SO “tail shortening” for gundogs is to be allowed. What a silly euphemism for chopping off a puppy's tail without an anaesthetic ("Ban on tail-docking to be axed", The Herald, June 14) I have no doubt it suits the five SNP, four Tory, two Labour and one Green MSPs on the Environment Committee to use the phrase shortening rather than amputation of a puppy's tail without anaesthetic. It probablty eases their guilt. A puppy's tail is about the same as a baby's finger, but not to worry we don't think it causes much pain to chop it off. Let me assure our deluded MSPs that a puppy’s tail is full of nerve endings, and amputation causes pain and stress.
Roseanna Cunningham says that only dogs destined to be gundogs will be put through this torture. How can the vet be sure of this when the pup is five days old? Why leave tails on in labradors and retrievers which are often used as gundogs?
The Environment Committee was told that 92 per cent of those taking part in a Government consultation supported this out-of-date practice. Seventeen thousand gundog owners were polled and only five per cent bothered to reply. They were asked how many of their dogs had received tail injuries in the year before the survey – 103 of the 17,000 had a tail injury that involved a trip to the vet, and about 20 required surgery to the tail. That is serious, but is it serious enough to justify 17,000 amputations without anaesthetic?
Why no anaesthetic? Is it because the vets find anaesthesia in a five-day-old puppy challenging, or is it because gundog owners don't want to pay the markedly increased cost of tail docking with an anaesthetic?
Your article states that the British Veterinary Association feels that bringing back this antiquated practice is a retrograde step for animal welfare. If that is the case then let it go further and lobby the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to ban vets from undertaking amputation of puppies’ tails without anaesthetic.
George Leslie,
North Glassock, Fenwick.
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