Letters we have received concerning tail docking

Dear Animaltalk
I believe docking should not be done and never should have been started because it seems to only be for human purpose not the actual dog at all. Yes, I have seen the pain before my eyes when a few times a vet docked a couple of puppies, no anesthetic or anything. The poor puppy yelped in agony. How can this have been continued for so long in SA?
I see that certain people say it looks nice in shows, but who are we showing dogs for? Ourselves or the dogs?
The fact that others say its more hygienic if they are docked from a feces point of view, my argument is well then cut or trim the long hair, there is your problem solved .
Also and more importantly is God created them the way they are who are we to change it?
 
This leads me to the next horrible thing that so many people ask me - ' Can I remove my monkeys teeth? '
Why? Well the same thing its not for the monkey but the human being because they scared of being bitten by their own monkey.
The same thing as what happens with tree squirrels - 'Self -Mutilation ' well so do most animals for very  good reasons that humans battle to understand .
Same as above - God created them the way they are for a very good reason who are we to change it for our own satisfaction or convenience.
 
I believe my opinion is quite clear and have nothing further to say accept that we are supposed to care not HURT .
 
Yours faithfully
Wendy Macleod
World Primate Sanctuary

Dear Animaltalk
You wanted to know our opinion about docking. well awe are 100% for it.
 
we have had dobermans for nearly 35 years. our first dog was an afghan hound, our second and all following dogs were dobbies, (except 1 mongrel which we found not even 24 hours old. everybody thought she was a misstep of our male, but with a  bushy tail. her mother was an irish setter as a later found out.). because we needed a wash and wear dog. no more long hair or tail as our dog are part of the family and they suited our lifestyle perfectly. my husband has been working with all of them. (Working trails). so it's training every day either at home or out in the field.
 
our old male was getting on in live (12 y) at the beginning of this year and we needed a replacement, also for security reason. we had all our dogs except the last 2 from the same breeder. by selecting our new puppy we know, that docking has become a problem. but in agreement with the breeder we decided to have our pup docked. unfortunately something went wrong and now with 6 month his stompie had to be fixed as the bone and skin at the tip have fused together and the last 1 1/2 cm was without any hair. even with putting moisturizer and sunblock 3 times a day the skin was so brittle and bleeding very often. Now it was not a docking anymore, it was an amputation of ca.1 cm.
 
he was very good at leaving the stitches alone and everything looked fine. unfortunately he knocked this stompie continuously as he is a lively boy. now yesterday l had to bring him to the vet again as he knocked himself badly and the wound burst open. a piece of bone had somehow become lose. so he had an other op. we are all very upset, as he is a very good dog and actually no dog should be subjected to this.
 
without this stupid law of docking being prohibited, all of this would never have happened. he would have had his tail docked at 4 days without any problems. l have seen enough puppies at that age and l am sure they don't get traumatized by docking. their  pain sense is not developed at that stage and the couple of minutes it takes a vet to dock a tail is nothing. if they grow up without a tail, they can not miss it neither. we are convinced that a docked dog is as happy as an undocked one. their stompie can wag as much as a long tail, but without all the swiping everything of the coffee table, knocking your legs blue and black and blood marks all along the walls. a dobermans tail is only bone and the short hair is not much protection.
 
a dobbie cross of our friends needed her tail amputated at ca. 3 years and that was trauma. it toke her a long time to find her balance and not looking for her tail anymore.
 
why can't those bunny huggers leave thing alone. there is enough suffering by animals they could get engaged with. but it's always the same. they come up with all this brilliant ideas, which backfire in the end. best example the bio-fuel. all farmers growing crop that can be made into fuel and forget about the food for the people. and wind farm and bats.
 
We have been subscriber of animaltalk since the beginning and will stay that way. congratulation on your good work.
 
regards
Luzia Bohi

Against tail docking
I am continually astounded at the intellectual poverty of arguments in favour of docking dogs’ tails, including those aired in your article (Snip-snip).  I would like to respond to some of these in turn.

1) Aesthetics.  The aesthetic ‘look’ of dogs, especially show dogs, has been bred into them in the first place; it is a human invention, culturally very specific, and changeable over the course of time, as are all aesthetic norms.  Change the aesthetic.  A dog with a tail can be seen as more beautiful and complete than one without.

2) Hygiene and health.  A well-groomed long-haired dog with a functional tail will mess itself no more than any other – and of course there are a number of long-haired breeds amongst which docking is NOT the norm; the difference is human habit, no more.  Humans have, moreover, bred far worse health hazards into dogs who suffer breathing problems, back problems, hip dysplasia, etc etc – all of which can be gradually be bred out again should breeders so choose.

3) To argue that ceasing to dock tails is going to cause genetic weakening is utter hogwash; as any geneticist of any worth will testify, even long-term mutilations are not going to translate into genetic material in any way whatsoever. Let a Dobermann keep its tail, and it will be found to be as functional as any other, and present no detrimental effect on any other inbred feature (see below).  Even if there were such an effect, it could simply be bred out of them again.

4) To argue that puppies don’t really feel the pain because they are newborn defies every observation of biology; we know perfectly well that even well-developed foetuses have fully functional nervous systems, of which pain receptivity is one of the first to develop.  What docking advocates mean is that the puppies are still too mute too protest very loudly; this is a modern residue of Descartes’s view of animals as mechanical, and it is totally scientifically unsustainable, any more than cutting off a newborn human baby’s big toe might be said to be pain-free and morally defensible.  How many tail-dockers support female circumcision or the binding of girls’ feet for aesthetic reasons, just because the recipients of the mutilations are too young to object?

