Five, 3-day old Springer Spaniel puppies presented to a small animal practice based in England for tail docking. The dam was also present but was not with the puppies while the procedure was conducted. The owner was a known breeder to the practice and usually sold their puppies on for working. All relevant paperwork was in order and the procedure was carried out by the senior vet. Two registered veterinary nurses (RVNs) were present and responsible for assisting the veterinary surgeon by restraining each puppy in turn for the docking procedure and for monitoring the remaining puppies during and following the procedure.
One of the RVNs felt uncomfortable witnessing and being part of the docking procedure and was concerned that by participating, they may be in breach of the declaration made on registration to their profession and at risk of violating their Code of Professional Conduct.
This article reviews the associated legislation and Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) professional guidance on tail docking, discusses the rationale for and against puppy tail docking and provides an explanation of this RVN's moral dilemma when being asked to assist in tail docking of puppies, offering some suggestions for the future.
Legislation
In the UK, there are specific regulations that cover tail docking in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act 2006. These are The Docking of Working Dogs' Tails (England) Regulations 2007 and The Docking of Working Dogs' Tails (Wales) Regulations 2007. After a consultation in 2012, Northern Ireland banned tail docking effective from January 2013, under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (s.6), except for certain breeds. In Scotland, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (s.20) included a total ban on non-therapeutic docking of dogs with no exemptions until it was amended in 2017 by The Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations, so certain working breeds could be docked. In England, where this scenario is based, the banning of tail docking for non-therapeutic reasons under The Animal Welfare Act 2006, came into force in April 2007. Specifically, Section 6. (1)(2) prohibits the removal of a dog's tail other ‘than for the purpose of its medical treatment’ but with subsection 3 stipulating that this does not apply if the dog ‘is a certified working breed not more than 5 days old’. As these puppies were purported to be destined to be working dogs and under 5 days of age, they met the legal requirements and tail docking could be undertaken.
Puppies and pain
Due to the puppies' age, no analgesic or anaesthetic agents were administered, as the veterinary surgeon deemed administration of these drugs too high a risk for complications or adverse effects compared to the length and complexity of the procedure. Local anaesthetic could have been administered to the puppies to provide analgesia. However, a local anaesthetic such as lidocaine, which is commonly found in practice, can be painful on injection (although this can be mitigated by mixing with sodium bicarbonate which acts as a buffer) (World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA), 2024). Administration of analgesia or analgesics also requires the veterinary surgeon and RVN to be confident and familiar with the procedure. For example, neonates (0–2 weeks) have a reduced ability to metabolise and excrete many drugs (WSAVA, 2024), and accurate dosing and monitoring of the puppies following administration is vital. Although the tail docking was expeditious, the puppies did still vocalise, wriggle and have increased respiration rate during and following the procedure, thus showing recognised standards of pain (Gregory, 2004). While advocates of tail docking, such as The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), believe neonates do not feel pain due to having an immature nervous system, studies undertaken over two decades ago on tail docking in puppies (Noonan et al, 1996; Wansbrough, 1996) indicate that even puppies this young can perceive pain. In contrast, a more recent study by Mellor (2018) concluded that due to the lack of significant ‘cortical-subcortical interactivity’ in puppies less than 7 days old, they could not experience pain and signs commonly attributed to pain, such as vocalisations, were more a reflex response. Yet, this same study highlighted that although tail docking might not cause acute pain, it is indicated in causing on-going hyperalgesia and chronic pain linked neuroma at the tail stump. This highlights a more serious and negative long-term effect of tail docking. Hence even though there is conflicting evidence about the age at which puppies feel pain, it is becoming acknowledged that pain in some form, whether acute or chronic, is experienced (WSAVA, 2024). As painful stimuli can have both immediate and long-lasting implications it would seem prudent and, in a puppy's best welfare, regardless of age, that analgesia is administered.
Prevention of tail injuries: the evidence
The prime reason usually given for tail docking is to pre-empt, and therefore prevent, working dogs from suffering tail injuries, but there is limited independent research and data into the prevalence of these injuries. A study undertaken between 2008–9, surveyed the type and number of tail injuries across Great Britain (Diesel et al, 2010) and found that dogs with docked tails were at less risk of a tail injury, but for the prevention of one tail injury in the region of 500 dogs would need to have been docked. A further study looking at tail injuries from 2002 to early 2012 (Cameron et al, 2014) found that 232 dogs of working breeds would need to be docked as puppies to prevent one tail injury that would require veterinary intervention. The authors of this study purported that they had more true working dogs compared to the one undertaken by Diesel et al (2010) and hence the disparity of the results. An internet survey (Lederer et al, 2014) concerning the 2010–11 shooting season in Scotland, where working dog owners were asked to submit responses on the incidence of tail injuries, found that to prevent one tail injury in one shooting season, between two and 18 spaniels or hunt point retrievers would need to be docked as puppies. The authors did acknowledge that the study could be biased due to the participants being drawn from country sports organisations. These findings do not seem to advocate or justify the need for tail docking of puppies to prevent potential future tail injuries as so many must have the procedure to potentially prevent even one injury. There are also working dogs, such as Red Setters, German Shepherds and Beagles, which are not routinely docked but could be deemed at risk of tail injuries. Yet, currently there is no evidence-based research or legislation governing why one breed of working dog rather than another is docked and so it seems more of an arbitrary system is in place.
