return to CDB main page

Animal Welfare Act 2007 bans tail docking

home
 contact us

Report Tail Damage

Report hygiene, health, medical, rescue or social problems
Why dock tails
What is tail docking and dewclaw removal
The case for docking
Video of pups being docked
Frequently Asked Questions
Pain felt by puppies
Tail damage reports
Swedish tail damage report

Damage evidence
UK Boxer 1
UK Boxer 2
UK Spaniel
UK GSP
Swedish Boxer
Undocked breed
Undocked mongrel

The UK CDB
A potted history
Animal Welfare Bill campaign

Reform of VSA campaign
List of traditionally Docked Breeds
Political Advertisements

What UK vets say
Many UK vets want to dock
One docking vet disciplined
RCVS admit defeat
Red herrings!
RCVS guidelines
RCVS hypocrisy
RCVS working party
Vet questionnaire
BSAVA vet questionnaire
Vet advice to dock Boxers

Docking worldwide
America
Australia
Canada
Europe

New Zealand


Links
Pictures of long tailed Scandinavian Boxers
Major docked breed sites
Other related canine sites
Opponents of docking sites

Site opposing European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals
Archives


Contact the CDB
to contact us


       

 

Scottish Environment and Rural Development Committee Report

The Scottish Environment and Rural Development Committee released its latest report on February 6th 2006 and it can be viewed in full here. Tail docking is dealt with from paragraph 150, a few exerts follow:

160. The Committee agrees with the Executive’s intention to prohibit the docking of dogs’ tails for cosmetic or breed standard purposes.

161. In principle, the Committee considers that the arguments advanced for prophylactic docking of working dogs’ tails do not apply consistently across all dogs which may be described as ‘working dogs’ and still owe a considerable amount to breed standards and tradition. The Committee considers that there are also very significant problems about how any exemption for working dogs may be formulated and applied in practice and heard a range of conflicting evidence on this issue.

162. As outlined in paragraphs 156 and 157 above, the Executive’s approach is to exempt by litter, and to put the onus of accountability on vets (who may be required to make a judgement on the basis of insufficient evidence). The Committee does not consider that this approach offers a sufficiently robust method of confining the exemption to genuine working dogs. It appears to have the potential to allow too wide an exclusion and may result in the intention of the provision being too easily undermined. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Minister gives further consideration to whether this is necessary or workable.

166. The Committee accepts, in principle, that the Executive should proceed with legislation on tail-docking even if it differs in approach from that eventually agreed under the UK Bill.

 

 

 
Most material on this web site is copyright the Council of Docked Breeds (UK) 1991 / 2007© and all worldwide rights are reserved. Material from this site may not be reprinted or published in any format (print, digital, CD, electronic or web site) or where a charge is made in whole or in part, without express written permission from the Council of Docked Breeds (UK).