By Libby Anderson, Policy Advisor, OneKind
THE main question in the recent debate over the tail docking of puppies was this: is it better to dock large numbers of very young puppies, or to let them keep their tails and accept that, as adults, a few may suffer injury in the field that could lead them to lose their tails anyway? Neither prospect was attractive, but MSPs would have found it easier to decide if evidence of the costs and benefits for animal welfare had been placed before them. It wasn’t – but the regulations were passed anyway. That may be water under the bridge but, after such a difficult debate, it would be wise to watch carefully to ensure that the declared animal welfare outcomes are achieved.
Recent parliamentary answers suggest, however, that the Scottish Government sees no need for any further discussion of the matter. Asked by Mark Ruskell MSP about pain in puppies and adult dogs and future monitoring, Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, stated that the Scottish Government “has no information on further work required to understand the differences in the experience of pain incurred through tail surgery in dogs” and “no plan to monitor the implementation” of the legislation.
The lack of evidence on pain – and without it, the impossibility of assessing any supposed gains for animal welfare – was raised many times as the legislation went through. Yet it appears from this response that not only does the Scottish Government not know about the different experiences of pain, but it does not plan to find out, either.
Assessing pain in young animals is problematic, but MSPs received ample scientific evidence from witnesses showing that it is significant. Any procedure required for an injured adult dog is at least carried out under anaesthetic, and with pain relief. None of this is possible when dealing with a very young puppy. Without clear information on this, MSPs were left to depend on anecdote and pictures of blood-spattered spaniels.
Monitoring implementation of this new policy is crucial, and the absence of any arrangements to do so is inexplicable. Vets presented with litters for docking will depend entirely on assurances from owners that all the puppies are expected to grow up to work. Without monitoring, how can anyone know that the procedure has been justified? Evidence from England suggests that these assurances are not always reliable.
These ethical difficulties were raised in evidence by respected Scottish veterinary institutions, along with concerns about policing, reporting and evidence gathering. One described the new regulations as “an unnecessary risk both to animal welfare and also to veterinary professional conduct”.
The reintroduction of tail-docking for some breeds passed despite several abstentions, and one vote against, from within the SNP. It appeared that – unlike the Scottish Conservatives – the party was by no means unanimous in its support for a return to tail docking.
After such a controversial and long-running debate, it would be surprising if this issue were to go away. It would surely be wise to keep it under review, and for all political parties to pay heed to the upset this move has caused.
The experience with tail docking, along with the response to Theresa May’s outspoken support for fox hunting during the election campaign, clearly shows that animal welfare matters to the electorate. This is reinforced by polling data which consistently shows that the Scottish public overwhelmingly back progress on animal protection. Holyrood should recognise this, and give the issue the priority it deserves.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here