Any other argument for tail docking?
Historically, tail docking has been carried out to adhere to Kennel Club breed standards (Morton, 1992). The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (s6.(3)) effectively prohibited tail docking, for all but the exempt working breeds, so breed standards have had to change. Tail docking could be viewed as a cosmetic procedure undertaken more for the breeders rather than to benefit the dog.
Hygiene has been suggested as an advantage, as prevention of build-up of faeces and dirt on/around the tail, which could lead to myiasis in the worst-case scenario (Bennett and Perini, 2003). Yet, this argument is flawed as there is no call for long-haired dogs in general to be routinely docked and surely that should be the case if docking would be advantageous for these breeds. Therefore, it could be argued that convenience rather than actual advantage appears to be the justification (Bennett and Perini, 2003).
Also, a dog's tail serves as a means of communication and tail position and movement are integral parts of other behaviours. It has been proposed that docked as opposed to undocked dogs may be more prone to aggression from other dogs due to social cues being misinterpreted, but this has yet to be extensively researched. However, certain tail positions do signal appeasing behaviour to other dogs and any alterations in the tail may hinder this behaviour. In addition, humans typically tend to place a high value on reading a dog's body language by observing their tail and if docked this is marred (Bennet and Perini, 2003). Consequentially, tail docking could be viewed as hampering a dog's communication (Mellor, 2018) and if this were the case it could be argued that tail docking would prevent the expression of natural behaviours which would be an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (s.6(2)).
The proponents for tail docking include pure bred associations, breeders, gamekeeper associations, hunting and shooting groups and potentially some veterinary professionals, although for industry bodies tail docking is generally seen negatively. The British Veterinary Association's current policy position (2023) on the subject states that it is ‘an outdated practice’ and ‘should be banned as a procedure except for veterinary medical reasons, for all breeds of dogs. Puppies suffer unnecessary pain and are deprived of a vital form of expression in later life’. The RCVS (2006) stated that although it welcomed the banning of tail docking for cosmetic reasons their preferred stance was that it would be better not to have any exceptions to the ban at all. The RCVS further stated, in response to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland consultation on ‘Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails Regulations in September 2011, that ‘as the statutory regulator of the veterinary profession, the RCVS should be a key stakeholder in the development of the Docking of Working Dog's Tails Regulations (p1. Section 3), the RCVS was surprised therefore not to be included in the consultee list. This omission was especially concerning given the fundamental role that veterinary surgeons will be expected to play in identifying and certifying dogs that are presented to them for docking’. Therefore, it could be viewed that the very profession that is tasked with tail docking does it primarily to meet a legal obligation, arguably also showing the influence that pro-tail docking groups have.
The RVN's dilemma
The RVN assisting with this procedure could have just reason to be concerned about participating in this procedure. Since 2012, for the right to practise veterinary nursing in the UK, every RVN makes the following declaration on registration:
‘I promise and solemnly declare that I will pursue the work of my profession with integrity and accept my responsibilities to the public, my clients, the profession and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and that, above all, my constant endeavour will be to ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to my care.’
This declaration should have a powerful meaning for RVNs and aid in governing their future behaviour and actions in the profession and it is therefore not surprising that it may feel like certain activities, such as assisting with tail docking of puppies, conflicts with this declaration and their own personal morals and ethics.
Furthermore, the opening pages of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct (CoPC) for Veterinary Nurses not only recognises the ethical dilemmas that RVNs often face, but highlights how their priority should be toward animal welfare:
‘On occasion, the professional responsibilities may conflict with each other and veterinary nurses may be presented with a dilemma. In such situations, they should balance the professional responsibilities having regard first to animal welfare’.
As further stipulated by the CoPC for Veterinary Nurses, s1.1, ‘Veterinary Nurses must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals’ and so the RVN in this scenario may have felt they were contributing to causing distress to healthy puppies whom they could not be sure of becoming working dogs in the future. Simply refusing to be involved with the procedure may also not be an option the RVN feels they can take. For example, a newly qualified or an inexperienced RVN not in a leadership role, may feel that refusal could be seen as insubordination or be viewed negatively by peers and colleagues.
