Tail docking illegal?

TooManyDogs

I know this topic has been done to death but as far as I was aware it's not illegal in Ireland to dock a dog's tail. I know the Veterinary Council of Ireland deems it to be a mutilation and it's members would be in breach of the Guide to Professional Behaviour if they did dock tails.

However today at training someone mentioned the litter of pups on TV3s Ireland AM that the ISPCA confiscated because they had tails docked (with rubber bands :mad: ) and it was illegal. The person said it had been illegal in Ireland for a few years but I'm really not sure it is the case.

Has anyone got any links to the law having been changed?

biko

According to Louth SCPA it's not
www.louthspca.ie/attachments/article/162/Tail%20Docking.pdf
Aug 2011

Unfortunately, the procedure is not illegal in Ireland but cannot be carried out by a veterinary practitioner

This guy says it is

The cropping of ears and docking of tails and any procedure which is considered the mutilation of animals is illegal in Ireland.

http://cromcruaichkennel.jimdo.com/about-me/

Now I'm confused too

andreac

Docking is not illegal in the south of Ireland at the moment. Vets have been instructed not to carry this procedure out but it is not illegal yet.

TooManyDogs

That's the problem I've been finding, people think it's illegal because the vets refuse to do it but that's just because they're own guidelines ban it not because it's the law. But now I'm totally confused because this person is totally convinced that it's illegal, "you can't show them or anything", I pointed out that there are tons of docked dogs in the show ring here and she reckoned they were docked before the law changed. She had no answer when I pointed out the puppy classes also had docked dogs.

scudzilla

So if Vet's can''t do it who does then??

Our boxer has a full tail and we love it, pain in the hole when she gets excited and whips ya with it but i think it looks cool.

When we have a litter we will not be docking any

andreac

Toomanydogs, thats because there is no law!! Not in the Republic anyway.

I own and show rottweilers and know many many people involved in showing and breeding dogs that are docked. They are 100% allowed to show a docked dog in Ireland and people still dock. Trust me, i know the score on this as im involved in showing dogs and know many people who breed as well.

There is a new law coming in up North this year from April, but its not coming in down here.

TooManyDogs

andreac wrote: »

Toomanydogs, thats because there is no law!! Not in the Republic anyway.

It takes me so long to type that you were there ahead of me

I figured I couldnt have missed such a huge change of law.

Thanks guys

Cookie_Monster

while there is no specific law banning it surely it must fall under animal cruelty laws?

Wibbs

*conjecture* Could it be that some methods might be construed as cruelty and might be prosecutable(rubber bands etc), versus a vet doing it under medical conditions which would be OK(even if they choose not to do it as TooManyDogs pointed out)? That's where the grey area may come in?

Solair

I don't really see why people would do that anyway. Dogs tails are part of their balancing mechanisms and I would assume it's rather painful too.

Cherry Blossom

22.—(1) If any operation to which this section applies is performed on any animal without the use of an anaesthetic so administered as to prevent any pain during the operation, that operation shall be deemed for the purposes of the Principal Act to be an operation which is performed without due care and humanity.
(2) This section applies to any operation with or without the use of instruments which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or the bone structure of an animal (including the dehorning of an animal that involves such interference), other than—
...

(e) an operation referred to in the Schedule to this Act.

Excepted Operations

1. Any experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.
2. The rendering in emergency of first aid for the purpose of saving life or relieving pain.
3. The docking of the tail of a dog under one month old.

If the pups were over one month old it is illegal.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1965/en/act/pub/0010/print.html#sec18

kildare.17hmr

The rubber bands they use are the ones used to castrate lambs, it stops the blood flow and it falls off after a few days. Docking is not cruel

ISDW

As far as I'm aware, that case was because of the method used - rubber bands - and the age of the pups.

