Letter: Tail-docking that protects working gun dogs

Sir: In his article on tail-docking ('Could this be another case of the tail wagging the dog?', 2 July), Nicholas Roe quotes the chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA as saying: 'Dogs are born with tails so why shouldn't we leave them as they are?' I can only answer on behalf of thousands of working gun dog owners by saying that unless they have a small part of their tails removed, a considerable number of working gun dogs (notably spaniels) will suffer bloody and painful damage to the ends of their undocked tails.

The recent Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' guidelines on 'prophylactic' docking of working pups - where no more than a third of the tail need be removed at three days old - are so hedged round with awkward and unrealistic conditions that it is simpler for vets to refuse to dock a litter of gun dog puppies that have been bred for work, and many will take this line of least resistance. It is highly likely in consequence that there will be an increase in the numbers of adult gun dogs requiring partial tail amputation. This has happened in Sweden since docking has been forbidden.

Strangely, the RCVS and the RSPCA seem quite happy for farmers or vets to dock and castrate many thousands of lambs each year. Any cynics among your readers might wish to draw their own conclusions.

Yours etc,

TENNANT BROWNLEE

Eckford, Borders