The RVN should feel confident to voice their concerns with the veterinary surgeon and as outlined in section 1.6 of the CoPC, ‘Veterinary nurses must communicate with veterinary surgeons and each other to ensure the health and welfare of the animal or group of animals’. Being part of a team, working toward the provision of veterinary care requires open and inclusive channels of communication, to ensure the coordination and optimal delivery of patient care. An alternative perspective that the RVN could take is to consider the potential alternatives of what might happen to the puppies if the veterinary surgeon refuses to carry out the procedure. The RVN may worry that the owner of the puppies could turn to an unqualified individual to carry out the procedure in a less than ideal manner or environment and thus may conclude that undertaking the procedure in the veterinary setting is ultimately the better option for the puppies' welfare.
Total ban of docking?
With all the arguments presented above, it may seem surprising to some that tail docking is not completely banned yet in England. However, it should also be borne in mind that even with a complete ban, owners may continue to seek alternative means to get their dog's tails docked. This would ultimately have a negative and detrimental impact on animal welfare. For example, in the UK, ear cropping is banned under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (s.5(3)). A loophole in the law means that dogs can be still sent abroad to have the procedure carried out and re-imported, and dogs can be imported with their ears already cropped (RSPCA, 2022). This potentially could happen if tail docking was banned in the UK and the loopholes not closed. Often these procedures are not as regulated in other countries, especially outside of the European Union, and can be carried out by non-veterinary professionals with potentially devastating results for the puppies (Reyes-Sotelo, et al, 2020). There were new UK measures, contained in the policy paper Action Plan for Animal Welfare by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published May 2021, aimed at preventing the movement and importation of tail docked and ear cropped dogs but this bill, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, was subject to multiple delays and ultimately the bill was withdrawn on the 8 June 2023. Docked puppies are supposed to become working dogs but anecdotally veterinary clinics routinely see puppies with docked tails who are sold into family homes. There is no policing or repercussions if this happens. If puppies were not docked until they were older, when guaranteed they would be working dogs, anaesthesia and analgesia would be required. This would effectively mean that tail docking could only legally be done for medical reasons as the dogs would be over 5 days of age by that time.
Recommendations for the future
A change in perception in how certain breeds should look and the historical reasons for tail docking needs continued discussion with veterinary input and evidence-base applied. A key component of change is education and a prime example where education has had a positive impact is in relation to brachycephalic dog breeds, when in early 2018 the British Veterinary Association launched its ‘#Breed-toBreath campaign’. This was in response to the rise of registrations of brachycephalic breeds with The Kennel Club and the subsequent welfare concerns that were highlighted in the BVA's Voice of the Veterinary Profession survey 2017. This has led to the Kennel Club themselves, in February 2019, launching a respiratory grading scheme in conjunction with the University of Cambridge. Campaigns around brachycephalic breeds have been vital as their educational goal is not to eradicate brachycephalic breeds but rather highlight to owners the possible health issues and how to minimise them within the breed, as often they may not fully appreciate the signs they are seeing have a negative impact on quality of life (Packer et al, 2019).
Therefore, focusing campaigns and education around tail docking has the potential to raise awareness and allow information to be gathered to ascertain how much the general public knows about the procedure and their views on it. As the public may not fully appreciate what age tail docking is carried out at and that due to the young age, analgesia or anaesthetic are usually not given. In addition, highlighting that the law states only those dogs destined to be working dogs should be docked and therefore legally those puppies who are reserved for a family home should not be docked. As puppies are often reserved from birth or potential owners are on a waiting list for puppies from reputable breeders this would allow an informed decision to be made by a potential owner, who are wanting a pet dog rather than a working dog, to know that tail docking is not a breed requirement. In addition, it has been documented that owners of brachycephalic breeds often have allegiances to the breed and will be lifelong owners of them, going on to advise and recommend them to others (Packer et al, 2020). This breed loyalty is often replicated for working dog breeds and hence focusing campaigns and education around tail docking would raise awareness not only in current owners but future potential owners as well. Further research would also be warranted into how many working dogs go on to become working dogs versus family pets, and if only a minority do become working dogs should tail docking be delayed, as it is an elective procedure (although this delay, would mean docking could only be done legally for medical reasons).
Conclusions
Currently, tail docking remains, and will continue to be, a contentious issue, with no one solution that would satisfy all groups and their members. RVNs can play a crucial role in educating owners and the general public about tail docking as, anecdotally, many still do not know what tail docking is, what it involves or that it is illegal. RVNs are ideally placed to explain the legislation, exemptions and the short- and long-term implications of tail docking puppies. RVNs can also signpost owners to reputable information and resources such as the Animal Welfare Foundation guidance on docking, which can further answer any questions an owner may have. This will aid owners in understanding the issues and ethics around tail docking allowing for informed decisions to be made regarding the procedure. As communication is a vital part of an RVN's role, they can influence responsible decisions while ensuring a positive relationship is maintained with clients and the wider community of pet owners.