SACS and tail docking

[JAYB]

I have had a letter from Ian Clark of SACS, it is self explanatory and partly reproduced below, if you feel you can help please e-mail him with your answers.

Tail Docking in Scotland - URGENT!
After a long period of inactivity, the tail docking issue is now live again, and I need to attend a
meeting on 1st May with the author of the two scientific papers on docking and some of the civil
servants to have an informal discussion about where this is going to go.
After that, in late May, I will have a formal meeting with Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet
Secretary to try to try to persuade him to allow docking for working dogs in Scotland.
One of the difficulties we face is that the evidence from the papers, while helpful, is not
conclusive and I would like to have as many bullets to fire as possible at these meetings.
The other real difficulty is that there is almost no information on terriers in either of the studies,
because of the way they were carried out.
I am writing to ask you, as a SACS group contact, to pass this on to as many of your contacts and
friends as you can to help us win the argument.
I have enclosed a questionnaire - you will almost certainly know which of your contacts it would
be relevant to when you read it.
Could you please try to make sure that anyone relevant you know gets a copy of the
questionnaire within the next few days, and ask them to contact me as a matter of extreme
urgency?
Best regards

Ian Clark
Director
Headquarters: Netherholm Netherburn Larkhall Lanarkshire ML9 30G.

This is what he is asking for your help with specifically
Prophylactic Tail Docking in Scotland

The Scottish Government is considering an exemption to the Animal Health and Welfare
(Scotland) Act 2006 to allow the prophylactic docking of working dogs tails in Scotland.

There is some scientific evidence to support docking of working Spaniels and HPR
breeds, but it may not be conclusive enough to achieve the exemption
.
There is almost no information on working terriers in the study, and it will be far
more difficult for us to argue the case for aI/owing them to be docked in the future if
we lose this opportunity.

A) Do you own or work any spaniel, terrier, HPR breed or crossbreed of any of
these which has a tail that was legally docked outside of Scotland?

B) Do you have an undocked working terrier that has required veterinary
treatment to a damaged tail ?

If you have either of these, please complete this short questionnaire urgently and email
the results to: ian.clark@sacs.org.uk before 30th April 2014

Q. Do you own a dog docked outwith Scotland __after the introduction of the Animal Health
and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. If so how many and what breed?

Spaniel docked outwith Scotland after 2006 ………………………………………….

Terrier docked outwith Scotland after 2006 ……………………………………………

HPR docked outwith Scotland after 2006 ………………………………………………

Crossbred (of above) docked outwith Scotland after 2006 ………………………………

Undocked working terrier ……………………………………………………………….

Name …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Address ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

Contact Tel ………………………………………………………………………………………..

Email ……………………………………………………………………………………………….Help if you can please.

John

 

[scubadog]

All I get is mail box unavailable - any one else get this?

I think think the email address is wrong.

try: ian.clark@sacs.org.uk

 

[Apache]

I suspect the evidence is NOT out there with terriers. I don't think I have ever seen an undocked terrier with a tail injury - I've seen lots of spaniels. The majority of dogs we treat with tail injuries are Labs.

A little bit of a quick survey won't hold water. The evidence is there in the two papers funded by the Scottish Government. One of the datasets has nearly 100,000 dogs in it. They are published and peer reviewed. That's your evidence.

A couple of emails from Hamish in Sterling will not add weight to any argument, it actually weakens it. Stick with the science and you might win, play the hearsay card and you will lose!

 

[JabaliHunter]

I suspect the evidence is NOT out there with terriers. I don't think I have ever seen an undocked terrier with a tail injury - I've seen lots of spaniels. The majority of dogs we treat with tail injuries are Labs.

A little bit of a quick survey won't hold water. The evidence is there in the two papers funded by the Scottish Government. One of the datasets has nearly 100,000 dogs in it. They are published and peer reviewed. That's your evidence.

A couple of emails from Hamish in Sterling will not add weight to any argument, it actually weakens it. Stick with the science and you might win, play the hearsay card and you will lose!

If the evidence is not out there, that is the reason for the request - to try and find some as per below

One of the difficulties we face is that the evidence from the papers, while helpful, is not
conclusive and I would like to have as many bullets to fire as possible at these meetings.
The other real difficulty is that there is almost no information on terriers in either of the studies,
because of the way they were carried out.

