the dogs they work do likewise and therefore any survey into tail damage since the docking ban is not a true picture of working dogs in Scotland.

Apache you mentioned legislation. Lets look at another section of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Section 4 Unnecessary Suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

A man takes his undocked spaniel out shooting. He is aware that spaniels can suffer tail injuries through being worked in heavy undergrowth but still he takes his dog out. His dog injures its tail. Has he committed an offence. The suffering caused by tail damage is preventable and is unnecessary.

I recall taking a spaniel to my vet. I was seen by one of his younger colleagues who immediately stated that it was nice to see a spaniel with a full tail. His face was a picture when I told him the dog was docked having one third of his tail removed at three days old. Sad that in any debate the young vet would be the expert between him and me.

All working spaniels require to have their tails docked by one third. I have seen pups docked and they did not even wake up.

 

[phitt]

Prior to docking being banned in Scotland many experts, the men and women who have bred and worked spaniels for years, gave evidence as to the benefit to a working spaniel of being docked. I for one don't think that the data obtained by the Glasgow survey proves anything. 230 pups would have to be docked to save one tail injury? What exactly does that mean. In real terms - nothing. If one spaniel is saved the agony of serious tail damage by allowing vets to dock one third of a tail then that data should be more than sufficient. Tail docking is referred to by the Royal Vet College as unnecessary mutilation yet they are quite happy to castrate mainly for behavioural issues that could be sorted with adequate training.

What a ludicrous situation we find ourselves in. Spaniels in England and Wales can be legally docked yet not in Scotland. This is entirely political and nothing to do with the welfare of our working dogs.


In reality if I was going to source a spaniel to work in Scotland it would be bought from England. Most people who are serious about the welfare of the dogs they work do likewise and therefore any survey into tail damage since the docking ban is not a true picture of working dogs in Scotland.

Apache you mentioned legislation. Lets look at another section of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Section 4 Unnecessary Suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

A man takes his undocked spaniel out shooting. He is aware that spaniels can suffer tail injuries through being worked in heavy undergrowth but still he takes his dog out. His dog injures its tail. Has he committed an offence. The suffering caused by tail damage is preventable and is unnecessary.

I recall taking a spaniel to my vet. I was seen by one of his younger colleagues who immediately stated that it was nice to see a spaniel with a full tail. His face was a picture when I told him the dog was docked having one third of his tail removed at three days old. Sad that in any debate the young vet would be the expert between him and me.

All working spaniels require to have their tails docked by one third. I have seen pups docked and they did not even wake up.

Excellent. Very well put. It makes a mockery of the legislation.

 

[scubadog]

Very good!

Prior to docking being banned in Scotland many experts, the men and women who have bred and worked spaniels for years, gave evidence as to the benefit to a working spaniel of being docked. I for one don't think that the data obtained by the Glasgow survey proves anything. 230 pups would have to be docked to save one tail injury? What exactly does that mean. In real terms - nothing. If one spaniel is saved the agony of serious tail damage by allowing vets to dock one third of a tail then that data should be more than sufficient. Tail docking is referred to by the Royal Vet College as unnecessary mutilation yet they are quite happy to castrate mainly for behavioural issues that could be sorted with adequate training.

What a ludicrous situation we find ourselves in. Spaniels in England and Wales can be legally docked yet not in Scotland. This is entirely political and nothing to do with the welfare of our working dogs.


In reality if I was going to source a spaniel to work in Scotland it would be bought from England. Most people who are serious about the welfare of the dogs they work do likewise and therefore any survey into tail damage since the docking ban is not a true picture of working dogs in Scotland.

Apache you mentioned legislation. Lets look at another section of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Section 4 Unnecessary Suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

A man takes his undocked spaniel out shooting. He is aware that spaniels can suffer tail injuries through being worked in heavy undergrowth but still he takes his dog out. His dog injures its tail. Has he committed an offence. The suffering caused by tail damage is preventable and is unnecessary.

