ME and Ophelia

US COURT REFUSES TO STOP DOG CLUBS FROM DOCKING TAILS
Why Are Dog's Tails Docked?

A few days ago, Jim O'Connell blogged a post - "sort of like that nose shaving thing" - about Jon H Hammer and his beloved spaniel named Spooner.

Jon Hammer, a 68 year old lawyer from New York, is suing the American Kennel Club (AKC) for penalising dog show participants for not hacking off their dogs' tail.

Spooner has a ten-inch tail, six inches longer than what the judges think is right. "Because of the rules, there wouldn't be any point to putting her in breed shows," Hammer said. He does not want to mutilate the dog.

Jim's link to a news report published on November 18, 2003, by Joe Mahoney, Daily News Albany Bureau Chief, reveals that the Lower courts have sided with the ACK.

Win or lose at the High court, Hammer said, Spooner will keep her tail. :-)

The AKC counters that Brittanies were bred to hunt and that docking the tails prevents injury while the dogs are in the field.
_ _ _

THE CASE FOR TAIL DOCKING
Excerpts from the Council of Docked Breeds (UK):

The docking of dogs tails is a practice which has been carried out for centuries in order to avoid tail damage, for hygiene and other reasons. Today there are over fifty traditionally docked breeds which are recognised by various Kennel Clubs.

But docking has, in recent years, come under the scrutiny of the veterinary establishment, which has condemned the practice as an "unjustified mutilation".

Breeders, dog owners and many veterinary surgeons disagree with this view. They believe that if docking ceased, dogs would suffer.

Docking, they say, is a perfectly humane procedure when properly carried out, and one, which prevents far more distress than it causes. It is, like neutering, simply a practical animal management technique which should remain available to dog breeders and owners.

Why Are Dog's Tails Docked?

1. To avoid tail damage
A number of working gundog breeds have to hunt game through heavy vegetation and thick brambles, where their fast tail action can easily lead to torn and bleeding tails which are painful and extremely difficult to treat. Docking the end of the tail eliminates the risk of injury.

Working terriers are docked for the same reason. In addition, terriers which are bred to hunt below ground for purposes such as fox control, have their tails docked to a length which is more practical when working in a confined space.

Other non-working breeds which have an enthusiastic tail action, are also liable to damage their tails, even in the home.

Since docking was banned in Sweden in 1989, there has been a massive increase in tail injuries amongst previously docked breeds. Within the 50 undocked Pointer litters registered in that year with the Swedish Kennel Club, 38% of dogs suffered tail injury before they were 18 months old and in 1991, the number of individuals with tail injures had increased to 51% of the group.

2. For reasons of hygiene
Long haired, thick coated breeds like the Yorkshire Terrier and Old English Sheepdog are docked to avoid the hair around the base of the tail becoming fouled by faeces. Even with constant grooming and washing, such fouling is unpleasant. If allowed to get out of hand, it can lead to severe problems of hygiene, or even flystrike and subsequent infestation by maggots.

Hygiene problems can be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether by docking.

3. To maintain breed standards
Breeds which have been docked over many generations have been selected for specific qualities of build and conformation, but not for tail length, shape or carriage.

If left undocked, it is unlikely that the best dogs would carry good tails. In seeking to maintain the quality of the breeds, breeders would therefore be left with a diminished number of suitable sires and dams. The genetic pool would be reduced, greatly increasing the risk of hereditary diseases taking hold. Some breeds could even disappear for ever.

How is docking carried out?
There are two methods of docking. The majority of breeders used the technique known as "banding", in which a ligature, normally an orthodontic band, was placed over the end of the puppies tail at 24-96 hours old. This effectively cuts off the blood supply to the end of the tail, which comes away within 3 days.

Most vets used to cut the tail with surgical scissors. There is generally no need for stitches, but on occasions these can be used, especially with the larger breeds. Nowadays in the UK, vets are more than likely to use the banding method.

Is docking cruel?
Docking is carried out when puppies are tiny. Their eyes are not yet open and long experience indicates that carried out correctly, the procedure causes no pain or discomfort. Indeed, some puppies which are docked whilst they are asleep, do not even wake up. After docking, puppies will immediately return to their dam to feed, and there is no evidence that development or weight gain is in any way arrested by the docking procedure.

Nor does a dog which has been docked as a puppy have any problems with balance or communication.

If, however, tail damage occurs during adulthood and docking has to be carried out for therapeutic reasons, normally under anaesthetic, a dog can be seriously distressed and the healing process can be painful and protracted.

Do dog breeders want the law changed?
All responsible breeders consider the welfare of dogs to be of the utmost importance. They recognise that docking should be carried out by competent, experienced individuals such as veterinary surgeons. They therefore wish to see vets free to continue docking, without the threat of action for professional misconduct hanging over them.

But, just as farmers in the UK are permitted to dock lambs, breeders believe that there is a strong case for suitably qualified lay people to be authorised by law to dock puppies.

The Council of Docked Breeds has therefore proposed the introduction of a docking Register listing those who would be trained and certified in docking.

Breeders and owners maintain that, far from improving the lot of docked breeds, the effective abolition of docking would lead to a crisis in animal welfare.
_ _ _

THE UK LEGAL POSITION ON TAIL DOCKING
Tail docking has historically been undertaken largely by dog breeders. However, in 1991, the UK government amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act, thereby prohibiting the docking of dog's tails by lay persons from 1 July 1993. Now, only veterinary surgeons are, by law, allowed to dock.

However, following the Government move, the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in November 1992, ruled docking to be unethical, "unless for therapeutic or acceptable prophylactic reasons". Furthermore, the circumstances in which the Royal College considered prophylactic docking to be acceptable were so hedged with conditions as to make the routine docking of puppies by veterinary surgeons extremely difficult.

Vets who continue to dock risk disciplinary action, including being struck off the professional register.

Is the abolition of docking demanded by Europe?
There is no European Community Directive or Regulation against docking. The only International Treaty which mentions docking is the 1987 European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, established by the advisory grouping of Western European States, the Council of Europe.

Although it calls for the prohibition of docking, it specifically recognises the rights of nations which otherwise accept the Convention, to reserve their position on the issue. The treaty therefore accepts that docking is not a clear cut matter.

After 9 years, only 11 out of the 39 states have signed and ratified the treaty, not including the United Kingdom. Five of those, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Portugal have reserved their position on docking. (Correct as at 18 October 1996).
_ _ _
Note: I have been trying, with no luck so far, to find an email address for Manhatten lawyer Jon H Hammer (or Joseph P. Foley who argued the appeal for Hammer, and appeared pro se with Leslie K. Anker on the brief) to suggest that he starts a free weblog to see if we in the blogosphere can help him with publicity to put pressure on the US High court. We could get him a lot of column inches in blogs (and the press) all around the world.

One press report quotes US Assemblyman James Tedisco, author of a state law criminalizing animal cruelty, as saying: "I really don't understand why you have to clip the tail to win what amounts to a beauty contest. And I could see how that could be painful."