non working tail docked puppy

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Rebecca MacMillan — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:56:11 GMT

Nope not a working dog, just going crazy on a normal walk running through woods. Originally injured it a couple of years ago and was seen by previous vets. They had discussed amputation as a possibility but it seemed to sort itself out with metacam and rest. I could just feel a bit of a kink from this previous injury. This time when it presented to me however it had completely dislocated, lots of movement felt once the initial swelling had gone down and the dog was very uncomfortable. Owners were keen to go ahead and amputate.

Just always seems a shame when you get a nice undocked version of the breed and then end up having to remove it's tail anyway!

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:58:49 GMT

Rebecca, was the dog injured working?

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Rebecca MacMillan — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:54:26 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]

She said that it was almost impossible to get one which wasn't docked. Could this be true?

[/quote]

I've got a 5 year old german shorthair at my practice that was undocked... until I had to amputate his tail last month as he'd injured it badly for the 2nd time! Shame, because he had quite a nice tail really!

Re: non working tail docked puppy

James Laidlaw — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:11:37 GMT

No worries - been on forums long enough to not stress about it!

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Glen McIntosh — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:36:27 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]Sorry if I came across that way Glen, although maybe I do more if you just quote a segment of my post. [/quote]

Ah...no...I was referring to earlier posts, not yours, even though I quoted from your post. Having reread my post, I can see why you would have read it that way though, so please accept my apologies, James.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

James Laidlaw — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:47:04 GMT

Sorry if I came across that way Glen, although maybe I do more if you just quote a segment of my post. I took the tone of the OP to suggest she was worried the situation was illegal and finding it "difficult to be diplomatic" - a phone call to prof con would sort that faster than a forum post. You are right however, that this is another source. I feel this thread has run its course now.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Glen McIntosh — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 02:07:02 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]No one can be expected to know every legislation or topic in veterinary day to day practice, but if you come across things you aren't sure of, you can educate yourself easily with a quick internet search or phone call to relevant dept.[/quote]

Or maybe even post a question to an internet forum like this one, so that others who also aren't aware of this particular piece of information (me, for example) can learn from anothers knowledge and experience. Hopefully, your question might be answered in a way that doesn't carry with it a hint of superciliousness and a veiled criticism for merely asking the question, so that others might be encouraged to post similar questions, to the benefit of all participants of the forum.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Virginia Campbell — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:03:09 GMT

[quote user="emerald"]Doesn't seem "right" that can dock a whole litter just incase the odd 1 might go to a working home.[/quote]

It's the other way around usually, especially in litters from very good working or trialling bitches. You'll often see "working homes preferred" or "working homes only" in gundog ads. If you particularly want an undocked pup from a working breed, you might well have to put down the full price of the pup instead of the normal deposit.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Elisabeth Knappett — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:57:51 GMT

As a vet in Scotland, I don't have to deal with this often and obviously never dock myself. But, from what I understood, any dog who was from a working line of a breed traditionally docked was legally allowed to be docked as long as they were identified as intended for work. Who the breeder sells the pups to is entirely up to them, whether into a working or domestic situation.

I would question why she travelled a long way to get him - if ALL the dogs are docked why go so far? The vet in question from the info you gave has done nothing wrong, why contact them? Neither the vet nor the new owner have done wrong - the breeder has not either though IF you wanted to be pedantic you could question why they sell the pup into a situation they know will not be a working one when they have identified the pup as intended for work?!

While everyone will have their own opinion on docking (already seen in the answers here), the status quo will not change until public perception of the necessity of docking change.

(as an aside, I found Michael's answers, though short and to the point, very informative and actually helpful without any emotional input)

Re: non working tail docked puppy

CatherineThomas — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:37:34 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]What would you do if a person with a genuine working dog asked your advice about tail docking a litter of puppies? The professional thing to do is refer the patient to a veterinary surgeon who will. You can give them the evidence for and against docking, but it is unethical forcing your opinion on the client.[/quote]

That is exactly what I would do; refer them to someone else who does it and therefore knows more about it..

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I'm not sure that "I don't dock puppies so I don't need to know about the rules" holds much water. I don't do hemilaminaectomies or TPLOs but I am happy discussing them with clients and referring as appropriate.[/quote]

I didn't say I don't need to know about the rules, just that I don't know the full details e.g. what proof is required of intent to work, and so I can sympathise with the OP in asking the question. It is the same with a TPLO I can give the clients the basic information but would refer it to someone else to do the surgery and so would expect them to give the client much more detailed information about the proceedure.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Bibs — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:12:50 GMT

Oh well OP I could see where you were coming from because I too don't dock and have not read the legislation in a couple of years. Bad bad me. Its good to ask questions.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

James Laidlaw — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 13:29:00 GMT

I'm totally against docking, but agree with Michael. No one can be expected to know every legislation or topic in veterinary day to day practice, but if you come across things you aren't sure of, you can educate yourself easily with a quick internet search or phone call to relevant dept. If it's a working breed the breeder can't know where their pups will go, so the whole litter is usually docked. If they closed the loophole and outright banned docking, it would be easier to police, but at the moment, provided they owner has the appropriate paperwork, the situation the OP described is completely within the law.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:32:53 GMT

[quote user="CatherineThomas"]I work with small animals but I refuse to do tail docking, so therefore why should I be familiar with the ins and outs of the legislation other than knowing the basics?[/quote]

If I had a client with a Tasmanian devil or a panda I would familiarize myself with the legislation, but that is not relevant to my practice.

What would you do if a person with a genuine working dog asked your advice about tail docking a litter of puppies? The professional thing to do is refer the patient to a veterinary surgeon who will. You can give them the evidence for and against docking, but it is unethical forcing your opinion on the client.