I recall taking a spaniel to my vet. I was seen by one of his younger colleagues who immediately stated that it was nice to see a spaniel with a full tail. His face was a picture when I told him the dog was docked having one third of his tail removed at three days old. Sad that in any debate the young vet would be the expert between him and me.

All working spaniels require to have their tails docked by one third. I have seen pups docked and they did not even wake up.

 

[Apache]

Apache you mentioned legislation. Lets look at another section of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Section 4 Unnecessary Suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

A man takes his undocked spaniel out shooting. He is aware that spaniels can suffer tail injuries through being worked in heavy undergrowth but still he takes his dog out. His dog injures its tail. Has he committed an offence. The suffering caused by tail damage is preventable and is unnecessary.

You can try it in a court of law, but I expect you will lose.

Docking a puppy's tail is a welfare issue - we are mutilating them. If we are going to do it we need to be sure what we are doing is necessary.

The fact is not all dogs without docked tailed get injured - far from it. If they all did then gathering the supporting evidence would be easy.

The paper is far from perfect, but it is the best evidence yet of a protective benefit.

I honestly can't be arsed to go into discussion over vets fees in this thread. Good care costs money. If the animal is suffering you have a legal duty to seek veterinary attention.

Decide amongst yourselves whether the animal with the tail injury is suffering. That is the ONLY way the law will change. If the animal doesn't need pain relief then either the injury is not causing it to suffer or the owner is potentially breaking the law.

 

[scubadog]

What is your opinion on dew claw removal?
Especially considering the still legal practice of being able to do this at home?
Surley this is "mutilating"?

You can try it in a court of law, but I expect you will lose.

Docking a puppy's tail is a welfare issue - we are mutilating them. If we are going to do it we need to be sure what we are doing is necessary.

The fact is not all dogs without docked tailed get injured - far from it. If they all did then gathering the supporting evidence would be easy.

The paper is far from perfect, but it is the best evidence yet of a protective benefit.

I honestly can't be arsed to go into discussion over vets fees in this thread. Good care costs money. If the animal is suffering you have a legal duty to seek veterinary attention.

Decide amongst yourselves whether the animal with the tail injury is suffering. That is the ONLY way the law will change. If the animal doesn't need pain relief then either the injury is not causing it to suffer or the owner is potentially breaking the law.

 

[Apache]

What is your opinion on dew claw removal?
Especially considering the still legal practice of being able to do this at home?
Surley this is "mutilating"?

I see it as a 'lesser' mutilation. It's listed in the VSA 1966 as something lay people can do. If it gets re-drafted I suspect it may become vet only. There is arguments that only rear dew claws are genuine dew claws. I prefer to leave front ones alone.

 

[scubadog]

Wow.
Lesser mutilation!
I actually believe the dew claw removal is more barbaric and painfull than tail docking.
Having had a dog with its dew claws still on it was not a pretty sight when she ripped them off in chicken wire!

I see it as a 'lesser' mutilation. It's listed in the VSA 1966 as something lay people can do. If it gets re-drafted I suspect it may become vet only. There is arguments that only rear dew claws are genuine dew claws. I prefer to leave front ones alone.

 

[Jimbo 30 06]

I have always docked my own pups in the past and can no longer do so by law , my first undocked cocker had to have a third of her tail removed after her first working season and my first undocked springer had to be rehomed as a pet due to terrible tail damage that I felt was cruel to allow to go on. Why must wee go on allowing our working dogs to suffer in this way and suffer they most defenettly do ,only because they have the unfortunate bad luck to be born in Scotland. PS why are still allowed to remove dew claws on these very dogs wee cant tail dock.

+1 Hoolit like you I docked my own until the early 1990's when it became illegal and had to be done by a vet. In 1992 the RCVS decided that tail docking should not be carried out and tried to dicipline a vet that had carried out tail docking procedure the diciplinary fell apart due to lack of evidence. The vet docked the tails exactly the same way as me (won't go into specific details) but to me my procedure was more hygenic. So you see the RCVS are as much to blame as the anti's in there approach to tail docking and now that it has been highlighted that we can still remove dewclaws it won't be long before it's vets only that can do dewclaw removal.

