Opposition claims and links
The CDB believes in democracy, so here we are advertising what our opponents are saying and pointing you in the direction of their web pages. We believe that you deserve to see both sides of the docking debate.
Opposition in America
American readers need look no further than the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. Based in California, they appear to be copying the way opposition to docking was originally built up in Europe. Follow this link for more information.
Opposition in Canada
Canadian readers ought to check out the statement put out by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) which "opposes surgical alteration of any animal, for purely cosmetic purposes". It includes docking under this category.
Opposition in the U.K.
The first site on the Internet (to our knowledge), where U.K. opponents to docking explained their case was hosted by the vet Scott Nimmo, of South Woodham Ferres in Essex, who you may recall was the vet instrumental in getting neighbouring vet Marshall Dale, reported to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons for docking. Marshall was cleared of all charges of disgraceful professional conduct on Friday 8 September, 1995 (read case details).
This site is no longer, and a new one called SPUD emerged mid 2000 and here more recently, both claiming to represent the Society for the Promotion of Undocked Dogs.
Challenge to those Opposed to Docking
Having written what now must be hundreds of thousands of words on the subject of docking, members of the CDB have more than adequately documented their various reasons for docking. What we find increasingly frustrating is that those who oppose the procedure, remain unable to put forward a rational case as to why tail docking should stop.
There is a growing feeling among our supporters that instead of continually explaining and defending our position, they want to know on what credible grounds our opponents demand the practice to be banned.
No one to date has ever proved that docking causes any more than momentary discomfort to the pups. No scientific or convincing arguments exist to support changing a tradition which has existed, for very good reasons, for hundreds of years.
If anyone would like to submit a case to this site explaining why the practice should end, we would be pleased to consider it.