New research confirms dog tail docking is unnecessary

Friday, 29 January 2010 11:39

Research released today by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) confirms that tail docking does not significantly reduce the likelihood of dogs injuring their tails.

Advocates for Animals was instrumental in persuading the Scottish Government to ban tail docking, the practice of removing part of a dog’s tail.  Not only can this be painful to the dogs, but Advocates for Animals opposes any routine mutilation of animals.  Some groups have been lobbying for the ban to be partially overturned to allow the docking of the tails of working dogs, claiming that it was a preventative measure.

Tail injuries form only a small proportion of dog injuries and whilst understandably tail docked dogs are less likely to injure their tails, simply because there is less of a tail to injure, this was not by a significant number.  Put another way, if 500 hundred dogs had their tails docked it would only prevent one dog from injury.

Commenting on the research Advocates for Animals’ Campaigns Director, Ross Minett, said:

“The research is clear – tail docking is unnecessary.  Tail docking only prevents 0.2% of injuries – that’s the same as docking the tail of 500 dogs to prevent one dog from injury.  Even if this procedure was entirely pain-free, it is totally unnecessary and it is right that it is no longer permitted.”