TooManyDogs

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

If the pups were over one month old it is illegal.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1965/en/act/pub/0010/print.html#sec18

That could be the crux of the matter, I think they were over a month old

http://www.ispca.ie/rescue_cases/view/pups_with_docked_tails_rescued_by_ispca

You know yourself, I didn't like to keep saying this girl was wrong without having proof to hand myself so I left it in the end

Cherry Blossom

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

The rubber bands they use are the ones used to castrate lambs, it stops the blood flow and it falls off after a few days. Docking is not cruel

Since you've brought it up . . .

(c) the application of a rubber ring or other device to a lamb within seven days after its birth for the purpose of constricting the flow of blood to the tail of the lamb

This is one of the exceptions to the act, and it very specificly applies to lambs only - meaning this method of tail docking is illegal in any other species.

ABajaninCork

Cosmetic docking of dogs is not supported by Veterinary Ireland and the practice is no longer taught to Irish veterinary students.

As an interesting note: It is illegal to show dogs in the UK whose tails have been cosmetically docked after 6th April 2007 (Animal Welfare Act 2007). Cruft's support this and are extremely vigilant to ensure this is done.

Sadly, the Irish legislation is nowhere near as extensive as it is in the UK. I know the government have more pressing matters to attend to, but I do wish the same kind of laws could be passed here.

andreac

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Cosmetic docking of dogs is not supported by Veterinary Ireland and the practice is no longer taught to Irish veterinary students.

As an interesting note: It is illegal to show dogs in the UK whose tails have been cosmetically docked after 6th April 2007 (Animal Welfare Act 2007). Cruft's support this and are extremely vigilant to ensure this is done.
Sadly, the Irish legislation is nowhere near as extensive as it is in the UK. I know the government have more pressing matters to attend to, but I do wish the same kind of laws could be passed here.

Thats not entirely correct. You can still show at shows in the UK where the isnt an entrance fee charged to the public so you can still show at a lot of shows in the UK with a docked dog even if it was docked after April 2007. Also you can show at shows in N.Ireland Scotland too with docked dogs after this date.

Discodog

Anyone docking a dog of any age by means of the "rubber band" would be open to a possible charge of cruelty. All that has to be proved is that the animal experienced "unnecessary suffering". This can be proved because the only painless way to remove a tail is under anaesthetic which can only be administered by a Vet. Anyone can try putting a tight rubber band on their finger to get an idea of whether it is painful or not.

Whilst it is against accepted veterinary practice I am certain that there are still Vets who will dock whilst docking is still technically legal. I would expect that whenever (or if ever) we get the proposed Animal Welfare Bill it will outlaw docking by any method.

Bullseye1

I've started to see quite a few breeds that would normally be docked but were fully intact. They look so different.

Discodog

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've started to see quite a few breeds that would normally be docked but were fully intact. They look so different.

Especially Boxers with that long skinny tail wagging at 60mph . My little Lab/Collie really makes one realise how important a tail is. His nose hits the ground & the tail starts going like a windscreen wiper !

Bullseye1

Yeah seen quite a few Boxers and a couple of Rotties and one Weinmaraner.

JustAThought

Controversial question!! At the risk of being snarled to death by the usual suspects here ; there are also issues between the kennel clubs here & in the Uk/ abroad over it. While the Irish Kennel Club is still ok for you to show docked dogs; you cannot show them at events where the public are allowed & pay fees into, in the UK. This means many .
There has been a lot of messing about within some breeds categories up at the IKC where dogs who are NOt docked, as per IKC breed standard are actively marked down; the same dogs have WON in Cruffs; which is very ridiculous .

A lot of working dogs have/ have had their tails docked; prevents them breaking it or damaging it out in the " wilds" following a hunt. This is typically done by the breeder at 3 or 4 days of age / "old"

I know that dogs use the tail like a rudder for balance & steering; as well as expressing happy : ) you see some terribly sad dockings particularly with boxers some of whose tails are cut right into their bums leaving nothing at all; v sad to see

Discodog

JustAThought wrote: »

A lot of working dogs have/ have had their tails docked; prevents them breaking it or damaging it out in the " wilds" following a hunt. This is typically done by the breeder at 3 or 4 days of age / "old"

I agree with the Vets that this is a invalid argument. I suspect that there have been very few cases of a working dog breaking it's tail - unless it gets shut in a door. Docking is purely cosmetic & there will always be an element who don't like progress.