5) Hunting injuries. What nonsense.  Tails are there also to provide protection to the rear areas when attacked – and how many dogs are seriously being used for such ‘underground’ hunting nowadays anyway?  Sure, tails will get in the way of something and get hurt from time to time, but I’ll be willing to bet that feet, ears and throats get hurt and bitten far more often.  Cats’ tails often get bitten in fights, and who has suggested docking them?  (Nowadays this is nearly as ridiculous a reason as that the dog’s tail might sweep a coffee-cup off a table, another non-“argument” not infrequently heard.)

6) One factor is seldom mentioned, yet seems to me absolutely paramount: dogs TALK to each other, and to humans, to a great extent with their tails.  Stiff for aggression, waving for friendship, tucked in for scared – and a thousand nuances in between.  Such body language is probably much more important to dog communication than sound.  Cutting off a dog’s tail is equivalent to cutting out half of a human’s tongue: the range of communication is severely reduced.  The pathetically wagging little stump left over by docking is like someone mouthing the same syllable over and over.  In eastern Zimbabwe, Jill Wylie has pursued a forty-year career of rescuing lost and trapped dogs.  Because much of the searching happened in bush, and often with some distance between herself and her tracker dog, and because she needed to be silent, she and the dog communicated wholly by body language, hand-signals for one, tail-signals for the other.  Her Dobermann Javelin kept her tail, and it was beautiful and fully functional; from it, at a distance, Jill could read whether Javelin was on the track of dog, human, or other animal, was confronting a snake or something dead, was excited about being onto the right track or not. (Her book about Javelin, “Search” [Echoing Green Press] will be coming off the press this very week. Read it, and be convinced.)
 That tail – any dog’s tail - is a fantastically complex instrument of athleticism, communication, and utility, as useful in its own way as a human hand or an elephant’s trunk.  The arguments raised in favour of habitual docking amount to nothing more than whim and convention (backed by a certain, seldom-admitted amount of financial investment in the artificial perpetuation of ‘pure-bred’ qualities, of course – but financial gain is not an ethical argument, either): such arguments are intellectually feeble, scientifically untenable, and ethically totally indefensible..

Dan Wylie
Grahamstown

Dear Animaltalk
I own a black Russian terrier. As you know, their tails are docked and I agree to this.  They have very thick, long hair. It would be very unhygienic if one leaves the tail undocked.
My argument: do you have a daughter?  Did you get her earrings?  Well, if yes, why?  It also hurt for a while, and it also isn't necessary. So why then? For cosmetic reasons.  The same with tail docking.
 
As they mentioned in the article, it gets done while the dogs are still puppies, between 2 & 5 days old. They barely feel a thing.  I personally think that refusing to dock their tales, breeders that breed these kind of dogs like brt's, jack russels, yorkies, etc, might start doing it themselves. This will result in more pain and accidents, as they don't have the 7 years of university studies a vet has. 
 
I strongly are for tail docking. This way we can save a lot of pain in dogs, as vets know what they are doing, and we don't.  I will never do it myself, but other people might........
 
Regards
Linda Geyer

Dear Animaltalk
I refer to your article entitled “Snip-Snip,” appearing in the November 2008 issue of Animal Talk.
The author of the article Mr Brett Venter, has presented information on the subject of Tail Docking which is factually inaccurate.
As the issue of tail docking per sé has been discussed at length in various websites, I will not expand upon what some perceive to be the “pros” and “cons” of tail docking, or what I prefer to refer to as amputation. Readers can search the internet in order to acquire a wealth of information on the subject.
Save as to say that with effect from the 1 June 2008, the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC), being the regulatory body for the Veterinary and Para Veterinary Professions in South Africa, has declared tail docking banned. This has been done  in line with a multitude of civilized countries worldwide, all of whom have declared the practice cruel and unnecessary.  
Any registered veterinarian found to be upholding the practice of tail docking will have disciplinary action taken against them. They could furthermore be criminally charged under the Animal Protection Act number 71 of `1962 (as amended) with cruelty to animals.
Likewise any lay person found continuing such a practice can be charged under the same act. The responsibility for bringing such action to court would be under the auspices of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA). Charges have been laid against certain individuals who have unilaterally taken it upon themselves to continue unabated with the procedure of tail docking.
The author of the article in the November issue makes reference to the Kennel Union of Southern Africa (Kusa)having gone so far as to take the South African Veterinary Association (SAVA) to court over the banning in order to win back their right to dock tails(sic).
SAVA, being a voluntary body, has no rights or powers either to encourage or discourage registered veterinarians from indulging in tail docking. Therefore Kusa could not, and has not commenced legal proceedings against this body. In fact it has been verified that Kusa has not brought any such legal action against any organization including the SAVC.
Furthermore it is ludicrous to suggest that Kusa has the right to win back their right to dock tails(sic). The Kusa, being a registration and administrative organization, has no rights conferred upon it to indulge in tail docking, prescribe or recommend such practice to its members.
It would be appropriate under the circumstances, if the editor of Animal Talk would verify the factual accuracies or inaccuracies of material used before such articles are accepted for publication.
Failing this the general public would be exposed, as in this case, to incorrect and inaccurate information.
Under the circumstances, and subject to verification of what has been mentioned above, it would be incumbent upon the editor that rectification of the inaccuracies be, for the benefit of readers, published accordingly.
Yours sincerely
Lionel Noik CA(SA)

G Reimers