 

[Apache]

But this is NOT the way to produce evidence subject to scientific scrutiny! Presenting a little 'home made' survey is not good enough. If you look at the process to produce scientific work along with approval of a questionnaire, test groups etc you will see why doing things the correct way takes time and money.

I honestly don't think you will find the evidence you are looking for (and I am very supportive of docking working breed dogs).

 

[scubadog]

Well either way I have replied with my experience.
I agree a scientific report is needed - howvere one has already been done and it has howvere failed in its outcome.

 

[Apache]

Well either way I have replied with my experience.
I agree a scientific report is needed - howvere one has already been done and it has howvere failed in its outcome.

Have you read them both, in full?

I have and they are both supportive of docking (especially in spaniels).

A scientific paper cannot 'fail' in its outcome. It is there to test a hypothesis - "undocked working dogs are at greater risk of tail injuries" and assess the evidence for and against that.

You are going in with an open mind so see what the evidence suggests. Do you see how this is radically different to a few isolated instances of terriers with tail injuries? I can find you a few dozen cases of labs with tail injuries from my computer system here. Perhaps we should dock them and leave the terriers alone?

If there is no evidence of benefit from ANY mutilation it should be stopped. This paper is the strongest support out there for allowing spaniels to be docked. Other working breeds it is less clear cut. You can contact the authors, but I suspect the terrier tail injuries were insignificant by number. It's not good enough wanting to carry on doing something because we think it might be a good idea.

(owner of a docked Patterdale and a docked Cocker)

 

[JabaliHunter]

But this is NOT the way to produce evidence subject to scientific scrutiny! Presenting a little 'home made' survey is not good enough. If you look at the process to produce scientific work along with approval of a questionnaire, test groups etc you will see why doing things the correct way takes time and money.

I honestly don't think you will find the evidence you are looking for (and I am very supportive of docking working breed dogs).

You are right, but it would appear that there is insufficient time for a new study and the old one is considered unlikely to elicit the exemptions sought. So it may be desperation, but if you are going to fail anyway, you may as well go down fighting with whatever info you have.

 

[scubadog]

A scientific paper cannot 'fail' in its outcome. It is there to test a hypothesis - "undocked working dogs are at greater risk of tail injuries" and assess the evidence for and against that.

Of course they can fail.
The testing may be incorect, the anyalisis may be wrong or the conclusion may be wrong or taken with a slanted view!
(from an Electrical Engineer who routinley has to write conduct and conclude scientific analysis on pretty much a daily basis)

 

[scubadog]

Have you read them both, in full?

I have and they are both supportive of docking (especially in spaniels).

That is based on your own opinion from the outcome of the report. This however does not suggest that everyone will adopt the same opinion
of the reports conclusions as you!

Example - you have mentioned it they are supportive, however the only other person i know that has read it suggests that they may not be so supportive.

So far that 50/50. Not a good statistic to fight a battle with!

 

[Apache]

A summary from the BASC site of the papers:

