Tails Tales and Beyond
by Les Pauling
I am one of those who are often
disappointed by the positions adopted by NZKC whenever a BREEDING issue arises.
The March 04 Gazette prominently stated attitudes that do not represent mine,
and ought not represent any breeder willing to be a BREEDER rather than just a
mating facilitator and a dedicated follower of fashion. I object to the Oct.04
Gazette carrying the pg.16 scare-mongering extremist ad for the NZCDB as much as
I would object to it carrying an extremist ad for PETA or similar. From the
bold-face parts of that ad we can assume that its authorisers were dismayed to
see Craig Irving’s pg.24 October article on eye problems.
In April I presented an article putting
forward my thoughts on just docking. George much later claimed that my viewpoint
had been well represented by others. Not so. ALL the letters and articles in the
Gazettes have been based on cruelty – some saying that docking is cruel, some
saying that it is cruel to force dogs to go hunting with their inadequate tails.
THAT latter belief I can agree with.
What I do NOT agree with is that litter-docking has to therefore be allowed.
- First off, only a small percentage
of dogs ever get taken hunting.
- Secondly, I believe that it is every
BREEDER’s complete responsibility to produce pups that require NO alteration
in order to perform the breed’s function. I therefore expect breeders of
currently-docked breeds to set to and BREED tails into their gene-pool that
are suitable for the task. It is their choice as to whether that tail be a
fat, heavily coated one, or an abridged tail as found naturally in some
Corgis.
- And I believe it is NZKC’s role to
ENFORCE that dogs it registers & gives awards to get presented au naturel =
with their own coat, their own appendages, their own joints, not what results
from applied chemistry and surgery.
So I want NZKC Show Regulation 17
replaced in such a way as to make Reg. 19.12 unnecessary, to ban ALL alterations
other than as per Reg. 19.11. I want not just chalking & dyeing & cropping
punishable, but also docking for other than treating actual injuries. I
especially want NZKC Registration withdrawn from every dog that has an operation
to overcome achalasia, entropion, elbow dysplasia, a heart problem, hip
dysplasia, ear-carriage or tail carriage. And I want that withdrawal prominently
displayed in the Gazette, just as the SV (GSD Club of Germany) does when it
punishes a dog & its owner. Yes, that withdrawal WILL also punish innocent
owners of progeny of that pooch. They will have to use our consumer protection
laws to hammer whoever chose to cheat by pretending that the dog or bitch they
allowed to procreate was what its genetics intended it to be, not a surgical
fraud.
I also want the Canine Health Project
and NZKC to stop pussy-footing around. If people can’t stand facing unpalatable
truths, let them get out of “the game”. Back in 83&84 my then-wife had the task
of convincing the NZVA to dump its own OFA-like Pass/Fail xray system and adopt
the 0-to-106 BIF system now in operation. And she believed that the NZVA had
agreed that publication of individual results was automatic – she believed it
right up until told that NZKC decreed that people must be allowed the “right” to
secrecy.
Without automatic publication of ACTUAL
results, some people WILL falsify reports. Without a requirement for xrays once
taken to be PRESENTED for scoring, breeders will not have access to the dire end
of the range of progeny results, an area necessary to help us decide whether a
bloodline is a good or a bad risk. Okay, genetics are considered to be only 40%
of the picture with dysplasia, but THAT 40% is controllable by breeders, and the
other 60% is largely dependent upon the presence of that genetic component.
I thought that, in my breed at least,
NZKC had agreed to print NZVA xray results on the 3-generation pedigrees issued
with the Change Of Ownership, so owners could not help being aware of the
joint-history of their own pooch. But no, NZKC still follows the line of
allowing secrecy and letting people be ignorant & produce joint-faulty stock.
The most “aware” KC at present is
Australia’s where, for my breed at least, the ANKC has adopted the International
Standard of the Breed AND refuses to register any litter unless both parents
have official hip & elbow scores, plus owners of imports must produce a
haemophilia-negative certificate, to keep that problem out of the breed’s
Australian gene-pool.
I repeat:
- Breeders must select breeding
partners so that their pups are VIABLE without alteration.
- Kennel Controls must use veterinary
science to ensure that dogs are presented as their GENES intended.
