Time to ban tail docking for good?

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Rob Smith — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:28:57 GMT

It wasn't flawed because what it said was accurate. It was rubbish because what it said was meaningless.

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:21:38 GMT

[quote user="Rob Smith"]I'm sorry, when did I suggest that the VR peer review process is above challenge?[/quote]

It was just that you seemed to be having a pop at those who did, so I just assumed, wrongly as it turns out ...

I'm a little confused that you say the Wakefield paper wasn't at all flawed, but it was rubbish. If a study is 'rubbish', is that not a bit of a flaw?! Sorry, not meaning to be facetious, genuinely interested in what you meant.

Personally, I think there is an argument for peer-review supplemented by open review by the lesser educated masses. But what do I know?

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Vikki Halliday LLB — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:44:56 GMT

[quote user="Rob Smith"]. What annoys me is when someone half reads a paper (or even just reads headlines relating to the paper) and then dismisses it totally [/quote]

And to clarify, yes I read the whole paper, and I didn'd quite dismiss it, just commented that IMHO it was flawed from the beginning, particularly as it was carried out be response to survey, and therefore many practices who had not encountered tail injury, may not have been motivated to respond. Not only that, the sample size of undocked working dogs is comparatively small, and probably not significant enough to draw a conclusion.

But at least it tried to address the issue!

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Vikki Halliday LLB — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:41:39 GMT

[quote user="Rob Davis"]

What about ear cropping in Doberman's? What about all the breed characteristics which have become fashionable but which are detrimental to the dogs' health....?

[/quote]

Whilst I don't disagree that these are unnecessary mutilations for purely cosmetic reasons, I don't quite understand what point you are making?

All I was trying to state was that at some point, someone made a conscious decision to dock on the basis of prophylaxis rather than pure cosmetics, and hence a fashion was born.

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:13:47 GMT

[quote user="Rob Smith"]What annoys me is when someone half reads a paper (or even just reads headlines relating to the paper) and then dismisses it totally out of hand.[/quote]

Yes that would be very annoying. Fortunately no one round here seems to have done that recently.

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Rob Smith — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:37:46 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Hi Rob, I'm interested that you seem to be suggesting that the VR peer review process is above any kind of challenge. Is that what you think, or have I misunderstood? If it is what you think, do you have any reason to think VR's peer review process is more robust than, say, that at The Lancet? (and I'm quite sure the Wakefield paper wasn't the only flawed piece of research ever to have been published in a peer reviewed tome).

[/quote]

I'm sorry, when did I suggest that the VR peer review process is above challenge? However, I do respect those that carry out the peer review process. i was taught how to critically analyse scientific papers. When I do so, the first thing I consider is - what levels of journal is it published in? How stringent is the peer review process of that journal? This is becase peer reviewers are far more skilled than I at reviewing papers. I then go on to assess the paper for myself, bearing in mind my own limitations. I am not arrogant enough to presume that, even examining a paper in detail, I am always going to be right. What annoys me is when someone half reads a paper (or even just reads headlines relating to the paper) and then dismisses it totally out of hand. Incidentally, the Wakefield paper wasn't at all flawed - it was the media's interpretation of it that was flawed.(yes, I have read it) However, it was a rubbish paper and - good question - I don't know how it got through The Lancet's peer review process. However, being a veterinary surgeon I'm not a regular reader of The Lancet so can't comment on the quality of papers within.

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Rob Davis — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:13:19 GMT

[quote user="Vikki Halliday"]4. If docking did not prevent tail injury, I doubt it would ever have become fashionable amongst certain breeds.[/quote]

What about ear cropping in Doberman's? What about all the breed characteristics which have become fashionable but which are detrimental to the dogs' health....?

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Simon Neuhoff — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:02:57 GMT

Bored then Martin? ;-)

FWIW - and this isn't any way peer reviewed, this is MY personal obersvation which as we all know is the least reliable form of "evidence" - all the tail injuries I see are in non working individuals and breeds - particularly Great Danes. We have a more dog orientated practice than most in this part of the world I believe and yet see VERY few tail injuries at all. We had an "epidemic" of three tail injuries at the ebginning on the year all requiring surgery, one in a cat and the other two in non working breeds.