I'm not sure that "I don't dock puppies so I don't need to know about the rules" holds much water. I don't do hemilaminaectomies or TPLOs but I am happy discussing them with clients and referring as appropriate.

Perhaps if the profession made sure they kept up with legislation relevant to their area of practice then these confusions wouldn't occur. You'd know whether the puppy was a legitimate breed, done by a vet, chipped correctly and was therefore legally docked or not. I think that is very relevant to day to day small animal practice. I don't know if you have many working dogs in the practice but we do, and they go on holiday. They could walk through your door.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

CatherineThomas — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 09:46:26 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Elizabeth Billimore"]It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask on this forum. It doesn't make crystal clear sense to vets who don't dock.[/quote]

I would have thought it was legislation that any vet dealing with small animals should be familiar with?

[/quote]

I work with small animals but I refuse to do tail docking, so therefore why should I be familiar with the ins and outs of the legislation other than knowing the basics?

Do you know the details of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act? I don't think you would be expected to know unless you actually dealt with them.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:13:13 GMT

[quote user="Elizabeth Billimore"]People should feel they can happily ask questions about things on a forum like this. I think we need to be careful not to sound too abrupt or impatient when replying to a question that might have an obvious answer to some but not others.[/quote]

I went away and found the legislation for the OP......................

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Bibs — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 00:59:47 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Elizabeth Billimore"]It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask on this forum. It doesn't make crystal clear sense to vets who don't dock.[/quote]

I would have thought it was legislation that any vet dealing with small animals should be familiar with?

[/quote] Yes know about it but may not regularly refresh the details if they don't practice it. People should feel they can happily ask questions about things on a forum like this. I think we need to be careful not to sound too abrupt or impatient when replying to a question that might have an obvious answer to some but not others.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 00:03:47 GMT

[quote user="Elizabeth Billimore"]It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask on this forum. It doesn't make crystal clear sense to vets who don't dock.[/quote]

I would have thought it was legislation that any vet dealing with small animals should be familiar with?

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Bibs — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:44:18 GMT

It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask on this forum. It doesn't make crystal clear sense to vets who don't dock.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:00:10 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]What would you do in this position - contact the vet in question? Do nothing? Very difficult situation to be diplomatic about![/quote]

I'm sorry, but why do you feel you have to be doing something?

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:53:01 GMT

[quote user="emerald"]Doesn't seem "right" that can dock a whole litter just incase the odd 1 might go to a working home. Just my opinion :-/[/quote]

Which you are entitled too (mine opinion being the polar opposite).

[quote user="emerald"]How about dew claws then?[/quote]

I remove rear dew claws on anything, working or not. I (personally) do not recommend routine front dew claw removal, but one chap who breeds a few litters have had a significant number of torn front dew claws I remove them from his puppies. There are some people that believe the front dew claw is not even a dew claw...........

Re: non working tail docked puppy

emerald — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:40:07 GMT

Doesn't seem "right" that can dock a whole litter just incase the odd 1 might go to a working home. Just my opinion :-/

How about dew claws then?

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:28:40 GMT

[quote user="emerald"]I thought the vet who did the docking needed to see evidence that that particular dog is going to be used for work?[/quote]

The required evidence:

3. (1) A veterinary surgeon may certify that he has seen evidence that a dog is likely to be used for a specified type of work and is a dog of a specified type, where—

(a)he is satisfied that the dam of the dog is of one or more of the types specified in Schedule 1;

(b)he reasonably believes that the dog is not more than 5 days old; and

(c)the owner of the dog, or another person whom he reasonably believes to be representing the owner, has shown him the evidence specified in paragraph (2).

The evidence is—

(a)the dam of the dog;

(b)a completed statement, signed and dated by the owner of the dog or by another person whom the veterinary surgeon to whom it is presented reasonably believes to be representing the owner, made in paragraph 3 of a certificate in the form prescribed in Schedule 2; and

(c)one of the following—

(i)where the dog is presented for certification on behalf of one of Her Majesty’s armed forces, armed forces identification;

(ii)where the dog is presented for certification on behalf of a body providing an emergency rescue service, emergency rescue identification;

(iii)where the dog is presented for certification on behalf of a police authority, police identification;

(iv)where the dog is presented for certification on behalf of Her Majesty’s Prison Service or of an organisation contracted to provide custodial services on behalf of the Secretary of State, prison service identification;

(v)where the dog is presented for certification on behalf of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, HMRC identification;

(vi)evidence that the owner of the dog, or an agent or employee of the owner most likely to be using the dog, will be using the dog for work in connection with lawful pest control;

(vii)a current shotgun or firearm certificate issued to the owner of the dog, or to the agent or employee of the owner most likely to be using the dog for work in connection with the lawful shooting of animals;

(viii)a letter from a gamekeeper, a land-occupier (or his agent), a person with shooting rights, a shoot organiser, a club official, a person representing the National Working Terrier Federation, or a person engaged in lawful pest control, stating that the breeder of the dog whose tail is to be docked is known to him and that dogs bred by that breeder have been used (as the case may be) on his land, or in his shoot, or for pest control.

Re: non working tail docked puppy

emerald — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:22:12 GMT

I thought the vet who did the docking needed to see evidence that that particular dog is going to be used for work?

I've also seen this a few times as well as front dew claws been removed eg in a schnauzer??

Re: non working tail docked puppy

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:14:13 GMT

1. Why Anon?

2. The rules are crystal clear - a dog that is likely to be used for working may be docked. It's perfectly reasonable that a number of dogs in a litter may be docked and go to domestic homes, but most working people don't want a dog with a tail. You can't show a docked dog so I am assuming this dog came from working lines.