Ok, what do we NZers
currently get instead?
NZKC Pres. Ray Greer takes the position
(March pg.1) that the proposed legislation is anti-dog and merely the tip of a
fearsome iceberg, then drags in what he terms “ridiculous fencing requirements”
from the original proposals of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Though irrelevant to a
docking debate, the job of a fence is to prevent objects on one side arriving on
the other side. So a dog fence HAS to be adequate to prevent a digging dog from
tunnelling under it, and a jumping or climbing dog from scaling it. Dog Training
Reg. 17.3.4.3.2 re the height of U.D. jumps might help him replace “ridiculous”.
My preferred breeds being GSDs and IWs,
what aspect of the Yates proposals is anti my dogs? In what way are her
proposals anti ANY dog or anti the ability of any person to own any breed of
dog? To me, anti-dog legislation is such as that which banned imports of GSDs
into Australia from 1929 to 1972 and in some states required all GSDs to be
neutered, and the BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) now in effect in NZ. Whereas
PRO-dog legislation would be anything that requires people to PROVE themselves
and their property adequate before they are allowed to gain possession of a dog.
For those who haven't read Ms Yates'
proposals: If both are passed without change they would add, after the word
"horse" in Section 2(1): "or a dog"; and to existing Section 17(2)'s: "Where a
restricted surgical procedure is to be performed on an animal, the veterinarian
who is to perform that procedure, or who is to supervise the performance of that
procedure by a person who is being taught veterinary science, must, before
performing or supervising the performance of that surgical procedure, first
satisfy himself or herself that the performance of that procedure is in the
interests of the animal" the words, "which, in the case of tail docking, is
based on an informed veterinary opinion that the procedure is necessary for the
welfare of the animal where the tail has been damaged by injury or disease, and
is not being performed for cosmetic or prophylactic purposss"
Thoughtful people have no fear of dogs
being banned from NZ. Too many households have them, and the sheepdog is an ikon
that carries a large proportion of the economy on its back. Espousing a ban on
dog breeding would produce a hue & cry that would surely put that government out
of office.
But shouldn't anyone who IS scared
about that possibility be assiduously removing any excuse the Animal Rights
movement might have for supporting a ban on owning dogs? And so be SUPPORTING an
end to tail docking?
Yet instead Ray attempted
scare-mongering. Ditto the NZ Council of Docked Breeds ad. An appeal to emotion
is the traditional tactic of those who cannot convince by logic.
Catherine Walshe (March pgs.5-6)
believes that “If the public were to see these dogs out & about with tails on
they would” quickly accept the look - sure to be true, but not the issue, for
me.
There are actually three prime points
for breeders:
- 1 It is the duty of owners who
compete in the conformation arena to present their dog in a way that allows
the judge & ringsiders to see it AS IT WAS BRED, not as it has been modified
by surgery or powders or dyes.
- 2 There are naturally
almost-tail-less dogs available, and several types of short tail, for anyone
who genuinely believes that THEIR breed’s long/thin tail is a disadvantage to
it.
- 3 The civilised countries have
ceased tail & ear mutilations. I want NZ's breeders to be considered
civilised.
Beth Warman (March pgs.12-13) took the
attitude that the fuss is purely about cruelty. And she may be right re many of
the debaters - it is very common for people to debate a side-issue rather than
face-up to the REAL issue. But again, like the NZKC Exec., she misses the REAL
point:
A dog that has been docked is NOT
typical of its ancestry, any more than is a dog that has had its ears cropped or
had plastic stiffeners inserted in its ears, or one that has had its long coat
shorn/clipped to appear as a short-coat, or one that has had its elbows or hips
operated on to allow it to move without pain, or one that has been dyed to
disguise the effect of genes for paling or unwanted spotting. Yet the whole
basis of breeding is that you select partners that ARE typical of their
ancestry.
It is particularly ironic that she
states: “Structure, characteristics and temperaments were developed with the
function in mind that this loyal worker was to perform and the terrain under and
over which the task would be undertaken.”
And yet breeders of that kind of dog
believe they still HAVE to dock the tails????? After all these millennia of
breeding for their function????