Personally I have not docked tails in years and hope not to have to do so again but that said if the tails will be docked regardless I would prefer them to be done by a vet. That leaves the profession (and myself) in a difficult situation - were we able to get a consensus and all take a stand against tail docking would it die out rapidly and painlessly or would it continue unabated in an underground way? Ear cropping is gone, dew claws and tails are on the way out I suspect.

We certainly do not have a "few hundred"!!! working dogs - does ANYONE in the country have so many on their books?

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:43:10 GMT

Has anyone done any research on the incidence of complications and infection associated with tail docking? And were these dogs fed on raw meaty bones and treated with homeopathy?

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Vikki Halliday LLB — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:43:36 GMT

Couldn't agree more Michael.

Rob: just because it has been published in the Vet Record, does not mean it is unflawed.

That is why the veterinary profession generally has such a high standing, because we are prepared to question the unquestionable!

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:40:33 GMT

[quote user="Rob Smith"]

Flawed research! Maybe you and Evelyn ought to replace the peer review panel of VR?

[/quote] Rob - myself I assess each research paper I read critically. I look at the same, the methods and decide for myself if the conclusion is fair from the data. Often, the conclusions are based on weak data or very small sample size. You would be very foolish taking the conclusion of the author without giving it some thought!

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:15:59 GMT

Hi Rob, I'm interested that you seem to be suggesting that the VR peer review process is above any kind of challenge. Is that what you think, or have I misunderstood? If it is what you think, do you have any reason to think VR's peer review process is more robust than, say, that at The Lancet? (and I'm quite sure the Wakefield paper wasn't the only flawed piece of research ever to have been published in a peer reviewed tome).

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

salome2001 — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:05:38 GMT

in reply to OP: YES!!!

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Rob Smith — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:57:39 GMT

Flawed research! Maybe you and Evelyn ought to replace the peer review panel of VR?

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Vikki Halliday LLB — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:32:09 GMT

Wow!. So I go away for a couple of days and you lot are all up in arms about a flawed piece of research.

Here's the facts as I see it:

1. I used to be more in favour of docking, but as time goes on and attitudes (including mine) change, I can see that it is similar to prophylactically removing a newborn's thumb. Therefore I am now not in favour, as to my mind the ratio of actual injuries to numbers of non-injured animals is not significant.

2. There are not yet enough undocked dogs in the working situation to provide a justifiable sample size to carry out a study like this.

3. In the last 3 months I have seen more cases of tail injury in undocked dogs than I ever have in the last 13 years. But most were in non-working dogs, so where does that leave the argument?

4. If docking did not prevent tail injury, I doubt it would ever have become fashionable amongst certain breeds.

5. As a veterinary surgeon, regardless of my personal views on docking, if the owner of a litter of genuinely working dogs were adamant that he/she wished them docked, and providing all the supporting documentation is to my satisfaction ( and I take a lot of convincing, as I have gundogs myself and I'm not sure I would be too keen just on the sight of a shotgun certificate like some colleagues), then it is my opinion that it is in the animal's welfare interests that a veterinary surgeon carry out the procedure under aseptic conditions and anaesthesia.

That way at least I know I've done my best to prevent suffering.

If you are truly of the can't and won't dock brigade, then you have my admiration. Well done. I'm not brave enough to send litters away knowing the owner may well take matters into his own hands.

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:52:26 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Royal College have already tried to ban docking completely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the late 80s, they 1st campaigned for docking to be made a veterinary only operation-before that, breeders could (and did ) dock their own. Royal College then made docking UNETHICAL, unless for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes-the intention was that it would only be done if there was a genuine necessity in that particular animal.

[/quote]

Slightly simplistic, Wynne. Our RCVS declared docking unethical, unless for.... etc. So a professional veterinary surgeon was supposed to use his or her common sense, judgment and professional ethical sense about prophylaxis for working dogs.