Jimbo

 

[Apache]

I have always docked my own pups in the past and can no longer do so by law , my first undocked cocker had to have a third of her tail removed after her first working season and my first undocked springer had to be rehomed as a pet due to terrible tail damage that I felt was cruel to allow to go on. Why must wee go on allowing our working dogs to suffer in this way and suffer they most defenettly do ,only because they have the unfortunate bad luck to be born in Scotland.

So you acknowledge that tail damage = cruelty. Did both dogs visit the vets?

There is a majority of the veterinary profession against docking - as an unjustified mutilation. If we (we being the shooting community) can produce that evidence then they have to sit up and listen. What we need is evidence.

 

[Gazza]

Docking a puppy's tail is a welfare issue - we are mutilating them. If we are going to do it we need to be sure what we are doing is necessary.

There is no doubt it is necessary. The evidence of persons who have bred and worked spaniels for years are not just making it up. They are the experts. The welfare of the working spaniel is at the heart of their testimony.

The fact is not all dogs without docked tailed get injured - far from it. If they all did then gathering the supporting evidence would be easy.

The fact is undocked dogs are far more likely to be injured than docked. Docking a dog is not a 100% guarantee of no injury but by the laws of physics it must go a long way to prevent injury.

The paper is far from perfect, but it is the best evidence yet of a protective benefit.

I honestly can't be arsed to go into discussion over vets fees in this thread. Good care costs money. If the animal is suffering you have a legal duty to seek veterinary attention.

As far as I am concerned vet fees do not come into this debate. Good knowledgeable vets are worth their weight in gold but most do not work spaniels and have very little knowledge of the environment in which these dogs are asked to work. Surely they are not above listening to the experts who do have that knowledge. No person who works and loves their spaniels would submit them to "unnecessary mutilation."

Decide amongst yourselves whether the animal with the tail injury is suffering. That is the ONLY way the law will change. If the animal doesn't need pain relief then either the injury is not causing it to suffer or the owner is potentially breaking the law.

The only way the law regarding tail docking will change in Scotland is if the yes campaign thought they would get more votes by doing so.

Personally I would just not work a spaniel that has not been docked.

 

[Apache]

That 'evidence' does not exist in a usable and reliable form at this moment in time. If we want to change anything we need to collect it. Publish it in a reliable journal. It needs to be of good quality, have controls etc.

 

[Gazza]

That 'evidence' does not exist in a usable and reliable form at this moment in time. If we want to change anything we need to collect it. Publish it in a reliable journal. It needs to be of good quality, have controls etc.

And it never will exist. Do you think for one second that "the experts" who submitted their knowledge and experience of working spaniels and the reasons that they must be docked are now all working undocked dogs just waiting to build up a portfolio of injured dogs in order to prove they were right or do you think they are still working docked dogs. In the last year I have bought two young cockers, both docked.

 

[Apache]

Then you'll never be able to dock Scottish dogs. Shame.

 

[Lakies]

The bottom line is mate it needs done, and that's an opinion I've came to through seeing dogs in the field where it matters every undocked dog I've seen in the field working properly has knocked its tail up at some stage and I've heard through friends about a lot more . Regarding terriers I have terriers, I have 1 undocked dog I bred myself he's used regular for hunt service and also picks up and beats throughout the season the dog works anything from 3-6 days a week hes 4 now, and on that note I will say its still my opinion that terriers should be docked there's only 1 way to come to an opinion about something and that's to do it, these clowns that pass these laws should just admit they are in above their heads and pass it onto someone who has more experience and vets who have never walked a beating line ain't the people either. I'm the kinda guy that would work a dog that was luminous pink with 7 legs 3 heads and 2 undocked tails as long as they were good natured and worked yes they do look better docked terriers and spaniels but if they didn't need to be or there was no welfare benefit then I wouldn't be bothered 1 bit by it having a long tail.

