#amimoore
#www.dogdoright.com
Tail Docking Increases The Health of Dogs
http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/abstract/166/26/812
http://tinyurl.com/248day6
The Veterinary Record 166:812-817 (2010)
© 2010 British Veterinary Association
Papers
Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain
G. Diesel, BVSc, MSc, PhD, MRCVS1, D. Pfeiffer, DrMedVet, PhD, MACVSc,
DipECVPH1, S. Crispin, MA, VetMB, BSc, PhD, DVA, DVOphthal, DipECVO, FRCVS2 and
D. Brodbelt, MA, VetMB, PhD, DVA, DipECVAA, MRCVS1
1 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College,
Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA
2 Department of Anatomy, University of Bristol, University Walk, Clifton,
Bristol BS8 1TD
Correspondence: E-mail for correspondence: gilldiesel@...
The aim of the current study was to quantify the risk of tail injury, to
evaluate the extent to which tail docking reduces this risk, and to identify
other major risk factors for tail injury in dogs in Great Britain. A nested
case-control study was conducted during 2008 and 2009. Data were obtained from a
stratified random sample of veterinary practices throughout Great Britain, and
questionnaires were sent to owners of dogs with tail injuries and owners of a
randomly selected sample of dogs without tail injuries. The risks of injury were
reported adjusting for the sampling approach, and mixed effects logistic
regression was used to develop a multivariable model for risk factors associated
with tail injury. Two hundred and eighty-one tail injuries were recorded from a
population of 138,212 dogs attending 52 participating practices. The weighted
risk of tail injuries was 0.23 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval 0.20 to
0.25 per cent). Thirty-six per cent of injuries were reportedly related to
injuries sustained in the home, 17.5 per cent were outdoor-related injuries,
14.4 per cent were due to the tail being caught in a door, for 16.5 per cent the
cause was unknown and the remainder were due to other causes. Dogs with a wide
angle of wag and dogs kept in kennels were at significantly higher risk of
sustaining a tail injury. Dogs with docked tails were significantly less likely
to sustain a tail injury; however, approximately 500 dogs would need to be
docked in order to prevent one tail injury. English springer spaniels, cocker
spaniels, greyhounds, lurchers and whippets were all at significantly higher
risk when compared to labradors and other retrievers. Differences between
countries (England, Scotland and Wales) and between rural and urban environments
were not significant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/animal-welfare/basc-new
-research-confirms-tail-docking-of-dogs-reduces-injury-risk-$21380894$366445.htm
http://tinyurl.com/25lvy3d
BASC: New research confirms tail docking of dogs reduces injury risk
Friday, 25, Jun 2010 08:42
Dogs with docked tails are less likely to sustain tail injuries, according to
new research published today in the British Veterinary Association's weekly
journal, the Veterinary Record. The UK's largest shooting organisation, the
British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) has welcomed the
findings, which support its view that some breeds of working dogs are
particularly prone to painful and debilitating tail injuries if preventative
docking is not carried out.
The issue is in political contention in Northern Ireland, where a proposal has
been put forward to ban all tail docking as part of the forthcoming Animal
Welfare Bill. In Scotland a blanket ban was introduced in 2007, which is
currently being challenged by BASC and others through the public petitions
committee.
In England and Wales a ban was introduced in 2007, but with a specific exemption
for working dogs used in the shooting field. They can be docked soon after birth
if a vet is satisfied that the dog is intended for working.
The Director of BASC Scotland, Dr. Colin Shedden said; "This is the third
separate piece of research which establishes a definite and significant link
between preventable tail injuries and the ability to dock some breeds. There is
a solid case that tail docking can prevent injury to breeds which are used to
flush, track and recover game, often in dense undergrowth. The exemption which
applies in England and Wales should be extended to cover Scotland and included
in any legislation in Northern Ireland in order to prevent unnecessary
suffering."
The new research shows that cocker and springer spaniels, two of the breeds most
often used as working dogs, are especially prone to tail injuries.
Disclaimer:
Press releases published on this page are from key opinion formers who promote
their organisation's activities by subscribing to a campaign site within
politics.co.uk. politics.co.uk does not endorse, edit, or attempt to balance the
opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases are wholly the
responsibility of the originating company or organisation.
ENDS
For more information please call the BASC press office on 01244 573031.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/5848/controversial-tail-docking-whats-your-v
iews/
http://tinyurl.com/2e833qk
Controversial Tail Docking – Whats Your Views?
