Dugdale’s claim that the Scottish Government voted to ‘cut off puppy dogs’ tails ... is TRUE
WHILE the Brexit debate raged on and the election fallout continued, it was animal welfare that dominated many headlines in Scottish politics last week. Unusually, Nicola Sturgeon faced questions on puppy dogs’ tails at First Minister’s Questions after a vote to relax laws banning tail docking at Holyrood on Wednesday.
Labour’s Kezia Dugdale led the charge, accusing the Scottish Government of backing the tail docking measure. Ferret Fact Service assessed this statement and found it to be True.
EVIDENCE
Tail docking is a controversial process in which certain breeds of dogs have one-third of their tails amputated, usually as newborn puppies. The process is carried out on animals that may become working dogs, which assist game shooting, and supporters claim it can prevent further injury later in life.
British Veterinary Association Scotland (BVAS), which opposed the tail docking exemption, described the procedure as the “cutting through or crushing of skin, muscles, up to seven pairs of nerves, bone and cartilage”.
The practice was prohibited in Scotland in 2007 under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act. The Scottish Government’s outright ban was the only one in the UK, with England and Wales putting in place exceptions.
Now the Scottish Parliament has voted to follow suit and relax the ban. The amendment brings in allowances for two breeds of working dogs — spaniels and hunt point retrievers (HPRs). It only applies to docking the final third of the tail. It was passed after gaining the backing of 86 MSPs to 29, with nine SNP members abstaining and one, Christine Grahame, voting against. The Labour Party and Scottish Greens opposed the amendment.
The vote was brought through after recommendations from the Scottish Parliament’s Environmental Committee, which took evidence from experts and conducted a consultation, which overwhelmingly backed the exception.
However, the consultation report noted that support was far more likely among organisations and individuals involved in field sports. The committee report stated “animal welfare organisations and members of the general public tended to argue against a change in legislation”.
A YouGov poll in 2016 found 71 per cent of Scots were opposed to tail docking, and BVAS, OneKind and the Dogs Trust published responses to the decision – BVAS called it a “retrograde step for animal welfare in Scotland”.
Concerns have also been raised over a perceived lack of robust evidence for tail docking. BVAS cited a study commissioned in 2002, which said support for docking was “unsound from a scientific viewpoint” and “contrary to accepted standards” of welfare.
However, two studies highlighted by the committee found there was evidence that certain dogs suffered in later life with tail damage due to the nature of their work.
A British Medical Journal study said: “Working dog breeds that were examined by a veterinary surgeon were at a significantly greater risk of sustaining a tail injury than non-working breeds”.
It also concluded that to stop one working dog from suffering such an injury, 232 puppies would have to have tails docked. A 2011 survey of working dog owners found 56.6 per cent of undocked spaniels and 38.5 per cent of undocked HPRs suffered tail injuries during the hunting season.
FFS VERDICT – TRUE
Kezia Dugdale is correct in her claim regarding tail shortening. The exemption to relax the ban on docking was passed with the support of almost all SNP MSPs, with one voting against. The practice is controversial, and while a number of studies have found that docking could decrease tail injuries in later life, animal welfare charities and veterinarians have argued it is not compatible with animal welfare standards.