Cameron, N., Lederer, R., Bennett, D. & Parkin, T. (2014). The prevalence of tail injuries in working
and non-working breed dogs visiting veterinary practices in Scotland. Veterinary Record.
doi:10.1136/vr.102042
Survey of tail injuries sustained by working gundogs and terriers in Scotland -- Lederer et al. -- Veterinary Record
The aim of this paper was to estimate the prevalence of tail injuries that required veterinary examination
in different breeds of dog in Scotland. The study population included all dogs that had visited one of 16
veterinary practices located in Scotland between 2002 and early 2012. The overall prevalence of tail
injuries in dogs visiting one of the 16 veterinary practices was 0.59 per cent. The prevalence of tail
injuries in dogs of working breeds was estimated to be 0.90 per cent. Working dog breeds that were
examined by a veterinary surgeon were at a significantly greater risk of sustaining a tail injury than nonworking
breeds (P<0.001). To prevent one such tail injury in these working breeds approximately 232
dogs would need to be docked as puppies. To prevent one tail amputation in spaniels, 320 spaniel
puppies would need to be docked. Spaniels presented after January 2009 were 2.3 times more likely to
have a tail injury than those presented before April 29, 2007 (date of the legislation that banned tail
docking in Scotland). Given the results of this and the accompanying paper it may be appropriate to
consider changes to the current legislation for specific breeds of working dogs.
Lederer, R., Bennett, D. & Parkin, T. (2014). Survey of tail injuries sustained by working gundogs
and terriers in Scotland. Veterinary Record. doi:10.1136/vr.102041
Survey of tail injuries sustained by working gundogs and terriers in Scotland -- Lederer et al. -- Veterinary Record
Working dog owners in Scotland were invited to take part in an internet survey regarding the 2010/2011
shooting season, which was designed to estimate the prevalence of tail injuries; assess the risk of tail
injuries in docked and undocked working dogs; and identify risk factors for owner-reported tail injuries.
Of 2860 working dogs, 13.5 per cent sustained at least one tail injury during the 2010/2011 shooting
season. Undocked spaniels and hunt point retrievers (HPRs) were at greatest risk of tail injury with 56.6
per cent of undocked spaniels and 38.5 per cent of undocked HPRs sustaining at least one tail injury
during the season. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of tail injury in dogs with
tails docked by one-third, half or shorter. To prevent one tail injury in one shooting season, between two
and 18 spaniels or HPRs would need to be docked as puppies. The authors believe that this work
provides the best available evidence on which to base a consultation for changes to the legislation on
tail docking in working dogs in Scotland. Docking the tails of HPRs and spaniels by one-third would
significantly decrease the risk of tail injury sustained while working in these breeds.

April 2014 Literature Review | BASC

 

[scubadog]

Like the SACS chap said.
Doesn't mention terriers
28% seems inconclusive to dock HPR's
So from that conclusion I could quite easily see it being recommended to only dock spaniels.

I have (now or in the past) had HPRs, Labradors, Terriers and spaniels.
Those who did not have their tails docked DID ALL incur tail injuries.
Hence why I responded to the request for information.

By all means don't respond yourself - but don't moan if they do decide to ban it for your particular breed of working dog.
Especially considering the very people paid to represent us asked for assistance and you point blank refused!
The conclusion of the report is open to conjecture by any parties whom may have their own agenda.

Example: Lets take the worst case scenario, spaniels @ 56.6%
If I wished to pose an argument against docking based on the conclusion of this report I could easily blow it out of the water.
An argument along the lines of, why dock ALL suspected working dogs at birth thereby exposing them to inhumane and unnesecary suffering when only a fraction over half the dogs that work will experience some form of tail damage?
Surley it would be more humane to only dock those tails of animals that experienced tail injuries as an when they happen.
This will reduce the unesecary pain and suffering experienced by the animals that may never experience any problems with tail injuries.

Now take that same argument and use it for HPR's whenre not even 1 in 3 get injured!

Now that is not my opinion, but just an example of how the conclusion of a report can be mis interpreted and twisted around by someone with a hidden agenda.
This chap from SACS asked for some assistance.
What is the harm in helping him help us?
If the conclusion is as water tight as you suggest then there is no harm done.
If as I suspect the conclusion is not water tight and leaves itself open to conjecture by parties with hidden agendas then surley giving every bit of ammo to the very people representing can only be a good thing.

 

[Apache]

There is a LOT of dogs in the study.

From the discussion:

These results suggest a clear potential benefit to be gained from
docking (at least by one-third) in spaniels and HPRs. The same cannot
be said for other working breeds, it may be appropriate to consider
changes to the current legislation based on breed group rather than
all working dogs.
​

Hearsay is crap evidence:

 

[scubadog]

As you say - A LOT of dogs in the study - MOST of which working or not did not receive a tail injury.

Your nice little picture is crap evidence.
The discussion I had with Ian from SAC is not hearsay - it is fact, it is real life it happened to me!
If it helps him in any way then I am glad I helped.
There is no way that by responding to the email any one would have jeopardised the outcome.
There is however every chance it may have helped.
Some of us are proactive (especillay when someone representing specifically us asks for our help)- some of us just sit back and hope for the best.
I am the former.