Submitted by Jennifer White on June 29, 2010 – 10:00 am2 CommentsDogs with
docked tails are significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries, finds
research published in this week's Veterinary Record. But the overall level of
tail injuries is very low, say the authors of the study, which is based on more
than 138,000 dogs seen at 52 veterinary practices across Britain between March
2008 and March 2009.
The practice of tail docking to remove most of the tail to prevent this type of
injury in dogs was banned in Britain in 2007, although some exemptions apply for
specific breeds of working dog.
Among the 138,212 dogs seen by vets at the 52 practices during the study period,
281 were treated for a tail injury – a rate of 0.23%, adjusted for sampling.
The owners of 224 of these injured dogs, as well as a random sample of 799
owners whose dogs had not been treated for tail injury were sent a questionnaire
on dog tail injuries and docking.
Only 97 of the owners whose dogs needed treatment and 227 of those whose dogs
had not been injured replied.
But their responses indicated that around one in three tail injuries (36%; 35
cases) had occurred at home as a result of the dog knocking its tail against a
wall, kennel wall or other household object.
A further 17.5% (17 cases) were sustained outdoors, while 14.4% (14 cases) were
caused by the tail being caught in a door. In 15 (15.5%) other causes were
cited; and in 16 (16.5%), the cause was unknown. Almost half of the injuries
(44%) were recurrent.
Over half the cases were treated with drugs and dressings, but in almost one in
three cases, amputation was required. Eleven dogs did not need any treatment.
Certain breeds seemed to be more at risk, with springer and cocker spaniels
almost six times as likely to sustain a tail injury as labradors and retrievers.
Greyhounds, lurchers, and whippets were almost seven times as likely to do so,
possibly because of the lack of protective hair on their tails, say the authors.
Dogs with a wide angle of wag were also almost four times as likely to be
injured in this way, while dogs kept in kennels were more than 3.5 times as
likely to sustain a tail injury.
Only 35 owners said their dogs had had their tail docked, and on the basis of
their overall findings, the authors calculated that tail docking would reduce
the risk of injury by 12%.
But in absolute terms, 500 dogs would need to have their tail docked in order to
prevent one tail injury.
"Tail docking remains a controversial issue," say the authors. "The debate is
centred on whether non-therapeutic tail docking reduces the risk of tail
injuries sufficiently to justify the ethical concerns regarding this
[preventive] intervention."
Source: Veterinary Record
Comments
Peter Squires says:
June 29, 2010 at 6:12 pm
The Council Of Docked Breeds would like to congratulate the team on undertaking
what appears to be an excellent study. We ourselves appreciate that collating
worthwhile data from dog owners who are experiencing tail damage is not a simple
task, due to their minds being concentrated on getting the dog well again and
not on filling out paperwork. The data available to the research team is
impressive.
Having said that, the timing of the research seems to be too early to establish
the true effect of the tail docking ban which came into force early 2007. The
research was carried out during March 2008 and March 2009 and tail damage cases
were defined as any dog presented to veterinary practices within the previous 12
months (just as the ban had begun). The mean age of the controls was 4.2 years
old and of the tail damage cases 3.8 years old, so the majority of dogs recorded
were born before the ban came into force, when tail damage cases are expected to
be far lower than since the ban.
It is our experience that damage is less likely to occur in undocked dogs before
they have reached the age of twelve to eighteen months. Traditionally docked
breeds ceased being docked early 2007 and the number of undocked examples being
born slowly increased initially. At the time of the research, the new influx of
previously docked breeds were still too young to add to the number of tail
damage cases to get a true picture. The study accepts that it does not reflect
differences in the risk due to the legislation.
We also note that there were 281 tail injuries recorded from a population of
138,212 dogs attending the 52 participating practises. From this it was deduced
that the risk of tail damage was just 0.2% or that 500 docked dogs would only
prevent 1 tail damage case. Unfortunately, this simply shows the risk as a
percentage of the total dog population and does not represent the risk to
undocked dogs in previously docked breeds. Conversely, a number of breeds shown
to damage their tails were breeds which have NOT historically been docked.
We read with interest that undocked dogs were most likely to damage their tail
in the home and that dogs which were NOT worked would be just as likely to
damage their tails, both points have been put forward by the CDB for many years.
To gauge the full effect of the legislation, a repeat study would be required
comparing only dogs in those breeds which were traditionally docked before the
ban, were born AFTER the ban and the percentage of those that required
veterinary attention to their new long tails.
This study was a giant leap forward but unfortunately, not breed specific and
too early to evaluate the extent to which tail docking reduces the risk of tail
damage in Great Britain, one of its primary aims.