In England and Wales the dog must be used for working or it can't be docked...in Scotland they use a survey that involves undocked non- working dogs, and these are the people who are deemed clever enough to conduct these studies. Regarding the taking dogs to vets mate do you think every man or woman who's dog get a wee cut on their tail is going to take their dog to a vet? To be charged £57 for him to tell them "mhmmmmm its tails cut al wrap a bandage round if for ye" pop there's a wee jag of metacam. Because that's what happens. Between 2008 and 2011 I had spent over 5K on vet bills a small portion was for normal vet fees the rest was working injuries so I'm not shy of taking my dogs to the vets but do you hand on heart think that every time a dog cuts its tail it needs vet attention? Do you think you could do any more for a dog with minor tail injury than the owner? Going by your previous statement you see a few dogs attending the vets that are working dogs do you give these lads or ladies any medicine to have at home in a wee stock pile or do you let them come in charge them consultation, time, well over the odds for medication? I called it the metacam scam take a dog to the vet its knocked a toe up or whatever lurcher with a limp along them lines , vet has a few twists and pokes doesn't know what their doing so jags it with metacam weeks course of something like synulox and there you have it that's £85 please, and that's why people don't attend vets for every injury. These things are all well and good if you have 1 spaniel what about the keeper that has 15 dogs. If people were going to a vet with a minor tail injury and getting charged £5 main purpose of being there was to be logging the injury in a working dog then I'm sure we'd see a lot more injuries in these fancy studies trouble is they won't they will be charged around £19 consultation fee for a start imagine that every week through the winter and that's before they've charged you mega dosh for dirt cheap tablets or jags.

we as a country of shooting men/women in Scotland are not helping ourselves going across the border for our dogs because it sends the problem into the shadows a bit as if it isn't there because we are still working docked dogs when probably assumed were not but its just that they are not bred in this country. We should take the dogs to the vets EVERY time it knocks its tail up because that's what's neede trouble is most people would need to remortgage to do it , because MOST vets would just keep taking and taking and taking. I will be attending the vets Everytime my springer knocks her tail up as I know my vet ain't a rogue and It won't be long before my vet recommends her getting the operation, not everyone has a good vet though. We need to think about the time out from work aswell say a dog knocks its tail up 6 times in a season, it needs to stay home to recover a week at a time by February that dogs missed 6 weeks of the shooting season wether it's minor injury or not that dogs missed the job it was brought and trained to so because of its tail and no ones s going to get a dog with a burst tail and take it out the next day because its obviously going to repeat its sel, not heal, and get worse.


dont think I can say more on the subject really get unbiased realistic opinions from
the front line with eye witnesses to make these reports doesn't matter if there's 1 million dogs or 500 dogs as long as they were seen first hand by someone who witnessed it the percentage could've worked out and a study of 500 undocked and docked dogs 500 of each would be a lot easier to do 100% working dogs though a spaniels not going to knock its tail up sitting on a couch.

 

[private fraser]

1. Tail docking is legal in England & Wales.
2. ". ". is illegal in Scotland.
3. The dogs and the use thereof is the same in all three.
4. Only the politicians are different.

So somewhere the politicians are wrong/don't care about the dogs.

 

[Jimbo 30 06]

So you acknowledge that tail damage = cruelty. Did both dogs visit the vets?

There is a majority of the veterinary profession against docking - as an unjustified mutilation. If we (we being the shooting community) can produce that evidence then they have to sit up and listen. What we need is evidence.

Apache

Read the script the post was by Hoolit that you have copied and pasted. BUT YOU DO AGREE WITH ME IT'S THE RCVS as well as the anti's that the shooting world is up against yet YOU WANT OUR MONEY for treating our dogs.

Jimbo

 

[Dougster]

From what I have read, Apache is FOR tail docking but said the facts in a particular piece of research weren't clear cut.

How did that go from there to the hatred for him making a living? Of course he wants money for treating dogs, like I want money for teaching kids and others want money for taking people stalking. It's wicked, but the way of the world. We need to make money.