Unfortunately when some idiot decided to dock some Yorkshire Terriers and he was hauled up, he hired some good lawyers (as was, of course, his right) and had to be acquitted. I never did understand why, but the legal arguments must I suppose have been unassailable. After that Belgravia House has naturally shied away from any similar disciplinary hearings.

Then the docking ban was wedged in to the Animal Welfare Act at the last moment as a political crowd-pleaser.

So now a gamekeeper or someone similar that has bred a litter of genuine working dogs that are going to engage in activity which is generally considered (rightly or wrongly) to predispose to tail injury, can get them docked if he can find a veterinary surgeon prepared to do it, if he and the veterinary surgeon are prepared to wade through the masses of paperwork required. It seems a reasonable British-style compromise that might reasonably be allowed to run for a bit.

Have we got a smilie for "sigh" ? No. Well, anyway, I had better point out again that I have no particular axe to grind in favour of docking.

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:41:00 GMT

Royal College have already tried to ban docking completely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortuneately, some veterinary surgeons extended that prophylactic rationale to cover all sporting breeds !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, and got away with it-hence the current situation

Wynne

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:11:49 GMT

Order please, Rob and Evelyn. I've deleted a couple of your posts for obvious reasons

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Cat Henstridge — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:52:25 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I have no particular axe to grind in favour of docking.[/quote]

Well, clearly somebody does judging by the distribution of 1 and 5 star ratings on this thread!

I am firmly in the anti-docking camp; never done it, never will and I don't think it benefits the dogs particularly at all. I am, of course, pleased about this survey and I hope it will trigger more research into this subject (with, Micheal, a larger pool of working docked and undocked dogs), which, I hope, will back up the initial findings.

Cat

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:56:41 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I have no particular axe to grind in favour of docking.

I am sure that that "dock 500 to prevent one tail injury" will be seized on by those with an anti-docking axe to grind. But it's really a bit silly and meaningless. A more meaningful determination would be, for instance: "The number of genuinely working Welsh Springer Spaniels that would require the distal quarter of the tail docked in order to prevent one tail injury in a properly managed Welsh Springer Spaniel working through thick cover".

[/quote]

If you assess the paper critically I think it's really quite poor and doesn't really answer any questions that we have re docking.

Firstly it looked at ALL dogs, not just working dogs eligible to be docked.

Secondly it only looked at tail injuries treated by Vets [many could be treated by a capable owner].

Thirdly the study included self trauma and neoplasia as causes of the tail injuries!

Fourthly the study size was small, with only 35 docked dogs included.

I thought it was a real disappointment considering at least one of the authors is an epidemiologist/statistician!

Surly the null hypothesis should have been "tail docking working dogs gives no reduction in tail injuries". We must have a few hundred docked working dogs at our practice alone. Just need a final year student to do some number crunching!

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:52:18 GMT

Curious how tail docking brings out a desire to be offensive.

[quote user="Rob Smith"]

Yes, you know more than a peer-review highly-respected journal.

[/quote]

Well, possibly I do, or possibly I can perceive silliness and lack of meaning better than you. I have no argument with the peer-reviewers in this case (although it would not be the first time peer reviewers in highly respected journals have failed to perceive silliness and lack of meaning) as the "1 in 500" comment was really only a tiny part of this interesting paper.

Why not read the whole of what I actually wrote and think about it, rather than operating in spinal-reflex tail-docking-obsession mode?

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Rob Smith — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:26:05 GMT

I'm with you Cat!

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Rob Smith — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:25:27 GMT

Yes, you know more than a peer-review highly-respected journal.

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:51:38 GMT

I have no particular axe to grind in favour of docking.

Re: Time to ban tail docking for good?

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:06:37 GMT

[quote user="Cat Henstridge"] Did you read the paper in this weeks VR which says that you would have to dock 500 puppies in order to prevent a single tail injury and that being a working dog did NOT increase the risk of tail damage?[/quote]

Here's the VetSurgeon news story