None of us should be surprised at any confusion within the national Kennel Clubs who have a long history of ignoring dog welfare when it comes to cosmetic appearance.

EDIT: The following is from a VICAS Press Release concerning docking working dogs. Mr Rossiter is the chairman of VICAS (The Veterinary Ireland Companion Animal Society):

Mr Rossiter states that “there is no scientific evidence to show that
undocked working dogs damage their tails any more than undocked non-working dogs. A seven
year study at the University of Edinburgh Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies showed
insufficient evidence of statistical significance to suggest a positive association between taili
njuries and undocked tails (Darke et al, 1985). In other words the risk of tail injury is equal in
working dogs compared to non-working dogs and thus there is no argument to say that an
exception should be made for working dogs only – all dogs whether working or not are at equal
risk to tail injury. This refutes any argument which may be put forward to make allowances for
the „prophylactic‟ docking of certain working breeds so as to reduce the incidence or severity of
future tail injuries. Furthermore most of the dogs from a litter of the „working breeds‟ that have
traditionally been docked would end up as pet dogs in a family home setting”

http://www.veterinaryireland.ie/index.php/news/news-archives

Solair

I always think it looks a bit pathetic to see a docked dog wagging its bum to compensate for lack of a tail. They look totally unbalanced to me.

kildare.17hmr

Discodog its not that working dogs break their tail they cut it and it gets snagged in thick heavy cover, if a hunting dog gets hurt Badly it may not hunt cover again so Its not cosmetic its ptactical. your commenting on something you know nothing about

Wibbs

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

your commenting on something you know nothing about

Presumably the seven
year study at the University of Edinburgh Royal School of Veterinary Studies was also commenting on something they know nothing about too?

Coyotes, wolves and foxes all hunt in heavy cover regularly. No bowl of pedigree chum for them on tap. Yet evolution didn't select for lack of tail, indeed great big bushy tails they have.

ASIDE/ Which tbh is something I've wondered about in the past, why have many working dog breeds been bred for short hair on the tails if this tail damage was indeed such an issue? You would think longer hair would be protective?

ISDW

I'm probably going to shock some people now:)

I'm not saying I agree with tail docking, but can understand the argument about working dogs, if it is done humanely by a vet at the early age. What do people who disagree with it even on those grounds think about the removal of rear dew claws on dogs - when the reason given is to prevent them catching on things and injuring the dog? Not as common as tail docking, but it does happen, and in fact I have a dog that needs to be neutered, and will be having his rear dew claws removed at the same time.

Sorry, I probably should have started a new thread on it, mods if you want to split it and do that, please do.

Wibbs

ISDW wrote: »

Not as common as tail docking, but it does happen, and in fact I have a dog that needs to be neutered, and will be having his rear dew claws removed at the same time.

Actually happened to my childhood dog, an elkhound. He tore one of his dew claws. God it was gory and he was in a lot of pain.:(

ISDW

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually happened to my childhood dog, an elkhound. He tore one of his dew claws. God it was gory and he was in a lot of pain.:(

Was that front or rear? Usually front ones are left on, but if a dog happens to have rear ones, most people get them removed.

Wibbs

Rear ISDW. IIRC Wasn't very long either, but long enough to get caught :eek::(

DBB

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Discodog its not that working dogs break their tail they cut it and it gets snagged in thick heavy cover, if a hunting dog gets hurt Badly it may not hunt cover again so Its not cosmetic its ptactical. your commenting on something you know nothing about

Why aren't setters' and English pointers' tails docked? The argument I've heard is that they don't work cover which, according to every rough shooter I've asked, when they think about it, they realise is simply not true. Indeed, my OH owned add shot over English Setters which he tells me would come home with blood all over their tails from working cover.
Also, and I know this information was casually obtained, my vet works in the middle of serious pheasant country, and sees many working gundogs if different breeds. It's her opinion that cutting the long hair from the tail is a far more effective strategy... And she sees plenty of docked springers with bloody stumps.