I'm a breeder. If I believe that the
tails my dogs possess are a problem for them then it is my duty to breed a more
suitable tail, NOT to forever inflict surgery on them to hide my error and the
incompetence/laziness of my predecessors.
I have to call it illogical that one
variety of Corgi has its tail (according to Beth) "removed so as not to be
trampled & damaged or risk the dog being pinned to the ground by the tail &
trampled to death", yet the other variety of Corgi RETAINS its full tail. Of
course, it could be that Pems are stupid, unaware, and unathletic, whereas the
Cardis are intelligent, alert, and athletic - but that's not a difference I
remember from my distant all-breeds daze.
"There is no documented evidence
supporting the NZVA's claims of tail docking causing necrosis, neuromata,
self-mutilation, and fecal or urinary incontinence." states Beth. But the first
site I checked believes that those things DO occur (see http://www.tvsp.org/dock-tail.html
), and veterinary associations would be more knowledgeable as to the truth of
that claim than I am. The AVA ought to be considered an informed, authoritative
source. Indeed, its members might be considered to have a financial interest in
the continuation of tail docking.
Okay, from
http://www.ava.com.au/content/infoshet/tail2.htm :
"What is the situation in other
countries?
"There are countries which have banned
cosmetic tail docking for a considerable number of years; Norway since 1987 and
Sweden and Switzerland since 1988, Cyprus, Greece and Luxembourg since 1991,
Finland since 1996 and Germany since 1998. No increase in tail injuries or
serious health problems have been detected as a result of the ban on tail
docking in these countries. In the United Kingdom, since July 1993, tail docking
can only be performed by registered veterinarians. The Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons has declared that the docking of tails, other than for
therapeutic reasons is unethical. The RCVS stated in 1996 that such docking is
capable of amounting to conduct disgraceful in a professional respect, and
described such docking as unacceptable mutilation."
Not fancying docked breeds, I had not
come across the 51% of 191 dogs study Beth uses. Indeed, it sounds like an urban
legend, but I found the precis available via NZKC's March feature article. She
cites it as being done in Sweden in 1989 - I find it hard to believe that, 5
years later, the AVA would still be unaware of any reliable study on the issue.
Yet the AVA state "No increase in tail injuries ...have been detected as a
result"! The NZVA uses similar wording. So either the AVA and BVA and NZVA are
amazingly unaware, or the ONLY study quoted by proponents of routine tail
docking is not accepted as valid by knowledgeable organisations.
But let’s assume the study is valid.
Okay, the Yates legislation would apply to NZ. So, in NZ, what percentage of
dogs in the breeds Beth finds “reasons to dock” for are actually ever worked in
the ways she cites? Of them, what percentage have been left with their natural
tails to prove or disprove her assertions? And of them, how many DID actually
suffer damage to their tails?
If the percentage is even partially
significant, then it is obvious that breeders of THOSE breeds have been failing
in their duty, by producing tails that are demonstrably unsuitable for what the
breed is expected to do. So CARING breeders must set to and change the tails,
not merely continue chopping bits off just because their predecessors did.
GSPs used as sled-dogs? Possible, but
hardly the breed’s design function!
Beth stated: "the process of tailing
docking is not a trend or fashion statement ... but is a process of upholding a
tradition borne primarily from a working perspective of a breed." I disagree
totally. In the conformation ring it IS purely a fashion statement. As for the
working aspect: People have become inured to certain things, and certain
religious sects even give Man total dominion over the Beasts, thereby excusing
all sorts of barbaric practises. Which includes a period where all dogs above a
certain size owned by English commoners had to have their front toes chopped
off, so that the dog could not run fast enough to catch M'Lord's game and
wildfowl. And recently at least one European hunt-master was accused of hanging
all his surplus hounds at the end of the season.
Barbaric "tradition"s, not civilised
ones.
I stress: IF the tail of your preferred
breed is a detriment to its working ability, then you and the other fanciers of
that breed have the DUTY to breed-out that type of tail and breed-in a suitable
type. No dog should require ANY type of cosmetic surgery in order to be able to
perform its function.
And yet the October issue contains yet
another article (pg.13) repeating the original tired “cruel to let dogs hurt
their tails” aspect, bringing in the belief in “freedom of choice”. Maybe
Carolyn Dow, its writer, should read the neuro-science research which suggests
that freedom of choice is a myth, and that our actions ARE actually planned in
advance from an external source that we cannot yet consciously detect.
Regardless of whether karma is
pre-ordained, NONE OF US accepts total freedom of choice. We place limitations
on many, many choices, such as freedom to drive vehicles, freedom to possess
items, freedom to use certain substances, freedom to sell pups via a pet shop or
in a raffle. Bad choices are simply bad choices, regardless of whether they are
free. A bad decision made without better knowledge being available is
understandable, ‘though not laudable. A bad decision made DESPITE better
knowledge being available is, in my book, wilful malice. Selective breeding for
valid functionality IS a better choice.
Some far-thinking breeders HAVE done
exactly that breeding-in thing already. Educated breeders of Boxers ought to be
aware of the breeding programme described (with pics) in:
http://www.boxerunderground.com/1998%20issues/oct_bu_98/bobtail.htm
Most people are aware of the
stones/uric acid problem in Dalmatians. Yet it is totally unnecessary. That it
continues is purely due to the short-sighted cruelty of that breed's mating
facilitators. A "safe from stones" line HAS been developed:
http://www.dogstuff.info/backcross_project_nash.html
Again with pictures, so you can see how
few generations are required to recover the breed-type lost by outcrossing.
Conscientious, intelligent breeders can achieve ANYTHING they want, provided the
genes for it are available somewhere.
However, the obstacle is that so many
people don't bother attempting to understand genetics, and so the "purity" of
the Stud Book takes precedence over the health & welfare of the gene pool
("purity" despite cases of incorrect pedigrees being revealed in every country
where DNA samples are required!). Yet all it takes is ONE allowable outcross per
breed to get the necessary genes into the gene-pool. Better, from the point of
view of speed-of-effect and the incidental benefits of genetic diversity, would
be allowing one outcross litter per kennel, to whatever mate the kennel-owner
considers best-suited to the purpose.
I urge fanciers of breeds currently
docked to discuss as a specialist club what kind of NATURAL tail they want their
breed to display, and which breed or breeds they can "borrow" that tail from,
and what safeguards they consider need to be built into the
outcross-then-backcross programme, then go to their KC to get permission to do
the necessary outcrossing.
Were such steps already underway it
would be realistic to ask Parliament to allow a finite period (6 years?) during
which pups' tails may continue to be docked. But merely opposing the Proposals
is not going to put breeders on-side with veterinarians, animal welfare
organisations, or our MPs.
I had thought that, THIS time around,
the Bill would be narrowly defeated, then pass in about 7 years time. However,
with the First Reading having gained a 79 vs 37 vote, it looks as though it will
be passed before the 2005 elections.
Be aware that attitudes towards use &
care of animals are changing worldwide. ”Traditionalists” create and
www.cbd.org sites to display wild claims as to
what various organisations intend to ban, including removal of dew-claws (I last
bred a rear dew-claw in 1973), and various genetic problems.
Well, I’m all for banning various
genetic problems, just as soon as the rogue alleles can be identified! However,
as I don’t trust any extremist organisation to report HONESTLY and FACTUALLY, I
went to the document they accuse of being so damaging to the production of pet
animals. No mention of dew claws, no mention of wrinkled skins. To know the REAL
clauses that DEFRA and others (and eventually NZ) are considering, go to:
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/125.htm
For those without internet access, the
key section is:
Article 10 – Surgical operations
1. Surgical operations for the purpose
of modifying the appearance of a pet animal or for other non-curative purposes
shall be prohibited and, in particular:
1. the docking of tails;
2. the cropping of ears;
3. devocalisation;
4. declawing and defanging;
2. Exceptions to these prohibitions
shall be permitted only:
1. if a veterinarian considers
non-curative procedures necessary either for veterinary medical reasons or for
the benefit of any particular animal;
2. to prevent reproduction.
3. Operations in which the animal will
or is likely to experience severe pain shall be carried out under anaesthesia
only by a veterinarian or under his supervision.
Operations for which no anaesthesia is
required may be carried out by a person competent under national legislation.
top
back
|