ISDW, my comment about dew claws is this. They are vestigial, and serve little, or no purpose (though I think the thinking is that they help spread pressure to prevent dogs sinking into soft snow? Do they really? I've always found it hard to believe, but I'm very much open to correction!).

Bubblefett

My dog (a rescue from a haulting site) had his tail docked and for the first 6 months I had him he couldn't wag it properly, it wagged in a slow clockwork motion no matter how happy he was.
It was a man I met in my local park who said his tail had been docked badly and probably very painfully. Absolutely broke my heart.

Only recently he's wagging his tail like a real dog, I cried the first time I saw it, it was like he'd finally healed from the awful way he was treated before.
I still get a kick when I see it going when we play ball or he gets a treat.

Bullseye1

Something we need to consider is the fact that the majority of dog breeds that we know today would not exist if it were not for breeders. A substantial number of dog breeds exist to do a specific task, some even for how they look.

Personally I don't buy the tail docking argument as there are just as many hunting dogs with undocked tails. Dobermans and Rotties are not hunting dogs yet traditionally they have had their tails docked and in the Dobermans case their ears docked to make them look more aggressive.

It will be interesting to look at these dogs in 5-10 years time when we will be seeing them fully intact.

TooManyDogs

About dew claw removal, I wouldn't have much of a problem with removing rear dew claws, the vast majority of the one's I've seen simply hang off the side of the leg flapping, only attached by skin. I can't see any practical use for them but can imagine them getting caught on everything and potentially cause injury. When my spaniel had a large growth on the tip of her ear the vet recommended removing it to prevent it getting ripped off by accident, I think most rear dew claws fall into this category.
I would hate to thing of people removing front dew claws, they do have a purpose and having seen my lot climb near vertical banks I can only assume the front dew claws helped

ISDW

Good point Bullseye about Dobies and Rotties. What is the reasoning behind their docking, as they are not hunting dogs?

kylith

ISDW wrote: »

Good point Bullseye about Dobies and Rotties. What is the reasoning behind their docking, as they are not hunting dogs?

Word is, and this may be apocriphal, that they were working dogs. Working dogs were taxed, and to show that this tax had been paid the dogs were docked. There's also a theory that this is where the word 'dog' came from (a corruption of 'dock'), because 'dog' appears very suddenly in the middle ages with no etymology; previously any dog would have been called a 'hound'. As I said I don't know if it's true or not, but it's the story I've been told.

Both mine are docked, and though Tegan isn't too bad, Rani was left only with a stump, like a boxer. I feel so sad for her because she can only twitch her stump to show that she's happy. Whoever did it was an absolute brute.

Discodog

ISDW wrote: »

What do people who disagree with it even on those grounds think about the removal of rear dew claws on dogs - when the reason given is to prevent them catching on things and injuring the dog? Not as common as tail docking, but it does happen, and in fact I have a dog that needs to be neutered, and will be having his rear dew claws removed at the same time.

The problem is where do you draw the line ? Yes dew claws can get injured so can long ears, or tails. It is difficult to justify surgery on the basis of what might happen especially if the evidence shows that it often doesn't. Law or good practice runs into problems where there is too much individual interpretation. So if a Vet removes dew claws, for what he perceives as medical reasons, then someone else can use the same excuse to have them removed for cosmetic reasons.

There is also a perceived difference where the procedure is secondary i.e. the animal is undergoing a more major procedure & the claws are being removed whilst it is under anaesthetic. In the case of rear dew claws there may be an argument for ethical removal if it is deemed that they are a genetic oddity.

Discodog

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Discodog its not that working dogs break their tail they cut it and it gets snagged in thick heavy cover, if a hunting dog gets hurt Badly it may not hunt cover again so Its not cosmetic its ptactical. your commenting on something you know nothing about

With respect you do not know me so you have no idea whether I "know" about this subject or not. I was expressing a personal opinion but one that is backed by a very extensive study by a highly reputable organisation.

One could argue that if your dog gets injured whilst hunting then you could be at fault by putting the dog into situations where it can get hurt. My youngster would happily charge into Briers if something took his attention but it is up to me to stop him if he is at reasonable risk of injury.

Yet again we have a situation where people that use animals for "work" or "sport" believe that they are a special case & should be excused from animal welfare law. I have no doubt that the "sport" lobby will ensure that docking is retained for working dogs even if it is against all the Veterinary evidence & advice.

Wibbs

DBB wrote: »

ISDW, my comment about dew claws is this. They are vestigial, and serve little, or no purpose (though I think the thinking is that they help spread pressure to prevent dogs sinking into soft snow? Do they really? I've always found it hard to believe, but I'm very much open to correction!).

I dunno DBB, wolves who often live in deep snow environments don't have dew claws on the rear legs. if they gave an advantage you'd imagine they would? If one is spotted with them it's even used as a clear indicator of domestic dog interbreeding/ancestry.

ISDW

kylith wrote: »

Word is, and this may be apocriphal, that they were working dogs. Working dogs were taxed, and to show that this tax had been paid the dogs were docked. There's also a theory that this is where the word 'dog' came from (a corruption of 'dock'), because 'dog' appears very suddenly in the middle ages with no etymology; previously any dog would have been called a 'hound'. As I said I don't know if it's true or not, but it's the story I've been told.

I can see the reasoning behind that, but then why wouldn't collies have docked tails? Very much a working dog, and rotties were originally herding dogs.

Discodog wrote: »

The problem is where do you draw the line ? Yes dew claws can get injured so can long ears, or tails. It is difficult to justify surgery on the basis of what might happen especially if the evidence shows that it often doesn't. Law or good practice runs into problems where there is too much individual interpretation. So if a Vet removes dew claws, for what he perceives as medical reasons, then someone else can use the same excuse to have them removed for cosmetic reasons.

There is also a perceived difference where the procedure is secondary i.e. the animal is undergoing a more major procedure & the claws are being removed whilst it is under anaesthetic. In the case of rear dew claws there may be an argument for ethical removal if it is deemed that they are a genetic oddity.

Thats my point DD. I would always tend towards removing rear dew claws, because I would worry they could get torn off and hurt the dog - the same reasoning for docking terriers though. So, am I any different in my beliefs to those who dock?:eek:

kylith

ISDW wrote: »

I can see the reasoning behind that, but then why wouldn't collies have docked tails? Very much a working dog, and rotties were originally herding dogs.

Maybe they figured it was needed for speed while chasing after sheep? Rotties would have been more for droving cattle, so didn't need to be as fast, as is evident by their size.

Discodog

ISDW wrote: »

Thats my point DD. I would always tend towards removing rear dew claws, because I would worry they could get torn off and hurt the dog - the same reasoning for docking terriers though. So, am I any different in my beliefs to those who dock?:eek:

A dog could damage dew claws by accident but a terrier is docked because it is potentially going be put into danger - there is a big difference. Terriers should never be docked & not deliberately put into risky situations.

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

A dog could damage dew claws by accident but a terrier is docked because it is potentially going be put into danger - there is a big difference. Terriers should never be docked & not deliberately put into risky situations.

Define danger, would that include stairs? There is risk with everything.

Zapperzy

kylith wrote: »

Both mine are docked, and though Tegan isn't too bad, Rani was left only with a stump, like a boxer. I feel so sad for her because she can only twitch her stump to show that she's happy. Whoever did it was an absolute brute.

I thought yours were cairn crosses? I didn't realise cairns were normally docked?

I don't agree with docking, especially not for rotties, dobies and boxers (non-traditional working breeds) where it is done on a purely cosmetic basis. For working dogs I would have thought well at least there is a reasoning behind it (whether true or not), but after reading here I'm not so sure now.

I would also think that lack of a tail could also contribute to people's fear of certain breeds like rottweilers, when you think of a happy dog you usually picture a waggy tail, without this waggy tail people who aren't used to dogs could misinterprete a happy dog as a cross dog so you end up with someone thinking all rottweilers, dobermans, boxers etc. are cross or just not happy lovable dogs. Would also be interesting to see how a docked dog's body language differs from a non-docked dog when communicating with other dogs.

DBB

The same argument I posed above re English pointers and the various setters applies to terriers.
Why are jackers docked, yet cairns, scotties, westies etc not? They all had the same jobs. Wheatens, patterdales, Kerry blues, Irish terriers and others traditionally have only a small portion (is it the top 3rd?) removed. Is it geographic? Or just mixed up thinking?
Any other ideas?
Zapperzy, you're quite right, cairns should not be docked. I might freak kylith out now by saying I met her dogs before she adopted them, they're cairn crosses. And, as it happens, I've taken in about 5 docked purebred westies in my time.

kylith

Zapperzy wrote: »

I thought yours were cairn crosses? I didn't realise cairns were normally docked?

They are Cairn crosses. I don't know if they're usually docked, but Tegan's seems to have been docked at about a hand's length (she was abandoned in the pound for being useless for hunting, so she was probably docked for hunting). Rani, I don't know about; I have zero history on her except that she was fat when I got her, so probably not a hunting dog. You can just make out her stump in this pic

Discodog

doctor evil wrote: »

Define danger, would that include stairs? There is risk with everything.

There is a difference between everyday danger or risk & making a dog take additional risk to suit a purpose. A Jack Russell kept purely as a pet is very unlikely to damage it's tail. It is a different matter if it is being used to hunt.

The question here is whether it is ethical to allow the mutilation of a dog for a recreational purpose. It is not being done to improve the dog's health which is why Vets have effectively banned it.

Cherry Blossom

JustAThought wrote: »

At the risk of being snarled to death by the usual suspects here ;

People are getting a bit sick of this snide, childish attitude, if you are going to continue making sweeping statements/accusations directed at either unnamed persons or the general population of this forum expect infractions to accompany them from this point on.

Either refute posts you disagree with in a civilised manner after they appear instead of speculating about what people are going to reply with, don't post in the first place if you don't want people to reply or report posts you feel cause you offence. If you have issue with this post take it up by the appropriate means, do not reply to this post on thread.

Shanao

I think most people know my stance on docking having witnessed it being performed on a boxer pup a few years ago (:mad:) so I'm not going to bother repeating the valid arguments people have already posted here.
With rotties and dobies, as far as I know, rotties had their tails docked as being cattle dogs there was a risk of their tails being stepped on by the cattle if they sat down near them. Dobies on the other hand were docked as they were bred to be guard dogs and without a tail it was impossible for an intruder to tell whether the approaching dog was friendly or not, hence making them far more hesitant about breaking in.
I've seen a few traditionally docked dogs lately with their full tails and i think its brilliant to see them, especially rotts and dobes as people see a big waggy tail and dont feel quite so scared of them.

Zapperzy

kylith wrote: »

They are Cairn crosses. I don't know if they're usually docked, but Tegan's seems to have been docked at about a hand's length (she was abandoned in the pound for being useless for hunting, so she was probably docked for hunting). Rani, I don't know about; I have zero history on her except that she was fat when I got her, so probably not a hunting dog. You can just make out her stump in this pic

Lovely looking pair, they look happy! I'd love to let mine off the lead for a run but the last I'd see of him would be his nose down and tail up! Such a shame to see a cairn with a docked tail, my fella has such a waggy tail that curls over his back when he's very happy!

kylith

Zapperzy wrote: »

Lovely looking pair, they look happy! I'd love to let mine off the lead for a run but the last I'd see of him would be his nose down and tail up! Such a shame to see a cairn with a docked tail, my fella has such a waggy tail that curls over his back when he's very happy!

Thanks They're very tired in that picture. We'd done about 5km, and they'd been chasing gulls all the way. That's one of only 2/3 places that I'll let them off, pretty much anywhere else and they'd be gone after rats and rabbits :rolleyes: