Otectomias y Caudectomias Caninas-Deontologia

Otectomas y caudectomas caninas
Deontologa y Veterinaria Legal

2012/2013
Adriana Llopis Palomares

Claudia Mallol Roncal
Yolanda Mancebo Ardevol
Roco Martnez Cordero
Manuel Vega Sillero
ndice:
1. Introduccin 3
2. Historia de las amputaciones. Estndares raciales y concursos .4
3. Tcnicas quirrgicas
3.1 Caudectoma.....15
3.2 Otectoma.21
4. Pros y contras de otectomas y caudectomas
4.1. Argumentos en contra de la caudectoma.29
4.2 Argumentos a favor de la caudectoma.32
4.3. Argumentos en contra de la otectoma36
4.4 Argumentos a favor de la otectoma37
5. Legislacin
5.1 mbito Europeo.40
5.2 mbito Espaol....44
6. Encuestas y entrevistas
6.1 Entrevistas..49
6.1.1 Introduccin...49
6.1.2 Entrevistas a veterinarios..51
6.1.3 Conclusiones de las entrevistas a veterinarios.....59
6.1.4 Entrevistas en centros de cra.61
6.1.5 Conclusiones de las entrevistas en centros de cra....63
6.1.6 Entrevista a un juez de concurso (RSCE)....65
6.1.7 Conclusiones de la entrevista a un juez de concurso (RSCE).................67
6.2 Encuestas...68
6.2.1 Introduccin...68
6.2.2 Balance de las encuestas a veterinarios....72
6.2.3 Balance de las encuestas a criadores...83
6.2.4 Balance de las encuestas a propietarios....90
7. Conclusiones individuales 97
8. Bibliografa ..100
Anexos ..102
1. Introduccin
Da tras da la sociedad se conciencia ms sobre el respeto a los animales. Quiz hace 30 aos
no se podra ni hablar de eutanasia ni bienestar animal, pero ahora las noticias sobre historias
de perreras que cierran o imgenes de palizas a perros suelen ser comunes una o dos veces
por semana en el telediario, bien para crear opinin bien para dar que hablar, pero al fin y al
cabo para hacernos entender que hay sentimiento de repulsa hacia esta actitud.
Aun as, es curioso ver cmo la reaccin de la gente que se horroriza al ver cmo una chica tira
al ro cachorros para deshacerse de ellos se limita a hacer un simple comentario entre amigos
o familiares, y no ir ms all. Nos falta mucho espritu crtico en esta sociedad. Por suerte,
tenemos la oportunidad en trabajos como este de ir ms all del estar a favor o en contra de
un aspecto tico. Estoy a favor. Estoy en contra. Despus de este trabajo esperamos tener
conocimiento suficiente para llegar a convencer a alguien escptico al tema sobre la vanidad
de la mutilacin esttica, o en todo caso, saber informar bien sobre este tema y defender
nuestro punto de vista con argumentos slidos y no habladuras.
Sobre la eleccin del tema, desde el primer momento queramos enfocar nuestro trabajo al
sufrimiento animal. Podramos haber escogido las corridas de toros, las peleas de gallos, o la
venta de animales, pero realmente no es algo que nos encontraremos en nuestro trabajo
diario como veterinarios. Seguro que en nuestra vida laboral se nos pedir realizar algn tipo
de intervencin por el estilo, y podremos negarnos con motivo. Adems de interesante
nuestro trabajo nos ser til.
Tambin nos es curioso cmo la esttica, la imagen, se aprecia en el mundo animal reflejado
en un cierto estndar racial. Pero es una esttica impuesta por el hombre, una esttica no
natural. Un Doberman con las orejas cadas puede llega a causar rechazo hoy en da a un
posible propietario. Aun as, se provoca sufrimiento y se pone en peligro la vida del cachorro
por un fin puramente esttico, involuntario por parte del animal (al contrario que en la ciruga
esttica humana) y nada funcional.
Como futuros veterinarios deberamos de estar al da de este tipo de problemas ticos. Y
trabajar con informacin veraz y fiable. A la hora de elegir el trabajo hemos odo y visto, sobre
todo por internet, verdaderas estupideces sobre el corte de colas y el corte de orejas, como
que refuerza el sistema inmunitario. Veamos qu argumentos fieles hay a favor y en contra,
artculos cientficos, adems de la opinin de expertos para llevar a cabo nuestro trabajo, que
como cualquier trabajo de temtica libre, nos tomamos con ms ganas, inters y seriedad.
2. Historia de las amputaciones

Si hablamos de historia en el mbito del perro nos tenemos que remontar a su
antepasado: el lobo. Es curioso cmo han ido divergiendo las diferentes razas desde la
domesticacin del perro, y cada vez ms diferentes al lobo. El lobo es un animal con las
orejas erguidas (y ms los que se encuentran en lo alto de la pirmide de jerarqua) pero
cmo se ha llegado a razas con las orejas cadas? La respuesta la encontramos en la
seleccin.
En la prehistoria varios motivos hicieron pensar que esos primero perros deban llevar las
orejas cadas. Nuestros ms antiguos antepasados seleccionaron aquellos animales con
las orejas cadas por motivos de identidad y de funcionalidad. Estos perros con las orejas
cadas eran ms diferentes que el lobo, parecan ms infantiles y simulaban un
comportamiento de subordinados hacia los hombres. Tambin dedujeron que si un perro
tenia las orejas cadas escuchara peor, y por consiguiente debera desarrollar mejor el
olfato, hecho que podra aprovechar el hombre para dotarse de mejores perros de caza.
El problema de estos animales con las orejas cadas es que cuando se utilizaban para
cazar con ellos eran fcilmente lesionados por las presas, ya que las orejas cadas son ms
accesibles que las orejas erguidas. As que ya vemos una de las primeras veces que se
comenz a practicar la otectoma, seguramente no tan esttica como ahora, pero dando
la base a que se hiciese al perro ms inaccesible contra la presa, y ms tarde, cuando se
empez a utilizar en peleas, en combates e incluso en guerras, para ser ms inaccesible
frente a su adversario.
Otra de las partes del cuerpo que los hacan ms vulnerables al ataque de la presa o del
adversario era la cola. Proporcionaba un mtodo de alcance en las peleas muy
importante, e incluso un mtodo de sujecin en peleas en la que haba personas
implicadas. As que lo ms fcil para evitarlo era cortarles la cola.
As, para cada raza de perro se empez a cortar cola y orejas. Las de pelea para ser menos
accesibles al adversario, las de caza para evitar que la presa los lesione o a la hora de
adentrarse en la maleza no hacerse heridas en las orejas, en perros guardianes se haca
para que tuviesen un aspecto ms fiero y brbaro, y en los perros pastores para que al
defender al rebao de alimaas como zorros, lobos u otros perros salvajes pudiesen ser
heridos con ms facilidad.
Aunque se haya explicado en este orden, lo que realmente se empez a cortar fue la cola,
y despus las orejas. Hay documentos escritos, pinturas y esculturas que as lo
demuestran.
Si hablamos de razas en concreto, no nos adentraremos demasiado en cada una de ellas,
pero s comentar algunas curiosidades histricas como la del corte de cola del bobtail de
trabajo o pastoreo, que se le cortaba porque el bobtail de compaa se consideraba de
lujo, con cola, y por el cual se tena que pagar un impuesto o tasa. Tener un bobtail de
compaa era signo de pertenecer a una clase social alta.
En el siglo XIX empezaron a surgir voces crticas a este tipo de prcticas, pero no fue hasta
1839 que se public un ensayo en contra de estas prcticas. El autor fue Sir William
Youatt y se public en la revista The Veterinarian, alegando la falta de necesidad en este
tipo de intervenciones.
Estndares raciales y concursos.

Lo que realmente est perpetuando que se estile el corte de colas y de orejas entre los
perros de hoy en da es el establecimiento de una serie de estndares raciales que
incluyen la otectoma y/o la caudectoma como signo de identidad racial.
A continuacin ofrecemos un listado de aquellas razas que en su estndar racial incluira
el corte de orejas o de cola, o aquellas que puede ser necesario para evitar la penalizacin
por estar cadas o ser muy largas dentro de su raza. (Fuente: AKC (American Kennel Club)
en concordancia con los estndares de la FCI (Fdration Cynologique Internationale))
Corte de orejas:
Affenpinscher
American Staffordshire Terrier
Beauceron
Berger Picard
Berger de los Pirineos

Boston Terrier
Boyero de Flandes
Boxer
Briard
Dogo Alemn
Dogo Argentino
Dobermann
Grifn de Bruselas
Perros Mastn
Mastn Napolitano
Pinscher Normal y Pinscher Enano
Presa Canario
Pumi
Schnauzer Gigante, Schnauzer Mediano y Schnauzer Miniatura
Corte de colas:
Affenpinscher
Airedale Terrier
Autralian Terrier
Bobtail (si nace con cola)
Boyero de Flandes
Boxer
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (no registrada en el AKC)
Clumber Spaniel
Cocker Spaniel
Cocker Spaniel Ingls
Dobermann
Field Spaniel
Fox Terrier de pelo liso y fox Terrier de pelo duro
Grifn de Bruselas
Grifn de Muestra de Pelo Duro

Irish Terrier
Kerry Blue Terrier
Lakeland Terrier
Norwich Terrier
Pinscher Miniatura
Pointer Alemn de Pelo Corto y Pointer Alemn de Pelo Duro
Caniche Toy
Rottweiler (si nace con cola)
Schipperke (si nace con cola)
Schnauzer Gigante, Schnauzer Mediano y Schnauzer Miniatura
Sealyham Terrier
Silky Terrier
Spaniel Bretn (si nace con cola)
Spaniel Ingls Toy
Spinoni Italiano
Springer Spaniel Gals
Springer Spaniel Ingls
Sussex Spaniel
Vizsla
Weimaraner
Welsh Corgi (si nace con cola)
Welsh Terrier
Wheaten Terrier de Pelo Duro
Yorkshire Terrier
Despus de toda esta lista de razas, veamos concretamente algunas de las que ms se
ven en la clnica de nuestra regin, o las ms comunes nuestra regin.
1. American Staffordshire Terrier - 10 de junio de 1936 (Aprobado o ltima reforma)

Orejas: se prefieren sin cortar, aunque tambin se aceptan
cortadas. Cuando no estn cortadas deberan de ser
cortas. Se penalizan las orejas totalmente cadas.
Cola: corta en comparacin con el tamao, de
implantacin baja y acabada en punta final. No debe de
estar enrollada, sobre el lomo o amputada.
2. Bobtail (Old English Sheepdog) - 10 de febrero de 1990
Orejas: de tamao medio, se llevan cadas planas al lado de

la cabeza.
Cola: cuando no es natural (normalmente) se amputa cerca
del cuerpo (bob tailed).
3. Boston Terrier - 9 de enero de 1990

Orejas: tienen que ser pequeas y puntas rectas, ya sean
naturales o cortadas, y tienen que situarse lo ms cerca del
crneo posible para ajustarse a la forma de la cabeza.
Cola: de implantacin baja, corta, fina y cnica, recta o un
poco enrollada, pero no se tiene que estar amputada. Se
prefiere que no exceda en ms de un cuarto la distancia de
la zona de implantacin al tarso.
La amputacin de la cola es motivo de descalificacin.
4. Bxer - 11 de febrero de 2005

Orejas: insertadas en los puntos ms altos del lado del crneo.
Normalmente se cortan largas y con los bordes ntidos
(especialmente evidente cuando estn alerta) pero tambin se
aceptan las orejas sin cortar, en este caso tendran de ser de
un tamao moderado, delgadas y con una cada lisa, tocando
las mejillas y marcando un pliegue muy claro cuando estn
alerta.
Cola: de insercin alta. Las colas no amputadas tendran de ser
severamente penalizadas (todo y que no es motivo de descalificacin directa).
5. Cocker Americano - 12 de mayo de 1992

Orejas: lobulares, largas y no ms altas que la lnea de la
parte inferior del ojo.
Cola: cortada, implantada a la parte alta de la lnea del dorso
o ligeramente superior.
6. Cocker Ingls - 11 de octubre de 1988

Orejas: lobulares, largas y no ms altas que la lnea de la
parte inferior del ojo.
Cola: cortada, implantada a la parte alta de la lnea del
dorso; se lleva siguiendo la lnea horizontal.
7. Dobermann - 6 de noviembre de 1990

Orejas: normalmente cortadas y llevadas erectas.
Cola: cortada a nivel de la 2 vrtebra, de manera que
parezca una continuacin de la columna vertebral. Se
lleva ligeramente por encima de lo horizontal cuando el
perro est alerta.
8. Gran Dans - 8 de marzo de 1999

Orejas: de implantacin alta, medida mediana y grosor
moderado que se doblen hacia adelante en la zona cerca a
las mejillas a nivel del crneo. Si se cortan, la longitud tiene
que estar en proporcin al tamao de la cabeza y se tienen
que llevar rectas.
Cola: de implantacin ligeramente elevada, como si fuera
una continuacin de la columna vertebral. Debe de ser
amplia a la base e ir disminuyendo de manera progresiva
hasta llegar a la punta. En reposo debe caer recta y, en movimiento puede presentar una ligera
curvatura. La amputacin de la cola es motivo de descalificacin.
9. Mastn Napolitano - 13 de enero de 2004

Orejas: pueden ser recortadas o sin cortar, pero suelen ser
recortadas formando un triangulo equiltero, por razones de
salud. Si no se cortan, son de tamao mediano, de forma
triangular.
Cola: situada ligeramente inferior a la lnea superior. Ancha
y gruesa a la base y va disminuyendo gradualmente a la
punta. En reposo cuelga recta o haciendo una ligera S y en
movimiento se levanta ligeramente por encima de lo horizontal. Se amputa 1/3 de la cola.
10. Norofolk Terrier 23 de marzo de 1990
Orejas: pequeas y cadas en forma de V, muy

expresivas. La punta es ligeramente redonda y queda a
nivel de las mejillas, sin sobrepasar el extremo exterior
del ojo. Se doblan a la altura del crneo.
Cola: amputada a la longitud media, de manera que
quede de una longitud suficiente para garantizar un
perfil equilibrado. Recta y de insercin alta.
10
11. Pastor de Brie - 12 de enero de 1992

Orejas: tienen que ser altas, firmes a la base. La longitud
natural de las orejas debera de ser igual o ligeramente
inferior a la mitad de la longitud de la cabeza. Cuando se
cortan deberan de llevarlas siempre en alto y paralelas y
cuando estn en alerta, mirando hacia delante.
Cola: no debe estar cortada, se tiene que llevar baja y
recta (sin desviarse). La amputacin de la cola es motivo
de descalificacin.
12. Pastor de los Pirineos - 11 de abril de 2006

Orejas: se aceptan tanto cortadas como naturales. Las
naturales son ms cortas, fijadas a la parte superior de la
cabeza y con una base ancha. Cuando se cortan, se hace en
lnea recta para mantenerlas erguidas.
Cola: se acepta cortada y natural. Debe ajustarse a la
pendiente de la grupa.
13. Parson Russell Terrier - 13 de julio de 2004

Orejas: pequeas y cadas en forma de V, de grosor
moderado y cercanas a la cabeza. La punta de las orejas
apunta hacia los ojos.
Cola:
cortada
de
manera
que
la
punta
queda
aproximadamente a nivel del crneo.
14. Pinscher Miniatura - 7 de noviembre de 2005

Orejas: de implantacin alta y erectas cuando estn
cortadas. Si no se cortan se pueden plegar en forma de V.
Cola: normalmente cortada entre la 2 y 3 vertebra. Se
lleva ligeramente sobre lo horizontal.
11
15. Pointer - 30 setiembre de 1992

Orejas: grandes y de implantacin alta, a nivel de los ojos,
que se extiendan hasta las comisuras labiales.
Cola: de implantacin alta y firme. Tiene que ser amputada
dejando el 40% de su longitud. Tiene que estar cada y, en
movimiento, subir hasta lo horizontal.
16. Rottweiler - 8 de mayo de 1990

Orejas: de tamao mediano, cadas, de forma
triangular, cadas hacia adelante.
Cola: cortada corta, cerca del cuerpo, dejando una o
dos vertebras. El conjunto de la cola es ms importante
que la longitud ya que, configurada correctamente,
hace efecto de alargamiento de la lnea superior. Se
lleva ligeramente por encima de lo horizontal cuando el
perro esta excitado o en movimiento.
17. Schnauzer gigante - 11 de octubre de 1983

Orejas: cuando se cortan tienen que tener una forma y
longitud idnticas a las puntas y deben de estar
perpendiculares al crneo y mirando hacia adelante. No
deben ser excesivamente largas. Cuando no se cortan tienen
forma de botn en V y son de mediana longitud y grosor,
implantacin alta y cerca de la cabeza.
Cola: se implanta ligeramente elevada y se debera amputar
a nivel de la 2, como mucho la 3 vertebra.
12
18. Schnauzer miniatura: 9 de febrero de 1991.

Orejas: cuando se cortan tienen que tener una forma y
longitud
idnticas
las
puntas
deben
estar
perpendiculares al crneo y mirando hacia adelante. No

deben de estar excesivamente largas. Cuando no se cortan
tienen forma de botn en V y son de mediana longitud y
grosor, implantacin alta y cerca a la cabeza.
Cola: insercin de cola ligeramente alta y llevada recta. Se
corta dejando tan solo el trozo suficiente para que
sobrepase la lnea dorsal cuando la longitud del pelaje es adecuada.
19. Welsh Corgi - 28 de enero de 1993

Orejas: derechas, firmes y de tamao mediano,
disminuyendo ligeramente a una punta redonda.
Una lnea trazada desde la punta de la nariz a travs
de los ojos hasta la punta del odo, debe de formar
un triangulo equiltero aproximadamente.
Cola: cortada lo ms corta posible. Una cola de hasta
dos pulgadas de largo est permitida, pero si la lleva
ms alta tiende a hacer mal al contorno de la fila superior.
20. Welsh Terrier - 10 de agosto de 1993

Orejas: en forma de V, pequeas y no muy finas. La tapa
esta justo por encima de la lnea superior del crneo. Las
orejas acaban con la punta cada cerca de las mejillas o
hacia los bordes exteriores de los ojos cuando el perro
esta en reposo. Las orejas se mueven ligeramente hacia
arriba y hacia delante cuando est atento.
Cola: cortada a una longitud aproximadamente al
mismo nivel con la lnea occipital. La raz de la cola es
fijada muy por encima de la espalda y se lleva en posicin vertical.
13
21. Yorkshire Terrier 10 de julio de 2007

Orejas: pequeas, en forma de V y erguidas. No muy
separadas.
Cola: cortada a media longitud y llevada ligeramente
superior al nivel de la espalda
Hemos hecho un recogido de las razas en las que se practica la caudectoma y la

otectoma, las ms comunes de nuestra zona. Aun as hay ms en las que se realizan
estas prcticas. Aproximadamente en un tercio de las razas se contempla este tipo de
ciruga en el estndar racial, pero por suerte en la mayora es opcional e incluso se
descalifica en algunos casos si se ha realizado.
Realmente los estndares raciales no los vemos a pie de calle. Hay muchos perros
mestizos como mascota y slo gente que se dedica a la cra o propietarios realmente
interesados en presentar a sus mascotas a concursos estn al da de cunto le tiene
que medir la altura de la cruz o si en su raza las orejas tienen que estar en forma de V o
no.
Corte de cola y de orejas en concursos y exhibiciones
Los perros con la cola o las orejas cortadas deben ser admitidos, de acuerdo con las
regulaciones legales de sus pases de origen y aquellas del pas en el que se lleva a cabo
la exposicin. El juzgamiento de estos perros, tengan la cola y las orejas cortadas o no,
debe ser realizado sin ninguna discriminacin y solamente conforme al estndar de
raza vlido.
Esta es la referencia que nos hace el reglamento de las exposiciones caninas de la FCI.
Vemos como est totalmente permitido segn la legislacin de cada pas. En varios
pases de Europa, como por ejemplo Alemania, est prohibido el corte de colas y
orejas, y por consiguiente no estn aceptados a concurso los perros que hayan nacido
antes de que entrase en vigor la ley y se hayan sometido a estas intervenci ones.
14
3. Tcnicas quirrgicas
3.1 CAUDECTOMA:
La caudectoma, o amputacin de una porcin de la cola, se realiza para cumplir con
los estndares raciales o con la tracin. Pero la caudectoma tambin puede ser
teraputica y no esttica. La caudectoma teraputica est indicada en lesiones
traumticas, infeccin, neoplasia y fstulas perianales.
La cola debe amputarse con mrgenes de tejido normal de 2-3 cm cuando se resecan
cuando se resecan tumores o lesiones traumticas. La amputacin debe realizarse
cercana al ano si hay un sangrad crnico de la cola debido a abrasin reiterada o
mordisqueo. La amputacin cercana a la base se recomienda en casos de avulsin de la
cola, y es necesaria en casos de pioderma por pliegues y fstulas perianales.
CAUDECTOMA EN CACHORROS
La caudectoma esttica en cachorros se realiza entre los 3 5 das de edad.
Tradicionalmente no se ha empleado anestesia para realizarla; sin embargo,
actualmente debido a un mejor conocimiento del dolor, se emplea anestesia local con
o sin sedacin. Con frecuencia se realiza un bloqueo en anillo con Lidocana (<10
mg/kg) en la base de la cola. Otro protocolo que se realiza de sedacin y analgesia es
administrar diacepam intravenoso (0,1mg/100 g) seguido 3 min despus por la
administracin de hidrocloruro de ketamina intranasal (1mg/100g) y transcurridos 5
minutos se realiza un bloqueo en anillo con anestsico local, proximal a la incisin
propuesta. Si la caudectoma no se realiza durante la primera semana de vida, debe
retraerse hasta que el cachorro tenga 8-12 semanas de edad y realizarla bajo anestesia
general. La longitud deseada de la cola se determina siguiendo los estndares raciales
(Tabla 1) y consultando al propietario. La cicatrizacin tras la caudectoma en
cachorros no suele presentar complicaciones. Los cachorros no suelen irritar el rea
quirrgica, pero las madres pueden arrancar las suturas mediante lamido en unos das.
15
Procedimiento:
Un asistente sujeta el cachorro. Se rasura y prepara aspticamente el rea de
reseccin elegida. A continuacin, se retrae la piel de la cola hacia la base de esta.
Inmovilizar la cola entre los dedos pulgar e ndice y aplicar presin para controlar la
hemorragia (figura A). Palpar el lugar deseado para la transeccin. Una vez localizado,
transeccionar la cola entre dos vrtebras caudales adyacentes con tijeras de Mayo,
cortaas, cuchilla de bistur o un cortacolas, electrociruga o lser. Para la retraccin
de la piel se pueden emplear tijeras. Colocar la cuchilla ventral a la zona deseada de
retraccin de la piel. Seguidamente colocar la cuchilla dorsal ms distal, formando un
ngulo oblicuo. Rotar las cuchillas hasta una posicin perpendicular mientras se
mantiene un contacto estrecho con la piel para empujar la piel en sentido craneal;
manteniendo las tijeras en esta posicin traccionar a travs del espacio intervertebral
(figura B). Controlar la hemorragia mediante presin o electrociruga. Extender la piel
retrada sobre el mun, evaluar la longitud de la cola y seccionar ms piel si fuera
necesario. Aproximar los bordes de la piel con 2 o 3 suturas de aproximacin (por
ejemplo Nailon o Polipropileno de 4-0) o adhesivo tisular reabsorbible (figura C).
16
TABLA 1:
PAUTAS PARA EL CORTE DE COLAS
RAZA
LONGITUD*
Razas deportivas
Braco alemn de pelo corto y duro
Dejar 2/5 de longitud
Braco Weimar
Dejar 3/5 de longitud (aprox. 4 cm)
Clumber spaniel
Dejar de a 1/3 de longitud
Ccker spaniel americano
Dejar 1/3 de longitud (aprox. 2 cm)
Ccker spaniel ingls
Field spaniel
Grifn de pelo duro
Spaniel bretn
Dejar 2,5 cm
Springer spaniel gals
Dejar de 1/3 a de longitud
Springer spaniel ingls
Sussex spaniel
Vizsla
Razas de trabajo
Bobtail
Dejar una vrtebra (pegada al cuerpo)
Bxer
Dejar de 1,25 a 2 cm (dos vrtebras)
Boyero de Flandes
Dejar de 1,25 a 2 cm
Corgi gals (Pembroke)
Dberman
Dejar 2 cm (dos vrtebras)
Rottweiler
Schnauzer gigante
Dejar 3 cm (tres vrtebras)
Schnauzer mediano
Dejar 2,5 cm (dos vrtebras)
Terriers
Airedale terrier
Fox terrier
Kerry blue terrier
Lakeland terrier
Norwich terrier
17
Schnauzer miniatura
Dejar 2 cm
Sealyham terrier
Soft-coated Wheaten terrier
Dejar de a de longitud
Terrier australiano
Terrier irlands
Dejar de longitud
Welsh terrier
Razas miniatura
Affenpinscher
Dejar menos de 1 cm (pegado al cuerpo)
Caniche toy
Dejar de a 2/3 de longitud (aprox. 2,5

cm)
Grifn de Bruselas

cm)
Pinscher miniatura
Dejar 1,25 cm (dos vrtebras)
Silky terrier
Dejar 2/3 de longitud (aprox. 1,25 cm)
Spaniel ingls toy
Yorkshire terrier
Razas no deportivas
Caniche miniatura

cm)
Schipperke
Pegado al cuerpo
Otras
Caniche mediano

cm)
Cavalier King Charles spaniel (opcional)
Dejar 2/3 de longitud con punta blanca
Spinone italiano
*Cuando el corte de cola se realiza con menos de 1 semana de edad.

La punta de la cola debe estar aproximadamente al mismo nivel que la parte superior
del crneo cuando el cachorro se coloca en posicion de exposicin.
18
CAUDECTOMIA EN ADULTOS
La caudectoma en perros mayores de una semana de edad requiere anestesia general
o epidural. El rea quirrgica debe ser observada por si se produjera hinchazn,
drenaje, inflamacin y dolor. La cicatrizacin tras la caudectoma no es complicada si
se evita una tensin excesiva en la piel y el autrotraumatismo. El rea debe de ser
protegida mediante un vendaje o mtodos de contencin si fueran necesarios. Las
complicaciones incluyen infeccin, dehiscencia, cicatriz, fstula recurrente y
traumatismo rectal o del esfnter anal. Las incisiones con dehiscencia tras una
amputacin parcial pueden cicatrizar por segunda intencin, lo cual suele dejar una
cicatriz alopcica. La reamputacin puede ser necesaria para eliminar la irritacin y
mejorar la esttica.
Procedimiento Caudectoma parcial:
Envolver la regin distal de la cola con gasa o introducirla en un guante de exploracin,
asegurando la envoltura con esparadrapo. Rasurar ampliamente el rea de amputacin
y prepararla de forma asptica para la ciruga. Colocar el paciente en posicin perineal
o en decbito lateral. Poner un torniquete proximal al rea de transeccin. Despus,
retraer la piel hacia la base de la cola. A continuacin hacer una doble incisin en V en
la piel distal al espacio intervertebral deseado. Orientar las V de forma que quede un
colgajo dorsal y otro ventral, ms largos que la longitud de la cola deseada (figura A).
Identificar y ligar las arterias y venas caudales laterales y mediales, ligeramente craneal
al rea de transeccin (figura B). Incidir el tejido blando ligeramente distal al espacio
intervertebral deseado y desarticular la cola con una cuchilla de bistur. Si se produce
sangrado, habr que realizar una ligadura circular alrededor del extremo distal del
mun o volver a ligar los vasos caudales (figura C). Aproximar el tejido subcutneo y
el msculo sobre la vrtebra expuesta mediante suturas de aproximacin discontinuas
(el material de las suturas bien puede ser polidioxanona como poliglecaprona 25,
glucmero 631 o poligluconato de 3-0). Posicionar el colgajo cutneo dorsal sobre la
vrtebra caudal (figura D). Recortar el colgajo ventral lo necesario para permitir la
aposicin de la piel sin tensin. Aproximas los bordes de piel con suturas de
aproximacin (por ejemplo nailon o polipropileno de 3-0 o 4-0, con aguja de corte
19
inverso)(figura D). Por ltimo, prtel. Proteger el rea quirrgica con un vendaje o
mediante un collar isabelino.
Procedimiento Caudectoma completa:

Anestesiar al paciente; rasurar y preparar aspticamente todo el perineo y el rea de la
base de la cola. Colocar al animal en decbito ventral. Hacer una incisin elptica
alrededor de la base de la cola (figura A). Incidir el tejido subcutneo para exponer los
msculos. Separar las uniones de los msculos elevadores del ano, rectococcgeo y
coccgeo con las vrtebras caudales (figura B). Ligar las arterias y venas caudales
laterales y mediales antes o despus de la transeccin. Transaccionar la cola
desarticulndola con una cuchilla de bistur por la segunda o tercera vrtebra caudal.
Lavar el rea despus de establecer hemostasia. Aproximas los msculos elevadores
del ano y el tejido subcutneo mediante una sutura simple continua o discontinua (el
material de las suturas bien puede ser polidioxanona como poliglecaprona 25,
20
glucmero 631 o poligluconato de 3-0 o 4-0). Como alternativa se puede conservar el

pliegue de piel de la cola, sin embargo, puede persistir la pioderma.
3.2 OTECTOMA
El corte de orejas se lleva a cabo con el fin de buscar un modelo esttico que se
considera necesario para mejorar el aspecto del animal. A pesar que la otoplastia
esttica se practica en perros mayores de un ao, las probabilidades de xito
aumentan considerablemente si se interviene quirrgicamente al animal en una edad
ms temprana. A mayor tamao de la raza canina ms joven se debe hacer la
intervencin. El perro grande, de desarrollo rpido, puede sufrir a la edad de dos
meses una ruptura aguda del cartlago de la oreja en su proximidad con la cabeza. Esta
rotura en muy pocas ocasiones es corregible con un corte estndar, y puede ser
necesario el empleo de procedimientos que impidan la posterior exhibicin del
ejemplar en concursos.
A continuacin en la tabla 2, se enumeran las razas a las que se acostumbra a cortarles
las orejas, las edades a las que debe hacerse el corte y el largo mximo de la oreja
despus de cortarla.
21
TABLA 2:
PERROS
MS
FRECUENTES CORTE DE OREJAS
CON
RAZA
EDAD
TAMAO
Schnauzer miniatura
10 12 semanas
2 pulgadas
Bxer
9 10 semanas
2 pulgadas
Schnauzer gigante
9 10 semanas
2 pulgadas
Doberman pinscher
7 8 semanas
2 pulgadas
Gran Dans
7 semanas
3 pulgadas
Boston terrier
Cualquier edad
Tan largas como sea

posible
El largo a las edades dadas se determina de acuerdo a los estndares generales de

cada raza, pero dependen en cierto modo del sexo y de la estructura bsica del
ejemplar. Debe medirse desde la coyuntura de la superficie dorsal media del colgajo de
la oreja y la cabeza.
Un bxer cuyas orejas se cortan a las diez semanas de edad tendr una oreja de
aproximadamente dos pulgadas y media de largo. Si el cachorro es excepcionalmente
grande para su edad, el cirujano debe tener en cuenta el margen del crecimiento
futuro y aumentar hasta un octavo de pulgada. Por esta misma razn, las orejas de los
machos deben cortarse un poco ms largas que las de las hembras. Debe descartarse
la tendencia a reducir la talla de las oreja con el fin de que las orejas permanezcan
erectas ms fcilmente, ya que no existe nada ms feo que la apariencia de un bxer
muy grande con las orejas muy pequeas. En ciertas razas, la oreja se corta muy
pequea, as el American pit bull es uno de los pocos animales cuyas orejas se deben
cortar muy pequeas para hacerlas lo ms inaccesibles posible.
Es muy importante la forma de la oreja. Un ejemplar con estructura sea fina y
caractersticas femeninas debe tener orejas delgadas. A un macho, especialmente si su
conformacin sea es tosca, deber drsele una oreja ancha con campana bastante
22
grande. La campana es la porcin de la oreja que da vuelta en la regin ms prxima a

la cabeza al recortar la oreja desde su punto ms distal hasta el ms prximo.
Para realizar este corte de orejas esttico, se ha de anestesiar al animal previamente.
El empleo de anestesia por inhalacin ha aumentado un porcentaje considerable la
seguridad en las intervenciones quirrgicas en cachorros muy pequeos puesto que,
un cachorro de siete semanas de edad tiene muy poca resistencia o defensas para
desintoxicar y eliminar el pentobarbital sdico. Se puede realizar en cachorros
anestesia por induccin con barbitricos de corta accin intubando posteriormente y
adaptando el tubo a un aparato inhalador de oxgeno y anestsico. Se puede
administrar tambin atropina en el periodo preoperatorio. No se recomienda el
empleo de Demerol para controlar la presin sangunea y el sangrado durante la
otoplastia esttica. Tampoco se recomienda la inyeccin de epinefrina para bloquear la
lnea de corte, debido a los efectos sistmicos que este produce.
Procedimiento:
Se rasura el pelo de las orejas y se frotan ests con una solucin de povidona iodada.
Se coloca al perro en decbito ventral con el cuello y el mentn apoyados en una toalla
con el propsito de elevar la cabeza. La mesa y el animal, con excepcin de la cabeza,
se cubren con campos quirrgicos estriles. El dejar la cabeza descubierta se debe a
que as se tiene mejor visibilidad del campo quirrgico durante la intervencin, de
manera que la conformacin de las orejas puede ser realizada de acuerdo a la forma
de las mismas. Las orejas se levantan y se extienden por encima de la cabeza del
animal en toda su extensin; el tamao de la oreja se obtiene midindolas desde el
punto en que la piel se dobla en el pabelln o cartlago hacia la cabeza y hasta alcanzar
un punto en el borde rostral del cartlago (Figura 2). La longitud se marca en una oreja
colocando una aduja pequea a travs del borde rostral de la piel del cartlago. Las
orejas se comparan posteriormente con el fin de igualarlas. Es bastante comn que al
unirlas el cirujano vea que una de ellas qued mal marcada. Es por esto por lo que se
insiste en que se comparen ambas orejas, ya que esta prctica elimina los errores. Las
puntas de ambas orejas se unen y se atraviesan juntas con una aguja, realizando un
pequeo corte; pero fcilmente reconocible durante la intervencin entre el extremo
23
de la oreja y la aguja sobre el borde rostral de los cartlagos. La incisin se realiza con
tijeras (Figura 3).
Posteriormente se fija en cada una de las orejas una armazn curva especial desde la
incisin hasta el corte intertrayectual y lo ms cerca posible de la prominencia de la
oreja (Figura 4.1).
Cada armazn deber colocarse en su lugar con su lado convexo volteado hacia la
superficie rostral de la oreja. Una vez que ambos estn en su lugar, se pueden estirar y
manipular las orejas hasta conseguir la forma deseada. Si se estiran distalmente, se
obtendrn orejas delgadas. Tirando un poco ms del borde caudal de las orejas, de
modo que pase entre las armazones y que dentro de ellas quede menos cartlago,
tambin se logran orejas delgadas, mientras que maniobrando en sentido contrario
24
quedarn ms anchas. Se logran campanas anchas aplicando tensin distalmente

combinada con una tensin mnima en direccin caudal hacia la regin de la fosa del
hlix. Despus de manipular las orejas, fijarlas y asegurarlas en el armazn, se
comparan observndolas tanto craneal como caudalmente (Figuras 4.4 y 4.5). Durante
esta comparacin debe ponerse especial atencin al ngulo formado por el borde
rostral de cada oreja con armazn, a la cantidad de reja que hay que cortar y a la
amplitud de campana.
Cuando el cirujano queda satisfecho de la igualdad bilateral de las orejas y de que la

forma dada quirrgicamente es compatible con la forma de la cabeza, la raza y el sexo
del animal, se procede a cortar la porcin lateral de cada pabelln auricular que qued
fuera de la armazn, con una hoja de bistur plana y nueva (Figura 4.6). Puede
aplicarse una navaja de afeitar de doble filo o una navaja Weck, ya que el bistur de
hija fina no es lo suficientemente filoso y su estructura no es apropiada para este tipo
de incisin. Se comienza a cortar aserrando ligeramente en el corte que se hizo
previamente y se continua de un solo tajo limpiamente ejecutado hasta la porcin
ventral de la oreja y del armazn, obteniendo as un corte limpio y tenso.
25
Despus de realizar el corte se retiran las armazones y la hemorragia se controla con

pinzas de hemostasia de mosquito. En esta intervencin se seccionan tres vasos
importantes de la oreja situados en la superficie lateral. El vaso distal pertenece a la
vena auricular craneal (Figura 4.7), y generalmente sangra muy poco. Otro vaco caudal
auricular similar al anterior se encuentra en la incisin ventral; probablemente su
sangrado vaya a requerir la aplicacin de pinzas. El vaso sanguneo que sangra ms es
una rama de la arteria caudal auricular que generalmente se encuentra a 2/3 de
distancia en sentido distal de la lnea de incisin. Se facilita el control de este vaso
haciendo un doblez en la porcin medial de la piel (Figura 4.8).
26
Cuando se obtiene hemostasis, las tijeras se emplean para completar la incisin de la

hendidura intertragal con el cartlago incluido, con el fin de lograr simetra en la
porcin ventral de la incisin. Dado el volumen de la armazn, la incisin no permitir
dar la vuelta adecuadamente hacia el lado de la cabeza en la regin del trago. Debido a
esto se emplean tijeras para emparejar a cada lado la incisin ventral de la cabeza
(Figura 4.9).
La sutura se realiza con material no absorbible empleando un patrn de sutura simple

continuo. Es muy importante escoger un material que no produzca reaccin. Ha de
utilizarse una aguja recta. La sutura se inicia en un punto situado a 3/8 de pulgada de
la punta de la oreja. Si se comienza a suturar ms cerca, se corre el riesgo de un
desdoblamiento ventral de la punta o de necrosis dl cartlago distal a la sutura. La
sutura se contina hacia la cabeza metiendo y sacando la aguja de la piel de la
superficie craneal del cartlago, pasando el cartlago y atravesando la piel de la
superficie caudal del cartlago (Figura 4.10). Debe hacerse todo lo posible por lograr
que la piel quede igual a cada lado del cartlago. Se debe tener especial cuidado en
evitar que la piel forme dobleces en la superficie caudal de la oreja y tambin han que
evitar la ventroflexin de la misma; ambas cosas pueden resultar de exceso de tensin
en la lnea de sutura.
27
Cuidado postoperatorio
A la mayora de los pacientes a quienes se les practica la otectoma esttica no se les
aplica vendaje. Se hace la antisepsia de rutina y se deja que el animal vuelva de la
anestesia por s mismo. Cuando se juzga que se recuper del choque anestsico, se le
da el alta. Las nicas razas que requieren vendaje son el Gran Dans y el Doberman
Pinscher, este ltimo en los casos en que la oreja tiende a caer bruscamente despus
de que se le ha amputado parcialmente el pabelln auricular. Cuando esto ocurre,
debe aplicarse alrededor de la base de la oreja una banda de tela adhesiva para ayudar
a que se levante rpido. En ningn caso debe cubrirse totalmente la oreja antes de
retirar los puntos de sutura, lo que generalmente puede hacerse siete das despus de
la intervencin.
Una vez retirados los puntos, se calculan las probabilidades de que ambas orejas
permanezcan erectas. Si el corte las hizo subir desde la cabeza en una suave curva, no
hay necesidad de aplicar vendaje. Pero si se observa que caen abruptamente y que el
cartlago del pabelln adopta un ngulo agudo, debe aplicarse un cono de algodn en
el canal de la oreja y envolverlo circularmente con tela adhesiva desde la puna hasta la
base. Este vendaje debe permanecer cinco das y retirarse durante otros cinco das. Se
contina vendando y desvendando en esta forma hasta que las orejas queden erectas
(Figura 4.11).
28
4. Pros y contras de otectomas y caudectomas
______
CAUDECTOMA
La amputacin de la cola en los animales domsticos ha sido des de hace muchos aos
un tema muy discutido y criticado en los distintos pases. Ha sido y es una prctica muy
extendida en todo el mundo, hasta el punto de que un tercio de las razas puras
reconocidas tienen la cola cortada en su estndar racial. Cada pas a tomado su propia
decisin acerca de prohibir o no esta prctica aunque es cierto que algunos pases solo
la permiten si sta es llevada a cabo por un veterinario. Tambin es cierto que en
muchos pases donde es totalmente legal, muchos veterinarios se niegan a practicarla
o algunos la practican nicamente por miedo a que, si no lo hacen ellos, lo hagan los
propios creadores. En definitiva, es un tema muy complejo que incluye
consideraciones econmicas, estticas, de bienestar animal y morales.
4.1. ARGUMENTOS EN CONTRA:
Cuando estamos hablando de otectomas o caudectomas estticas estamos hablando
de un procedimiento que no est indicado mdicamente. Estas cirugas no van a
proporcionar ningn beneficio al paciente ya que los perros no necesitan subir su
autoestima mejorando su aspecto fsico. El nico beneficio lo puede llegar a obtener el
propietario viendo mejorada la imagen de su mascota. Este aspecto no consideramos
que sea suficiente para llevar a cabo un procedimiento quirrgico.
1. Dolor
La gente que se opone al corte de colas lo hace sobre la base de que los cachorros
sufren un dolor agudo cuando se les lleva a cabo este procedimiento. La gente que
est a favor, se justifica diciendo que los perros son demasiado jvenes cuando se les
practica y tienen el sistema nervioso todava inmaduro, de manera que no pueden
sentir dolor o sienten un dolor muy leve. Se hizo un estudio en Australia en el ao 1996
en el que se preguntaba a los veterinarios y a los criadores si crean que los animales
tenan dolor cuando se les cortaba la cola. El resultado fue muy distinto entre los dos
sectores, el 76% de los veterinarios crean que los perros padecen mucho dolor
29
mientras que el 82% de los criadores pensaban que no tienen dolor o tienen muy poco
dolor.
El dolor es un fenmeno totalmente subjetivo que no puede ser identificado ni
cuantificado mediante las tecnologas de que disponemos actualmente. Esto hace que
tengamos que deducirlo a travs de medidas indirectas y que sea un aspecto muy
discutido entre filsofos y cientficos sobretodo cuando hablamos del dolor en
poblaciones que no son capaces de hablar. En los humanos, el dolor se identifica y se
cuantifica simplemente haciendo preguntas como: siente dolor? Dnde? Podra
clasificrmelo en una escala del 1 al 10? En veterinaria se ha tenido que desarrollar
otros sistemas que se basan en ndices del comportamiento ante el dolor. Se valora el
tiempo que es capaz de aguantar el animal en contacto con un estmulo doloroso, las
vocalizaciones y tambin se valoran indicadores fisiolgicos como el incremento de
cortisol o corticosterona en plasma y el incremento del pulso. Sin embargo, la
evidencia dice que las especies difieren en la manera de reaccionar ante el dolor y en
el umbral del dolor de manera que los ndices son limitados y nunca podremos saber a
ciencia cierta si los animales sienten el dolor como lo hacemos nosotros. Adems de
todos estos impedimentos, todava es ms difcil determinar el dolor cuando hablamos
de animales que no tienen ni una semana de vida. Estos animales son fsicamente
incapaces de mostrar un comportamiento asociado al dolor ni tampoco nos permiten
obtener muestras de sangre o saliva en suficientes cantidades como para medir las
hormonas del estrs. A falta de pruebas aceptables, lo que se acaba haciendo es una
hiptesis que dice que estos individuos sienten dolor cuando se someten a situaciones
que a nosotros nos causaran dolor.
Aunque existen pocos estudios en perros debido a su dificultad en la interpretacin y
elaboracin, si se han llevado a cabo en otras especies como las ovejas, los cerdos y los
terneros. Estos estudios se han intentado extrapolar al perro aunque existen ciertas
diferencias. En los estudios de cortes de cola en el ganado se apreciaron cambios
comportamentales y/o fisiolgicos que se relacionaron con la existencia de un dolor
agudo. Sin embargo, cabe la posibilidad de que el dolor en el ganado sea debido a la
tcnica utilizada, en este caso una banda de goma, diferente a la ciruga que se realiza
en perros. Tambin hay otro aspecto diferente, y ste es la edad. El corte de cola en las
30
ovejas suele realizarse ms tarde que en perros. Al ser las ovejas de mayor edad,
podra ser que los procesos perceptivos y sensoriales estn ms desarrollados que en
un animal que apenas tiene 5 das. Para salir de dudas se hicieron cortes de cola en
ovejas a esa misma edad y se vio que sufran incluso ms dolor que cuando eran
adultas. La nica diferencia con los perros es que stos son especies altriciales de
manera que podran tener un sistema nervioso inmaduro y no sentir el dolor. No
obstante, pruebas en otras especies mamferas, como las ratas, han establecido que la
inmadurez no tiene porque implicar una insensibilidad al dolor.
Como se ha dicho anteriormente las vocalizaciones se utilizan como un indicador del
dolor. Basndonos en este indicador, existen evidencias de que la amputacin de la
cola es un procedimiento doloroso para los cachorros ya que en un estudio en el que
se grabaron las respuestas de 50 cachorros al procedimiento, se observ que todos los
cachorros sufran y reproducan sonidos intensos y repetidos durante la amputacin.
Tambin reproducan sonidos intensos mientras se les suturaba la incisin. El hecho de
que todos los cachorros emitieran sonidos hace que el dolor sea muy probable.
2. Dolor crnico
Uno de los argumentos ms fuertes en contra de la amputacin de la cola es el hecho
de que puede ser asociado a la presencia de neuromas y dolor crnico, o a un
incremento en la sensibilidad del dolor en algunos perros. Sin embargo, esto no ha
sido demostrado empricamente. Aunque los perros sean capaces de enmascarar el
dolor crnico se espera que ste afecte a su comportamiento.
3. Problemas de salud crnicos
Otro de los argumentos en contra del corte de colas es que se ha descrito atrofia y
degeneracin de la cola en algunos pacientes as como de los msculos plvicos. Esta
atrofia puede conducir a una incontinencia fecal y un compromiso de la integridad del
diafragma plvico pudindose producir una hernia perineal. Tambin se han descrito
casos de incontinencia urinaria
31
4. Problemas en la locomocin
Algunos autores argumentan que la cola es un elemento importante para los perros en
relacin con el equilibrio y la agilidad. Dado que la mayora de especi es animales que
tienen estilos de vida en los que se requiere velocidad y agilidad tienen cola, se puede
llegar a pensar que esto es una ventaja evolutiva para ellos. Desafortunadamente no
hay estudios cientficos publicados que comparen la locomocin entre perros con la
cola y sin ella.
5. Problemas en la comunicacin
Los perros utilizan la cola para comunicarse socialmente entre ellos de manera que un
perro que no disponga de ella, puede tener desventajas sociales. Se dice que los perros
que tienen la cola amputada tienen comportamientos compensatorios como puede ser
el movimiento del tercio posterior. Adems, cabe la posibilidad de la existencia de mal
entendidos entre animales de la misma raza, sin embargo no hay estudios que lo
demuestren. La comunicacin con los humanos tambin puede verse afectada, ya que
por ejemplo, los nios pueden tener miedo a perros sin cola debido a que asocian el
movimiento de sta a que est contento.
6. Infecciones y problemas en la cicatrizacin
Al igual que con cualquier procedimiento quirrgico, existe la posibilidad de
complicaciones como sangrado excesivo, infeccin y necrosis. La herida puede
infectarse despus de la ciruga, sobretodo si las condiciones higinicas y de esterilidad
no son las correctas. Adems tambin puede haber problemas en la cicatrizacin, la
herida puede abrirse continuamente sobretodo si cachorro est en compaa de los
dems cachorros de la camada.
4.2 ARGUMENTOS A FAVOR:
La evidencia de la existencia de dolor impone una carga importante sobre las personas
que defienden sta practica ya que, tienen que ser capaces de mostrar beneficios que
superen los costes.
32
1. Mantener la tradicin
La amputacin de la cola es una costumbre que se estableci hace ya ms de 2000
aos para satisfacer diversos motivos. Estos motivos incluan principalmente razones
funcionales como prevenir que los animales de caza se daaran la cola o prevenir
enfermedades como la rabia. Tambin incluan razones econmicas, ya que en algunos
casos se impona un impuesto de perros de lujo a aquellos perros que tenan la cola
larga.
Algunos argumentan que a las razas que tradicionalmente se les cortaba la cola deben
permanecer con la cola cortada simplemente para preservar la tradicin y conservar el
aspecto caracterstico de la raza. De hecho, muchas personas afirman que cortan a la
cola a su perro con el fin de cumplir con el estndar oficial de la raza en cuestin. La
verdad es que este argumento sobre la tradicin parece un argumento muy poco
convincente ticamente.
A los perros tradicionalmente no se les amputaba la cola mucho antes de que se les
amputara por esta razn, cualquier argumento en trminos puramente tradicionales a
favor de la amputacin tiene muy poco valor, ya que nicamente se limita a nuestra
propia historia cultural.
Es importante que traslademos las razones por las que tradicionalmente se cortaba la
cola a los perros a nuestro clima social actual. En esa poca la sociedad vea a los
animales puramente como una posesin. No haba ninguna proteccin legal ni moral
que los defendiera de manera que sus dueos podan hacer lo que quisieran con ellos.
El perro se vea como una mquina incapaz de sentir dolor o emociones. Muchos
estndares raciales fueron redactados originalmente en un momento en el que haba
muy poco conocimiento de la fisiologa y en el que el bienestar animal era de poco
inters. Los estndares raciales, al igual que todas las leyes pueden cambiar y cambian,
como evolucionan las culturas y el conocimiento.
2. Prevencin
Dentro de la prevencin podemos diferenciar:
Prevencin de daos y perros de trabajo
33
Los defensores de la amputacin de la cola suelen citar muchos beneficios prcticos

que se cree que estn asociados con el procedimiento, aunque estos supuestos
beneficios rara vez, han sido demostrado cientficamente. Una de las afirmaciones ms
comunes es que algunas razas a las que tradicionalmente se les amputa la cola tienden
a involucrarse en actividades en las que es probable que se daen la cola como pueden
ser los perros de caza. Se argumenta que el procedimiento es necesario, por lo tanto,
para evitar el dolor y la incomodidad asociada con el dao. Esta lgica de amputar la
cola claramente no aprueba la prctica generalizada que existe hoy en da, que incluye
muchas razas de perros a los que se les amputaba la cola tradicionalmente por razones
distintas a la prevencin de lesiones.
Tambin est el caso de los perros guardianes de los que, se dice que podran ser
agarrados por la cola para evitar su ataque de manera que se impedira su funcin. O
los perros de trabajo de pelo largo, en los que la cola larga y colgante puede llegar a
ser una fuente de suciedad.
la falta de estudios apropiados en esta rea representa una dificultad importante para
los que apoyan la amputacin de la cola, incluso en aquellas razas en las que puede
esperarse que se daen la cola. De hecho, la eliminacin de las colas de todos los
miembros de una raza slo porque algunos pueden llegar a sufrir daos en la cola
cuando sean adultos no parece estar justificada.
Prevencin de la acumulacin de material fecal
Otro beneficio podra ser que en algunas razas puede reducir la acumulacin de
materia fecal alrededor de la zona de la cola en sobretodo en perros con capas
excesivas. Tal acumulacin podra producir una irritacin significativa sobretodo por la
atraccin de las moscas y la posible infestacin por gusanos. Adems, tambin hay que
valorar los inconvenientes que esto supone para el dueo del perro. Sin embargo, una
vez ms, hay pocas evidencias que apoyen esta afirmacin. Es muy difcil justificar la
eliminacin de la cola de un perro con fines higinicos. Sobretodo porque podran
llevarse a cabo otros mtodos como el rasurado del pelo de la cola o el arreglo de ste
as como cambios en la dieta.
34
3. Mantener la calidad de la raza

Otro argumento que se presenta para apoyar la continuacin del corte de cola en
algunas razas hace referencia al mantenimiento de la calidad de la raza. La prohibicin
del corte de la cola puede comprometer esto de varias maneras. En primer lugar, en
las razas de perros que han sido sometidas a la amputacin de la cola durante muchos
aos, no se han tenido en cuenta caractersticas como la insercin de la cola o la
longitud. Dicen que podra esperarse una amplia variedad de apariencias si se dejara
de cortar la cola. Adems, argumentan que los criadores pueden sentirse obligados a
seleccionar las caractersticas de la cola dejando de lado otras caractersticas
importantes como el temperamento o la estructura.
La seleccin de los rasgos que se han considerado deseables ya ha dado lugar a
enormes dificultades en algunas razas. Por ejemplo, la seleccin de la cabeza grande,
ha creado razas con partos distcicos sistemticos as como la seleccin de las caras
braquiceflicas ha llevado a razas que no pueden controlar la prdida de calor
eficazmente. En algunas razas en las que se ha pretendido seleccionar colas ms cortas
para imitar la apariencia de las colas amputadas, se ha observado que se produca una
mayor incidencia de espina bfida y otros defectos en la mdula espinal.
4. Mejora de la calidad de vida de los perros individuales
En algunas razas en las que se corta la cola tradicionalmente, algunas de las cras ya
nacen con la cola ms corta de lo normal. Muchas veces estos animales son animales
con colas deformadas, dobladas, torcidas o simplemente mal colocadas. Los criadores
defienden que si no realizan una caudectoma a estos animales tienen problemas a la
hora de encontrarles un hogar.
5. Preferencias personales
Un ltimo argumento en defensa del corte de cola hace referencia al hecho de que
algunas personas simplemente prefieren perros con la cola cortada. Para algunos, esto
puede ser una cuestin de conveniencia, donde los animales con la cola cortada
pueden ser menos propensos a golpear objetos valiosos de la casa as como a
35
ensuciarla. Aunque, es ms comn que los dueos de los perros y los criadores
reclamen la caudectoma simplemente porque les agrada ms estticamente.
OTECTOMA
El corte de las orejas se lleva a cabo en algunas razas para modificar la forma de stas y
que queden de manera natural en posicin vertical. El recorte suele llevarse a cabo
entre las 6 y las 12 semanas de edad dependiendo de la raza y la condicin corporal.
En las razas ms grandes, despus de la ciruga se coloca una cinta adhesiva, vendajes
u otros dispositivos para asegurarse de que las orejas quedaran en posicin vertical.
4.3 ARGUMENTOS EN CONTRA:
1. Anestesia general
El corte de las orejas siempre debe llevarse a cabo bajo anestesia general. La anestesia
general siempre tiene sus riesgos debido a la depresin del sistema cardio-respiratorio
en cualquier paciente. Adems, el hecho de anestesiar al animal provoca un estrs
importante en ste, que puede afectar al sistema inmunitario predisponiendo al
animal a infecciones u otras enfermedades. No hay que olvidar que estamos
sometiendo a un animal a una operacin quirrgica muchas veces con fines esttica,
que no est indicada mdicamente, es aqu donde entra en juego nuestra tica y
nuestra moral.
2. Cuidado post-operatorio
Los perros pueden sentir molestias durante el proceso de curacin y cicatrizacin.
Adems los vendajes y las curas despus de la ciruga tambin les resultan molestas.
En algunos casos es necesario mantener el vendaje o la cinta durante das o meses de
manera que puede ser una incomodidad muy importante para el animal. Tambin ser
necesario controlar las hemorragias para evitar la formacin de otohematomas. Si se
produce un otohematoma es fcil que la oreja se fibrose y se retraiga de manera que
no consigamos que quede erecta.
3. Infecciones
36
Como en cualquier post-quirrgico las incisiones pueden ser el origen de infecciones.

Ser sencillo que stas, por proximidad, alcancen el odo.
Por ltimo, es necesario avisar al propietario que no siempre las orejas quedan erectas
sino que en algunas ocasiones cae, de manera que requieren cirugas posteriores.
4. Persona que efecta la operacin
Muchos veterinarios coinciden en que cuando realizan esta prctica no se sienten
orgullosos de llevarla a cabo pero la realizan por miedo a que, si ellos no lo hacen, lo
harn otras personas en peores condiciones para el animal. Esta afirmacin no es un
disparate ya que se sabe que muchos criadores realizan ellos mismos la otectoma por
ahorrarse dinero, porque no confan en el criterio del veterinario o porque,
simplemente el veterinario se niega a llevarla a cabo por razones ticas. Solo un
veterinario puede hacer una otectoma en condiciones de esterilidad, con un buen
plan anestsicos y analgsico. Adems, solo el veterinario puede controlar al animal en
el post-operatorio ya que en los criaderos los animales vuelven a juntarse con la madre
y con los hermanos y es prcticamente imposible dedicarles el tiempo que merecen.
4.4 ARGUMENTOS A FAVOR:
1. Prevencin de otitis
Se ha sugerido que los perros con las orejas cortadas son menos propensos a sufrir
infecciones del canal auricular. Aunque el desarrollo de algunas infecciones graves se
ha relacionado con la presencia de una oreja cada, no hay evidencia de que el hecho
de recortar las orejas sirva como mtodo de prevencin.
La otitis externa es una infeccin del canal auditivo que en la mayora de los casos se
resuelve con tratamiento mdico. En un pequeo nmero de casos la otitis puede
hacerse crnica, requiriendo tratamiento quirrgico, y en pocas ocasiones
desfigurando el pabelln auricular. Los informes de varios estudios indican que cuando
los perros de raza se agrupan segn si poseen orejas cadas o erectas, hay una mayor
incidencia de otitis externa en el grupo con orejas cadas. Se ha sugerido que una oreja
cada puede acumular ms humedad y por lo tanto puede promover el desarrollo de la
infeccin procedente de un trastorno de la piel o irritante.
37
Si analizamos ms a fondo este tema, y nos centramos en una raza como es el Cocker
Spaniel, vemos que esta raza parece estar predispuesta a padecer otitis externa debido
a que dispone de una mayor densidad de glndulas apocrinas y una predisposicin a la
hiperplasia ceruminosa proliferativa y a la ectasia (dilatacin o distensin) de stas.
Esta afirmacin sugiere que el riesgo de otitis externa en perros debe considerarse de
manera independiente en cada raza y que no podemos afirmar directamente que los
perros con las orejas cadas tienen una mayor predisposicin a padecer otitis.
Para demostrar que las orejas caidas son un factor de riesgo significativo (en general y
por raza), y que este riesgo se reduce significativamente o se elimina con el corte de
orejas, tendra que realizarse un estudio cientfico que comparara la incidencia de
otitis en perros con las orejas cortadas y perros sin las orejas cortadas dentro de una
misma raza.
2. Aspecto agresivo en perros de seguridad
El corte de orejas produce una expresin de atencin y peligrosidad en perros
utilizados para labores de seguridad o guardia y puede contribuir a la apariencia
caracterstica de una raza pedigr. Adems proporciona cierto aspecto de peligrosidad
que tambin puede ayudar en casos de perros guardianes.
3. Mejora de la audicin
Otro argumento muy comentado es que se cree que el hecho de tener las orejas
erectas ayuda a mejorar la audicin. La orejas cada puede considerarse una especie de
pared delante del canal auditivo que impida en cierta medida la entrada del sonido. Sin
embargo, no hay ningn estudio cientfico que demuestre esto. Antiguamente los
cazadores pensaban que los perros con orejas cadas eran ms tiles para la caza ya
que tenan ms reducido el sentido del odo y no se distraan con sonidos o ruidos que
no correspondan con las piezas de caza buscadas sino que, dedicaban ms atencin al
olfato. No sabemos si esta afirmacin es cierta pero si es verdad que hoy en da existe
una correlacin entre la longitud de las orejas y las razas que se utilizan para la caza.
38
4. Prevencin de lesiones
Tambin se ha sugerido que el recorte de orejas puede prevenir lesiones en stas,
reducir el riesgo de desgarros del pabelln auricular o de otohematomas por
mordiscos, enganches en vallas, matorrales, etc. Algunos dicen que en perros de
guardia se podra utilizar como medida preventiva ya que el pabelln auricular puede
ser un punto dbil en estos animales (zona muy sangrante, fcil de agarrar, etc.) pero
tampoco disponemos de pruebas para corroborar estas afirmaciones. Adems, el
hecho de tener las orejas largas, muchas veces puede ir relacionado con la formacin
de auto-otohematomas. Los animales cuando presentan otitis externas se sacuden
violentamente la cabeza autolesionndose.
5. Diferenciacin de razas
Otra de las razones que consideraron muchos criadores es la diferenciacin de razas.
Dicen que hay razas que son muy parecidas entre ellas y el corte de orejas facilita su
diferenciacin. Un ejemplo es el Dobermann azul y el Weimaraner.
6. Conducta natural y comunicacin del perro
Se dice que el hecho de que los caninos silvestres tengan una gran movilidad en las
orejas puede ser una importante ventaja evolutiva en la especie. No solo les sirven
para conocer la direccin del sonido sino que adems es su principal medio de
comunicacin. La postura de las orejas en los perros es una de las formas ms visibles
de comunicacin entre animales de la misma especie. En los perros con las orejas
cadas el movimiento y la comunicacin quedan muy reducidos.
39
5. Legislacin
5.1 MBITO EUROPEO
Dentro del marco legal en la Unin Europea no existe una legislacin comunitaria que
permita o prohba la prctica de la caudectoma y la otectoma en animales domsticos
Sin embargo, s que existe un convenio entre diferentes pases miembros de la Unin
Europea que hace referencia a la Proteccin de los Animales de Compaa. Dicho
documento fue realizado en Octubre de 1987 en Estrasburgo y en el cual en el artculo
10 se incluye la prohibicin de realizar operaciones quirrgicas por mera esttica.
[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:
the docking of tails;
the cropping of ears;
devocalisation;
declawing and defanging;
Exceptions to these prohibitions shall be permitted only:

a
if a veterinarian considers non-curative procedures necessary either for

veterinary medical reasons or for the benefit of any particular animal;
to prevent reproduction.
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.]
40
Este convenio cada pas es libre de firmarlo y adems en el momento de la firma puede
acogerse a abstenerse a cumplir totalmente el articulo 6 y el articulo 10, prrafo 1, inciso
a. Por ello encontramos diferentes situaciones de cumplimiento respecto a cada pas.
Los pases que han aceptado y ratificado ntegramente el convenio sn:
Austria
Chipre
Grecia
Lituania
Sucia
Bulgaria
Rumana
Suiza: Adems perros con amputacin de cola est prohibido exhibirlos y tambin
est prohibido exportar animales para prevenir cualquier intencin de
practicarles una caudectoma(Ordinance on Animal Protection,27 May 1981;
Ordinance on the Importation, Transit andExport of Animals and Livestock
Products, 20 April 1988).
Pases que han firmado pero no han ratificado el Convenio:
Italia Se continua permitiendo el corte de colas
Holanda. La caudectoma est prohibida
Pases que han firmado el Convenio pero con alguna abstencin:
Blgica: En el 2006 se acab prohibiendo el corte de colas. (Arrt Royal [Royal

Decree] of the 17 May2001; Law of the 18 October 1991).
Repblica Checa: Se continan cortando colas acorde con la Unin Canina Checa
(CMKU) que est afiliada a la Organizacin Canina Mundial (FCI)
Dinamarca: La caudectoma est prohibida y los perros nacidos despus del 1 de

Enero de 1996 a los cuales se les haya practicado esta ciruga no pueden
exhibirse. Sin embargo si que est permitido en las siguientes razas, aunque
actualmente se est discutiendo la abolicin de estas excepciones:
o Weimaraner
41
o Brittany spaniel
o German shorthaired pointer
o Wirehaired pointer
o Vizsla
Finlandia. El corte de colas se acabo prohibiendo en 1996 y hasta la fecha los

perros nacidos en Finlandia con la cola cortada no se pueden exhibir.
Francia. Se continua permitiendo el corte de colas
Alemania. El corte de colas se acab prohibiendo en 2006. An as se permite

esta prctica por razones mdicas y en varias razas de perros de caza, los cuales
tienen que pasar un test previo.
Luxemburgo
Portugal: Las amputaciones estticas solo estn permitidas si estn realizadas por
un veterinario y justificadas por una razn mdica
Pases que no han firmado el Convenio:
Irlanda
Eslovenia
Estonia: Aunque no han firmado el convenio est prohibido (Animal Protection

Act, 2000).
Reino Unido: La caudectoma est prohibida excepto por razones mdicas o en

animales de trabajo (incluyendo perros de caza) (Animal Welfare Act, January
2006).
Hungra: Las intervenciones quirrgicas en animales estn prohibidas a menos

que tengan un fin teraputico o de prevencin para el inters del animal.
Malta: Las modificaciones de la apariencia de cualquier parte de un animal sin fin

curativo son ilegales.
Polonia: Las mutilaciones deliberadas en animales estn prohibidas a no ser que

tengan una finalidad mdica.
42
Espaa: Las mutilaciones en algunas regiones del pas se siguen permitiendo para
seguir con los estndares raciales y en cambio en otras est prohibido. Este
apartado se especificar a continuacin en el siguiente apartado.
En definitiva, dentro de la Unin Europea, los pases que independientemente hayan

firmado el Convenio de Proteccin de los Animales de Compaa tienen en su legislacin
la prohibicin de realizar cirugas estticas (caudectoma y otectoma) en los animales de
compaa sn:
Austria
Chipre
Grecia
Lituania
Suecia
Bulgaria
Rumana
Suiza
Holanda
Blgica
Dinamarca
Finlandia
Alemania
Estonia
Reino Unido
Hungra
Malta
Polonia
43
5.2 MBITO ESPAOL

Como se ha comentado en el apartado anterior, en el Estado Espaol la decisin de
permitir o prohibir estas prcticas se ha dejado en manos de cada Comunidad
Autnoma. A continuacin se citarn los diferentes artculos en cada Comunidad
donde se hace referencia a las mutilaciones estticas.
Comunidades en las que est prohibido realizar mutilaciones estticas:
Andaluca. Ley 11/2003 de 24/11/03 de Proteccin de los Animales
[Artculo 13. Prohibiciones.

Practicarles mutilaciones con fines exclusivamente estticos o sin utilidad alguna salvo
las practicadas por veterinarios en caso de necesidad.]
Aragn. Ley 11/2003, de 19 de marzo, de proteccin animal en la Comunidad

Autnoma de Aragn
[Articulo 3- Prohibiciones generales

d. Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto en caso de necesidad mdico-quirrgica, por
exigencia funcional o por castraciones, siempre con control de facultativos
competente.]
Catalua. Decret Legislatiu 2/2008, de 15 de abril, pel qual saprova el text

refs de la Llei de proteccin dels animals.
[Article 5. Prohibicions
e) Practicar-los mutilacions, extirpar-los ungles, cordes vocals o altres parts o rgans,
llevat de les intervencions fetes amb assistncia veterinria en cas de necessitat
teraputica, per a garantir-ne la salut o per a limitar-ne o anullar-ne la capacitat
reproductiva. Per motius cientfics o de maneig, es podran fer aquestes intervencions
amb l'obtenci prvia de l'autoritzaci de l'autoritat competent.]
Comunidad de Madrid. Ley 1/1990, de 1 de febrero, de Proteccin de Animales

Domsticos
[Artculo 2. Se prohbe:
d. Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto las controladas por los veterinarios en caso de
necesidad, o por exigencia funcional.]
44
Comunidad Valenciana. Ley 12/2009, de 23 de diciembre, de la Modificacin

de la Ley 4/1994, de 8 de julio de la Generalitat, sobre proteccin de animales
de compaa
[Artculo 41
e) Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto las realizadas por veterinarios, en casos de
necesidad justificada. En ningn caso se considerar causa justificada la esttica.]
Murcia. Ley 10/1990, de 27 de agosto, de proteccin y defensa de los animales

de compaa
[Articulo 2
d) Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto la intervencin veterinaria en caso de necesidad o
por exigencia funcional]
Navarra: Ley Foral 7/1994, de 31 de mayo, de proteccin de los animales
[Articulo 2
e) Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto las controladas por los veterinarios en caso de
necesidad o por exigencia funcional.]...
Comunidades en las que no se prohbe realizar mutilaciones estticas:
Asturias. Ley del Principado de Asturias 13/2002, de 23 de diciembre, de

Tenencia, Proteccin y Derechos de los Animales
...[Artculo 6.Prohibicin de malos tratos.

1. Se prohben los malos tratos a los animales.
2. Reglamentariamente se desarrollarn las medidas apropiadas para asegurar su
proteccin frente a los malos tratos o las utilizaciones abusivas y para evitarles
sufrimientos innecesarios derivados de las manipulaciones inherentes a las diferentes
tcnicas de crianza, manejo, estancia, transporte y sacrificio de los animales objeto de
esta Ley.]...
45
Cantabria. Ley 3/1992, de 18 de marzo, de Proteccin de los Animales
...[Artculo 2.
d) Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto: Las efectuadas o controladas por los veterinarios,
las realizadas para mantener las caractersticas de la raza, o las que correspondan a
ventajas de tipo fisiolgico y/o de manejo.]...
Canarias. LEY 8/1991, de 30 de abril, de proteccin de los animales.

...[Articulo 4. En todo caso, queda prohibido:
Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto las controladas por veterinarios en caso de

necesidad, por exigencia funcional o para mantener las caractersticas de la raza.]...
Castilla y Len. Ley 5/1997, de 24 de abril, de proteccin de los animales de

compaa.
[Articulo 4
d) Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto las controladas por veterinarios en caso de
necesidad, por exigencias funcionales, por aumento indeseado de la poblacin o para
mantener las caractersticas propias de la raza.]...
Castilla la Mancha. Ley 7/1990, de 28 de diciembre, de Proteccin de los

Animales Domsticos
...[Articulo 2. Se prohbe:
d) Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto las controladas por los veterinarios en caso de
necesidad, exigencia funcional o para mantener las caractersticas de la raza.]...
Extremadura. Ley 5/2002, de 23 de mayo, de Proteccin de los Animales en la

Comunidad Autnoma de Extremadura
...[Articulo 2. Se prohbe:
f. Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto las controladas por los veterinarios en caso de
necesidad, o por exigencia funcional, o para mantener los estndares raciales.]...
46
Galicia: LEY 1/93 de 13/04/1993 (publicada el 22/04/1993) de proteccin de los

animales domsticos y salvajes en cautividad, en el mbito de la Comunidad
Autnoma de Galicia.
[Articulo 21
b) Mutilarlos sin necesidad o sin el adecuado control veterinario.]...
Islas Baleares. Ley 1/1992, de 8 de abril, de proteccin de los animales que

viven en el entorno humano
...[Artculo 3
h) Practicar mutilaciones a los animales, excepto las controladas por facultativo

competente en caso de necesidad o para darles la presentacin habitual de la raza.]...
Pas Vasco. Ley 6/1993, de 29 de Octubre, de Proteccin de los Animales
...[Artculo 4. En todo caso, queda prohibido:

Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto las controladas por veterinarios en caso de
necesidad, por exigencia funcional o para mantener las caractersticas de la raza.]...
La Rioja. Ley 2 /2000, de 31 de mayo modificacin de la Ley, 5 / 1995 de marzo,

de proteccin de los animales
...[Articulo.
d) Practicarles mutilaciones, excepto las efectuadas o controladas por los veterinarios
en caso de necesidad o por exigencia funcional, o para mantener las caractersticas
estticas.]...
Como se puede observar hay diferentes ideas sobre la prohibicin de las mutilaciones
en animales de compaa segn la Comunidad Autnoma. Podramos distinguir pues,
tres grupos: Comunidades en las que se prohbe la mutilacin de cualquier parte del
cuerpo del animal y solo justificable con finalidad teraputica; Comunidades en las
que tambin se prohben las mutilaciones pero no son tan detalladas y pueden dar
lugar a ambigedad y por tanto, una mala interpretacin de la ley; y por ltimo,
Comunidades en las que prohben las mutilaciones pero al mismo tiempo se considera
47
justificado el estndar racial. En este ltimo grupo de comunidades, claramente, se

observa una contradiccin ya que si en primera instancia la ley trata de impedir el
sufrimiento de los animales, someterlos a una ciruga con todas las consecuencias
(complicaciones, dolor) que ello conlleva por el mero motivo de la esttica pierde
todo su fundamento.
Con toda esta disparidad tanto entre pases como dentro del mismo pas es normal
que exista una gran confusin sobre qu es lo que est permitido y qu no, dejando
aparte lo que sera la tica y la moral personal. Por ello, para poder aclarar esta
confusin general se debera llegar a un acuerdo; al menos, a modo inicio, a nivel
nacional, para que el control de la ley y su cumplimiento se pueda llevar a cabo de
manera ms eficaz. Posteriormente se debera llegar a un acuerdo internacional en el
que todos los pases miembros de la Unin Europea consensuaran todos sus puntos de
vista y adems que stos se contrastaran con sus pros y contras preferiblemente con
base cientfica.
48
6. Entrevistas y encuestas
6.1 ENTREVISTAS:
6.1.1 INTRODUCCIN:
Organizamos entrevistas con personal procedente de diferentes sectores relacionados con el
corte de colas y orejas. Cremos conveniente incluir a veterinarios, criadores y especialistas en
estndar racial como lo son los jueces de concursos de belleza caninos.
La intencin principal durante las conversaciones que tuvimos con los veterinarios fue
corroborar, o por el contrario, desmentir la cuestin del dolor. Es decir, realmente existe dolor,
sufrimiento y alteraciones de comportamiento en animales sometidos al corte de colas y orejas,
por muy temprana que sea su edad?. Para poder zanjar la cuestin del dolor nos pusimos en
contracto con cirujanos de clnicas y hospitales catalanes, al ser ellos quienes practican estas
intervenciones, con responsables de Medicina Interna quienes nos contaran sus experiencias
con estos animales en el post-operatorio, y para conocer si los perros generan cambios
comportamentales asociados al corte de orejas y cola, contactamos con un especialista en
etologa canina.
Las entrevistas a los criadores fueron enfocadas desde el punto de vista legal. Intentamos
conocer como les est afectando la entrada en vigor del nuevo decreto legislativo 2/2008 del
15 de abril, ya que comnmente se considera que un animal con cola y orejas cortadas es ms
valioso que uno intacto, ya que el primero se aproxima ms al prototipo de estndar racial y en
un concurso de belleza se le dara ms valor. Queremos saber si alguna parte del colectivo se
encuentra a favor del decreto ley de regulacin del corte de cola y orejas o si algunos han
decidido cambiar la raza de cra para evitar las mutilaciones.
La mayor detractora de la nueva normativa es la propia condicin cultural. Muchas personas
opinan que un perro con mutilaciones estticas es ms bello que uno intacto, ya que al pensar
en su raza nos imaginamos el prototipo de estndar racial. Este pensamiento tambin se
extiende a los concursos de belleza ya que los animales con cola y orejas recortadas obtienen
mejores puntuaciones. Por estos motivos pensamos que sera interesante contar con la palabra
49
de un experto en estndar racial canino y que nos explicara los criterios que tienen para
puntuar, si es cierto que ejemplares intactos no son admitidos en las competiciones, la
subjetividad en la valoracin, etc.
50
6.1.2 ENTREVISTAS A VETERINARIOS:
Entrevista al Dr. Toni Crusellas

Uno de los primeros veterinarios entrevistados fue el Dr. Toni Crusellas, cirujano del Centro
Clnico Veterinario de Sant Andreu y gran profesional con muchos aos de experiencia. Por las
cualidades que rene nos pareci una idea interesantsima contar con su opinin sobre este
tema.
Nos recibi cordialmente en su despacho y nos centramos rpidamente para no malgastar su
tiempo. Le entregamos una de nuestras encuestas dirigidas a veterinarios y mientras la lea en
voz alta iba aadiendo matices que hicieron fluir la entrevista.
Para empezar le planteamos nuestras lneas de investigacin, le explicamos que queramos
conocer la opinin de un cirujano sobre el dolor que padecen los animales sometidos al corte
de cola y orejas, y si vale la pena realizar una ciruga tan dolorosa por motivos estticos (como
lo es la otectoma). Nos confes no apoyar del todo la realizacin de estas prcticas, sobretodo
si se hacan por motivos estticos. En otros pases ya hay leyes que prohben las otectomias y
caudectomas, como la que se aplica hoy en da en algunas comunidades autnomas espaolas,
pero an as nos encontramos muy lejos de tener unas buenas leyes de proteccin animal que
prohban por ejemplo los festejos con animales.
Por otro lado se expresa en desacuerdo con los ingleses ya que aunque llevan prohibiendo las
otectomas estticas desde 1895, an hoy organizan caceras de zorros, en su opinin
sangrientas, que atentan ms gravemente contra la tica ciudadana.
Segn su experiencia, las razas en que se realizan ms intervenciones de este tipo son: Pit Bull,
Bxer, Schnauzer, Dogo, Dberman, Pincher, etc. para las otectomas y cocker, cachine,
Staffords, Bxers y Pit Bulls tambin, para las cuadectomas. El motivo principal que mueve a
los propietarios a querer realizar estas intervenciones es el lucro personal, tener una mascota
que parezca agresiva, o en su opinin ms bonita.
Nos confirm que, desde la entrada en vigor del decreto legislativo en Catalua, no se realizan
otectomas ni caudectomas con fines estticos en el CCV de Sant Andreu, por ese motivo se ha
experimentado una disminucin en la realizacin de estas intervenciones, ya que las que deben
51
realizarse por motivos teraputicos son mnimas. Tambin nos confirm haber observado un
aumento de mascotas con cola y orejas intactas que llegan a consulta aunque no cree que
tenga que ver con la entrada en vigor de la ley, si no que la disminucin de la demanda de estas
operaciones se debe a un cambio de tendencias en las razas que estn de moda.
El problema con el que se encuentran los veterinarios son los centros de cra, nos dijo. Ya que a
los pocos das de vida les cortan las colas ellos mismos, sin intervencin de un veterinario y al
margen de la legislacin, por tanto poco pueden hacer. La caudectoma, si el animal tiene entre
15 y 30 das, es sencilla de realizar, y en muchos centros de cra se ven capacitados para
hacerlo. No se arriesgan a hacer otectomas porque es una ciruga ms dolorosa, debe
realizarse en animales ms adultos cuando acabe de formarse el cartlago del pabelln auricular
y no arriesgan una camada. Pero con las otectomas los criaderos no se mojan porque venden
los cachorros antes de la edad recomendada para hacer el corte de orejas, por tanto la
responsabilidad de realizarla o no recae en el veterinario.
Respecto al dolor opina que en las caudectomas, si se realizan entorno a los 15 das de vida, se
sabe que son indoloras por el escaso desarrollo del sistema nervioso central que es incapaz de
procesar el dolor aunque se est infringiendo. Pero la verdad que dan unos gritos tremendos
cuando realizas el corte ya que se hace sin ningn tipo de anestesia local normalmente. El tema
de la anestesia tambin es controvertido porque, aunque se recomiende un anestsico para
evitar que el animal tenga molestias, el cachorro podra no tolerar la anestesia aunque sea local
y en espray. Casi que le causaramos ms dolor al pincharle varias veces el anestsico que
cortando la cola directamente.
52
Entrevista a la Dra. Irene Dante

Otro de los veterinarios entrevistados es la Dra. Irene Dante, tambin cirujana y colega de
profesin del Dr. Toni Crusellas. Juntos forman parte del equipo de ciruga de pequeos
animales del CCV de Sant Andreu.
En esta entrevista quisimos centrarnos en la cuestin del dolor, cules son los mecanismos
para poder afirmar que un cachorro no siente dolor al realizarle una caudectoma sin anestesia?
Porque segn nuestra experiencia los cachorros no chillan tanto cuando los coges o les
manipulas las vrtebras de la cola, en cambio en el momento del corte el animal expresa dolor
mediante alaridos muy fuertes.
Nos hizo recordar una clase que nos impartieron en la asignatura de ciruga, en la que se explic
como la corteza cerebral es la responsable de captar y procesar los estmulos dolorosos, y como
sta no acaba de formarse por completo hasta las 3 semanas de vida. Con esto queran
decirnos que tericamente si realizamos una caudectoma en un animal menor de 3 semanas
no es capaz de procesar el dolor porque su corteza cerebral no es capaz de hacerlo, pero
sinceramente todava discrepamos sobre este tema porque como hemos dicho, los cachorros
muestran claramente signos de dolor cuando realizamos esta prctica.
Respecto al corte de orejas se mostr totalmente a favor del decreto que las regula ya que
considera estas intervenciones ms dolorosas que las caudectomas porque se realizan en
animales ms adultos. Entonces el pabelln auricular es ms grueso, tarda ms en cicatrizar,
etc. Pero es necesario hacerlo en estas condiciones porque as la oreja ha desarrollado toda su
estructura cartilaginosa y ser capaz de mantenerse erecta. Aqu s se precisa de anestesia local
como mnimo. Nos asegura que en su centro se administra anestesia si se precisa y siempre una
terapia analgsica de soporte para el post-operatorio. Nos confes que hoy por hoy se negara
a realizar otectomas por otra finalidad que no fuera la teraputica.
Coincide con su compaero, en que la frecuencia con la que se realizan las amputaciones
estticas ha disminuido en los ltimos aos a raz de la aplicacin del decreto legislativo 2/2008
del 15 de abril. Adems tambin ha observado un aumento de las mascotas con las orejas
intactas en consulta y por la calle, y piensa que las personas nos hemos empezado a concienciar
a raz de que lo hicieran otros pases europeos. Aun as afirma que las caudectomas se siguen
53
viendo con la misma frecuencia pero que la mayora se realizan en los centros de cra y por
personal no autorizado, y pocos per veterinarios colegiados. Cuando el animal es adquirido por
el propietario ya suele venir con la caudectoma hecha y no suele ser el propietario quien lo
elige, en cambio las otectomas s.
54
Entrevista al Dr. Josep M Arenal

El Dr. Josep M Arenal es uno de los veterinarios responsables del equipo de Medicina Interna
del CCV de Sant Andreu. Hemos decidido acudir a l para que nos responda a preguntas sobre
el dolor en el post-operatorio, por su experiencia en cuidados intensivos, y tambin sobre las
complicaciones asociadas a estas intervenciones que suelen observar cuando los pacientes
vienen a las visitas de seguimiento.
Adems tambin le ofrecimos una de nuestras encuestas especializadas que acept contestar
con mucho gusto.
Le preguntamos de nuevo que grado de dolor crea que padecan los animales sometidos a
estas intervenciones, y nos contest que ellos no practican caudectomas actualmente pero que
al hacerlo a los pocos das de vida el animal apenas siente dolor porque la cola es muy pequea
y las vrtebras se separan fcilmente. Adems no suelen observar complicaciones porque como
apenas se mueven y no se lamen, la herida cicatriza rpidamente sin infectarse. Le
preguntamos entonces porqu chillaban tanto cuando se produca el corte y nos contest que
obviamente alguna sensacin de presin deben sentir que no les gusta.
Respecto al corte de orejas se mostr en desacuerdo siempre y cuando sea por motivos
estticos. Nos confes como detestaba escuchar los sollozos de dolor cuando los perros se
despertaban del post-operatorio y se alegra de que por fin hayan tomado ejemplo de Europa y
hayan reformado las leyes. Aunque no se solan presentar complicaciones por infecciones
secundarias, el principal problema de la otectoma es que las orejas no quedasen erectas y el
propietario no quedase contento.
Al preguntarle si utilizaban algn tipo de anestsico sistmico o local para realizar las
operaciones nos dijo que ellos lo que recomendaban era no aplicar anestsicos de ningn tipo
en cachorros menores de 3 semanas porque son tan pequeos que no tienen capacidad de
eliminar el frmaco y podemos comprometer su vida. En cambio para otectomas se
recomienda anestesia general aunque en algunas clnicas se realiza con anestesia local y el
animal consciente. En ambas intervenciones y sin tener en cuenta la edad, se recomienda
administrar fluidoterapia, curas de la herida, cambiar los vendajes de las orejas peridicamente
y comprobar que no aparece necrosis, y sobretodo administrar analgsicos durante un tiempo
55
para apaciguar el dolor post-operatorio que dura varios das. Sobretodo hay que evitar que se
lo toque o rasque para que la herida evolucione bien y la oreja no caiga.
Como sus anteriores colegas de profesin, no considera las mutilaciones estticas un acto de
crueldad en s, pero le parece egosta que el motivo de la amputacin sea meramente esttico y
se lleve a cabo por el capricho del propietario. Adems puede verse que los animales lo pasan
mal unos das, sobretodo con las otectomas.
Pero tampoco quiere criticar a los profesionales que lo practican ya que la clnica de pequeos
animales es un negocio y los veterinarios deben ganarse la vida con sus prcticas ante todo.
56
Entrevista al Dr. Pau Rius

Todo estudiante de veterinaria se ha planteado alguna vez el compromiso tico que envuelve a
la cuestin de las otectomas y caudectomas, y cada vez ms personas sin conocimientos
mdicos no estn dispuestos a dejarse convencer por demagogia a favor de los rasgos estticos
y de estndar racial. Empiezan a comprender que stas prcticas no pueden ser aceptadas.
Una vez sometemos estas prcticas a un juicio etolgico nos planteamos preguntas como si
tenemos derecho a obligar a nuestras mascotas a pasar por una ciruga esttica, al dolor que
trae asociada, a las posibles complicaciones, etc. Puramente por capricho.
Algunos artculos mencionan como el corte de orejas sobretodo puede provocar un cambio
comportamental que se asocia al dolor. Por este motivo cremos apropiado incluir la palabra
del especialista en Etologa Animal Dr. Pau Rius, especialista en Etologa canina i felina del CCV
de Sant Andreu.
El Dr. Pau Rius nos puntualiz que efectivamente, no se aprecian cambios comportamentales
evidentes una vez el animal se ha recuperado de las lesiones quirrgicas, pero s se observan
sntomas asociados al dolor durante el post-quirrgico. Podemos observar como el animal no
quiere mamar o comer, se queja mucho porque le duele, se mueve poco, est aptico, se rasca,
ladea la cabeza, etc. Tambin nos explic que los perros tienen un lenguaje corporal muy sutil y
su instrumento para comunicarse es la posicin de sus orejas, por tanto los perros sometidos a
estas intervenciones tendrn dificultades para expresar sumisin o rendicin, ya que sus orejas
siempre indicaran estado de alerta. Puede que el animal en s no modifique su comportamiento
pero para el resto de perros estar marcando una actitud desafiante y esto puede culminar en
peleas.
Nos interesaba conocer la postura de un etlogo sobre la realizacin de estas prcticas, las
considerara un acto de crueldad?. Su respuesta no fue un S rotundo, pero s se mostr ms
reacio a intentar comprenderlas, porque segn su punto de vista no poda concebir que una
persona que tiene devocin por su mascota, la obligue a someterse a una operacin quirrgica
bastante dolorosa puramente por capricho (se est refiriendo a las otectomas).
57
De todas formas cree, que las tendencias estn cambiando y cada vez ms propietarios
prefieren sus mascotas intactas, se conciencian del dolor injustificado que se les est
infringiendo y, tomando ejemplo de otros pases europeos, se oponen a ello.
Tambin nos explic como en algunos pueblos remotos existen tradiciones muy arraigadas de
pastores y cazadores, que cortan las orejas y la cola a los neonatos a golpe de machete. Estos
tipos de mutilaciones no se pueden controlar y son difciles de eliminar porque ellos creen
tener motivos muy bien fundados para seguir con la tradicin: lo hacen para evitarles lesiones
posteriores causadas por lobos y osos.
58
6.1.3 CONCLUSIONES DE LAS ENTREVISTAS A VETERINARIOS:

Las entrevistas con veterinarios nos proporcion mucha informacin y a la vez nos sirvi para
plantearnos nuevas preguntas sobre el tema. Durante las conversaciones que tuvimos con
todos ellos, era fcil darse cuenta que ninguno de ellos se encontraba totalmente cmodo
hablando del tema, ya que cada profesional tiene diferentes opiniones sobre el umbral del
dolor en cachorros, los cirujanos opinan de una forma, los internistas de otra, etc. Pero todos se
mostraron (en mayor o menor grado) en contra de stas prcticas y ms si no estn reguladas
por veterinarios.
Estaban de acuerdo en general que las intervenciones estticas se haban reducido mucho en
los ltimos aos, ya sea en respuesta a la ley o por motivos de cambios de moda, hace aos
estaban muy de moda los dbermans y bxers, y ahora lo estn los buldogs franceses.
Respecto a la cuestin del dolor no conseguimos respuestas claras y contundentes, esto
significa que nadie ha conseguido demostrar nada en claro sobre el tema del dolor asociado a
las mutilaciones quirrgicas, ni siquiera veterinarios experimentados. Nadie quiere mojarse
porque el tema es muy controvertido. Hay muchos sectores comerciales que les interesa que
estas prcticas continen realizndose y si nadie consigue demostrar que los animales por muy
jvenes que sean padecen un dolor injustificado durante el corte de colas y orejas, continuaran
hacindose con o sin lmites legales. Ni tan siquiera un investigador de la materia ha conseguido
determinar cules son los umbrales de dolor en las distintas edades, por tanto es imposible
determinar de forma unnime si un cachorro de 2 semanas siente o no dolor durante una
caudectoma. Mediante explicaciones tericas, los cirujanos entrevistados nos han intentado
hacer comprender que sin el completo desarrollo neurolgico sera imposible que los cachorros
llegaran a sentir dolor, pero lo cierto es que todos se sienten incmodos al realizar estas
intervenciones, porque generalmente no les gusta realizar operaciones estticas, si no que
consideran que una intervencin quirrgica es algo serio y que conlleva muchas complicaciones
(desde la herida a la anestesia ya que no hay tantos estudios como en humana) por tanto solo
se debe recurrir a ella cuando sea la mejor o la nica opcin. No se debe jugar con la vida de un
animal joven por un capricho esttico del propietario, hay veterinarios que lo comprenden y se
niegan a realizar estas intervenciones an antes de la entrada en vigor del decreto 2/2008, e
intentan educar a los propietarios para que se replanteen sus decisiones. Pero no hay que
59
olvidar que la clnica de pequeos animales es un negocio y siempre hay que intentar, en la
medida de lo posible y legal, satisfacer las necesidades del propietario y siempre tenerlo
contento.
Ninguno de los veterinarios entrevistados lo considera un acto de crueldad como tal, pero
todos coinciden en que las otectomas son bastante dolorosas, y si el motivo para realizarlas es
puramente esttico, lo consideran un acto de egosmo ms que de crueldad ya que hacer pasar
por un dolor innecesario a su mascota por un fin lucrativo es un acto que por lo menos se debe
criticar. Las mascotas no son adornos ni objetos decorativos, tenemos que tratarlos por lo que
son, seres vivos y no complementos.
60
6.1.4 ENTREVISTAS EN CENTROS DE CRA:

Mediante bsquedas en internet, nos pusimos en contacto con cerca de 10 centros de cra
canina, pero solo 5 de ellos se ofrecieron a atender nuestras preguntas y a responder el
cuestionario. Las bsquedas se centraron en centros de cra catalanes que produjeran razas con
estndar racial de amputaciones de cola y/o orejas.
Los centros seleccionados fueron:
Boxers de la Ragua (Barcelona).
Alidog, criador de Boxer, Yorkshire Terrier y Schnauzer miniatura (Caldes de Montbui,
Barcelona).
Yorkshire de Corte Imperial (Matar, Barcelona).
Residencia Can Ninos, cra de Schnauzer y Rottweiler. (Caldes de Montbui, Barcelona).
Gos Can, cra de Cocker entre otros. (St. Joan de Vilatorrada, Barcelona).
Al principio obtuvimos muchas negativas, el personal que nos atendi al telfono no
comprenda la finalidad de nuestras preguntas y tenan miedo de comprometerse con sus
respuestas. Les explicamos que no ramos policas, ni de hacienda, ni del gobierno, que
nuestras encuestas serviran meramente para complementar un trabajo universitario y que
ninguna respuesta tendra consecuencias legales. Notamos cierto reparo al mencionar que
ramos estudiantes de veterinaria, al parecer no nos tienen mucha confianza porque suelen ser
duramente criticados por el colectivo veterinario.
Unos muy amablemente, otros no tanto, nos dejaron claro que no incumplan la ley vigente en
ningn aspecto, es decir, no realizaban cortes de cola y ni de orejas con finalidades estticas.
Nos dijeron que ellos los vendan intactos una vez destetados y con las primeras vacunas, y el
propietario decida si practicarle las amputaciones o no en un veterinario. Ninguno confes
realizar caudectomas sistemticas, cosa que todos los veterinarios aseguran que tampoco
practican, que los animales que llegan a consulta para poner las segundas vacunas ya tienen la
caudectoma hecha y el propietario explica como ya lo adquiri as. Eso significa que el nico
lugar donde pueden haber sido realizadas las amputaciones son en los centros de cra, pocos
das despus del nacimiento.
61
Tambin nos confesaron como a raz del nuevo decreto ley que regula los cortes de cola y
orejas, las ventas de cachorros han disminuido porque a los compradores no les gustan los
animales intactos, nos intentan convencer dicindonos: "T si eres una persona que le gusta la
raza Bxer y vienes buscando uno, querrs llevarte el que tenga la cola cortada porque un
Bxer con la cola larga no parece un Bxer". "Ahora la gente prefiere comprar en Europa,
sobretodo pases del este donde las amputaciones estticas son totalmente legales y los
cachorros llegan con la cola y orejas cortadas desde el pas de origen".
Al preguntarle sobre la postura que tienen acerca de la nueva legislacin que prohbe el corte
de cola y orejas con fines estticos o de estndar racial, el 100% de los centros encuestados
respondieron que se oponen totalmente porque alegan que les est suponiendo una bajada de
los ingresos ya que los cachorros intactos no se venden. Aunque al mismo tiempo, algunos de
ellos nos dijeron que no vendan cachorros con la cola intacta, es decir que indirectamente nos
estaba diciendo que cortaban las colas en el centro. Incluso la telefonista de uno de los centros
(suponemos que de forma inocente) nos llego a confesar que las realizaban los mismos
cuidadores del centro, porque el resto de entrevistados media mucho las palabras con las que
nos responda.
Los centros que nos confesaron que en algn momento haban practicado el corte de colas y
orejas, nos aseguraron que las intervenciones siempre fueron realizadas por veterinarios y bajo
condiciones aspticas adecuadas.
62
6.1.5 CONCLUSIONES DE LAS ENTREVISTAS EN CENTROS DE CRA:

Nos ha sido difcil sacar informacin sobre el tema de las amputaciones estticas en este sector,
pero rpidamente nos hemos hecho una idea de cmo trabajan y de cmo mienten.
Aun existiendo un decreto autonmico que prohbe las mutilaciones estticas, stas se siguen
haciendo en los centros de cra de forma sistemtica. Aunque slo un centro haya admitido
realizar cortes de cola, no nos creemos que en el resto de centros no se realicen. Tenemos los
testimonios de veterinarios que llevan muchos aos ejerciendo, que nos dicen que ellos no
practican caudectomas en cachorros normalmente sino que, cuando el propietario adquiere el
animal ya tiene la amputacin de cola hecha si ste procede de criadero o de petshop.
Queda claro en los resultados de las encuestas, que en los centros de cra conocen la existencia
de la legislacin de proteccin animal contra otectomas y caudectomas, pero aun as se siguen
realizando porque los estndares raciales no han cambiado y los compradores siguen
demandando ejemplares con la cola cortada porque son ms bonitos a su parecer. Con la
excusa de la bajada en las ventas, los criadores se respaldan y siguen practicando caudectomas
para que las ventas supuestamente no bajen. Pero dudamos que la cada de las ventas sea
debida a que ahora tienen que vender animales intactos porque en ningn momento se han
dejado de practicar estas intervenciones por tanto las ventas han debido de bajar por otro
motivo, quizs la situacin econmica mundial.
En cambio cuando nos dicen que no practican otectomas les damos un voto de confianza
porque sabemos que esta intervencin precisa de conocimientos ms amplios de medicina y
ciruga, precisa de anestesia general y puede quedar un mal resultado si no lo realiza un
profesional. En los centros de cra normalmente se ven capacitados para realizar cortes de cola
antes de las 3 semanas de vida porque es una prctica relativamente sencilla y no precisa
anestesia, pero no se arriesgan a estropear una camada por un corte de orejas prematuro o mal
realizado. Prefieren dejar esa opcin al propietario.
Aun obteniendo estos resultados, cabe decir que en nuestra bsqueda de centros de cra para
entrevistar, encontramos muchos otros que exponan imgenes en la web de los cachorros a la
venta y ninguno de ellos tena la caudectoma realizada. Nos llam la atencin como cada vez
ms los criaderos se reinventan en hogares idlicos, en mitad del campo, donde los animales
63
salen y pasean, etc. Y donde al animal se le da el trato de ser vivo y no de complemento al que
realizarle mutilaciones estticas, aunque la posicin de todos los entrevistados fue posicionarse
en contra de la ley de proteccin animal, porque en algn momento les ha causado dolores de
cabeza.
No queremos dejar a los centros de cra en mal lugar, aunque la opinin de los veterinarios
expertos sobre ellos no sea muy buena en relacin a las mutilaciones estticas. Pero tenemos
que decir que estos lugares estn evolucionando y muchas de las personas que se dedican
ahora a la cra de cachorros lo hacen desde el respeto que se merecen los animales, y por fin se
ha conseguido que en muchos centros ya no se practiquen las amputaciones estticas.
64
6.1.6 ENTREVISTA A UN JUEZ DE CONCURSO DE BELLEZA CANINA DE LA RSCE:

Entrevista a Don Vicente Gasco Correcher
Queramos entrevistar a un juez de la RSCE (Real Sociedad Canina Espaola) especializado en
concursos de belleza canina para lograr comprender por qu el gusto o lo atractivo radica en las
amputaciones estticas en un gran nmero de razas caninas, ya que tenamos entendido que
los animales con cola y orejas amputadas, si su estndar racial lo dicta as, sern mejor
puntuados que si estn intactos.
Dentro de la web de la RSCE buscamos donde se celebraban los prximos campeonatos
nacionales decididas a presentarnos all en busca de entrevistas. Nos informaron que en el mes
de diciembre se organizaban en Valencia y Alicante as que nos dispusimos rumbo Alicante,
donde una de las integrantes del grupo tiene su domicilio, en busca de un juez especialista en
estndar racial que arrojara luz a nuestras preguntas. Adems el evento nos permiti contactar
con ms criadores a los que hacer entrevistas y repartirles cuestionarios.
Uno de los jueces muy amablemente accedi a responder a nuestras breves preguntas. Una de
nuestras dudas principales sobre los cnones de belleza canino, es de qu forma se punta un
individuo de una raza especfica, qu se tiene en cuenta y hasta qu nivel es objetivo y no
influye el hecho de que a una persona le guste ms o menos ese perro. Nos respondi que ellos
puntan del 1 al 5 normalmente diferentes aspectos del can como el pelaje, las extremidades,
la condicin corporal, la posicin de la cabeza respecto a las patas y la cola, la dentadura, si
estn enteros, etc. Pero admite que juega un papel muy importante los gustos de cada juez y la
puntuacin final no suele ser 100% objetiva.
Le planteamos si era cierto que los perros con cola y orejas intactas no podan competir en
concursos de belleza canina, y nos puntualiz que hace unos aos as era pero a raz de las leyes
prohibitorias en Inglaterra y Alemania respecto a las otectomas se empezaron a presentar en
concursos de belleza caninos a nivel mundial animales con las orejas intactas, ya que en algunos
pases era ilegal amputarlas. Desde entonces se vieron obligados a permitir animales con las
orejas intactas dentro de los concursos de belleza, aunque algunos jueces los punten peor,
pero eso es su criterio subjetivo. Pero de momento no se aceptan participantes con la cola
intacta si su estndar racial dicta lo contrario. Nos confes que algunos jueces tienen opiniones
65
muy personales de cmo debe ser morfolgicamente una raza, normalmente suelen ser muy
especialistas en una raza en concreto y la imagen del ejemplar modelo acostumbra a tener la
cota amputada y las orejas recortadas. Pero siempre dijo que era una opinin personal de
algunos y que no representaba al colectivo de jueces.
Tambin nos puntualiz que dentro de una categora de raza no se hacen distinciones ente
animales con amputacin de cola/orejas y aquellos intactos, todos se valoran por igual dentro
del mismo grupo.
Tambin confirm que su colectivo haba notado un aumento de los participantes con orejas
intactas en los concursos y cmo stos haban sido campeones en su categora de raza, as que
poco a poco los animales de orejas cadas van ganndose un lugar en las competiciones de
belleza. Nos habl de pases como Finlandia donde es ilegal el corte de colas y en sus concursos
de belleza caninos permiten presentar animales con la cola intacta, quizs si Finlandia tuviera
que participar en competiciones a nivel mundial se empezaran a aceptar los ejemplares de cola
larga como ha pasado con las orejas cadas.
Al ser un especialista en estndares raciales cremos conveniente preguntarle si vea una
solucin factible modificar los estndares raciales para evitar que se sigan cortando colas y
orejas de forma ilegal. As, si todo el mundo tuviera una imagen modelo del cocker con cola
larga ya no se practicaran ms caudectomas en esta raza. Su respuesta fue esperanzadora, ya
que nos inform de que los estndares raciales cambian constantemente, y gracias a la presin
de Inglaterra, Alemania, Espaa y Finlandia entre otros, cada vez los ejemplares intactos son
mejor valorados en los concursos de belleza caninos.
66
6.1.7 CONCLUSIONES DE LA ENTREVISTA A UN JUEZ DE CONCURSO DE BELLEZA

CANINA DE LA RSCE:
Aunque la opinin de un juez de concurso de belleza poco tiene que decir sobre si las
mutilaciones estticas pueden considerarse un acto de crueldad o si significa causarles un dolor
innecesario e injustificado, nos pareca importante incluir sus comentarios sobre los estndares
raciales y si en estos concursos se discrimina a los perros no mutilados.
Lo que pudimos sacar en claro fue, que si con suerte los ciudadanos siguen conciencindose de
que los animales son seres vivos y sufren dolor igual que lo padecemos nosotros, los estndares
raciales podran modificarse hasta tener modelos animales con cola y orejas intactas, as poco a
poco la gente se acostumbrara a verlos y a la larga a todo el mundo les parecera normal, y por
fin llegar a entender que es una locura amputar la cola a un cachorro de pocos das de vida,
igual que recortar las orejas de un perro a nuestro gusto.
Aun as, algunos jueces opinan totalmente lo contrario. Son fervientes seguidores de una raza y
defienden que se mantengan las caractersticas de cola corta y orejas erectas. Como las
modificaciones de estndar racial se hacen por consenso, es difcil cambiarlo cuando las
opiniones estn tan divididas. A la hora de puntuar en las competiciones de belleza muchos
jueces se dejan llevar por sus preferencias y muchos puntan mucho mejor a los animales con
mutilaciones estticas realizadas. Esto hace que siempre haya un mercado para estas
intervenciones.
67
6.2 ENCUESTAS:
6.2.1 INTRODUCCIN:
Las encuestas han sido realizadas con el objetivo de obtener un sondeo sobre la opinin actual
que la gente de a pie tiene sobre las amputaciones estticas en perros de compaa. Adems de
valorar la postura que han tomado veterinarios y centros de cra frente al decreto legislativo
2/2008 aplicado en Catalua y que prohbe las mutilaciones con fines estticos.
Aunque se recomend hacer un cuestionario comn, decidimos realizar varios tipos de
encuesta con preguntas especficas dirigidas a cada grupo. Los grupos son veterinarios,
propietarios y centros de cra, son tan distintos en su grado de especializacin que precisan de
exmenes diferentes.
Las encuestas a veterinarios fueron realizadas con el fin de observar el impacto que ha tenido la
entrada en vigor del decreto ley 2/2008 en Catalua, la repercusin econmica que le supone a
las clnicas de pequeos animales y con qu grado se est aplicando. Tambin nos interesaba
saber la posicin a favor y en contra que tienen los veterinarios sobre el tema de las
mutilaciones estticas, su opinin sobre el dolor post-operatorio y si podan considerarlo un
acto de crueldad.
Las encuestas a criadores fueron realizadas con la finalidad de saber si en estos centros se
practican cortes de cola y orejas no reguladas y con fines estticos. Nos interesaba conocer con
qu frecuencia se realizan estas operaciones y si los centros que las practican conocen la
existencia de leyes que regulan el corte de colas y orejas. No ha sido fcil conseguir entrevistas
y personal dispuesto a contestar las encuestas pero hemos intentado realizar un nmero
significativo de ellas.
Las encuestas a propietarios fueron realizadas con el objetivo de conocer las preferencias que
tiene un comprador a la hora de adquirir un cachorro. Queremos observar el efecto que tienen
los estndares raciales sobre las persones que deciden adquirir una mascota, es decir, agradan
ms los cachorros con orejas y/o cola cortada o los cachorros intactos?. Tambin nos interesa
conocer los motivos por los que los propietarios llegan a realizar el corte de cola y orejas, y
tambin la postura a favor o en contra que tiene la gente de a pie sobre dichas operaciones.
68
Encuesta a VETERINARIOS:
Mayores de 35 aos
Menores de 35 aos
1. Ha realizado alguna de stas intervenciones quirrgicas?:

S, otectomas.
S, caudectomas.
No, nunca he realizado ninguna de estas intervenciones quirrgicas.
2. Si la respuesta anterior es afirmativa, con qu finalidad se llevan a cabo dichas
intervenciones?
Esttica o de estndar racial.
Teraputica (evitar lesiones e infecciones).
Considera que son cirugas que forman parte de su trabajo y no discrimina el
motivo.
Otras.
3. En qu razas se realizan con ms frecuencia las caudectomas y otectomas?
Bxer.
Dogo alemn y argentino.
Doberman.
American Staffordshire o Stafford shire bullterrier.
Schnauzer.
Cocker spaniel o americano.
Otras. ..
4. Con cunta frecuencia realiza otectomas y caudectomas?
1 - 10 intervenciones al ao.
10 - 20 intervenciones al ao.
Ms de 20 intervenciones al ao.
5. Estn realizando estas intervenciones con la misma frecuencia que hace unos aos, antes de
que entrara en vigor del decreto legislativo 2/2008 del 15 de abril?
S.
No.
69
6. Respecto a la ciruga, acostumbra a administrar algn anestsico local en cachorros?

S en otectomas.
No en otectomas.
S en caudectomas.
No en otectomas.
7. Cules son los efectos indeseados que ms comnmente aparecen asociados a estas
intervenciones?
Infecciones post-quirrgicas.
En otectomas, que las orejas no se mantengan erectas.
Dolor post-operatorio prolongado.
8. Pensamos que el dolor en el post-operatorio se encuentra infravalorado a causa de
afirmaciones infundadas que han influido culturalmente, segn su experiencia, qu grado de
dolor piensa que padecen estos animales?
Ninguno.
Ligero o moderado.
Significativo.
Severo.
9. Cree o conoce casos de criadores, pajareras u otros locales especializados en animales que
realicen estas prcticas por su cuenta?
Muchos.
Algunos.
Ninguno.
10. Qu opinin tiene sobre la nueva normativa catalana que prohbe las intervenciones
estticas, excepto por motivos teraputicos y siempre que las lleve a cabo un veterinario y
bajo condiciones de anestesia?
Totalmente a favor.
Discrepo en algunos aspectos.
Totalmente en contra.
11. Saba que en otros pases de la UE (Alemania e Inglaterra), las intervenciones estticas llevan
reguladas varios aos?
S.
No.
70
12. Cree que la prohibicin de estas prcticas ha supuesto un aumento de las intervenciones no
reguladas y un descenso de los ingresos en las clnicas catalanas?
S.
No.
13. Hoy por hoy, seguira realizando otectomas y caudectomas a pesar de la prohibicin legal?
S.
No.
14. Despus de la entrada en vigor de la nueva ley de regulacin de las mutilaciones estticas, ha
observado un aumento de clientes reacios a llevar a cabo estas prcticas en sus mascotas?, es
decir, ha observado un mayor nmero de animales intactos?
S.
No.
15. Se ha negado en alguna ocasin a realizar otectomas o caudectomas antes de la entrada en

vigor del decreto legislativo 2/2008 del 15 de abril?
S.
No.
16. Considera estas prcticas un acto de crueldad?

S.
No.
71
6.2.2. BALANCE DE LAS RESPUESTAS OBTENIDAS EN LA ENCUESTA

Grupo: VETERINARIOS
n = 10
1. Ha realizado alguna de stas intervenciones quirrgicas?
11%
S, otectomas
45%
S, caudectoma
No, nunca he
realizado ninguna de
estas intervenciones
44%
De todos los veterinarios encuestados, solo un 11% admiti no haber realizado nunca ninguna de sta
intervenciones. Tiene que ver con que este 11% eran veterinarios menores de 35 aos y con pocos aos
de experiencia a sus espaldas, algunos licenciados posterior al 2008 cuando la ley ya estaba vigente. Del
mismo modo, todos los veterinarios encuestados con edades superiores a los 35 aos haban practicado
alguna vez en su vida una otectoma y una caudectoma, sobretodo durante la dcada de los 90.
2. Si la respuesta anterior es afirmativa, con qu finalidad se llevan a cabo dichas
intervenciones?
Finalidad
0% 0%
Esttica o de
estndar racial
20%
Teraputica
Forma parte de su
trabajo
80%
72
Otras
El 80% de los veterinarios encuestados afirman que las caudectomas y otectomas se realizan
normalmente por peticin del propietario y con fines estticos. Solo algunos casos puntuales necesitan
una otectoma o caudectoma por motivos teraputicos (es muy raro).
3. En qu razas se realizan con ms frecuencia las caudectomas y otectomas?
Razas
10%
Bxer
20%
10%
Schnauzer
Dogo
10%
Doberman
20%
10%
Staffords
Yorkshire
Cocker
20%
4. Con cunta frecuencia realiza otectomas y caudectomas?
Frecuencia
10%
1-10
intervenciones/ao
10-20
intervenciones/ao
50%
40%
Ms de 20
intervenciones/ao
En Catalua ahora mismo no deberan haber veterinarios ejerciendo estas prcticas en sus clnicas,
aunque no podemos ni afirmar ni negar rotundamente que se hagan en alguna parte. De todos modos,
todos los profesionales que afirmaron haber realizado estas intervenciones nos dijeron que cuando
todava era legal se hacan muchas al ao, ms de 20 y de 30.
73
5. Estn realizando estas intervenciones con la misma frecuencia que hace unos aos, antes de
que entrara en vigor del decreto legislativo 2/2008 del 25 de abril?
Frecuencia
0%
S
No
100%
Todos los veterinarios coincidieron en que estas prcticas se realizan cada vez con menos frecuencia
porque la prohibicin solo restringe las operaciones estticas y stas suponen un 80% del total de
caudectomas y otectomas que se realizan.
6. Respecto a la ciruga, acostumbra a administrar algn anestsico local en cachorros?
Otectomas
Caudectomas
0%
40%
S
No
60%
S
No
100%
Respecto las otectomas, todos los profesionales coinciden que precisan de anestesia obligatoriamente
(como mnimo local) porque el corte que debe realizarse sangra mucho al ser el pabelln auricular de un
grosor considerable. Se debe practicar en animales de 1-3 meses, edad ideal porque se acaba de formar
el cartlago de la oreja y ya pueden administrarse anestsicos sin peligro. En cambio en caudectomas, el
60% de los veterinarios responden que no aplican anestesia, no porque no se deba, si no porque el
animal es tan pequeo que pondramos en riesgo su vida, adems los pinchazos en la cola necesarios
74
para administrar el anestsico local causaran ms dolor que el corte en s. En el HCV de Bellaterra nos
han dicho que siempre aplicaban analgsicos para mitigar el dolor al no poder poner anestesia.
7. Cules son las complicaciones que ms comnmente aparecen asociados a estas
intervenciones?
Complicaciones
10%
Infecciones postquirrgicas
10%
Que las orejas no

queden erectas
40%
40%
Dolor post-quirrgico
Precisar una 2
intervencin
El dolor post-quirrgico y los resultados antiestticos, como que las orejas no queden erectas o del
gusto deseado por el propietario, son las complicaciones ms comunes. La mayora de veterinarios nos
dijeron que no se sentan cmodos realizando estas prcticas porque no les gustaba or como los perros
se quedaban chillando toda la noche despus de practicarles amputaciuones estticas, sobretodo con
otectomas.
8. Pensamos que el dolor en el post-operatorio se encuentra infravalorado a causa de
afirmaciones infundadas que han influido culturalmente, segn su experiencia, qu grado de
dolor piensa que padecen estos animales?
Grado de dolor
0%
20%
10%
Ninguno
Ligero Moderado
Significativo
Severo
70%
75
El 70% no niegan la existencia de dolor cuando se realizan las mutilaciones ya que alegan que son
claramente evidentes los signos de dolor que expresa el animal. Algunos pensaban, que sobretodo las
otectomas causaban un dolor significativo durante el post-operatorio en el que el animal se encuentra
abatido y muy dolorido. Solo un 10% dijo creer que los perros no sienten dolor con estas prcticas,
sobretodo al referirse a las caudectomas alegando que al no estar formada del todo la corteza cerebral
es imposible procesar el dolor o que el animal pueda asociar la intervencin con el dolor.
9. Cree o conoce casos de criadores, pajareras u otros locales especializados en animales que
realicen estas prcticas por su cuenta?
0%
Outlaws
30%
Muchos
Algunos
Ninguno
70%
El 100% de los veterinarios encuestados conocan lugares donde se practicaban antes mutilaciones
estticas, sobretodo criaderos y tiendas de animales. Pero con la nueva legislacin autonmica se est
empezando a regular pero piensan que en algunos sitios aun se siguen llevando a cabo estas prcticas
fuera de la ley.
10. Qu opinin tiene sobre la nueva normativa catalana que prohbe las intervenciones
Decreto legislativo 2/2008

0%
10%
Totalmente a favor
Discrepo en algunos
aspectos
Totalmente en
contra
90%
76
Todos los veterinarios se encuentran a favor del Decreto Legislativo 2/2008 del 15 de abril que prohbe
en Catalua las amputaciones de cola y recortes de orejas por motivos estticos o de estndar racial.
An as algunos veterinarios, aun estar a favor, critican que no se modifiquen otras las leyes ms
importantes como las que regulan los sacrificios en mataderos o las caceras que se llevan a cabo en
algunos pases. Opinan que se deben mejorar aun muchos aspectos de las leyes de proteccin animal.
Regulacin europea
0%
No
100%
Todos los veterinarios conocan la existencia de leyes europeas que desde hace aos prohben las
amputaciones con motivos estticos, aunque en algunos pases es ilegal cortar orejas pero colas no.
Adems, todos celebran que por fin estas leyes se hayan extendido a Espaa, aunque a unas pocas
comunidades autnomas. Lo importante es que las cosas estn cambiando y las personas estamos
evolucionando y comprendiendo que la esttica no es una justificacin lgica al corte de orejas y cola, y
que estas prcticas estn ya desfasadas.
12. Cree que la prohibicin de estas prcticas ha supuesto un aumento de las intervenciones no
reguladas y un descenso de los ingresos en las clnicas catalanas?
Ingresos
30%
S
No
70%
77
Este balance nos sorprendi ya que esperbamos que nos respondieran que, como consecuencia de la
prohibicin actual, las intervenciones no reguladas hubiesen experimentado un crecimiento. Pero no fue
as. Un 70% opina que no aumentaran las prcticas ilegales ya que quien quiera que le corten las orejas
a su perro solo tiene que desplazarse a la comunidad autnoma ms cercana donde las amputaciones
estticas no estn reguladas, ya que en Catalua son muy pocas las clnicas que las practican hoy por
hoy. Segn su experiencia no ha supuesto una bajada de los ingresos porque, en un hospital o clnica
grande estas operaciones representan un porcentaje muy muy bajo del total que se realizan, pero en
una pequea clnica donde se realizaran un gran nmero de otectomas o caudectomas s podra
suponer una cada de los ingresos.
13. Hoy por hoy, seguira realizando otectomas y caudectomas a pesar de la prohibicin legal?
Mutilaciones, hoy por hoy

0%
S
No
100%
Como esperbamos or, ninguno de los veterinarios encuestados seguira haciendo otectomas y
caudectomas a pesar de prohibicin legal, incluso algunos nos confesaron que esperan que pronto, las
leyes de proteccin animal contra las mutilaciones estticas se extiendan por toda Espaa. Aunque los
sondeos den resultados tan positivos, hemos de tener en cuenta que estamos encuestando a un grupo
reducido de veterinarios, ni mucho menos representativo si esta encuesta fuera de carcter oficial, es
por eso que no podemos afirmar rotundamente que la aplicacin de la ley a nivel de Catalunya sea del
100%.
78
14. Despus de la entrada en vigor de la nueva ley de regulacin de las mutilaciones estticas, ha
observado un aumento de clientes reacios a llevar a cabo estas prcticas en sus mascotas?, es
decir, ha observado un mayor nmero de animales intactos?
Mascotas intactas
0%
No
100%
Todos los veterinarios encuestados afirman haber recibido en consulta un mayor nmero de razas
propensas al corte de cola y orejas como Bxers, Cockers, Dogos, etc. Pero con sus orejas y cola intacta.
El aumento de la informacin sobre estos temas en televisin, internet y revistas de divulgacin ha
generado una conciencia colectiva que est ayudando a reducir las mutilaciones con fines estticos.
15. Se ha negado en alguna ocasin a realizar otectomas o caudectomas antes de la entrada en
vigor del decreto legislativo 2/2008 del 15 de abril?
Oposicin
10%
S
No
90%
El 90% de los veterinarios encuestados nunca se han negado por motivos personales o ticos, a realizar
una amputacin esttica antes de que fuera ilegal en Catalua. Los cirujanos nos explican que ellos
trabajan la carne y el hueso, y las otectomas igual que cualquier extirpacin, es una ciruga y no hacen
distinciones, porque se trata de su trabajo. Esto desde el punto de vista de la ciruga, aunque es cierto
que estas intervenciones siempre han sido criticadas por sus finalidades lucrativas y algunos veterinarios
con clnicas privadas se llevan negando desde hace aos a practicar ciruga esttica canina.
79
16. Considera estas prcticas un acto de crueldad?
Crueldad
30%
S
No
70%
El 70% encuentran que la palabra crueldad es un poco exagerada, pero s que lo consideran un acto de
egosmo ya que someter a tu mascota a un procedimiento doloroso por gusto, es de ser egosta y no
entender que un perro es un ser vivo que siente y padece dolor. En cambio, los veterinarios que han
tenido que atender a aquellos animales mutilados en cuidados intensivos, escuchando sus alaridos toda
la noche, s opinan que se trate de un acto de crueldad.
80
Encuesta a CRIADORES:
Para participar en la encuesta, los propietarios deban tener mascotas cuya raza presentara un estndar
racial con cola amputada u orejas recortadas, ya que la informacin que nos aportaran encuestas en
razas intactas sera poco significativa.
1. Qu raza/s cra en su centro?

.
2. Realiza corte de colas sistemtico?
S.
No.
3. Realiza corte orejas sistemtico?

S.
No.
4. Por qu motivo?
Esttico (gustan ms a los propietarios y se venden mejor).
Estndar racial, para perros de competicin en concursos de belleza.
Otros.
5. Quin realiza las intervenciones?
Un veterinario.
El personal del centro.
6. Cree que el corte de cola y orejas repercute en la venta de cachorros? Es decir, cree que los
animales intactos se venden peor?
S.
No.
7. Qu grado de dolor cree que experimentan los cachorros?

Ninguno.
Ligero o moderado.
Significativo.
Severo.
81
reguladas varios aos y ahora tambin algunas CCAA espaolas como Catalua, Madrid, etc.
estn reformando sus leyes de proteccin animal?
S.
No.
9. Se ha planteado cambiar la raza por otra con un estndar racial que no requiera el corte de
cola y orejas, para as mantenerse al margen de la legislacin que lo regula?
S.
No.
10. Cree que los problemas legales que tienen algunos centros de cra por cortar colas y orejas,
en comunidades donde la legislacin es vigente, se resolvera cambiando los estndares
raciales por animales intactos?
S.
No.
82
6.2.3 BALANCE DE LAS RESPUESTAS OBTENIDAS EN LA ENCUESTA

Grupo: CRIADORES
n=5
1. Qu raza/s cra en su centro?
Razas de cra
14%
29%
Yorkshire Terrier
Rottweiler
14%
Schnauzer
Bxer
14%
Cocker
29%
2. Realiza corte de colas sistemtico?
Corte de colas sistemtico

0%
S
No
100%
Todos los centros de cra declararon que no realizaban ni cortes de cola ni cortes de oreja. Discrepamos
un poco en su respuesta tan rotunda, aunque sabemos que desde la entrada en vigor del decreto
legislativo en Catalua muchos centros han dejado de practicarlas por miedo a demandas.
83
3. Realiza corte orejas sistemtico?
Corte de orejas sistemtico

0%
S
No
100%
Tampoco afirmaron realizar cortes de orejas sistemticos pero en este caso les otorgamos un voto de
confianza porque sabemos que normalmente, las caudectomas las practica el mismo personal del
centro, pero en el caso de las otectomas, al tratarse de una ciruga ms complicada, no suelen
arriesgarse a realizarlas ellos mismos. Se lavan las manos vendiendo los cachorros antes de la edad
recomendada para las otectomas y as la responsabilidad legal recae en los propietarios si deciden
hacerlas.
4. Por qu motivo?
Motivo
14%
Esttico
14%
Estndar racial
72%
Otros (caza, tradicin,

etc.)
Los cachorros a la venta en los centros de cra estn destinados normalmente a propietarios que
adquieren el animal con el fin de ser una mascota, y pocos propietarios estn especializados en la cra de
ejemplares de categora. Es por eso que los motivos con los que se realizan las caudectomas son
estticos principalmente porque a los compradores les resultan ms bonitos as. Un menor porcentaje
de mutilaciones se realizan por exigencias del estndar racial que coincide con el criadero de Yorkshires
de competicin. Otros centros alegan que cortarles la cola tambin puede ser una opcin recomendable
en aquellos animales destinados a la caza o la guarda/defensa.
84
5. Quin realiza las intervenciones?
Intervenciones
20%
Un veterinario
El personal del centro
80%
De los centros encuestados solo uno nos confes que realizaban caudectomas y que las practicaba el
mismo personal del centro. Pero el resto de centros de cra nos negaron rotundamente que llevasen a
cabo estas prcticas. Alegaron que, en todo caso los perros que se ven mutilados por la calle puede que
hayan sido comprados en centros de cra situados en las CCAA que no hay prohibicin legal. Algunos nos
informaron que antes de la entrada en vigor del decreto legislativo en Catalua, s realizaban
caudectomas pero ahora que es ilegal ya no se arriesgan, y siempre que tuvieron que realizarlas lo hizo
un veterinario.
6. Cree que el corte de cola y orejas repercute en la venta de cachorros? Es decir, cree que los
animales intactos se venden peor?
Ventas
20%
S
No
80%
Muchos centros afirman que desde que se prohibi el corte de colas y orejas, los cachorros de sus
centros empezaron a venderse peor, porque la gente busca comprar animales con las colas cortadas
porque les gustan y as no tienen que buscar ellos un veterinario dispuesto a realizar la intervencin. Por
el contrario uno de ellos nos dijo que en su centro no se cortaban colas desde haca muchos aos y sus
cockers se vendan muy bien.
85
7. Qu grado de dolor cree que experimentan los cachorros?
Grado de dolor
0%
20%
Ninguno
Ligero o moderado
20%
60%
Significativo
Severo
El 60% de los centros encuestados nos afirmaron que desde su experiencia, los cachorros no sufren
ningn dolor cundo se les cortaba la cola, alegando frases que les debi explicar un veterinario como:
"al ser tan pequeos no tienen los nervios formados y no sienten dolor". Solo dos de los centros
encuestados pensaron que los cachorros sentan algo de dolor incluso significativo, porque "los pobres
chillan mucho".
reguladas varios aos y ahora tambin algunas CCAA espaolas como Catalua, Madrid, etc.
estn reformando sus leyes de proteccin animal?
Decreto Legislativo 2/2008

0%
S
No
100%
Todos los criadores, como era de esperar, estn al tanto de las leyes que regulan los aspectos que
afectan a su negocio.
86
9. Se ha planteado cambiar la raza por otra con un estndar racial que no requiera el corte de
cola y orejas, para as mantenerse al margen de la legislacin que lo regula?
Cambiar de raza
40%
S
60%
No
El 60% de los centros se han planteado cambiar la raza de cra para evitar problemas legales y evitar las
bajadas en las ventas, porque ellos consideran que los cachorros intactos se venden peor si su estndar
racial dicta orejas y cola amputada. Cambiando a una raza que no precise de amputaciones para
asemejarse al ejemplar modelo, se evitan las demandas. Los criadores fieles a una raza, como los
Yorkshires de competicin o los Bxers, no se han planteado cambiar de raza por la entrada en vigor del
decreto legislativo 2/2008.
10. Cree que los problemas legales que tienen algunos centros de cra por cortar colas y orejas,
en comunidades donde la legislacin es vigente, se resolvera cambiando los estndares
raciales por animales intactos?
Cambiar Estndar racial

20%
S
No
80%
La mayora no cree que sea la solucin definitiva pero si un punto a favor para que no se sigan
practicando estas intervenciones con el fin de mantener las caractersticas de la raza. En uno de los
centros nos dijeron que ellos eran plenos defensores por hacer cambiar los estndares raciales y as
evitar que se siguieran haciendo las mutilaciones estticas.
87
Encuesta a PROPIETARIOS
Para participar en la encuesta, los propietarios deban tener mascotas cuya raza presentara un estndar
racial con cola amputada u orejas recortadas, ya que la informacin que nos aportaran encuestas en
razas intactas sera poco significativa.
1. De qu raza es su mascota?
.
2. Por qu motivo lo adquiri?
Compaa.
Guardia o defensa.
Concursos de belleza caninos.
3. Conoce su procedencia?
Tienda de mascotas.
Criador nacional o extranjero.
Perrera o protectora.
Otros (de un particular o regalado).
4. Tiene amputada?
La cola
Las orejas
No le han sido realizadas amputaciones estticas.
5. En caso afirmativo, quin realiz la o las intervenciones?
Su veterinario.
Lo adquiri as.
6. Por qu motivo decidi realizar estas intervenciones?
As lo encuentran ms bonito (se aproxima ms al estndar racial).
Obtiene una apariencia ms agresiva.
Mascota de competicin en concursos de belleza.
Para evitar lesiones (en perros de caza, etc.).
88
Nunca realizara mutilaciones estticas en su mascota.

7. Sufri complicaciones tras la intervencin?
No lo sabe, lo adquiri as.
No.
S.
Dolor.
Infecciones.
Resultado antiesttico.
Precis de una segunda intervencin.
8. Le fueron recetados analgsicos al alta?
S, con un tratamiento prolongado (de > 7 das).
S, con un tratamiento de pocos das.
No se le recetaron analgsicos.
9. Volvera a repetir el procedimiento si adquiriera una nueva mascota?
S.
No.
10. Qu opinin tiene sobre la nueva normativa espaola que prohbe las intervenciones
Totalmente a favor.
Discrepo en algunos aspectos.
Totalmente en contra.
S.
No.
12. Consideras un acto de crueldad realizar cortes de cola y orejas en animales con fines
estticos?
S.
No.
89
6.2.4 BALANCE DE LAS RESPUESTAS OBTENIDAS EN LA ENCUESTA

Grupo: PROPIETARIOS
n = 10
1. De qu raza es su mascota?
Razas
Pit Bull
10%
Yorkshire Terrier
30%
10%
Bxer
10%
Cocker Spaniel
20%
Schnauzer gigante
20%
Dogo Alemn
Todas ellas son razas que tienen estndares raciales con amputaciones estticas tanto de cola como de
orejas, por eso son las mejores candidatas para una encuesta de este tipo.
2. Por qu motivo lo adquiri?
Motivo de adquisicin
10%
Compaa
20%
Guardia o defensa
Concursos de belleza
70%
La mayora de personas adquieren un perro como animal de compaa, y aunque es un grupo con
menor probabilidad de practicar cuadectomas y otectomas (al menos menor que los animales de
guardia y de concurso de belleza) es el grupo ms grande y aqu es donde se encuentra el cliente
90
caprichoso que puede desear a toda costa que su perro sea intervenido de ciruga esttica y no parar
hasta que algn veterinario acceda.
3. Conoce su procedencia?
Procedencia
Tienda de mascotas
14%
17%
Criador
nacional/internacional
28%
41%
Perrera o protectora
Otros (particular,
regalado, )
Todos los propietarios encuestados conocan la procedencia de su animal, esto es un punto a favor,
significa que nos estamos concienciando de que una mascota es algo ms que un objeto, sabemos su
procedencia porque nos interesamos y nos importa.
4. Tiene amputada?
Amputaciones
7%
Cola
19%
49%
Orejas
Cola y orejas
Intacto
25%
La mitad de los perros encuestados tienen la cola amputada. Lo interesante, si relacionamos esta
preguntas con la anterior, es que el 100% de los perros procedentes de perrera, tienda de animales y
criadero tienen la caudectoma hecha. Los animales que presentaron cortes de orejas fueron los
procedentes de criadero internacional pero tambin algunos propietarios decidieron hacer la otectoma
esttica una vez adquirido el cachorro. Solo uno de los propietarios mantiene su mascota intacta en
todos los sentidos (estticos y reproductivos), se trata del Dogo Alemn encuestado.
91
5. En caso afirmativo, quin realiz la o las intervenciones?
Intervenciones
30%
Su veterinario
Lo adquiri as
70%
Mirando las encuestas una por una nos damos cuenta de que todos los propietarios que adquirieron su
mascota en centros de cra o en tienda tenan la cola cortada. En cambio slo un 30% acudi a un
veterinario para que les fueran practicadas las mutilaciones estticas una vez adquirido el animal. Estas
intervenciones se realizaron antes de la entrada en vigor en Catalua del decreto legislativo 2/2008 del
15 de abril.
6. Por qu motivo decidi realizar estas intervenciones?
Motivos
Lo encuentran ms bonito
10%
Apariencia agresiva
10%
Concurso de belleza
50%
20%
Evitar leisones
Nunca realizara
amputaciones estticas en
mi mascota
10%
Podemos ver como el sondeo indica que los motivos que llevan a los propietarios a realizar estas
intervenciones, sobretodo las otectomas, es por motivos estticos (50%) ya que creen que estos
ejemplares son mucho ms bonitos. El 20% lo justifica diciendo que los participantes en concursos de
92
belleza deben tener las amputaciones estticas realizadas porque si no se les impide competir, cosa que
nos ha desmentido parcialmente un juez de concursos de belleza.
7. Sufri complicaciones tras la intervencin?
Complicaciones
10%
No lo sabe, lo
adquiri as
20%
No
70%
La mayora de propietarios no saben si su mascota sufri dolor durante su intervencin, ya que los
adquirieron as. De los 3 propietarios que acudieron a su veterinario para practicarles las amputaciones
estticas, dos de ellos no padecieron complicaciones pero uno de ellos padeci dolor post-operatorio
prolongado, qued un resultado antiesttico porque se las toc mucho y precis de una segunda
intervencin esttica para repararlo.
8. Le fueron recetados analgsicos al alta?
Analgesia post-operatoria
0%
S, ttm >7 das
33%
S, ttm pocos das

No se recetaron
analgsicos
67%
De los 3 animales intervenidos por decisin de sus propietarios (son los nicos que conocen si su
mascota a sufrido durante el post-operatorio), solo a 1 se le recet un tratamiento analgsico superior a
7 das que es lo que se recomienda. Al resto se le administr un tratamiento ms corto y quizs
insuficiente.
93
9. Volvera a repetir el procedimiento si adquiriera una nueva mascota?
Repetir intervenciones
0%
No
100%
Sorprendentemente un 100% de los propietarios encuestados no volveran a repetir el procedimiento si

adquirieran un nuevo cachorro, alegan que no les importa que el perro tenga las orejas cadas y el rabo
largo, se compadecen del animal porque no quieren que sufra sin motivo. Dato muy interesante.
Tambin recurren a la presin econmica que supone una intervencin quirrgica, etc. Contestaron No
incluso aquellos propietarios que haban adquirido su mascota con el fin de presentarla a concursos de
belleza.
10. Qu opinin tiene sobre la nueva normativa espaola que prohbe las intervenciones
Decreto Legislativo 2/2008

0%
Totalmente a favor
40%
Discrepo en algunos
aspectos
60%
Totalmente en
contra
Ms de la mitad de los entrevistados se posicionan a favor del decreto legislativo 2/2008 cataln, ya que
ven necesario que se regulen estas prcticas para que no se cometan abusos de los animales, aunque si
el motivo es teraputico no dudan en aceptar las otectomas y caudectomas. Entre los encuestados no
94
encontramos a nadie que se posicione totalmente en contra, aunque un 40% discrepa en algunos
puntos porque reconocen no conocer del todo los artculos de la legislacin.
Conocimiento DL 2/2008
40%
60%
No
En general la gente de a pie tiene un conocimiento de la ley bastante amplio, y sabe que se lleva
aplicando en otros pases desde hace aos, pero casi todo el mundo opina que estas prcticas se
continan llevando a cabo porque si buscas en internet cortar colas y orejas veremos cmo hay
anuncios de personas que se ofrecen a realizar estas prcticas. Como siempre, cuando aparece una
prohibicin con el tiempo aparecen personas que te consiguen lo que quieras a cambio de dinero, lo
mismo pasa con las amputaciones.
12. Consideras un acto de crueldad realizar cortes de cola y orejas en animales con fines
estticos?
Crueldad
20%
S
No
80%
95
Creemos que por el tipo de pregunta: Lo consideras un acto de crueldad? Los propietarios
encuestados tendieron a contestar que s por parecer radicales en su postura, pero realmente fueron
respuestas poco reflexionadas. Los que contestaron que no, se explicaron diciendo que ellos les haban
practicado algn tipo de amputacin esttica a sus mascotas y tampoco haban padecido tanto y que la
palabra crueldad era demasiado exagerada.
96
7. Conclusiones individuales
Adriana Llopis:
Primero de todo quiero decir que la realizacin de este trabajo me ha servido para conocer
todos los aspectos que comprenden en el marco legal la prctica de la caudectoma y la
otectoma y conocer cul es la situacin actual. Adems el haber utilizado varias publicaciones
cientficas sobre estas prcticas me han ayudado a orientar y consolidar mi opinin sobre el
tema, ya que parta de unos conocimientos muy generales.
Despus de haber realizado el trabajo he llegado a una conclusin. La sociedad est en un
punto en que su mxima preocupacin es el bienestar y por ello cosas como los estndares
raciales, la legislacin, etc. deberan acompaar este cambio. Si esto no se produce, con el paso
del tiempo nos encontraremos con muchas contradicciones e inmersos en una atmsfera de
confusin sobre lo que es legal o no, lo que es tico o no, si es compatible con bienestar o no,
etc. Aunque en realidad considero que estas situaciones ya estn sucediendo.
Considero que la concienciacin de la poblacin es un aspecto importante a trabajar. Sin un
cambio progresivo y equitativo del modo de pensar de todas las cosas que nos rodean, no
puede haber un progreso en la sociedad.
Claudia Mallol
Me quedo con el miedo, el desconocimiento, la falta de estudios sobre el tema y las
afirmaciones que he tenido que escuchar de bocas de personas que, no saben ni siquiera de lo
que hablan. El veterinario no puede hacer su trabajo por miedo, llevar a cabo prcticas que no
desea por evitar que otros las lleven a cabo de manera salvaje. Un aspecto positivo de este
tipo de trabajos es que sirven para darte cuenta de que la sociedad evoluciona, el conocimiento
evoluciona, la gente cada da es ms consciente y da ms importancia al bienestar de los
animales, al sufrimiento innecesario de sus mascotas. Pueden estar a favor, o pueden estar en
contra de estas prcticas, pero la sociedad empieza a plantearse si realmente estamos
actuando de manera correcta. Tambin creo que es importantsimo el papel que tiene el
veterinario frente a la sociedad en relacin con este tema. Un veterinario tendra que estar
obligado, aunque sea moralmente, a concienciar, a informar, a transmitir sus conocimientos
97
sobre el tema a sus clientes. Una vez lo haya hecho, el cliente podr decir que s o que no, pero
sabr lo que est haciendo. Finalmente, animo a los veterinarios a seguir estudiando, a que
lleven a cabo estudios sobre el tema ya que todava hay muchas cosas que se desconocen.
Los humanos tenemos un gran defecto y es que creemos que lo sabemos todo. Cuanto menos
sabemos, ms creemos que sabemos.
Yolanda Mancebo:
Este trabajo lo concluyo con la misma idea con la que escog el tema y lo desarroll. La nica
diferencia es que mi idea, hoy por hoy, est ms reafirmada: la prctica de cortes de cola y
orejas es una autntica mutilacin innecesaria y no vale fomentarla como una caracterstica
propia de la raza animal. Porque se ha de considerar como propio de la raza algo que
genticamente no est determinado para que as lo sea.
Aos atrs probablemente este tema era mucho ms controvertido, haba ms gente a favor
que en contra. Pero en la actualidad, esta opinin ha dado un giro impresionante y no solo he
podido corroborar que esto es cierto mediante las entrevistas a clnicos veterinarios, criadores
y propietarios, sino que adems solo me ha hecho falta dar un paseo por el parque para ver que
gran parte de los perros en los que se ponan en prctica estas tcnicas ya no las presentan.
Pienso que la sociedad cada da est ms concienciada con el tema y enfatizan ms con su
mascota. Para que realizar una ciruga innecesaria pudindoles ahorrar ese sufrimiento. El paro
de estas prcticas est avanzando, ahora est en pleno apogeo, y un futuro probablemente se
hable de esto como una aberracin del pasado.
Resumiendo, no por el mero hecho de que fuera una prctica habitual y rutinaria ha de ser
digna y correcta su permanencia. En el desarrollo de este trabajo queda plasmado que este tipo
de intervencin quirrgica es totalmente innecesaria e injustificada.
Roco Martnez:
Despus de haber escuchado la opinin profesional de veterinarios y los testimonios personales
de criaderos y propietarios, sigo pensando de la misma forma respecto a las mutilaciones
estticas.
98
Encuentro que son unas prcticas ya desfasadas, rebatidas y desmentidas de sobra, que con el
tiempo van quedndose cada vez ms sin argumentos que las sostengan. Ya no valen los tpicos
tpicos sobre el estndar racial o las justificaciones infundadas de las que hacen apologa an
hoy centros de cra y tiendas de animales de compaa. La mentalidad de la gente de a pie, que
al fin y al cabo son los compradores, por fin est evolucionando. La sociedad se est dando
cuenta de que ya no les quedan motivos que justifiquen realizar estas prcticas en nuestros
animales de compaa, por fin ven la crueldad y el egosmo que se esconde tras stas
decisiones. Las personas quieren a sus animales y les duele, tal como si se las practicaran a ellos
mismos, hacer pasar a su mascota por intervenciones quirrgicas innecesarias, injustificadas e
infundadas, solo por puro inters lucrativo. La cultura est cambiando y todava hay esperanza.
En resumidas cuentas, la frase ms escuchada por los propietarios fue: "Los que cortan orejas y
colas a sus perros deberan hacrselo ellos mismos para sentir en sus carnes todo lo que
implican estas prcticas".
Manuel Vega
Ha dado mucho de s este trabajo. Demasiadas horas implicados para acabar con ms datos de
los que barajbamos. Acaba todo siendo una crueldad que por suerte se est empezando a ver
con una visin diferente. Empiezan a haber cambios, los grandes pases mueven ficha y
prohben estas mutilaciones. Ahora est todo muy reciente pero tiempo al tiempo, cuando esos
perros que no puedan ser mutilados se conviertan en los futuros estndares raciales, todo esto
se quedar atrs, esperemos. Pero aunque se cambien los estndares quien tiene la ltima
palabra es el propietario, el que sigue las modas y tendencias. Eso quiz ser lo difcil del
problema de las mutilaciones, hacer ver a un propietario de un dobermann que su perro con las
orejas cadas sigue siendo igual que los dems. Pero para eso estamos nosotros.
Realmente he aprendido muchas cosas interesantes, y lo mejor de todo: saber debatir y aportar
datos veraces y fiables. La tcnica quirrgica me importa poco, sin embargo saber que
comprometes la comunicacin del animal o que le predispones a peleas con otros perros sin
motivo alguno es mucho ms interesante.
99
8. Bibliografa
__________
Roger Gussett. Views: Letters to the Editor. Journal American Veterinary Medical
Association 2009; Vol 234, N 5, March 1.
P. V. M. Steagall, S. P. L. Luna, P. M. Taylor, K. Humm and T. H. Ferreira. Neurological,

Respiratory, Behavioural and Endocrine effects of tail docking in newborn dogs submitted to
epidural anesthesia. ARS VETERINARIA, Jaboticabal SP, Vol 25, n2, 058-062, 2009.
Welfare Implications of Ear Cropping-Dogs, American Veterinary Medical Association.

December 10, 2008.
Welfare Implications of Tail Docking-Dogs, American Veterinary Medical Association.

October 13, 2008.
P.C. Bennett and E. Perini. Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved? Australian
Veterinary Journal. Vol 81, No 5, May 2003.
P.C. Bennett and E. Perini. Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues. Australian
Veterinary Journal. Vol 81, N 4, April 2003.
G. Diesel, D. Pfeiffer, S. Crispin, D. Brodbelt. Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great
Britain. Veterinary Record, June 26, 2010.
Theresa Welch Fossum. Small Animal Surgery. Editoral: Elsevier. 2009. Tercera edicin.
M. Joseph Bojrab. Medicina y Cirugia en especies pequeas. Editorial: continental. 1980.
Douglas H. Slatter. Small Animal Surgery. Editorial: Elsevier Health Sciences. 2003.
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/FAQs/Pages/Frequently-asked-questions-aboutear-cropping-and-canine-otitis-externa.aspx
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/FAQs/Pages/Frequently-asked-questions-aboutcanine-tail-docking.aspx
100
AGRADECIMIENTOS:
Nuestros agradecimientos van dirigidos a todos los voluntarios que nos regalaron parte de su
tiempo respondiendo a las encuestas y las entrevistas, tanto los veterinarios, propietarios,
centros de cra y juez de concurso de belleza.
Gracias a sus testimonios nos hemos hecho una idea bastante clara de la opinin que se tiene
sobre el terreno respecto a las caudectomas y caudectomas en perros.
101
Anexos
102
ndice
1. Reglamento de exposiciones caninas de LA FCI
2. The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals and tail docking in dogs
2.1 Member States of the Council of Europe
3. Artculos cientficos
3.1 Neurological, Respiratory, Behavioural and Endocrine effects of tail docking in
newborn dogs submitted to epidural anesthesia
3.2 Canine Tail Docking (FAQ)
3.3 A happy tail
3.4 Tail docking, the long and the short of it
3.5 Tail docking in dogs
3.6 AVAS campaign to stop tail docking
3.7 Docking ban a non-issue to Scandanavian breeders
3.8 Anti-docking Website
3.9 Tail docking ban inches a step closer
3.10 Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved?
3.11 Tails we win! AVA posts significant victories on docking issue
3.12 Tail docking in dogs: a review of the Issues
3.13 Call for ban on the non-therapeutic docking of dogs tails
3.14 Tight deadline for comments on tail docking legislation
3.15 Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain
3.16 Welfare Implications of Ear Cropping-Dogs
3.17 Ear Cropping and Canine Otitis Externa (FAQ)
3.19 Letters to the Editor: More on ear cropping and Neutering
3.20 Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
3.21 Letters to the Editor: Arguments for continuation of ear cropping and tail docking
3.22 Ear Cropping and Tail Docking, Pros and Cons
4. Artculos de revistas de divulgacin
4.1 Amputacin de cola y recorte de orejas
4.2 Orejas erectas, orejas cadas
FEDERATION CYNOLOGIQUE INTERNATIONALE (FCI) (AISBL)

Place Albert 1er, 13, B 6530 Thuin (Belgique), tel : +32.71.59.12.38, fax : +32.71.59.22.29, internet : www.fci.be
___________________________________________________________________________________________
REGLAMENTO DE
EXPOSICIONES CANINAS DE LA FCI
INDICE
1. Generalidades
2. Solicitudes
3. Restricciones
4. Requisitos especiales / Admisin de perros
5. Clases
6. Calificaciones y clasificacin
7. Ttulos, premios y concursos en el ring de honor
8. Homologacin del CACIB
9. Jueces
10. Deberes de los organizadores
11. Restricciones para los jueces en exposiciones
12. Quejas
13. Sanciones
14. Prohibicin de exponer
15. Aplicacin del reglamento
1 de enero de 2013
NB : El masculino genrico se aplica al femenino tanto como el singular puede tener un
sentido de plural e vice versa.
Reglamento de Exposiciones Caninas de la FCI y Reglamento Complementario para las Exposiciones Mundiales y de Seccin
El presente reglamento completa El Reglamento de la FCI, slo en lo que se refiere a exposiciones caninas en las cuales se pueden conceder Certificados de Aptitud al Campeonato
Internacional de Belleza de la FC (CACIB) (premios para el ttulo de Campen Internacional
de Belleza ).
Por estos acontecimientos, la FCI cobra un arancel por cada ejemplar que aparece en el
catlogo, cuyo monto es determinado por la Asamblea General de la FCI. Este arancel debe
ser pagado al recibir la FCI los catlogos y las listas de CACIB-Res-CACIB de la exposicin en
cuestin. Debe ser abonado aunque no se haya otorgado ningn premio.
GENERALIDADES
Los miembros de la FCI, tanto de pleno derecho como asociados, deben llevar a cabo, por lo
menos, una exposicin con CACIB por ao.
Las organizaciones caninas nacionales son las nicas responsables en determinar en cules
exposiciones caninas se podr competir por el CACIB.
Es tarea de la Secretara General de la FCI la de confeccionar y publicar el calendario de exposiciones con CACIB.
Las exposiciones que han sido autorizadas por la FCI, deben ser indicadas y designadas de la
siguiente manera: "Exposicin Canina Internacional con atribucin del CACIB de la FCI".
En el catlogo de estas exposiciones, debe aparecer claramente el logotipo de la FCI, junto
con la siguiente expresin: "Fdration Cynologique Internationale (FCI)".
SOLICITUDES
Las solicitudes para poder otorgar el CACIB en exposiciones internacionales deben ser
enviadas a la Secretara General de la FCI a ms tardar doce meses antes de la exposicin, o
con una antelacin no mayor a cuatro aos calendarios de la exposicin.
RESTRICCIONES
Slo se puede otorgar un CACIB en cada sexo, raza y variedad de raza (segn la
nomenclatura de las razas caninas de la FCI), en el mismo da y en el mismo lugar.
No se puede llevar a cabo ninguna otra exposicin con CACIB, el da en que se lleva a cabo
una exposicin mundial o de seccin, en el mismo continente. Los casos excepcionales
sern tratados por el Comit General.
Si una exposicin debe ser cancelada por motivos de fuerza mayor, el organizador debe
reembolsar parcialmente los aranceles de inscripcin que hayan sido pagados.
La FCI slo autorizar exposiciones a realizarse el mismo da, a condicin de que estos
acontecimientos se lleven a cabo con una distancia area mnima de 300 km.
En el caso de que la distancia sea inferior a 300 km, se puede dar la autorizacin a condicin
de que el organizador que haya enviado su solicitud en primer lugar d su consentimiento al
segundo solicitante. En este caso, se recomienda la divisin apropiada de los grupos de la FCI
(segn la nomenclatura de las razas de la FCI), teniendo en cuenta los lugares y los das de
las exposiciones.
En las exposiciones con CACIB, una raza debe ser juzgada, si es posible, en un solo da, y
todas las razas de un mismo grupo de la FCI tambin deben ser juzgadas en un solo da. Sin
embargo, solo en aquellos casos en que sea necesario por motivos de organizacin, es
posible dividir el juzgamiento de las razas de un mismo grupo en dos das.
Es responsabilidad del Director Ejecutivo de la FCI, la decisin de autorizar el otorgamiento
del CACIB en exposiciones internacionales.
REQUISITOS ESPECIALES ADMISIN DE PERROS
El bienestar de los perros debe ser LA PRIORIDAD en cualquier exposicin canina.

Los organizadores deben asegurarse de que las nicas razas que puedan ser presentadas
sean aquellas para las que la FCI ha aceptado sus estndares de raza (a ttulo definitivo o
provisional) y que estn inscritas en el libro de orgenes o en el anexo a dicho libro (registro
inicial) de un pas miembro de la FCI. Lo mismo se aplicar a un pas no miembro de la FCI
cuyo libro de orgenes es, no obstante, reconocido por la FCI. Las razas an no reconocidas
por la FCI (ni en forma definitiva ni provisoria), deben estar reconocidas a nivel nacional y
tener pedigres emitidos por una organizacin canina nacional miembro o socio
contratante de la FCI. Estas razas no pueden ingresarse en ningn grupo (tienen que figurar
en una seccin especfica del catlogo llamada razas no reconocidas por la FCI) y no
pueden optar al CACIB, ni a los diferentes ttulos de la FCI. Adems, no pueden competir en
las finales de los Mejor de Grupo. La FCI cobra el arancel habitual por cada perro expuesto
(de dichas razas).
En todas las exposiciones en las que se otorga el CACIB de la FCI, la divisin en grupos debe
ser de acuerdo con la actual Nomenclatura de Razas de la FCI. En caso de incumplimiento
de esta norma, la FCI reserva el derecho a rechazar autorizaciones a otorgar el CACIB en
futuras exposiciones internacionales.
Los grupos son los siguientes:

grupo 1:
Perros de Pastor y Perros Boyeros (excepto Perros Boyeros Suizos)
grupo 2:
Perros Tipo Pinscher y Schnauzer - Molosoides y Perros Tipo Montaa y

Boyeros Suizos
grupo 3:
Terriers
grupo 4:
Teckels
grupo 5:
Perros Tipo Spitz y Tipo Primitivo
grupo 6:
Perros Tipo Sabueso, Perros de Rastro y Razas Semejantes
grupo 7:
Perros de Muestra
grupo 8:
Perros Cobradores de Caza, Perros Levantadores de Caza y Perros de Agua
grupo 9:
Perros de Compaa
grupo 10:
Lebreles
En todas las exposiciones con pocas inscripciones, los organizadores estn autorizados a que
se juzguen conjuntamente diferentes grupos en el ring principal, para las competencias de
los mejores de grupo . Sin embargo, esto no se aplica a las exposiciones mundiales y de
seccin.
En todas las exposiciones, adems de la denominacin de la raza en el idioma prevaleciente
del pas organizador, el cronograma y el catlogo deberan tambin incluir el pas de origen
de la raza y ser redactados en uno de los cuatro idiomas de trabajo de la FCI.
Los machos y las hembras deben ser inscriptos en forma separada. La numeracin debe
comenzar en el nmero 1 y no ser interrumpido a travs del catlogo. Dentro de la misma
raza, la numeracin no puede ser interrumpida.
En el catlogo, se pueden publicar los ttulos de campen internacional y nacional que hayan
sido homologados as como los ttulos oficiales conseguidos en las exposiciones mundiales o
de seccin de la FCI (Vencedor Mundial, Vencedor Mundial - Joven, Vencedor Mundial
Veterano, Vencedor de Seccin, Vencedor de Seccin - Joven, Vencedor de Seccin Veterano). Le corresponde al pas que organiza la exposicin decidir publicar o no otros
ttulos en el catlogo.
Los perros enfermos (provisionalmente enfermos o padeciendo de una enfermedad contagiosa) as como las perras amamantando o acompaadas por sus cachorros, deben ser
excluidos de toda exposicin canina. Las hembras en celo pueden tomar parte en las
exposiciones a menos que los reglamentos del comit organizador lo prohban. Los perros
sordos o ciegos no pueden ingresar en una exposicin con CACIB. En el caso de que un
propietario no observara esta norma y que el juez descubriera que el perro es ciego o sordo,
tiene que echar al ejemplar fuera de la pista.
Los perros que no figuran en el catlogo no pueden ser juzgados, a no ser que hayan surgido
errores por los cuales el comit organizador es responsable (problemas en el proceso de
impresin del catlogo, etc.). Los formularios de inscripcin deben haber sido
completamente completados y devueltos a los organizadores antes de la fecha de cierre y
las inscripciones deben estar debidamente registradas y abonadas.
Los perros con la cola o las orejas cortadas deben ser admitidos, de acuerdo con las regulaciones legales de sus pases de origen y aquellas del pas en el que se lleva a cabo la exposicin. El juzgamiento de estos perros, tengan la cola y las orejas cortadas o no, debe ser realizado sin ninguna discriminacin y solamente conforme al estndar de raza vlido. Las
reglamentaciones del pas organizador en relacin con exhibir perros con cola u orejas
cortadas deberan estar indicadas en el programa de exposicin o en el formulario de
inscripcin as como en las reglamentaciones de exposicin.
Est prohibido preparar al perro con cualquier sustancia que pueda alterar la estructura,
color o forma del pelaje, piel o nariz. Slo se permiten el uso del peine y del cepillo, el
arreglo y el corte de pelo. Est tambin prohibido dejar al perro atado sobre la mesa de
arreglo por ms tiempo del que lo exija la preparacin del animal.
Se admiten como identificacin, tanto los tatuajes como los microchips (estndar ISO).
El comit organizador se reserva el derecho de no aceptar la participacin de un expositor
en la exposicin.
CLASES
No se permite inscribir a un perro en dos clases y tampoco se aceptan las inscripciones posteriores a la fecha de cierre.
Las competencias o exposiciones nacionales o internacionales, adicionales organizadas
por clubes de la misma organizacin canina nacional que el club que organiza la exposicin
con CACIB, estn permitidas dentro del mismo predio, cuando es aceptado por el
organizador de la exposicin con CACIB.
La fecha decisiva para la edad es el da en que se exhibe el perro.
En las exposiciones con CACIB autorizadas por la FCI, slo se autorizan las clases siguientes:
a. Clases en las que se puede otorgar el CACIB
* Clase intermedia
* Clase abierta
* Clase trabajo
* Clase campeones
(de 15 a 24 meses)
(a partir de 15 meses)
obligatoria
obligatoria
obligatoria
obligatoria
Clase Trabajo
Para inscribir a un perro en la clase trabajo, el formulario de inscripcin debe ser acompaado con una copia del certificado obligatorio de la FCI, WCC (Working Class Certificate),
conteniendo la confirmacin del pas miembro en el cual el propietario/tenedor posee su
residencia legal, que el perro ha aprobado una prueba apropiada as como los detalles de la
prueba.
Las nicas razas que podrn inscribirse en clase trabajo son las que aparecen como razas de
trabajo en la nomenclatura de la FCI, tomando en cuenta las excepciones otorgadas a ciertos
pases para ciertas razas.
Clase Campeones
Para inscribir a un perro en la clase campeones, es imprescindible que uno de los ttulos
detallados a continuacin haya sido homologado a ms tardar el da de cierre oficial de inscripcin. Se debe adjuntar una copia del ttulo al formulario de inscripcin.
-
Campen Internacional de Belleza de la FCI (CIB)

Campen Internacional de Exposicin de la FCI (CIE)
Campen Nacional de Belleza de un pas miembro de la FCI (con por lo menos 2 CAC de
este mismo pas)
Campen Nacional de Exposicin de un pas de la FCI
Campen Nacional de Belleza de un pas no miembro de la FCI que haya firmado una
carta de cooperacin con la FCI
Campen de Exposicin Nacional de un pas no miembro de la FCI que haya firmado
una carta de cooperacin con la FCI
Una vez cerrado el perodo de inscripcin e impreso el catlogo, est prohibido transferir
un perro de una clase a otra a no ser que el problema se deba a un error administrativo del
comit organizador.
b. Clases en las cuales no puede otorgarse el CACIB:

- Clase Bebs (correctamente vacunados, hasta 6 meses)
- Clase Cachorros (de 6 a 9 meses)
- Clase Jvenes (de 9 a 18 meses)
- Clase Veteranos (a partir de 8 aos)
opcional
opcional
obligatoria
obligatoria
c. Concurso opcional de Mejor de Sexo

Debe incluir por lo menos el mejor joven, el vencedor de CACIB y el mejor veterano. El juez
ubica a los ejemplares exhibidos en orden de calidad sin tener en cuenta de que clase
vienen.
d. Grupos/concursos facultativos
Para ser inscrito en estos grupos/concursos, el perro tiene que competir tambin, a ttulo
individual, en una de las clases obligatorias.
- Grupo/concurso de parejas: un macho y una hembra de la misma raza y de la misma
variedad, perteneciendo al mismo propietario.
- Concurso de Grupo de Reproductores: un mnimo de tres y mximo de cinco ejemplares
de las mismas raza y variedad independientemente del sexo, criados por la misma
persona (mismo afijo) aunque dicha persona no sea la propietaria.
- Concurso de Grupo de Progenie: un macho o una hembra acompaados de un mnimo de
tres y mximo cinco cachorros suyos (primera generacin, es decir hijo o hija).
Estos grupos/concursos facultativos tendrn lugar, preferentemente, en las pistas donde se
juzgan las razas. El juez de raza elige al mejor grupo y solo ste ser permitido en el ring de
honor.
CALIFICACIONES Y CLASIFICACIN
Las calificaciones otorgadas por los jueces deben cumplir con las siguientes definiciones:
EXCELENTE slo puede ser atribuido a un perro muy cercano al estndar ideal de la raza,
que se presente en excelente forma, exhibiendo un temperamento armonioso, equilibrado,
que sea de clase superior y tenga excelente actitud. Sus caractersticas superiores en relacin a su raza permiten que imperfecciones menores puedan ser ignoradas. Sin embargo,
deber poseer las caractersticas tpicas de su sexo.
MUY BUENO -slo puede ser atribuido a un perro que posea las caractersticas tpicas de su
raza, que sea equilibrado en sus proporciones y que ste en correcta condicin. Pueden
tolerarse unas faltas menores. Este premio slo puede ser otorgado a un perro que muestre
clase.
BUENO se atribuye a un perro que posee las caractersticas principales de su raza. Los
puntos buenos deberan superar las faltas para que el ejemplar pueda ser considerado un
buen representante de su raza.
SUFICIENTE debe ser otorgado a un perro que corresponda suficientemente a su raza, sin
poseer las caractersticas generalmente aceptadas, o cuya condicin fsica deje algo que
desear.
DESCALIFICADO debe ser otorgado a un perro que no corresponda al tipo requerido por el
estndar, que exhiba un comportamiento claramente distinto al del estndar o tenga conducta agresiva, que tenga anomalas testiculares, que tenga defectos dentales o anomalas
maxilares, que exhiba un color o estructura de pelaje que no est de acuerdo con el
estndar de raza o que muestre claramente signos de albinismo.
Esta calificacin tambin se otorgar a los perros que apenas correspondan a una sola
caracterstica de la raza, de modo tal que su salud se vea amenazada. Tiene que otorgarse
tambin a perros que presenten faltas descalificantes en relacin al estndar de la raza. El
motivo por el cual el ejemplar fue DESCALIFICADO debe figurar en el informe del juez.
Los perros que no puedan recibir una de las calificaciones arriba mencionadas, sern retirados del ring con:
NO PUEDE SER JUZGADO esta valoracin se atribuye a cualquier perro que no se mueva,
que sea rengo, que constantemente salte sobre su gua o trate de salir de el ring, lo que
hace imposible evaluar el desplazamiento y el movimiento, o si un perro evita
constantemente que el juez lo examine, y hace imposible el inspeccionar la mordida y los
dientes, la anatoma y la estructura, la cola o los testculos, o si pueden ser observados los
vestigios de operaciones o tratamientos que parezcan hechos con la intencin de provocar
un posible engao. Lo mismo se aplica si el juez tiene amplias razones como para sospechar
de operaciones hechas con la intencin de corregir la caracterstica o condicin original (v.g.
prpado, oreja, cola). La razn por la que el perro recibi un NO PUEDE SER JUZGADO tiene
que ser asentada en el informe del juez.
Los cuatro mejores perros de cada clase son clasificados, siempre que hayan recibido al menos la calificacin MUY BUENO.
TITULOS, PREMIOS Y CONCURSOS EN EL RING DE HONOR
CACIB: Certificat dAptitude au Championnat International de Beaut de la FCI

Los nicos perros que pueden ser considerados para el CACIB son aquellos que han sido
premiados con un 1ro. Excelente en categora intermedia, abierta, trabajo y campen.
Slo se puede conceder un CACIB si se considera al perro en cuestin como un ejemplar de
calidad superior. El CACIB no se otorga automtica y obligatoriamente al 1ro. Excelente.
Se otorga la Reserva de CACIB al segundo mejor perro que haya obtenido la calificacin
Excelente de las categoras arriba mencionadas. El ejemplar ubicado en segundo lugar en
la categora de la cual proviene el vencedor del CACIB, puede competir por la Reserva de
CACIB, si se le otorg excelente. No es obligatorio otorgar la Reserva de CACIB.
El juez concede los CACIB y Reserva de CACIB segn la calidad de los perros, sin verificar si
cumplen con los requisitos de edad y/o inscripcin en libros de orgenes reconocidos por la
FCI.
El CAC (Certificat dAptitude au Championnat) es un premio nacional cuyo otorgamiento
depende de las organizaciones caninas nacionales. Les corresponde a dichas organizaciones
decidir en qu clases y a qu perros se puede conceder este certificado. El hecho de ganar
CACs permite conseguir el ttulo de Campen nacional.
El primer ttulo de Campen Nacional obtenido en un pas de la FCI debe ser con al menos
2 CACs ganados en exposiciones organizadas por la misma OCN en el mismo pas en dos
das diferentes.
Para cada sexo y cada raza, le corresponde a un solo juez otorgar todos los premios, CACIB
incluido. Se nombrar a este juez de antemano.
Mejor de Raza (BOB) y Mejor Sexo Opuesto (BOS)
El mejor joven, el vencedor de CACIB y mejor veterano de ambos sexos, si se les otorgara
excelente, competirn por Mejor de Raza (BOB). El juez debe tambin elegir el mejor
ejemplar del sexo opuesto (BOS), al lado del vencedor de BOB.
Opcional (en caso de que se lleve a cabo un concurso de Mejor de Sexo): el mejor macho y
la mejor hembra del concurso Mejor de Sexo compiten por Mejor de Raza (BOB) y Mejor
Sexo Opuesto (BOS).
Los perros de razas que no estn reconocidas a ttulo definitivo sino provisional no pueden
optar al CACIB pero pueden competir por el Mejor de Raza, Mejor de Grupo y Mejor Perro
de la Exposicin. Estas razas pueden tambin competir por los diferentes ttulos de la FCI.
Competencias en el ring de honor:

Los concursos de Mejor de la Exposicin, Mejor de Grupo, Grupo de Reproductores, Grupo
de Progenie, Parejas, Mejor Veterano, Mejor Joven, Mejor Puppy, Mejor Beb y Junior
Handling deben ser juzgados por un solo juez, nombrado de antemano. Para hacer las
competencias en el ring de honor ms eficientes, el juez debera prejuzgar los ejemplares o
grupos en una pista separada con tiempo suficiente antes de que ingresen al ring de honor
para que, luego de observar los ejemplares ingresar al ring de honor, pueda rpidamente
elegir los semifinalistas o finalistas que necesitarn una mirada ms cercana.
Los nicos jueces que pueden oficiar en estas competencias son aquellos que hayan sido
autorizados para hacerlo por sus respectivas organizaciones caninas nacionales.
Si un perro se muestra agresivo en la pista (raza-grupo-finales) y que su comportamiento
est observado por el juez que oficia, debe entregar un informe al comit organizador y
debe descalificar el perro para el resto de la competicin. Todos los premios y ttulos del
da deben ser cancelados.
HOMOLOGACIN DEL CACIB
Los jueces designados sern los que realicen las propuestas de CACIB. La homologacin definitiva debe ser hecha por la FCI.
Le corresponde a la Secretara de la FCI verificar que los perros propuestos cumplen con los
requisitos establecidos para la homologacin del CACIB.
Las tarjetas entregadas a los expositores en las exposiciones representan la prueba de que el
perro correspondiente ha sido propuesto para el CACIB. Deben llevar la siguiente expresin:
a reserva de homologacin por la FCI.
La secretara general de la FCI debe asegurarse de que los CACIB han sido correctamente
otorgados. A ms tardar tres meses despus de la exposicin, los organizadores deben
enviar dos copias del catlogo y de las listas de perros propuestos para el CACIB y Reserva de
CACIB a la Secretara General de la FCI.
Estas listas debern incluir la siguiente informacin:
Nmero de catlogo, nombre del perro, libro de origen y nmero de registro en el libro de
origen, sexo, raza y variedad, fecha de nacimiento, nombre del propietario, nombre del juez
y clase en la que se otorg el CACIB.
Las razas sern listadas de acuerdo con su denominacin en uno de los cuatro idiomas de
trabajo de la FCI, seguida de la denominacin normalmente utilizada en el pas donde se
celebra la exposicin.
10
Si un perro no es incluido en la lista de CACIB (por ejemplo, por omisin de los organizadores), la tarjeta de propuesta puede ser aceptada como prueba con tal que ningn perro de la
misma raza y mismo sexo est ya en la lista.
JUECES
Slo el juez actuante est autorizado a tomar decisiones sobre la atribucin del CACIB, la
clasificacin y la calificacin. En este sentido, est obligado a hacerlo sin ninguna ayuda externa y/o interferencia por parte de persona alguna.
La evaluacin y el juzgamiento de los perros slo pueden ser llevados a cabo por jueces
autorizados por sus organizaciones nacionales a juzgar las razas correspondientes. Durante
el juzgamiento, estn obligados a juzgar nica y estrictamente de acuerdo con el estndar de
raza FCI vigente en el momento de la exposicin.
Los jueces de pases que no son miembros de la FCI slo pueden juzgar en exposiciones de la
FCI si la organizacin nacional a la que pertenecen est vinculada con la FCI a travs de un
acuerdo contractual o gentlemans agreement. Estos jueces pueden juzgar en exposiciones
de la FCI, siempre y cuando sus nombres estn incluidos en la lista oficial de su organizacin
canina nacional.
Tambin se aplica lo siguiente:
a.
Todos los jueces de pases que no son miembros de la FCI, cuando son invitados a juzgar
en una exposicin de la FCI, deben completar el cuestionario estandarizado expedido
por la FCI. Debe ser enviado a ellos a su debido tiempo y devuelto firmado para su
aprobacin.
b. Le corresponde a la organizacin nacional del pas en el cual un juez de un pas que no

es miembro de la FCI est comprometido para juzgar, verificar la validez de la informacin contenida en el cuestionario.
c.
Bajo toda circunstancia, todos los jueces, incluyendo aquellos jueces de pases que no
son miembros de la FCI, deben seguir los estndares de raza de la FCI cuando estn juzgando en exposiciones que han sido autorizadas por la FCI. Los estndares de la FCI para
las razas que juzgarn jueces que no son de pases miembros de la FCI, les deben ser
enviados por la organizacin que los ha invitado con bastante tiempo antes del evento.
d. Cuando ofician en exposiciones de la FCI, los jueces de pases que no son miembros de
la FCI slo pueden juzgar las razas reconocidas por su organizacin canina nacional
incluso si se encuentran en la lista de jueces para todas las razas de su propia OCN.
11
e.
10
Los jueces de pases que no son miembros de la FCI deben ser informados por completo,
con antelacin y en detalle, acerca del reglamento de exposiciones de la FCI, as como
acerca de otras regulaciones y cuestiones de procedimiento importantes. Es responsabilidad del organizador de la exposicin del pas donde la exposicin se realiza, la de
proveer la informacin necesaria a estos jueces.
DEBERES DE LOS ORGANIZADORES
Los comits organizadores deben conocer el reglamento de jueces de exposiciones de la FCI

y el Reglamento de Exposiciones Caninas de la FCI y deben respetarlo.
La FCI no puede ser considerada como responsable de cualquier incidente que se produzca
en el marco de una exposicin internacional. Un seguro en responsabilidad civil debe ser
contratado por los organizadores.
INVITACIONES A JUZGAR
a.
Los organizadores deben enviar una invitacin escrita al juez. El juez est obligado a
informar, por escrito, a los organizadores si acepta o rechaza la invitacin. Siempre
debiera cumplir con sus obligaciones para actuar como juez, a no ser que no pueda por
una razn importante.
b. Si debido a una razn importante, un juez no puede cumplir con sus obligaciones, el
organizador de la exposicin debe ser inmediatamente informado por telfono, fax o
email. La cancelacin debe ser confirmada por carta.
c.
De la misma manera, los organizadores estn obligados a mantener sus invitaciones.

Slo se permite la cancelacin en caso de fuerza mayor o en caso de acuerdo mutuo con
el juez.
d. Si los organizadores se ven forzados a cancelar el evento o la invitacin de juzgamiento a

un juez en particular, estn obligados a rembolsar al juez por los gastos que ya hayan
sido realizados. Si por cualquier razn que no sea de fuerza mayor, un juez no puede
cumplir con sus obligaciones para oficiar como juez, est obligado a pagar los gastos
suplementarios que puedan haberse ocasionado ya.
e.
Se les recomienda a los jueces contratar un seguro de viaje (cancelacin de vuelo, accidentes, etc.) cuando estn invitados a juzgar en el extranjero.
f.
Si un juez es invitado a juzgar una raza reconocida nicamente a nivel nacional, debe
haber recibido con antelacin suficiente tanto la autorizacin segn el reglamento de
jueces de exposiciones de su propia OCN, como el estndar por parte del organizador.
12
g.
En todas las exposiciones internacionales de la FCI, 2/3 como mnimo de los jueces invitados deben ser jueces de la FCI (raza-grupo-todas las razas) aprobados por una OCN
miembro de la FCI. Si el organizador necesita a slo dos jueces, ambos deberan estar
aprobados por su organizacin canina nacional de la FCI.
h. Los jueces de raza de la FCI de los miembros de pleno derecho de la FCI necesitarn
confirmacin antes del evento por su organizacin canina nacional para juzgar razas
y/o competencias finales en el ring de honor en el extranjero al menos que la
organizacin canina nacional en donde tienen su residencia legal tenga sus jueces
enumerados en la Gua de Jueces de la FCI (sin ninguna restriccin en esta Gua acerca
de estos jueces). Los jueces de grupo de la FCI que son de OCN miembros de pleno
derecho de la FCI estn autorizados a juzgar, sin permiso previo de su OCN, todas las
razas del / de los grupo(s) para lo(s) cual(es) tienen licencia as como el Mejor de Grupo
para el (los) grupo(s) para lo(s) cual(es) tienen licencia. Pueden juzgar el mejor de la
exposicin (BIS) a condicin de que la OCN que los haya invitado est de acuerdo, que
sean calificados como juez de grupo de la FCI para al menos dos grupos de la FCI y que
su OCN les hayan autorizado a juzgar este tipo de competicin.
i.
Los jueces internacionales para todas las razas de la FCI que son de OCN miembros de
pleno derecho de la FCI estn autorizados a juzgar, sin permiso previo de su OCN,
cualquier raza y cualquier competencia, incluyendo el Mejor de la Exposicin y los
Mejores de Grupo.
j.
Los jueces nacionales para todas las razas de la FCI de miembros de pleno derecho de
la FCI con menos de 100 razas registradas, estn slo autorizados a juzgar las razas
reconocidas por su organizacin canina nacional. Los jueces nacionales para todas las
razas de la FCI deben tener autorizacin de su organizacin canina nacional al menos
que el juez est registrado en la Gua de Jueces de la FCI.
RAZAS A JUZGAR
Un juez debe ser informado de antemano sobre las razas y cantidad de perros que tiene
asignados para juzgar as como tambin sus tareas en el ring de honor. Es responsabilidad
del organizador de la exposicin la de proveer esta informacin al juez, por adelantado y por
escrito.
13
Un juez no debera juzgar ms de unos 20 perros por hora y un mximo de 80 perros por da
si el organizador le pide un informe escrito individual por cada perro. No debera juzgar ms
de 150 perros por da si no se le exige ningn informe escrito individual. En casos de fuerza
mayor, por ejemplo cancelacin a ltimo minuto de jueces por enfermedad, condiciones
climticas, etc., estas cifras pueden extenderse a 100 y 200 con o sin informe escrito. En
estas situaciones, deber existir un acuerdo mutuo entre el organizador y el juez y se le
debera suministrar al juez un asistente y secretarios de pista con mucha experiencia y
asistentes. Si se le solicita al juez que juzgue ms de 100 ejemplares, el juzgamiento
debera ser hecho sin informe escrito.
DERECHOS DE LOS JUECES
Los derechos de los jueces invitados a exposiciones internacionales de la FCI fuera de su pas
de residencia son los siguientes:
a.
La organizacin de la exposicin o el club anfitrin, debe velar por el juez, conforme a un

convenio previo, desde el momento de su llegada al pas en el que va a juzgar hasta el
momento de su salida; normalmente, esto incluye el da anterior y el da posterior a la
exposicin en la que oficia como juez.
b. El juez (durante su estancia en calidad de juez) debe ser alojado en un lugar adecuado,
su estancia puede incluir la noche anterior y la noche posterior al evento, segn su plan
de vuelo.
c.
Los jueces tienen libertad para realizar acuerdos privados con los organizadores de exposiciones, los cuales pueden diferir de aquellos estipulados en el Anexo al Reglamento
de Exposiciones y de Jueces de la Fdration Cynologique. No obstante, cuando no se
hayan efectuado tales acuerdos personales, los jueces deben recibir los beneficios
otorgados por este anexo.
d. Es aconsejable que las disposiciones financieras sean puestas, de antemano, por escrito
en un contrato o una convencin entre el juez y el organizador de la exposicin. Este
contrato deber ser respetado por ambas partes.
GESTIN DE LAS PISTAS Y ASISTENTES
Las razas miniaturas y algunas razas pequeas tienen que ser examinadas sobre una mesa
facilitada por los organizadores.
El juez es el responsable del ring. Cuando ocurren problemas en la organizacin, se debe
consultar al secretario principal de pista, y las decisiones se toman de acuerdo con el juez.
14
Para facilitar la organizacin en el ring, un secretario de ring y un asistente (encargado de la

papelera) deberan estar a la disposicin del juez. Estos asistentes as como el secretario
principal de pista deben hablar uno de los idiomas de trabajo de la FCI, determinado por el
juez.
Los secretarios y los asistentes encargados de la papelera deben ser proporcionados por el
comit organizador.
El secretario de pista debe tener un buen conocimiento del reglamento de exposiciones de
la FCI as como de las reglas de exposicin del pas donde se lleva a cabo la exposicin. Las
organizaciones caninas nacionales deberan organizar capacitacin especial y un sistema
de autorizacin para secretarios de pista y asistentes.
El secretario y el asistente encargado de la papelera deben proveer los siguientes servicios
al juez:
- reunir los perros por clases;
- verificar los perros ausentes dentro de cada clase.
- notificar al juez sobre cualquier cambio de gua o ingreso irregular;
- en prioridad, redactar el informe del juez cuando es requerido en el idioma elegido
por l (y comunicado de antemano al organizador de la exposicin) para que el juez
entienda lo que est escrito. Si es necesario, debera hacerse traduccin de los informes
afuera de la pista en un rea especial para traduccin;
- organizar toda la papelera de trabajo necesaria y la distribucin de los premios;
- seguir todas las instrucciones del juez.
11
RESTRICCIONES PARA LOS JUECES EN EXPOSICIONES
- Un juez nunca debe llegar tarde a un compromiso o dejar el predio de la exposicin
antes de que haya terminado completamente con las obligaciones que le fueron
asignadas.
Un juez no puede criticar el trabajo de otro juez.
Bajo ninguna circunstancia puede un juez solicitar invitaciones para juzgar.
Un juez no puede consultar el catlogo de la exposicin antes o durante su juzgamiento.
En la pista, un juez debe comportarse correctamente y examinar todos los perros sin
discriminacin. Debe vestirse sobria y correctamente, en relacin con la tarea que debe
realizar. Debe actuar correcta y cortsmente.
Un juez no puede fumar en el ring.
Un juez no puede consumir bebidas alcohlicas en el ring.
15
- Un juez no puede utilizar un telfono celular en el ring cuando est juzgando.

- Un juez no puede ni ingresar ni guiar un perro en una exposicin en la que oficia como
juez.
- Un socio, cualquier miembro de su familia inmediata o cualquier persona que viva con el
juez en su hogar, puede ingresar y guiar cualquier perro que pertenezca a cualquier raza
que el juez no juzga en ese da de la exposicin.
- Los perros que el juez gua en una exposicin con CACIB en la cual no est actuando como
juez, deben ser de su propia cra, de la cra de un socio suyo, de la cra de un miembro
de su familia inmediata o de la de cualquier persona que viva con l en su hogar. Otra
posibilidad es que deban ser de su (co)-propiedad, de la (co)-propiedad de un socio
suyo, de la (co)-propiedad de un miembro de su familia inmediata o de la de cualquier
persona que viva con l en su hogar.
- Un juez no puede juzgar ningn perro del que l, un socio suyo, un miembro de su
familia inmediata o cualquier persona que viva con l en su hogar ha sido (co)propietario durante los seis meses antes de la exposicin. Lo mismo se aplica si una de
las personas mencionadas arriba vendi, acondicion o cuid el perro en su casa en los
seis meses antes de la exposicin.
- A un juez le est prohibido viajar a una exposicin en la que juzga con expositores cuyos
perros tendrn que ser juzgados por l.
- Bajo ningn concepto, un juez debera sociabilizar o permanecer con expositores que le
presentarn perros. Slo puede hacerlo DESPUS de haber completado su juzgamiento.
12
QUEJAS
Cualquier decisin tomada por un juez en relacin a las calificaciones, los premios y las
clasificaciones es definitiva e inapelable.
Sin embargo, las quejas contra la organizacin de la exposicin y las modalidades aplicadas
para otorgar las calificaciones, los premios y las clasificaciones son aceptables y deben formularse inmediatamente por escrito al organizador de la exposicin, seguidas por un
depsito de dinero (dos veces el importe de la inscripcin) como garanta. La secretara de
la exposicin debe tomar nota de las quejas. Si se encontrara que la queja fuera
injustificada, la garanta ser entregada al organizador de la exposicin. Si se encontrara que
la queja es justificada, el dinero debe ser rembolsado.
13
SANCIONES
Las violaciones a estas regulaciones pueden ser castigadas con medidas disciplinarias. La FCI
puede prohibir al organizador en cuestin el otorgamiento del CACIB en sus exposiciones
internacionales durante uno o varios aos. Tal decisin es tomada por el Comit General de
la FCI, despus de haberse realizado el descargo oral o escrito del organizador en cuestin.
Cualquier apelacin contra la penalizacin impuesta por el Comit General de la FCI ser
decidida en ltima instancia por la Asamblea General de la FCI.
16
14
PROHIBICION DE EXPONER
Todos los miembros y socios contratantes de la FCI estn obligados, de acuerdo con su
legislacin nacional, a publicar una lista de todos los perros, expositores y/o guas con
prohibicin para ser expuestos/exponer. Todos los organizadores deben respetar esta
prohibicin.
15
APLICACIN
Cada organizador de una exposicin con CACIB tiene que observar las reglas y leyes del pas
en el que se desarrolla el evento. Ante quejas especficas, el Comit General de la FCI puede
intervenir y tomar una decisin final (que puede llegar hasta la anulacin de un CACIB
concedido) en caso de incumplimiento de este reglamento por parte de los expositores, de
los jueces de la FCI y/o de los organizadores de exposiciones internacionales de la FCI. Estas
decisiones deberan servir a mantener la credibilidad de las exposiciones internacionales de
la FCI y garantizar que se observen este reglamento.
17
Reglamento Complementario para las Exposiciones

Mundiales y de Seccin de la Fdration Cynologique
Internationale (FCI)
PREMBULO
Una vez por ao, en una exposicin internacional con CACIB determinada por la Asamblea
General de la FCI, se permite otorgar el ttulo de Vencedor Mundial. Una vez por ao, en
una exposicin internacional con CACIB determinada por cada seccin de la FCI, se puede
otorgar el ttulo de Vencedor de Seccin. Los ttulos de Vencedor Mundial y de Seccin
pueden ser otorgados a todas las razas, reconocidas por la FCI ya sea en forma definitiva o
provisoria. Las razas que an no estn reconocidas, ni provisoria ni definitivamente, no
pueden ingresarse en las exposiciones Mundiales y de Seccin. No hay Reserva del
Vencedor Mundial o Vencedor de Seccin. Estas exposiciones deben organizarse con
estricta observancia de las regulaciones de la FCI.
Los miembros de pleno derecho de la FCI son los nicos que pueden organizar Exposiciones
Mundiales o de Seccin. El da en que se lleva a cabo la Exposicin Mundial o de Seccin en
un continente, est prohibido realizar otra exposicin con CACIB en el mismo continente,
el mismo da. Independientemente de la seccin donde tienen lugar estas exposiciones,
debe haber un perodo mnimo de seis semanas entre la Exposicin Mundial y la Exposicin
de Seccin. Entre una Exposicin Mundial y una Exposicin de Seccin (cuando son llevadas
a cabo en el mismo continente), debe haber un intervalo de tres meses. La fecha de la
Exposicin Mundial es la que prevalece.
El importe de la inscripcin en una Exposicin Mundial o de Seccin debe ser igual para todos los expositores. Sin embargo, se permite un descuento eventual al ser los expositores
miembros de la asociacin canina nacional que lleva a cabo la exposicin.
REGULACIONES
El ttulo de Vencedor Mundial y de Vencedor de Seccin ser otorgado a los perros

macho y hembra propuestos para el CACIB (ver seccin 7 Ttulos, premios y concursos en el
ring de honor del presente reglamento de exposiciones de la FCI). El otorgamiento de este
ttulo es independiente del nmero de inscritos para cada raza en particular. En el caso de
razas reconocidas provisoriamente por la FCI, los ttulos de Vencedor Mundial y
Vencedor de Seccin sern otorgados al mejor macho y la mejor hembra entre las clases
intermedia, abierta, trabajo y campen. Estas razas no pueden optar al CACIB.
El ttulo de Vencedor Mundial Joven o Vencedor de Seccin - Joven ser otorgado a
los mejores jvenes, macho y hembra, siempre y cuando hayan recibido la calificacin 1ro
Excelente.
18
El ttulo de Vencedor Mundial Veterano o Vencedor de Seccin Veterano ser

atribuido a los mejores veteranos, macho y hembra, siempre y cuando hayan conseguido la
calificacin 1ro Excelente.
Los ttulos Vencedor - Joven y Vencedor - Veterano son otorgados segn la lista de
distribucin de los CACIB de la FCI.
El macho y la hembra propuestos para el CACIB, los mejores jvenes, macho y hembra, que
recibieron la calificacin 1ro Excelente y los mejores veteranos, macho y hembra, que
consiguieron la calificacin 1ro Excelente compiten por el Mejor de Raza y Mejor Sexo
Opuesto (BOS).
Los ttulos arriba mencionados as como el Mejor de Raza y Mejor Sexo Opuesto son
otorgados por un solo juez, que debe ser nombrado de antemano.
Todos los perros deben ser juzgados de acuerdo con el Reglamento de Exposiciones de la
FCI. Es facultativo el informe del juez. Los informes tienen que ser redactados en el idioma
del pas organizador o en uno de los cuatro idiomas de trabajo de la FCI elegido por el juez.
Los organizadores deciden sobre el tipo de informe y son responsables de su traduccin. Los
organizadores tienen que anunciar en el cronograma de la exposicin si est previsto o no
que los expositores reciban un informe escrito.
Para las Exposiciones Mundiales y de Seccin, es absolutamente obligatoria la divisin en
grupos segn la nomenclatura de las razas de la FCI. Cada grupo debe ser juzgado ntegro en
un da.
No puede llevarse a cabo una competencia de Vencedor del Da . Es obligacin para
todos los Mejores de Grupo competir el ltimo da de la exposicin por el Mejor de la
Exposicin .
Durante cada Exposicin Canina Mundial y de Seccin, el organizador debera tambin llevar
a cabo un Concurso Mundial y de Seccin de Obediencia y una competencia Mundial y de
Seccin de Junior Handling.
PREDIO DE EXPOSICIN Y RINGS
Las Exposiciones Mundiales y de Seccin debern llevarse a cabo en predios apropiados para
tal propsito.
Cada ring debe ser lo suficientemente amplio como para que los perros puedan ser juzgados
en posicin de parados y como para darles un espacio suficiente para poder desplazarse sin
problema en el ring, de acuerdo con el tamao y la cantidad de perros.
19
Los organizadores de las Exposiciones Mundiales y de Seccin debern proporcionar un ring

de honor lo suficientemente amplio, como para albergar a todos los perros a ser juzgados
de acuerdo con los grupos de la FCI. Los ejemplares compitiendo en todos los grupos y
otras competencias en el ring de honor deberan ser pre-juzgados en pistas separadas con
suficiente tiempo antes de ir al ring de honor segn el horario. Un examen ms detenido
por parte del juez en el ring de honor debera limitarse a semi-finalistas o finalistas
preseleccionados.
Los organizadores deben asegurarse que los vencedores de BOB tengan fcil acceso al ring
de honor desde la pista de pre-juzgamiento.
Si otras actividades se llevan a cabo durante la exposicin, no pueden interferir en el buen
desarrollo de la exposicin.
El comit organizador debe asegurar proteccin suficiente en caso de que la exposicin sea
al aire libre.
JUECES
Todos los jueces que ofician en Exposiciones Mundiales o de Seccin debern ser
especialmente experimentados en la/s raza/s que van a juzgar y deben tener gran
experiencia en importantes y grandes exposiciones de la FCI. Debe suministrarse prueba de
esta experiencia.
Las competencias de Mejor de Grupo y Mejor de Exposicin deben ser juzgadas por
un solo juez, autorizado para hacerlo.
En las exposiciones Mundiales y de Seccin, slo un juez internacional para todas las razas
de la FCI, de un pas miembro de pleno derecho de la FCI, puede juzgar el Mejor de
Exposicin (BIS).
Solamente un juez de grupo de la FCI de un miembro de pleno derecho de la FCI aprobado
para este grupo, o un juez para todas las razas internacional de la FCI de un miembro de
pleno derecho de la FCI, puede juzgar las competencias de Mejor de Grupo (BIG).
Debe designarse un panel de jueces internacional y equilibrado para las Exposiciones
Mundiales y de Seccin. Las disposiciones del Art 10 INVITACIONES A JUZGAR punto g. del
reglamento de exposiciones caninas (2/3 como mnimo de los jueces invitados deben ser
jueces de la FCI aprobados por una OCN miembro de la FCI) deben respetarse. Adems
jueces calificados de pases que no sean miembros de la FCI, pueden ser invitados
esencialmente para juzgar las razas de sus pases. Para las Mundiales, debera ser invitado
como mnimo un juez de cada seccin de la FCI.
20
Los programas de las exposiciones Mundial y de Seccin deben establecer claramente las
razas asignadas a los respectivos jueces.
Para las exposiciones Mundial y de Seccin, las organizaciones caninas nacionales de los pases donde tienen lugar los eventos deben designar y contratar a los jueces.
Los jueces que son tambin los delegados oficiales de su OCN en una Asamblea General
celebrada en el marco de una exposicin Mundial deben tener un mnimo del 50% de sus
gastos de viaje reembolsado por el organizador del evento.
4
A
VEEDOR DE LA FCI
Para cada exposicin Mundial, un veedor oficial de la FCI ser designado por el Comit
General de la FCI. El Director Ejecutivo de la FCI ayudar al veedor oficial de la FCI.
Para las exposiciones de Seccin, la seccin correspondiente recomienda a un veedor
oficial de la FCI, sujeto a la aprobacin del Comit General de la FCI.
El veedor de la FCI tiene las siguientes atribuciones:

a. asistir y aconsejar a los clubes organizadores durante los preparativos de la exposicin.
b. asegurar que la organizacin canina nacional del pas anfitrin ha seguido todas las
reglas y regulaciones especiales de la FCI y que las mismas se aplican correctamente
durante la exposicin.
c. tomar nota de todas las quejas que se hagan durante la exposicin y se refieran a
violaciones a las reglas y regulaciones especiales de la FCI.
d. informar al Comit General de la FCI, a travs de un amplio reporte escrito sobre las
actividades, comunicar las quejas pertinentes a este Comit y asistir al Comit General de la FCI en la resolucin de estos asuntos, si es necesario. Una copia del
informe debera ser enviada al presidente de la Comisin de Exposiciones de la FCI.
Si el veedor oficial de la FCI fuera tambin miembro del Comit General de la FCI,
representar a la FCI en la exposicin en el caso de que ningn miembro del Comit
General de la FCI est presente.
Todos los gastos de viaje, hospedaje y comidas del veedor de la FCI (exposiciones
Mundiales y de Seccin), debern ser pagados por la organizacin canina nacional del
pas organizador as como tambin la misma dieta que los jueces.
21
El texto original es la versin inglesa.

Estas regulaciones fueron aprobadas por el Comit General de la FCI en Berln, el 31 de
octubre 2007 y estarn vigentes a partir del 1 de enero de 2008.
Las partes en negrita fueron aprobadas por el Comit General en Viena, abril de 2012. Se
aplican a partir del 1 de enero de 2013.
Se ha establecido un perodo de transicin de dos aos (hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2014)
para permitirles a las organizaciones miembros o contratantes de la FCI ajustar sus propios
reglamentos nacionales.
22
Anexo al REGLAMENTO DE EXPOSICIONES CANINAS y de JUECES de la

Fdration Cynologique Internationale
REGLAMENTO COMPLEMENTARIO PARA LOS GASTOS DE VIAJE Y DIETA
DIARIA PARA LOS JUECES
1.
Todos los gastos habituales de viaje, incluyendo el kilometraje real en coche (le corresponde
al Comit General de la FCI fijar la tasa de reembolso con un mnimo de 0.35 /km), aparcamiento, tren, autobs, taxi, vuelo areo (precio razonable en clase econmica con un seguro de cancelacin del vuelo de ser posible y una opcin para poder cambiar su vuelo),
as como la comida durante el viaje, que tenga que pagar el juez, tienen que ser reembolsados inmediatamente cuando llega o conforme a un eventual convenio entre l y los organizadores.
2.
Cuando juzga en exposiciones internacionales, de Seccin o Mundiales, un juez debe
recibir de los organizadores, adems de los gastos mencionados arriba, una dieta diaria
de por lo menos 35 por cada da de juzgamiento y por cada da de viaje. El organizador
est autorizado a tener una dieta diaria para sus jueces domsticos segn sus leyes
nacionales.
El texto original es la versin inglesa.

Este Anexo enmendado fue aprobado por el Comit General de la FCI en Viena, abril de
2012. Se aplica a partir del 1 de enero de 2013.
23
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2007, 26 (3), 619-628
The European Convention for the Protection

of Pet Animals and tail docking in dogs
D. Lefebvre (1), D. Lips (2) & J.M. Giffroy (3)
(1) Animal Welfare Council of Belgium, Ministry of Social Affairs, Food Chain Security and Environment,
DG4 (CITES and Animal Welfare), 40 Place Victor Horta, 1060 Brussels, Belgium. Present affiliation: Institut
National de la Recherche Agronomique, UAR 1266, RD10, 78026 Versailles Cedex, France.
E-mail: diane.lefebvre@versailles.inra.fr
(2) Centre for Science, Technology and Ethics, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
(3) Department of Anatomy and Ethology of Domestic Animals, University of Namur, 6 rue Muzet,
5000 Namur, Belgium
Submitted for publication: 29 November 2006
Accepted for publication: 13 August 2007
Summary
The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals was opened for
signature in Strasbourg on 13 November 1987 and entered into force on 1 May
1992. This Convention states that: 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: the docking of tails. At present, 15 of the
27 States in the European Union have ratified this Convention (with or without
reserving their position on tail docking) and have prohibited cosmetic surgical
operations. In addition, four European States have prohibited these operations,
even though they did not ratify the Convention. These policy positions agree with
both the current knowledge on tail amputations in dogs and the opinions
of official veterinary associations in Europe and North America.
Keywords
Amputation Animal welfare Canine Companion animal Cosmetic surgery
Docking Dog European Union Legislation Suffering Surgical intervention Tail
docking Welfare.
Introduction
The European Convention for the Protection of Pet
Animals (12) was opened for signature in Strasbourg on
13 November 1987. The Convention entered into force
on 1 May 1992, after ratification by four countries
(Belgium, Finland, Germany and Luxembourg).
The Convention states (Article 10 Surgical operations)
that: 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: the
docking of tails []. Exceptions to these prohibitions shall
be permitted only: if a veterinarian considers non-curative
procedures necessary either for veterinary medical reasons
or for the benefit of any particular animal; [] 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.
The question of amputations on companion animals,
chiefly tail docking in dogs, illustrates the delicate balance
between arguments about animal welfare and some
traditional procedures. Such conflict is partly why
legislation is necessary in these types of issues. This paper
summarises the legal position of European Member States
towards tail docking, as of 2006, and briefly surveys the
relevant issues (reviewed in 5, 6, 34, 52).
620
Reasons for tail docking in dogs

Arguments for docking canine tails may be roughly
classified into four categories:
a) prophylactic docking:
in gundogs, to prevent tail damage caused by ground
hedges (e.g. brambles), etc.;
in long-haired breeds, to improve hygiene;
b) economic/cosmetic docking to avoid economic loss:
some dog breeders, for instance, fear they will not be able
to sell pups with intact tails from breeds whose standard
requires tail docking;
c) cosmetic docking: these arguments depend on tradition
or aesthetic criteria. In some cases, docking is performed to
standardise puppies from a litter in which the pups are
born with tails of varying length;
d) docking for convenience: this is performed mainly to
prevent large dogs, in particular, from hitting or breaking
objects in the home when wagging their tails (5, 13, 34).
The authors could also quote some outdated arguments,
such as rabies prevention (rabies germs were supposedly
attracted to dog tails) and historical tax avoidance,
especially in the United Kingdom and United States of
America. These taxes originated in hunting, a sport for the
wealthy, in which the tail of a dog was essential. Dogs
reserved for such expensive sports were thus taxed (and
kept their tails), whereas working dogs were docked, to
avoid the tax. It should be noted that this tax could vary
according to tail length. In many cases, when the tax was
abolished, docking survived (5, 34, 52).
Problems caused by tail docking

Tail docking and pain
Docking the tails of dogs generally occurs before the pups
are five days old and can be carried out surgically or by
banding (using a rubber ring). The tail is a complex
anatomical structure comprising 6 to 23 vertebrae,
ligaments, muscles and tendons, the whole tail being
innerved and vascularised. It should be stressed that,
anatomically, a puppy perceives as much pain in its tail as
an adult dog. Indeed, its incomplete myelination does not
prevent the conduction of painful impulses, but rather
modifies the speed of conduction (27, 34). It is also now
established that pain impulses in adults normally pass
along unmyelinated nerves. Moreover, recent studies have
shown that the nervous system of puppies is indeed
immature, but that this immaturity contributes to neonatal
animals feeling more pain than when they are adult (20).
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 26 (3)
There is only one study on the pain felt by puppies at the

time of surgical docking, i.e. amputation (36). The study
concludes that not only is docking a painful operation, but
that the procedure in itself is stressful to the pups.
However, there is no study that focuses on the pain
experienced when tails are docked by banding. Pain
inflicted by this method (and the prolonged ischaemia
associated with it) can be compared with the pain caused
by compartment syndrome in humans, which can also be
experimentally replicated in dogs (42). In the acute form,
muscle ischaemia causes so much pain for the human
patient that an emergency admission to hospital is
necessary. In its chronic form it usually affects sportspeople
and leads to the immediate stopping of any effort for 10 to
20 minutes (22). It remains to be determined whether
adult pain is similar to the pain experienced by a young
member of the same species, placed in the same
conditions. This subject is currently being investigated, for
example, in humans (2).
In short, all the available evidence supports the claim that
docking causes acute pain to dogs. In contrast, no evidence
could be found to support the counter-claim that newborn
pups do not experience any pain at the time of docking (5).
Complications and other problems

which potentially stem from docking
Like most operations, docking operations are associated
with complications, such as neuromas for instance in
dogs (24), lambs (21) and piglets (47) which may,
in themselves, be painful (8). Docking operations are also
associated with the risk of chronic health problems, such
as atrophy and degeneration of the tail and pelvic muscles,
in turn leading to an increased risk of faecal incontinence
or increased sensitivity to pain in adulthood (5).
It should be noted that tail docking is not generally
performed by veterinarians. In Australia, for example, 51%
of breeders surveyed docked their own dogs (37). Thus,
this operation is likely to be carried out under
unsatisfactory hygiene conditions and with no medical
control, further increasing the risk of complications (34).
The absence of a tail can also cause balance and
communication problems in canines (in particular,
aggressive interactions with other dogs) (5, 34, 53), since
the tail is very important in both these areas. All these
subjects require further study.
Pain management
Tail docking also raises the question of pain management,
a fundamental concern in veterinary medicine. Successful
pain management relies mainly on the ability of the
621
veterinarian to perceive animal pain, and on their

knowledge (and the quality) of anaesthetics (associated
risks). Other factors may intervene, such as:
the cost of drugs
the graduation year of the veterinarian (more recent
graduates are more likely to prescribe analgesics)
whether the veterinarian attends continuing education
courses
the experience of the veterinarian in treating cats and
dogs (10, 17, 18, 29, 40).
In addition to pain sustained during the operation, postoperative pain following tail docking is likely and should
also be taken into account (5, 36). This has been
demonstrated in pigs (28) and lambs (41). There is,
however, no research yet on pups. At present, 83% of
surveyed Canadian veterinarians use no peri-operative
analgesia when docking pups (29).
Prophylactic aspects
of tail docking
One major argument for retaining tail docking in puppies
is that it may have a preventive role against hunting
wounds in adulthood. However, this argument should be
placed in context, since hunting induces a whole variety of
health problems, trauma being just one of them (7, 11, 30,
33). Dogs should be sufficiently prepared for hunting,
otherwise the physical strain can cause muscle injuries.
Indeed, as in human athletes, physical performances
generate specific physiological responses in dogs (50). As a
consequence, insufficient preparation of a dog and/or
adverse working conditions are likely to induce muscle
disorders in the legs as well as the tail (for example, limber
tail syndrome, also called cold or dead tail) (48, 51).
Appropriate training, warming up (e.g. walking for a few
minutes) and cooling down (a 10-to-20-minute walk) may
prevent most muscular disorders. This is particularly
important for dogs that may be left in a cage for several
hours (as a temporary kennel or for transportation) (49).
Other problems may stem from inadequate dog
management during hunting, for instance, exhaustion
syndrome from strenuous activity (7).
Moreover, hunting may cause a great variety of other
injuries to the dog (haematomas, scratches, wounds of
varying depth, fractures) on all parts of the body (7, 30,
33). These injuries are mainly due to interactions with
other animals (wild boar, badgers, dogs, snakes) and are
seldom caused by the terrain. When terrain does cause
wounds, they are primarily located on the cushiony pads
of their paws or on the body as scratches. Ear injuries
seldom occur (that is, injuries only to the ear rather, the
injuries occur to the whole face) and tail damage happens
even less often (O. Bertrand, personal communication). It
would be useful to conduct an epidemiological study to
quantify this empirical information.
Tail docking is supposed to prevent wounds caused during
hunting. It could be argued that this explains why tail
damage is rare. However, docked dogs are not the only
ones to hunt in terrain with undergrowth that could
damage them. Undocked dogs of the same and other
breeds also go hunting. In other words, not all dogs
destined to hunt in damaging terrain are systematically
docked (34, 52).
Finally, to the knowledge of the authors, and in accordance
with previous articles (5, 34), there are no figures on the
number of dogs that are currently used in high-risk
situations (supposing that such situations are more likely
to induce tail damage), or on the amount of tail damage
sustained by these dogs (owing to the length of their tail)
in comparison with dogs sold as companion animals. The
only study which focuses on this question (13, see also 31)
demonstrates that, in 12,129 veterinary cases, there was no
statistically significant correlation between tail damage and
undocked tails. (These figures come from a database
started in 1965.) In other words, tail docking cannot be
recommended as a prophylactic procedure against tail
injuries. Nevertheless, more precise epidemiological
studies (of individuals rather than breeds) are needed.
It should be noted that the authors, like other researchers,
have found no epidemiological studies that focus on
the other objectives of tail docking (hygiene, in particular)
(5, 34).
Alternatives
and associated risks
A possible alternative to tail docking is breeding for
congenital taillessness (anury) or short-tailed individuals
(brachyury). Such phenotypes have been detected in one
breed of cat (Manx cats) and several dog breeds (27).
Several genes lead to the loss of caudal vertebrae and then
to shortening of the tail, as shown, for example, in mice
(23). The T-gene, responsible for normal posterior
mesoderm development, has been located in dogs and
sequenced (27). In cats, a single gene with dominant
inheritance is strongly suspected (16, 43), but genetic
analyses are necessary. Owing to embryonic lethality of the
homozygous genotype, the expression of the short-tailed
or tailless phenotype must occur through heterozygotes
(16, 23, 27). In viable, heterozygous genotypes,
incomplete tail development may be associated with often
622
serious anatomical anomalies, such as idiopathic

megacolon and spina bifida. These anomalies are usually
concentrated in the rear part of the animal, as, for instance,
in cats (14, 16, 32, 39, 54), and primarily observed in
tailless individuals, again as in cats (16, 43). The short tails
of those animals which are not completely tailless have
been attributed to a lower expression of the Manx gene,
leading to a weaker disturbance of early embryonic
growth, in comparison with the disturbance in
homozygous individuals (16, 43). Such an association has
not been detected in dogs. However, anecdotal
observations of tailless dogs (two tailless Cairn terriers)
(26) and calves (two Holstein, one Limosin) (15) reported
signs similar to those observed in tailless cats. These
suggest that anury is likely to be associated with major
anatomical malformations in mammals.
We should, therefore, be very cautious before selecting
short-tailed animals as a breeding objective. Nonetheless,
this has been suggested for sheep, to improve their wellbeing (the underlying hypothesis being that tailless sheep
are less prone to fly strike) (46). In relation to gundogs, an
alternative would be to focus on the quality of the fur,
possibly at tail level (if, that is, it can be proved that the tail
is particularly likely to get damaged). The presence of a
brush (a tuft of denser and thicker hairs at the end of the
tail, as observed in some dog breeds) could become a
breeding objective.
Positions taken by official

veterinary associations
In various countries, official veterinary associations are
opposed to routine and/or cosmetic tail docking. They do
not systematically rule on prophylactic docking. When
associations do address prophylactic docking, they are
opposed to it, at least for ethical reasons if not for scientific
ones (given the lack of data). They all accept therapeutic
docking for diagnosed medical problems. Listed below are
some examples of these positions.
a) In Australia, the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA)
states: Cosmetic tail docking of dogs is an unnecessary,
unjustifiable surgical alteration and is detrimental to the
animals welfare []. Official policy of the AVA, which
represents the veterinary profession, is that tail docking
should be declared illegal in all States and Territories,
except for professionally diagnosed therapeutic reasons,
and only then by registered veterinarians under conditions
of anaesthesia that minimise pain and stress []. The
fashion-driven procedure is generally performed on young
puppies and usually without any anaesthetic, using
scissors or a very tight rubber band. The cut goes through
many highly sensitive nerves. Put simply, tail docking is
the needless mutilation of a dog, usually a puppy, and is

passionately opposed by most veterinarians in Australia.
There is absolutely no scientific basis for continuing with
amputation of dogs tails []; indeed there are definite
signs that it is cruel and the animals suffer. The AVA
encourages Kennel Control Councils throughout Australia
to phase tail-docking requirements out of the relevant
breed standards. The AVA also considers breeding
standards should favour natural tails over docked tails and
discourages the showing of dogs with docked tails (4).
b) In Canada, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
does not mention tail docking in dogs as a prophylactic
method. It is only mentioned in the cosmetic surgery
category: The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
(CVMA) opposes surgical alteration of any animal, for
purely cosmetic purposes. The CVMA believes that
cosmetic surgery is unnecessary. Surgical alterations in
cases of injury or for reasons of health are not considered
cosmetic. Examples of cosmetic procedures include: tail
docking in the [] canine species (9).
c) In Europe, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe
(FVE) confirms that: FVE considers that surgery for
cosmetic reasons should be prohibited. FVE urges Member
States of the Council of Europe to sign, ratify and ensure
proper implementation of the European Convention
for the Protection of Pet Animals and in particular of its
Article 10, if they have not done so already. [] FVE also
encourages breed associations and authorities to modify
their breed standards so that surgery for cosmetic reasons
is no longer required and to promote this change to all
show judges, breeders and the pet-owning public. FVE
also calls on the authorities to introduce rules to ban the
exhibition of animals that have been subject to these
operations (19).
d) In the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons (RCVS) states: Currently, the RCVS Guide to
Professional Conduct for veterinary surgeons accepts that
docking may be permissible if it is for therapeutic or truly
prophylactic reasons [] yet evidence suggests a lot of
non-therapeutic docking is still carried out, whether by
veterinary surgeons or others (35). As a consequence,
the RCVS welcomes the new clause and amendments to
the Animal Welfare Bill, [] which tend to make it
unlawful to dock a dogs tail except for the purpose of
medical treatment [...]. In the view of RCVS, [] there is
insufficient evidence to support [tail docking as a
preventive measure against later injuries in working dogs].
It would be better to ban docking altogether, and then look
to see whether a problem in fact emerges (45).
e) In the United States of America, the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) reports that: ear
cropping and tail docking in dogs for cosmetic reasons are
623
not medically indicated nor of benefit to the patient. These

procedures cause pain and distress, and, as with all surgical
procedures, are accompanied by inherent risks of
anaesthesia, blood loss, and infection. Therefore,
veterinarians should counsel dog owners about these
matters before agreeing to perform these surgeries. AVMA
does not mention tail docking in dogs as a prophylactic
measure (1).
Additional opinions
Several studies, conducted among breeders and
veterinarians (29, 34, 37) in Canada, the United Kingdom
and Australia, respectively, show that opinions are divided
between these two professions. Indeed, whereas most
veterinarians state that tail docking causes significant or
severe pain and should not be continued (despite its
potential as a source of income), most breeders believe that
docking is not painful or causes little pain, and want it to
continue. It is reasonable to assume that veterinarians,
being in closer contact with animals that are suffering
through being ill or wounded, are better informed on tail
damage than breeders. Moreover, veterinarians are trained
to recognise typical pain behaviour, and this recognition
significantly increases the ability to distinguish between
painful and less painful treatments, for instance in rats
(44). Such divided opinions raise questions about the
vested interests of the breeders, the breed societies which
set the breed standards and the information which they
distribute to their members and elsewhere. It is
noteworthy that most veterinarians and breeders seem to
agree that breed standards are the main reason for tail
docking, but some breeders also state that this is a
precautionary measure against diseases and injury, or
damage to objects in the house.
Legal positions in
European Member States
States that have signed the European
Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals
At present, two countries have signed the Convention
without ratifying it: Italy (1987) and the Netherlands
(1987). In the Netherlands, tail docking is prohibited
(Gezondheid in Welzijnswet voor Dieren [Animal Health
and Welfare Act], 1996), whereas it is still permitted in
Italy. Seven countries have signed and ratified the
Convention without reservation:
Austria
Cyprus
Greece
Lithuania
Sweden
Bulgaria
Romania.
It should be noted that Switzerland has also ratified the

Convention without reservations: tail (and ear) docking
is prohibited, docked dogs cannot be shown, and it is
forbidden to export dogs temporarily with the aim of
docking their tails (Ordinance on Animal Protection,
27 May 1981; Ordinance on the Importation, Transit and
Export of Animals and Livestock Products, 20 April 1988).
States that have signed

the Convention with reservations
Eight European Union Member States (Belgium, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Luxembourg and Portugal) signed and ratified the
Convention with reservations on tail docking. However, in
most of these countries, tail docking is no longer allowed.
In Belgium, tail docking in dogs was prohibited on
1 January 2006 (Arrt Royal [Royal Decree] of the 17 May
2001; Law of the 18 October 1991). In the Czech
Republic, surgical changes to the appearance of an animal
are forbidden. Nevertheless, the law (no. 246/1992) only
mentions ear cropping, so tail docking is still practised,
according to the Czech Canine Union (CMKU), which is
affiliated to the World Canine Organisation (FCI)
(A. Kostalova, Head of the CMKU, personal
communication). In Denmark, tail docking to change the
appearance of a dog is forbidden and docked dogs born
after 1 June 1996 cannot be shown, no matter in which
country the dog was born (Danish Animal Welfare Act,
1991). Tail docking is, however, still authorised for five
gundog breeds:
the Weimaraner
the Brittany spaniel
the German shorthaired pointer
the wirehaired pointer
the Vizsla.
An amendment, still in discussion, was submitted to the
Danish Parliament in 2003 to abolish these exceptions.
In Finland, tail docking was prohibited on 1 July 1996 (the
Animal Welfare Act). Since that date, docked dogs born in
Finland cannot be shown. In France, tail docking is still
allowed (Law no. 2003 628, 2003). In Germany, tail
docking was prohibited in 2006 (Neufassung des
Tierschutzgesetzes [Revised version of the Animal
Protection Law]), but is still permitted for medical reasons
(with veterinary justification) and for some gundog breeds
(which must pass a test). Since 2001, docked dogs can no
624
longer be shown (Tierschutz-Hundeverordnung [Animal

Protection Dog Regulation]). In Luxembourg, tail
docking in dogs was prohibited in 1992 (Rglement
Grand-ducal du 31 juillet 1992 [Luxembourgs Law of the
30th July 1992]). In Portugal, amputations modifying the
appearance of animals are only allowed when performed
by a veterinarian for medical purposes or in the best
interests of the animal. A veterinary certificate is required,
whether the animal is domestic or imported (Decreto-Lei
[Decree-Law] no. 276/2001).
States that have not signed the Convention

Situations in these countries vary. Neither Ireland (the
Protection of Animals Act, 1965) nor Slovenia (P. Koir,
Chief Veterinary Officer, personal communication) have
prohibited tail docking. In Spain, docking is still
performed because the national law permits mutilations for
breed standard requirements. Only Catalonia (DOGC
no. 3926, 16/07/2003) and Andalusia (BOJA no. 237,
10/12/2003) have specific laws forbidding mutilation for
cosmetic purposes. Docked dogs are allowed to be
exhibited at shows, according to the Royal Spanish Canine
Society, which is also affiliated to the FCI. In Estonia, tail
docking is prohibited (Animal Protection Act, 2000). In
the United Kingdom, tail docking is forbidden, except for
medical reasons or for working dogs (including gundogs)
of less than five days old, for prophylactic reasons. This
operation must be performed by a veterinary surgeon
(Animal Welfare Act, January 2006). The Bill submitted to
Parliament on 26 January 2006 to abolish the clause on
working dogs was rejected, but the veterinarian must
certify that he or she docked the tail of a dog that was likely
to be a working dog. In Hungary, interventions to change
the appearance of animals and other surgical interventions
are forbidden unless conducted therapeutically or for a
prophylactic purpose, in the interests of the health of the
animal. Castration and maintenance of breed
characteristics are, however, permitted. In Malta, surgical
operations to modify the appearance of an animal, in
which any part of the body is removed or damaged, other
than for a curative purpose, are illegal. Docked dogs
cannot be entered for or admitted to shows or inspections
or competitions (Animal Welfare Act, 2002). In Poland,
deliberate mutilations of animals are forbidden, except for
medical purposes (Animal Protection Act, 2003). The
authors are unaware of the legal positions of Latvia and
Slovakia.
Discussion and conclusions

This paper underlines the need for further precise studies
on tail docking in dogs and its medical consequences, to
add to the existing body of literature (5, 34, 52).
Nevertheless, by examining studies on the newborn of

other species, such as calves (3), humans (25), lambs (41)
and piglets (38), it is reasonable to assume that docking the
tails of puppies is painful. In addition, this pain may
continue for a few days or up to several years, as there can
be long-term side effects from the operation (neuroma,
incontinence). Therefore, when docking is conducted,
pain must be managed both at the time of the operation
and post-operatively. At present, neither of these issues is
being adequately addressed.
Like previous studies, this review demonstrates that, to
date, there has been no scientific study, comparing docked
and undocked dogs of the same breed before and after a
docking ban, to illustrate or support the supposed animal
health objectives of tail docking. Can it then be assumed
that the evidence is not there? It would certainly have been
in the interests of proponents of docking to come forward
with such data. Moreover, the particular problem of
preventing tail damage in gundogs should be evaluated in
the overall context of preventing all hunting wounds.
Indeed, hunting generates a large variety of health
problems, including superficial lesions to the tail. It would
be more useful to consider additional prevention methods,
such as binding the tail or providing education
programmes for hunters that include safety and first aid for
wounded dogs (33). Where docking is permitted for
working dogs, there is a practical difficulty in knowing
which puppy from a litter will actually hunt, as most will
become companion animals. More generally, the number
of animals within a hunting breed that will indeed be
involved in hunting is not known (31, 34). Considering
the global population of identified dogs in Belgium, an
estimation shows that about 5% of these dogs may hunt,
whereas about one third of them were traditionally docked
before the tail-docking prohibition (Lefebvre, 2006).
Based on current knowledge and ethical considerations,
authors of many previous articles, as well as official
veterinary associations, have concluded that tail docking
cannot be considered as a prophylactic measure to prevent
damage caused by practices such as hunting. From an
ethical point of view, these articles and opinions examine
which item carries most weight: the suffering of the whole
newborn population of traditionally docked breeds or the
pain felt by the few individuals possibly requiring an
amputation in adulthood. Some of these papers suggest a
global ban on tail docking with individual authorisations
for medical purposes or pups that will actually be exposed
to risky activities in adulthood.
Most European countries have integrated these
conclusions into their legislation: 15 of the 27 European
Union countries have ratified this Convention, with or
without reserving their position on tail docking, and have
also prohibited this operation. In addition, four European
States have prohibited the operation (except for medical
625
reasons) even though they did not ratify the Convention.

As a result of the lack of scientific data, the countries that
have introduced legislation have adopted one of two legal
positions: either a total prohibition (e.g. Switzerland) or a
prohibition with exceptions for several gundog breeds
(e.g. Belgium).
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully thank Catherine Decraene and the
referees for their careful reading of this text and
improvements to the English.
La Convention europenne pour la protection des animaux de

compagnie et lcourtage de la queue des chiens
D. Lefebvre, D. Lips & J.M. Giffroy
Rsum
La Convention europenne pour la protection des animaux de compagnie,
ouverte la signature des tats membres du Conseil de lEurope le 13 novembre
1987 Strasbourg, est entre en vigueur le 1er mai 1992. Cette Convention stipule
que : les interventions chirurgicales destines modifier lapparence dun
animal de compagnie ou dautres fins non curatives doivent tre interdites
et en particulier : la coupe de la queue . lheure actuelle, 15 des
27 tats membres de lUnion europenne ont ratifi cette convention, avec ou
sans rserves quant linterdiction de lcourtage de la queue, et ont proscrit les
interventions chirurgicales des fins esthtiques. En outre, quatre tats
europens parmi ceux qui nont pas ratifi la Convention ont nanmoins interdit
ces interventions. Ces dispositions lgislatives concordent avec les
connaissances actuelles sur lcourtage de la queue chez les chiens ainsi
quavec la position des associations vtrinaires officielles en Europe et en
Amrique du Nord sur le sujet.
Mots-cls
Amputation Animal de compagnie Bien-tre animal Bientraitance animale Canin
Caudectomie Chien Chirurgie des fins esthtiques Coupe de la queue
Intervention chirurgicale Lgislation Souffrance Union europenne.
El Convenio europeo para la proteccin de los animales

domsticos y la amputacin de la cola en perros
D. Lefebvre, D. Lips & J.M. Giffroy
Resumen
El Convenio europeo para la proteccin de los animales domsticos qued
abierto a firmas el 13 de noviembre de 1987 en Estrasburgo, y entr en vigor el
1 de mayo de 1992. En l se afirma que debern prohibirse las operaciones
quirrgicas practicadas con el fin de modificar la apariencia de un animal de
compaa o con otros fines no teraputicos y, en particular, la amputacin de la
cola. Por ahora, 15 de los 27 Estados de la Unin Europea han ratificado el texto,
626
reservndose o no su postura sobre la amputacin de la cola, y prohibido esas

operaciones quirrgicas de ndole cosmtica. Adems, cuatro Estados europeos
han proscrito este tipo de operaciones pese a no haber ratificado el Convenio.
Este principio encaja con lo que actualmente se sabe acerca de la amputacin
de la cola en perros y coincide con la postura de asociaciones de veterinarios
pblicos de Europa y Norteamrica.
Palabras clave
Amputacin Amputacin de la cola Animal de compaa Bienestar Bienestar
animal Canino Ciruga cosmtica Intervencin quirrgica Legislacin Perro
Sufrimiento Unin Europea.
References
1. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) (2005).
Ear cropping and tail docking. Available at: www.avma.org/
issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking.asp (accessed on
30 October 2007).
2. Anand K.J.S., Aranda J.V., Berde C.B., Buckman S.A.,
Capparelli E.V., Carlo W., Hummel P., Johnston C.C.,
Lantos J., Tutag-Lehr V., Lynn A.M., Maxwell L.G.,
Oberlander T.F., Raju T.N., Soriano S.G., Taddio A. &
Walco G.A. (2006). Summary proceedings from the
neonatal pain-control group. Pediatrics, 117 (3, Pt 2), S9-S22.
3. Aubry P. (2005). Routine surgical procedures in dairy cattle
under field conditions: abomasal surgery, dehorning, and tail
docking. Vet. Clin. N. Am. (Food Anim. Pract.), 21 (1), 55-74.
10. Capner C.A., Lascelles B.D.X. & Waterman-Pearson A.E.

(1999). Current British veterinary attitudes to perioperative
analgesia for dogs. Vet. Rec., 145 (4), 95-99.
11. Collin B. (2006). Le gibier comme rservoir et vecteur
de pathognes. In Proc. FormaVet : Formation sur le chien de
chasse et le gibier, Libramont, Belgium, 21 September
(http://www.formavet.be accessed on 30 October 2007).
Proc. available on request (corresponding author).
12. Council of Europe (CoE) (1987). The European
Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, European
Treaty Series No. 125. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/
Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=125&CM=8&CL=
ENG (accessed on 30 October 2007).
4. Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) (2003). AVA

strongly supports push for national tail docking ban on dogs.
Media releases, 13 April. Available at: www.ava.com.au/
news.php?c=0&action=show&news_id=61 (accessed on
30 October 2007).
13. Darke P.G., Thrusfield M.V. & Aitken C.G. (1985).

Association between tail injuries and docking in dogs. Vet.
Rec., 116 (15), 409.
5. Bennett P. & Perini E. (2003). Tail docking in dogs: a review

of the issues. Aust. vet. J., 81 (4), 208-218.
14. De Haan J.J., Ellison G.W. & Bellah J.R. (1992). Surgical
correction of idiopathic megacolon in cats. Feline Pract.,
20 (2), 6-11.
6. Bennett P. & Perini E. (2003). Tail docking in dogs: can

attitude change be achieved? Aust. vet. J., 81 (5), 277-282.
7. Bertrand O. (2006). La prise en charge des traumatismes du
chien de chasse. In Proc. FormaVet : Formation sur le chien
de chasse et le gibier, Libramont, Belgium, 21 September
(http://www.formavet.be accessed on 30 October 2007).
Proc. available on request (corresponding author).
8. Blumberg H. & Jnig W. (1984). Discharge pattern of
afferent fibers from a neuroma. Pain, 20 (4), 335-353.
9. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) (2000).
Cosmetic
surgery.
Available
at:
www.canadian
veterinarians.net/ShowText.aspx?ResourceID=46 (accessed
on 30 October 2007).
15. Dean C.E., Cebra C.K. & Frank A.A. (1996). Persistent
cloaca and caudal spinal agenesis in calves: three cases. Vet.
Pathol., 33 (6), 711-712.
16. Deforest M.E. & Basrur P.K. (1979). Malformations and the
Manx syndrome in cats. Can. vet. J., 20 (11), 304-314.
17. Dohoo S.E. & Dohoo I.R. (1996). Factors influencing the
postoperative use of analgesics in dogs and cats by Canadian
veterinarians. Can. vet. J., 37 (9), 552-556.
18. Dohoo S.E. & Dohoo I.R. (1996). Postoperative use of
analgesics in dogs and cats by Canadian veterinarians. Can.
vet. J., 37 (9), 546-551.
19. Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) (2001).

Surgery for cosmetic and other non-curative purposes.
Available at: www.fve.org/papers/pdf/aw/position_papers/
00_66.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2007).
20. Fitzgerald M. (1994). The neurobiology of fetal and
neonatal pain. In A textbook of pain (P.D. Wall & R. Melzack,
eds), 3rd Ed. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 153-163.
21. French N.P. & Morgan K.L. (1992). Neuromata in docked
lambs tails. Res. vet. Sci., 52 (3), 389-390.
22. Godon B. & Crielaard J.M. (2005). Compartment
syndrome and sport traumatology [abstract available in
English]. Rev. md. Lige, 60 (2), 109-116.
23. Greco T.L., Takada S., Newhouse M.M., McMahon J.A.,
McMahon A.P. & Camper S.A. (1996). Analysis of the
vestigial tail mutation demonstrates that Wnt-3a gene
dosage regulates mouse axial development. Genes Dev.,
10 (3), 313-324.
24. Gross T.L. & Carr S.H. (1990). Amputation neuroma of
docked tails in dogs. Vet. Pathol., 27 (1), 61-62.
25. Gunnar M.R., Connors J., Isensee J. & Wall L. (1988).
Adrenocortical activity and behavioral distress in human
newborns. Dev. Psychobiol., 21 (4), 297-310.
627
34. Morton D. (1992). Docking of dogs: practical and ethical

aspects. Vet. Rec., 131 (14), 301-306.
35. Nolte I. (2006). Begutachtung von tierrztlichen
Bescheinigungen zum Rutenkrzen bei Hunden [Analysis of
veterinary certificates on tail docking in dogs]. Dtsch. tierrztl.
Wochenschr., 113 (3), 102-104.
36. Noonan G.J., Rand J.S., Blackshaw J.K. & Priest J. (1996).
Behavioural observations of puppies undergoing tail docking.
Appl. anim. Behav. Sci., 49 (4), 335-342.
37. Noonan G.J., Rand J.S., Blackshaw J.K. & Priest J. (1996).
Tail docking in dogs: a sample of attitudes of veterinarians
and dog breeders in Queensland. Aust. vet. J., 73 (3), 86-88.
38. Noonan G.J., Rand J.S., Priest J., Ainscow J. & Blackshaw J.K.
(1994). Behavioural observations of piglets undergoing tail
docking, teeth clipping and ear notching. Appl. anim. Behav.
Sci., 39, 203-213.
39. Plummer S.B., Bunch S.E., Khoo L.H., Spaulding K.A. &
Kornegay J.N. (1993). Tethered spinal cord and an
intradural lipoma associated with a meningocele in a Manxtype cat. JAVMA, 203 (8), 1159-1161.
40. Price J., Marques J.M., Welsh E.M. & Waran N.K. (2002).
Pilot epidemiological study of attitudes towards pain in
horses. Vet. Rec., 151 (19), 570-575.
26. Hall D.S., Amann J.F., Constantinescu G.M. & Vogt D.W.
(1987). Anury in two Cairn Terriers. JAVMA, 191 (9),
1113-1115.
41. Rhodes R.C., Nippo M.M. & Gross W.A. (1994). Stress in
lambs (Ovis aries) during a routine management procedure:
evaluation of acute and chronic responses. Comp. Biochem.
Physiol., A, molec. integr. Physiol., 107 (1), 181-185.
27. Haworth K., Putt W., Cattanach B., Breen M., Binns M.,
Lingaas F. & Edwards Y.H. (2001). Canine homolog of the
T-box transcription factor T; failure of the protein to bind to
its DNA target leads to a short-tail phenotype. Mammal.
Genome, 12 (3), 212-218.
42. Ricci M.A., Corbisiero R.M., Mohamed F., Graham A.M. &
Symes J.F. (1990). Replication of the compartment
syndrome in a canine model: experimental evaluation of
treatment. J. Invest. Surg., 3 (2), 129-140.
28. Hay M., Vulin A., Gnin S., Sales P. & Prunier A. (2003).
Assessment of pain induced by castration in piglets:
behavioral and physiological responses over the subsequent
5 days. Appl. anim. Behav. Sci., 82 (3), 201-218.
29. Hewson C.J., Dohoo I.R. & Lemke K.A. (2006).
Perioperative use of analgesics in dogs and cats by Canadian
veterinarians in 2001. Can. vet. J., 47 (4), 352-359.
30. Krepper M. (2003). Premiers soins pour chiens de chasse
blesss. Gerfaut, Paris.
31. Lefebvre D. (2006). La caudotomie des chiens [Tail docking
in dogs], 76 pp. Report for the Animal Welfare Council of
Belgium. Available on request.
32. Lekcharoensuk C., Osborne C.A. & Lulich J.P. (2001).
Epidemiologic study of risk factors for lower urinary tract
diseases in cats. JAVMA, 218 (9), 1429-1435.
33. Moreau C. (2002). Les accidents du chien de chasse. Thesis,
Ecole Nationale Vtrinaire, Nantes, France.
43. Robinson R. (1993). Expressivity of the Manx gene in cats.

J. Hered., 84 (3), 170-172.
44. Roughan J.V. & Flecknell P.A. (2006). Training in
behaviour-based post-operative pain scoring in rats. An
evaluation based on improved recognition of analgesic
requirements. Appl. anim. Behav. Sci., 96 (3-4), 327-342.
45. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) (2006). RCVS
welcomes amendments to Animal Welfare Bill to ban taildocking of dogs, 10 March. Available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/
Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=94537
(accessed
on
30 October 2007).
46. Scobie D.R., Bray A.R. & OConnell D. (1999). A breeding
goal to improve the welfare of sheep. Anim. Welf., 8 (4), 391406.
47. Simonsen H.B., Klinken L. & Bindseil E. (1991).
Histopathology of intact and docked pigtails. Br. vet. J.,
147 (5), 407-412.
628
48. Steiss J. (1997). What is limber tail syndrome? Canine

Pract., 22 (5-6), 1.
49. Steiss J. (2002). Muscle disorders and rehabilitation in
canine athletes. Vet. Clin. N. Am. (small Anim. Pract.), 32 (1),
267-285.
50. Steiss J., Ahmad H.A., Cooper P. & Ledford C. (2004).
Physiologic responses in healthy Labrador Retrievers during
field trial training and competition. J. vet. internal Med.,
18 (2), 147-151.
51. Steiss J., Braund K., Wright J., Lenz S., Hudson J., Brawner
W., Hathcock J., Purohit R., Bell L. & Horne R. (1999).
Coccygeal muscle injury in English Pointers (limber tail).
J. vet. internal Med., 13 (6), 540-548.
52. United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food, and

Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Animal Welfare Division (2002).
Information on dog tail docking provided for the Animal
Welfare Division, DEFRA. Available at: www.defra.gov.uk/
animalh/welfare/domestic/awbillconsulttaildocking.pdf
(accessed on 30 October 2007).
53. Wada N., Hori H. & Tokuriki M. (1993).
Electromyographic and kinematic studies of tail movements
in dogs during treadmill locomotion. J. Morphol., 217 (1),
105-113.
54. Washabau R.J. & Holt D. (1999). Pathogenesis, diagnosis,
and therapy of feline idiopathic megacolon. Vet. Clin. N. Am.
(small Anim. Pract.), 29 (2), 589-603.
ARS VETERINARIA ,Jaboticabal,SP ,v.25, n.2, 058-062, 2009.
ISSN 0102-638
NEUROLOGICAL, RESPIRATORY, BEHAVIOURAL AND ENDOCRINE

EFFECTS OF TAIL DOCKING IN NEWBORN DOGS
SUBMITTED TO EPIDURAL ANESTHESIA
EFEITOS NEUROLGICOS, RESPIRATRIOS, COMPORTAMENTAIS E ENDCRINOS
DECORRENTES DA CAUDECTOMIA, EM CES RECM-NASCIDOS
SUBMETIDOS ANESTESIA EPIDURAL
P. V. M. STEAGALL1, S. P. L. LUNA2, P. M. TAYLOR3,
K. HUMM3 and T. H. FERREIRA2
SUMMARY
Tail docking is performed in some dog breeds to prevent injuries and to improve appearance. It has been forbidden in
some countries for ethical reasons. The aim of this study was to investigate the behavioural, endocrine, neurological and
respiratory effects produced by tail docking in newborn dogs. Fifty-two puppies ranging from 2 to 7 days of age were
used. Sacrococcigeal epidural anaesthesia was performed using a 27 G x `` needle and an insulin syringe filled with
0.2 mL of 0.5% lignocaine with adrenaline. Tail docking was performed in half of the puppies of each litter and the
other half were used as controls. Plasma cortisol concentration, weight gain, respiratory rate, vocalization, defecation,
urination, movement and suction, anogenital, magnum, flexor, vestibular and tactile reflexes were investigated both
before and 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 24 hours after tail docking. Data were compared using ANOVA, followed by Student
Newman Keuls, Friedman or Mann-Whitney tests where applicable. Tail docking after epidural anaesthesia did not
modify respiratory rate, behaviour, neurological reflexes or plasma cortisol concentration up to 24 hours after surgery. It
should be considered that epidural anaesthesia might have masked a possible harmful effect of tail docking on these
variables.
KEY-WORDS: Cortisol. Epidural anaesthesia. Lidocaine. Puppies. Tail docking.
RESUMO
A caudectomia realizada em algumas raas de ces visando prevenir traumas, alm de uma questo de esttica. O
objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar os efeitos comportamentais, endcrinos, neurolgicos e respiratrios produzidos pela
caudectomia em ces recm-nascidos. Foram utilizados cinqenta e dois filhotes de dois a sete dias de idade. A
anestesia epidural sacrococgea foi realizada utilizando uma agulha 27 G x `` e seringa de insulina com 0,2 mL de
lidocana 0,5% com adrenalina. A caudectomia foi realizada em metade dos filhotes de cada fmea e a outra metade foi
utilizada como controle. A concentrao de cortisol plasmtico, ganho de peso, freqncia respiratria, vocalizao,
defecao, mico, movimentao, e reflexos anogenital, de suco, magnum, flexor, vestibular e ttil foram avaliados
antes e 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 e 24 horas aps a caudectomia. Os resultados foram comparados utilizando ANOVA, seguidos de
Student Newman Keuls, Friedman or Mann-Whitney tests. No houve diferena em tempo ou entre os grupos em
nenhuma varivel. A caudectomia realizada aps anestesia epidural no alterou frequncia respiratria, comportamento,
reflexos neurolgicos e concentrao de cortisol plasmtico at 24 horas aps a cirurgia. Deve ser considerado que a
anestesia epidural pode ter mascarado um efeito prejudicial da caudectomia nestas variveis.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Anestesia epidural. Ces. Caudectomia. Cortisol. Lidocana.
Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, 53706-1100, Madison, WI, USA.
psteagall@svm.vetmed.wisc.edu
2
Department of Veterinary Surgery and Anaesthesiology, FMVZ, Unesp, 18618-000, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
3
Taylor Monroe, Little Downham, Ely, UK.
58
INTRODUCTION
Tail docking is a practice performed for almost
2000 years in some breeds of dogs, as it was a general
belief that this practice would prevent rabies
(MORTON, 1992). Before the 19th century, it was
alleged that amputation of the tail could be useful to
increase speed, to strengthen the back and to prevent
dogs from being bitten when ratting or fighting
(MORTON, 1992).
Nowadays, tail docking is performed to prevent tail
injuries when the dogs are used for hunting or
guarding, to improve the appearance of a particular
breed of dog, making the dog more attractive, and also
to promote better hygiene (MORTON, 1992). Some
studies opposed to this practice claim that it is
unnecessary, painful and unjustified (FRENCH et al.,
1994a). An epidemiological study involving more than
12,000 dogs showed that tail docking could not be seen
as a prophylactic procedure to prevent tail injuries
(DARKE et al., 1985).
The United Kingdom, Scandinavian countries,
Switzerland and more recently Australia have banned
all forms of cosmetic surgery in dogs for ethical
reasons (ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY
SURGEONS, 2000, SILLINCE, 2003). In Brazil,
although not prohibited, tail docking is not
recommended in veterinary practice, unless it has a
clinical indication (BRASIL, 2008). The AVA
(Australian Veterinary Association) position about
surgical mutilation of animals suggests that it should be
done only when there is a benefit to the animal, like in
sheep, where tail docking has some advantages to the
animal in the future (FRENCH et al., 1994b).
The position of the breeders is that it would be
difficult to sell undocked puppies of breeds that are
usually docked and some unsold puppies would have
an uncertain destiny (MORTON, 1992). In two surveys
performed in Australia, 84% of the breeders were in
favour of docking, while 83%-86% of the veterinarians
were against the practice (FRENCH et al., 1994a).
Cortisol, a well-accepted indicator of the stress
response, increases in response to stimulation of the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical
system.
A
correlation between high plasma cortisol concentration
and abnormal behaviour associated with pain after tail
docking was observed in lambs (MELLOR &
MURRAY, 1989).
The aim of this study was to investigate the
behavioural, endocrine, neurological and respiratory
effects produced by tail docking of newborn dogs.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
This study was approved by the Ethical Committee
for Animal Experimentation, from the Faculty of
Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University
of So Paulo State (protocol number of 64/2003). Fiftytwo clinically healthy client-owned puppies from eight
litters of different breeds (Pinscher, Cocker Spaniel,
Rottweiller, Brazilian Fox, Weimaraner, Boxer and
Neapolitan Mastiff) were used after written owner
consent. Males and females, ranging from two to seven

days of age were used according to Table 1.
As the puppies arrived in the experimental room,
they were maintained with their mothers, labelled with
numbered tags and left alone for at least an hour to
settle down. Respiratory rate was measured by
observation of chest movement. Neurological reflexes
and physical condition were evaluated before the study
and any showing clinical or neurological abnormality
were removed from the study. The puppies were
weighed and all of them were simultaneously removed
from their mother. The area around the tail was clipped
and prepared for surgery. Sacrococcigeal epidural
anaesthesia was performed after palpation of the S5-C1
space, in all puppies, using a 13 x 4 (27 G x ``)
needle introduced from the dorsal to the ventral aspect
of the tail with an insulin syringe filled with 0.2 mL of
0.5% lignocaine with adrenaline. Tail docking was
performed according to Hedlund (2002) in half of the
puppies from each litter17. The other puppies, used as
controls, were manipulated and restrained in the same
way for administration of epidural anesthesia.
Anaesthesia and surgery were performed by the same
person in all cases.
The following behavioural measurements were
performed and classified as absent (0), present (1), or
as otherwise stated: posture (1= lying down, still; 2=
standing position); movement (1= without movement;
2= lying down with smooth movements of the head; 3=
lying down with movement of the head and all limbs);
vestibular straightness willingness of the puppies to
return to sternal recumbence when placed in lateral
recumbence); tactile (the puppies eyes were closed,
the dorsal area of the forelegs touched in the inferior
part of the table: the normal response was considered
when the puppy lift their legs and supported on the
table); suction reflex (by introducing the little finger
into the mouth and observing suction); magnum reflex
(maintaining the neonate in dorsal recumbence and
rotating the head to one side: the normal response was
extension of the contralateral forelimb and flexion of
the limb at the same side the head was rotated);
anogenital reflex (by stimulating the neonate genital
organs with a blunt pen and observing urination);
flexion reflex (the neonate was held by the neck in the
air: the normal response was flexion of the spinal
column).
Blood samples (0.5 mL) were collected from the
jugular vein using vacutainer (Vacuum II!, LabnewIndstria e Comrcio I) tubes with EDTA. Plasma was
obtained by centrifugation (Centrfuga Excelsa Baby
MOD 206, FANEM) and maintained at 20oC (Freezer
260, Brastemp) for cortisol assay. Plasma cortisol
concentrations were measured by solid phase
radioimunoassay using a commercial kit (Coat-ACount Cortisol- DPC!, FANEM ). The sensitivity was
5.5 mmol/L and cross reactivity was 0.34% for
corticosterone, 0.38% for cortisone and 11.4% for 11deoxicortisol.
Except for cortisol and weight, which were
measured before and 24 hours after tail docking, all
other measurements were performed before and 1, 2, 3,
4, 8 and 24 hours after tail docking.
59
Statistical analysis was performed using Graphpad

Instat software. Parametric data were compared using
analysis of variance followed by the Student-NewmanKeuls Test. Non-parametric data were compared using
analysis of variance followed by the Friedman test to
compare differences in time in each group and MannWithney test to compare differences between groups at
each time. A P value less than 0.05 was considered
significant.
Table 1 - Breeds, number and age of the neonates submitted to tail docking.
N of litter
Breed
N of animals
Age (days)
Pinscher
Cocker Spaniel
Cocker Spaniel
Rottweiller
11
Neapolitan Mastiff
Weimaraner
Boxer
Brazilian Fox
Total
RESULTS
Respiratory rate was not modified by tail docking
(Fig. 1) there was no effect of time of recording on
values or treatment means. There was no difference in
either weight or weight gain between the groups. The
puppies submitted to tail docking gained 35 g and the
puppies that were not submitted to tail docking gained
52
32 g (Fig. 2). All puppies vocalised during tail

amputation even with local anaesthesia performed from
the dorsal to the ventral region of the tail. There was no
significant difference in plasma cortisol concentrations
either between the groups or before and after 24 hours
of tail docking (Fig. 3). There was no statistical
difference between the groups for behavioural and all
other neurological reflexes.
Tail docking
Without tail docking
60
Breaths/min
50
40
30
20
8
24
Hours
0
1
2
3
4
Figure 1 - Mean (SD) of respiratory rate of dog neonates before and during the first 24 hours after tail docking
60
Tail docking
800
Weight (grams)
600
400
200
0
Hours
0
24
Figure 2 - Mean (SD) of weight of dog neonates before and 24 hours after tail docking
Tail docking
2,5
g/dL
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
0
24
Hours
Figure 3 - Mean (SD) of plasma cortisol concentration of dog neonates before and 24 hours after tail docking.
DISCUSSION
Although tail docking is usually performed in
clinical practice without local anaesthesia, local
anaesthesia was used in this study for ethical reasons,
as a request from the Ethical Committee for Animal
Experimentation. Puppies of both groups received
epidural anaesthesia in order to avoid differences in
behaviour or in physiological and neurological
variables due to manipulation and possible effects of
anaesthesia itself in only one group. However, the
puppies vocalised during tail amputation even with
local anaesthesia, probably due to manipulation and/or
pain associated with the surgery. As soon as the
procedure was over and they were placed with the
bitch, they started sucking. This sucking behaviour has
previously been described as displacement behaviour
to minimise the perception of pain (WIEPKEMA,

1987), as sucking stimulates the release of endorphins
from the brain, producing analgesia (BLASS et al.,
1987, NOONAN et al., 1996).
Our data indicate that tail docking did not modify
behavioural, physiological and neurological signs. It is
of note, however, that in this study the animals were
observed for only 24 hours, and differences might be
observed after a longer period of evaluation; hence
long-term changes should be further investigated. Late
complications might be related to the surgery itself,
such as neuroma formation and post-operative
complications, which have been described in docked
lambs (FRENCH & MORGAN, 1992). The occurrence
of sepsis resulting from tail infection and the
possibility of anal sphincter damage (GROSS &
CARR, 1990) are consequences that need further
61
investigation. Another point in the adverse effects of

tail amputation is that the association between docking
and incompetence of the urethral sphincter was
consistent, not as a causal relationship, but rather as an
indication that docked breeds may develop more
urinary incontinence than undocked breeds, either
because of breed predisposition or because docking can
affect urethral nerve supply (HOLT & THRUSFIELD,
1993).
Cortisol is a hormone responsible for the increase in
metabolism of proteins, carbohydrates and fats and it
also minimises any over reaction of the defence
mechanisms activated by stress that could be harmful
to body homeostasis. Plasma cortisol concentrations
are not necessarily a pain reflex per se, but may simply
indicate stress associated with restraint and handling
(GUYTON & HALL, 2000, JONGMAN et al., 2000).
However, a correlation between high plasma cortisol
concentration and abnormal behaviour associated with
pain after tail docking was observed in lambs
(MELLOR & MURRAY, 1989).
In our study all animals were restrained in the same
way for administration of epidural anaesthesia and for
simulation of tail docking, even in the puppies that
were not docked. Epidural anaesthesia may have
blocked a surgical stress response caused by tail
amputation, as there was no increase in plasma cortisol
concentrations after this procedure. Another possible
approach would be to measure plasma cortisol
concentration immediately after tail docking and repeat
thereafter, as a possible cortisol increase could have
disappeared by 24 hours. However the restraint of the
puppy and the volume of blood in small breed dogs
might be a limiting factor.
Although tail docking did not modify the endocrine,
behavioural, physiological and neurological variables
in newborn dogs for 24 hours, epidural anaesthesia
may have masked a potentially harmful effect of tail
docking on these variables.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
FRENCH, N. P., MORGAN, K. L. Neuromata in

docked lambs tails. Research in Veterinary Science,
v. 52, p. 389-390, 1992.
FRENCH, N. P., WALL, R., MORGAN, K. L. Lamb
tail docking: a controlled field study of the effects of
tail amputation on health and productivity. Veterinary
Record, v. 134, p. 463-467, 1994a.
FRENCH, N. P., WALL, R., MORGAN, K. L. Tail
docking of lambs in the control of flystrike.
Veterinary Record, v. 135, p. 47, 1994b.
GROSS, T. L., CARR, S. H. Amputation neuroma for
docked tails in dogs. Veterinary Pathology, v. 27, p.
61-62, 1990.
GUYTON, A. C., HALL, J. E. Adrenocortical
hormones. In: GUYTON, A.C., HALL, J.E. (Eds.)
Textbook of Medical Physiology. 10.ed. Saunders
Company: Philadelphia, 2000. p.869-883.
HEDLUNG, C. S. Surgery of the intergumentary
system. In: FOSSUM, T.W. (Eds.) Small Animal
Surgery. 2.ed. Mosby: New York, 2002. p.134-228.
HOLT, P. E., THRUSFIELD, M. V. Association in
bitches between breed, size, neutering and docking,
and acquired urinary incotinence due to imcompetence
of the urethral sphincter mechanism. Veterinary
Record, v. 133, p. 177-180, 1993.
JONGMAN, E. C., MORRIS, J. P., BARNETT, J. L.,
HEMSWORTH, P. H. EEG changes in 4-week-old
lambs in response to castration, tail docking and
mulesing. Australian Veterinary Journal, v. 78, p.
339-343, 2000.
MELLOR, D. J., MURRAY, L. Effects of tail docking
and castration on behaviour and plasma cortisol
concentrations in young lambs. Research in
Veterinary Science, v. 46, p. 387-391, 1989.
The authors thank FAPESP for the grant.

REFERENCES
MORTON, D. Docking of dogs: practical and ethical

aspects. Veterinary Record, v. 131, p. 301-306, 1992.
BLASS, E. M., FITZGERALD, E., KEHOE P.

Interactions between sucrose, pain and isolation
Pharmacology,
Biochemistry,
and
distress.
Behavior, v. 26, p. 483-489, 1987.
NOONAN, G. J., RAND, J. S., BLACKSHAW, J. K.,

PRIEST, J. Behavioural observations of puppies
undergoing tail docking. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science, v. 49, p. 335-342, 1996.
BRASIL. Cirurgias estticas mutilantes em

pequenos animais. Pargrafos 1 e 2 do artigo 7 da
Resoluo n 877, de 15 de fevereiro de 2008.
Publicada no DOU de 19 de maro de 2008, n 54,
seo 1, p.173.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS.

RCVS: The Guide to Professional Conduct 2000.
DARKE, P. G. G., THURSFIELD, M. V., AITKEN, C.

G. G. Association between tail injuries and docking.
Veterinary Record, v. 116, p. 409, 1985.
62
SILLINCE, J. Tails we win! AVA posts significant

victories on docking issue. Australian Veterinary
Journal, v. 81, p. 446, 2003.
WIEPKEMA, P. R. In: WIEPKEMA, P. R., VAN
ADRICHEM, P. W. (Eds.) Biology of stress in farm
animals: an integrative approach. 1.ed. Martinus
Nijhoff: Dordrecht, 1987. p.113.
Canine Tail Docking (FAQ)

Q: Why did we start docking dogs' tails?
A: Tail docking of dogs is believed to have arisen for three reasons at different points
in history. In ancient times Romans believed that amputation of the tail tip and/or parts
of the dog's tongue could prevent a dog from contracting rabies.1,2 Because the tail was
believed to help a dog in the chase, dogs were historically cropped if they were owned
by a poor person not permitted to hunt game.2 (Ironically, it is sometimes argued that
docking increases a dog's strength or speed.3) There is a continuing tradition of
docking working dogs' tails with the goal of preventing tail injury during activities such
as hunting (see related question below). Early references, however, tended to suggest
docking only in cases where the tail was overly long for the size of the animal and,
therefore, might be prone to injury. 4
Q: When did tail docking for cosmetic purposes begin?
A: Tail docking seems to have emerged for a variety of reasons, but for some breeds it
was proposed primarily to improve appearance. Books from different periods openly
refer to docking of some breeds as a matter of pleasing appearance (e.g., The
American Book of the Dog, 1891, p. 619, 6695; also6). The most consistent anecdotal
argument for preventive docking relates to hunting with pointers; even in this case,
however, the purpose of increasing 'beauty' is mentioned.15 Rules for pedigreed dog
shows in the United States established during the mid-1950s formalized the docking
tradition within some breed fancies regardless of the origin of the practice.
The history of veterinary opposition to cosmetic tail docking is long. One example from
the United States being characterization of cosmetic tail docking as "indefensible" in
The Dog by Youatt & Lewis (1854).7 Most veterinarians worldwide tend not to support
routine, cosmetic tail docking as part of a breed standard;8,9,10 however, there is a lack
of data relating specifically to the attitudes of veterinarians in the United States and
there are dissenting opinions (just as some breeders have opposed docking in breeds
where this is traditional11).
The AVMA first suggested breed clubs remove cosmetic alterations from breed
standards in 1976, although the presence and phrasing of this recommendation within
the Association's policy has varied over the years. Opposition to tail docking is also the
stated policy of other veterinary associations (e.g., Canada,12 Australia,13 United
Kingdom14).
Q: What is the current basis for carrying out preventive tail amputation/partial
amputation on working dogs?
A: Some commentators consider a long tail to be a potential hazard for some breeds
of working dogs. For example, it has been suggested that:
A guard dog could be seized by the tail to thwart its attack.15
Hunting dogs, such as pointers, may damage their tail tip in underbrush.7,4,16
Long-haired dogs may become more soiled if they have a hanging tail.17
These justifications for docking working dogs' tails lack substantial scientific support,
with the exception of some suggestive, but inconclusive, data relating to German
Shorthaired Pointers before and after a docking ban in Sweden.18 Differences between
breeds that are docked and those that are not are often minor. For example among the
very similar Pointer, German Longhaired Pointer and German Shorthaired Pointer, only
the German Shorthaired Pointer is traditionally docked.19 Some argue that subtle
differences in the morphologic types of their tails justify this distinction. Docking of toy
spaniels' tails, such as those of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, is now allowed, but
was not typically performed in the ancestral breeds.20
Q: Why is tail docking currently carried out on non-working dogs?
A: Tail docking of some breeds may be based on a belief that their non-working
members experience risks similar to working dogs; more commonly, however, it is to
conform to a distinctive breed appearance or standard. Survey data indicate that
preventive tail docking of pet dogs is unnecessary.21 Therefore tail docking of nonworking dogs, even if their breed was originally developed for working purposes, is
considered a cosmetic procedure unless evidence exists to the contrary.
Q: Do dogs need to have tails?
A: It is natural for most dogs to have tails based upon their descent from a tailed
species. However there is no strong evidence that naturally bobbed or surgically
docked dogs are physically or psychologically disadvantaged. There is some early, but
inconclusive, data that raises questions as to whether docking impairs communication
with other dogs22 or may increase the risk of developing incontinence.23
Q: Is tail docking painful?
A: Tailing docking is painful.24 The intensity or duration of the pain under ideal or
typical circumstances is difficult to quantify.
Q: Why does AVMA policy oppose cosmetic tail docking?
A: The essential question is not "How harmful is the procedure?", but rather "Is there
sufficient justification for performing it?" Performing a surgical procedure for cosmetic
purposes (i.e., for the sake of appearance) implies the procedure is not medically
indicated. Because dogs have not been shown to derive self-esteem or pride in
appearance from having their tails docked (common reasons for performing cosmetic
procedures on people), there is no obvious benefit to our patients in performing this
procedure. The only benefit that appears to be derived from cosmetic tail docking of
dogs is the owner's impression of a pleasing appearance. In the opinion of the AVMA,
this is insufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure.
Q: What forms of tail removal would not be considered cosmetic?
A: The naturally bobbed animal is not considered "docked." Bobbed genetics exist in
many pedigreed breeds (e.g., Old English Sheepdog, Australian Shepherd17) and have
been introduced into others (e.g., Boxer25). Some breeders, both historically and
currently, would prefer problematic conformation to be corrected via breeding alone.
Removal of a dog's tail for medical reasons is not referred to as "docking." The most
common reason for amputation or partial amputation of a dog's tail is traumatic injury
where repair of the entire tail is not possible or advisable. Amputation may also occur
in the case of tail deformities that negatively impact a dog's function or increase risk of
injury. An argument might be made for removal of the tail of a dog on the basis of
repeated prior injury.
Precautionary removal of the tail of a young puppy needs to be based on compelling
evidence that the animal is at high risk of tail trauma due to congenital defect, breed
and/or planned working activity. However, such a justification should be supported by
evidence such as empirical data or impartial expert opinion based on extensive,
directly relevant experience.
REFERENCES
1. Podberscek AL, Paul AS, Serpell J. Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the
Relationships Between People and Pets. Cambridge University Press, 2000; 307.
2. Fleming. The wanton mutilation of animals. The Nineteenth Century, a Monthly Report,
1895;37:440.
3. Drury WD. British Dogs, Their Points, Selection, and Show Preparation. L.U. Gill:
London. 1903. p. 165
4. Hallock C. The Sportsman's Gazetteer and General Guide. Forest and Stream: New
York. 1877. p. 456.
5. Shields G. The American Book of the Dog. Rand, McNally: Chicago. 1891
6. Palmer, RM. All about Airedales: A Book of General Information Valuable to Dog Lovers
and Owners, Breeders and Fanciers, Illustrated from Selected Photographs of Noted
Dogs and Rare Scenes. The Airedale Terrier Reviewed. 3-A Publishing Co.: Seattle.
1916; 53.
7. Youatt
W,
Lewis
EJ.
The
Dog.
Leavitt
and
http://books.google.com/books?id=wxkPAAAAYAAJ
Allen,
1857
Accessed
Available
December
at:
15,
2008.
8. Bennett PC, Perini E. Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved? Aust Vet
J 2003;81:277-82.
9. Sonntag, Q. Cosmetic tail docking. Vet News 2004;Feb:4-5.
10. Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK, et al. Tail docking in dogs: a sample of attitudes
of veterinarians and dog breeders in Queensland. Aust Vet J 1996;73:86-88.
11. Lytton, N. Toy Dogs and Their Ancestors: Including the History and Management of Toy
Spaniels, Pekingese, Japanese and Pomeranians. Duckworth & Co: London. 1911; 91.
12. CVMA Website Cosmetic Surgery:
http://canadianveterinarians.net/ShowText.aspx?ResourceID=46 Accessed
December 15, 2008
13. AVA Website Surgical alteration to the natural state of animals:
http://avacms.eseries.hengesystems.com.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Policies
&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2157 Accessed December 15, 2008
14. RCVS Website Your responsibilities to your patients:
http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=89720&int2ndParentNode
ID=89717&int1stParentNodeID=89642 Accessed December 15, 2008
15. Coren, S. How Dogs Think: Understanding the Canine Mind. Simon and Schuster,
2004; 106
16. Lee RB. A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland. H.
Cox: London. 1897. p. 220-221.
17. Sasson-Brickson G. The bobtail trait in Australian shepherds part I: a historical
perspective and docking Regulations in various countries. Aussie Times 2005; MarchApril.
18. Strejffert, G. Tail injuries of shorthaired German pointer dogs born in Sweden 1989.
Unpublished 1992.
19. Milne, E. The Truth about Cats and Dogs. Book Guild Publishing, 2007; 118.
20. Leighton R. Dogs and All about Them. Cassell and Company, Ltd: London. 1910, 283.
21. Darke PGG, Thrusfield MV, Aitken CGG. Association between tail injuries and docking
in dogs. Veterinary Record 1985;11:409
22. Leaver, SDA, Reimchen TE. Behavioural responses of Canis Familiaris to different tail
lengths of a remotely-controlled life-size dog replica. Behaviour 2008;145:377-390.
23. Thrusfield P, Holt M. Association in bitches between breed, size, neutering and docking,
and acquired urinary incontinence due to incompetence of the urethral sphincter
mechanism. Vet Rec 1993;133:177-180.
24. Noonan G, Rand J, Blackshaw J, et al. Behavioural observations of puppies undergoing
tail docking. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1996;4: 335-342.
25. Haworth K, Putt W, Cattanach B et al. Canine homolog of the T-box transcription factor
T; failure of the protein to bind to its DNA target leads to a short-tail phenotype.
Mammalian Genome 2001;12:212-218.
EDITORIAL
A happy tail
FOR over 20 years the BSAVA has been pressing
the Government for a ban on tail docking for cosmetic reasons, and since then firm support for
this stance has been reiterated at several BSAVA
and BVA Council meetings. It was not primary
British legislation that has finally brought about
the ban on tail docking except by veterinary surgeons from July 1993, but the ratification of a
clause in the Council of Europes Convention for
the Protection of Companion Animals. Contrary
to the advice of the BVA and Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons, the Government has not
made the docking of tails for non-therapeutic reasons illegal, but has neatly passed the buck by
deeming that the procedure may only be carried
out by a veterinary surgeon. And there the problem rests firmly in the lap of our profession until
1993.
In 1974 the RCVS declared tail docking for cos-
metic purposes unethical, although held back

from pronouncing it evidence of that most chilling of damnations - conduct disgraceful in a
professional respect as long as the law permitted
lay persons to carry out the procedure. It remains
to be seen if the RCVS will now hold to the
courage of its convictions and effectively ban
cosmetic tail docking completely.
Hell hath no fury like a breeder scorned, and
the canine press has unleashed an invective of
abuse upon the veterinary profession spearheaded by screaming headlines: Why Dog Vets
(sic) Are Riding For A Fall, Show them who the
real governors are and Hit them in the pocket!
My eyes water, but the feedback from my petowning clientele is firmly in favour of the ban,
with a surprising number of owners positively
shocked to be informed that their little Yorkie
had ever had a bit of its tail chopped off in the
first place.
Let us pause to look at objections to a ban. The
evidence to prove that working dogs are more
prone to tail injuries seems very flimsy indeed,

but even if this were accepted, I have yet to hear
breeders arguing that docking should be
restricted to those breeds that are likely to injure
their tail due to the nature of their work. How
many Yorkshire terriers and miniature poodles
are going to injure their tails working in thick
bush? If breed societies were able to prove a
prophylactic advantage for tail docking in certain
working breeds then the RCVS could consider
allowing veterinary surgeons to continue to dock
those breeds on the grounds that it was not being
carried out for cosmetic purposes alone.
It is claimed that British dogs that are exported
will have their tails docked as adults. Many
potential problems face exported dogs and the
responsible breeder will go to great lengths to
ensure they pass only into the most trustworthy
of hands. But if we are to produce dogs to meet
foreign fashions then we shall soon see the return
of ear cropping.
Tail docking is far from the most important
welfare issue facing the veterinary profession
today, yet most members of the profession share
a repugnance at the thought of cutting off a perfectly healthy and useful part of the dogs anatomy purely for the sake of fashion. The battle has
been won, but the pause until the armistice
comes into effect is drawn out over the next 18
months. We will come under increasing pressure
from some breeders and we must be temperate to
ensure that all the progress that has been made in
working together to produce healthier puppies is
not lost. Yet we must stick to our principles,
stand firm, and mcourage the RCVS to pursue
the issue to its logical conclusion. Now is certainly not the time to allow the tail to wag the
dog, but hopefully we can look forward to many
more dogs wagging a tail.
BRADLEY VINER
597
EDITORIAL
Tail docking - the long and

the short of it
IT is hoped that most, if not all, members of
BSAVA support the ending of routine docking of
puppies tails. It has been a long standing aim of
the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons when it
was declared unethical some years back, S O it
should not be a new concept for most of us.
BSAVA policy has been to support the RCVS in
its aim to get primary legislation passed banning
the procedure of routine docking completely and
has held the view for a long time that the act is a
mutilation. Despite this, the debate has waged for
many months and there are claims that the profession is divided; in theory it is.
Our own survey carried out at the beginning of
1992 showed that 90 per cent of those that
replied were in favour of the changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act and to the position of the
RCVS. This is an overwhelming vote of confidence by any standards. A recent survey by the
Council of Docked Breeds had a very similar
result, ie, 9 per cent were against the ban. However one extrapolates from this it seems likely
that there are at least 100 practising veterinary
surgeons who will continue to dock. The quoted
figure of 700 veterinary surgeons willing to defy
the ban is based on 9 per cent of 8000 practising
veterinary surgeons. This is surely very optimistic in real terms. Whatever the true number,
strict rules apply to those who now choose to
dock as laid out in the new edition of the RCVS
Guide to Professional Conduct.
Reasons given for docking are the tail injuries
suffered by working dogs; hygiene problems of
long, shaggy-coated breeds; tail injuries to dogs
with gay tails; and falling breed standards as the
genetic pool diminishes. It is suggested that in
docked breeds there has not been any selection
for tail length, carriage, and shape and that future
selections for these in preference to other things

may lead to an increase in hereditary diseases.
Some breeds may even disappear!
The RSPCA at its press conference on July 1
supported the ban and noted its satisfaction that
the procedure will cease. Case reports mentioned
the appalling injuries inflicted by people using
such tools as knives and scissors because they
thought that their dog ought to be docked, The
maximum fine if a lay person docks is now E5000.
Also present at the press conference was a
weimaraner and an old English sheep dog both
with long tails to wag. There was no sign of a
damaged tail end or a messy bottom.
A most interesting story heard on July 1 puts
another slant on this issue. Three old school
friends, one a veterinary surgeon, the others doctors, were having a drink when the subject of tail
docking arose. The veterinary surgeon told the
story of the weimaraner owner who was asked
how she had managed to get her dogs tail to
grow so long. The friends did not get the point.
Imagine the disgust when they were informed
that weimaraners, boxers, Yorkshire terriers,
cocker spaniels, etc (not all 47 customarily
docked breeds was listed) have their tails
removed soon after birth.
It is clear that we, as a profession, need to
stand firm in our resolve to end docking and at
the same time educate the public that all dogs are
born with long tails. This ethical commitment
will be vigorously challenged over the next few
months until breeders accept that docking is a
thing of the past.
CLIFF ALDERMAN
Chairman, PR Committee
365
................................................................................................................................
We thank the staff from the AAHL, Geelong f o r providing
and assisting with the development of the enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay. We also thank our colleagues from
Agriculture Western Australias Animal Health Laboratories and
its Vertebrate Pest Research Services sections for their assistance
with various aspects of this study. This work was partially supported by the Cooperative Research Centre for Vertebrate Pest
Populations.
References
1. Tyndale-Biscoe H. The CRC for biological control of vertebrate pest populations. Pac Conserv Biol 1994;1:163-169.
2. Collins BJ, White JR, Lenghaus C, Boyd V, Westbury HA. A competition
ELSA for the detection of antibodies to rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus. Vet
Microbiol 1995;43: 85-96.
3. Chasey D, Lucas M, Westcott D.Williams M. European brown hare syndrome
in the UK; a calicivirus related to but distinct from that of viral haemorrhagic disease in rabbits. Arch Virol 1992;124: 363-370.
(Arcrpridfor pirblicrrtion 21 M m h 1997)
CORRESPONDENCE
Tail docking in dogs

PE HOLT
University of Bristol
Departmenr of Veterinary Clinical Science
Division of Companion Animals
Lanford, Brisrol BS18 7DU, UK
MV THRUSFIELD
University of Edinburgh
Departmenr of Veterinary Clinical Studies
Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies
Vererinary Field Station
Roslin Midlorhian EH33 NC, UK
docked breeds of whatever size are more likely to develop incontinence than undocked dogs of the same breed cannot be concluded from our paper. Nevertheless, one interpretation of the
association is that it is causal, and, i n the absence of evidence to
the contrary, it would surely be imprudent to ignore this evidence out of hand. To do so would imply prejudice.
Dr Davey failed to comment on the possible relationship
between tail injuries and the presence of an entire tail - a possible justification of docking - although the topic was addressed
by Wansbrough, who cited the short communication by Darke
and colleagues. In this epidemiological study of over 12,000
dogs, a reduced risk of tail injuries in docked dogs was not
demonstrated. This study did not stratify according dogs occupation (working or non-working) and so could not rule out the
possibility of a protective effect of docking specifically in working dogs. However, in the absence of a definitive cohort study in
which occupation is the main explanatory variable (again, a
highly unlikely event), this study provides the only rigorous evidence, in dogs generally, that docking does not have a protective
effect. Extrapolation from a general to a specific case is not without its dangers, but is sounder than unsubstantiated speculation
and anecdotal evidence such as Dr Daveys statement that as
practitioners know, breeds with long tails such as Dalmatians
and the Setter family are increasingly common sufferers from
this problem [acquired urinary incontinence].
References
1. Wansbrough RK. Cosmetic tail docking of dogs. Aust Vet J 1996;74:59-63.

2. Davey C. Tail docking [correspondence].Aust Vet J 1996;74:476.
3. Holt PE, Thrusfield MV. Association in bitches between breed, size, neutering and docking, and acquired urinary incontinence due to incompetence of the
urethral sphincter mechanism. Vet Rec 1993;133:177-180.
4. Thrusfield M. Veterinary epidemiology. 2nd edn. Blackwell Science, Oxford,
1995:479.
5. Evans AS. Causation and disease: The Henle-Koch postulates revisited. Yale
J Biol Med 1976;49:175-195.
6. Darke PGG, Thrusfield MV. Aitken CGG. Association between tail injuries
and docking. Vet Rec 1985;116:409.
n his adverse criticism of the paper by RK Wansbrough, Dr

C Davey addresses somewhat indirectly the evidence concern-
ing the relationship between docking and sphincter mechanism

incompetence in bitches,? a topic which we presented in our earlier paper. He is correct in stating that there have been no trials that have shown an increased incidence of urinary incontinence in breeds whose tails have been docked. Such trials would
be epidemiological cohort studies and would need to last about
7 years and study representatives of both docked and undocked
dogs in each breed. Using standard sample-size formulae,. and
assuming a cumulative incidence of 1Yo in undocked dogs during the period of the study, at least 5000 dogs would be required
in each breed to detect a two-fold increase in risk in docked dogs
(statistical significance = 5%; statistical power = 80%). Such a
study is unlikely to take place. Cohort studies, in general, are
rare, and medical and veterinary science has refined the more
common cross-sectional and case-control studies to address
problems which lack rigorous investigation. Carefully conducted,
these are efficient screening techniques for risk factors and can
provide evidence of causality.i O u r paper is one such study.
Using two different data-sets we identified an association
between docking and incompetence of the urethral sphincter
mechanism, after adjusting for potential confounders. In our
conclusions, however, we urged caution in definitely implying
causality. We should point out that Dr Wansbroughs statement
Awt Vet/ Vol75, No 6, June 1997
CORRECTIONS
Effect of a single bout of high intensity exercise on lower
respiratory tract contamination in the horse, by Raidal SL,
Love D N and Bailey G D , Aust Vet/ 1997;75:293-295.
Th
e columns depicting post-exercise samples are the second

and fourth from the left of the graph.
Effect of breed of cattle on innate resistance to infection

with Babesia bovis, B bigemina and Anaphma marginale, by
Bock RE, de Vos AJ, Kingston T G and McLellan DJ, Aust Vet
J 1997;75:337-340.
s a result of incompatibility between computer programs,
ome symbols have been changed thorough the article.

For fi read I / ? and for / read / 4 . Corrected reprints are
available from the Scientific Editor.
449
News
AVAS campaign to stop tail docking
HE AVA last month launched an important Australia-wide

campaign to attract community support for the ACT
Governments proposed legislation outlawing cosmetic tail
docking.
The Board aims to have the campaign trigger a flood of genuine
letters from veterinarians, their clients and the general public in
support of the first attempt by an Australian legislature to introduce such a measure. It is strongly believed that once such legislation gains a toehold in Australia it will ultimately spread to all
States and Territories. The campaign involved a number of strategic media releases and a detailed information sheet sent to key
media and opinion leaders around the nation. The National
President, Dr Garth McGilvray, led the charge but was backed-up,
where required, by senior people in each Division. One aim of the
campaign was to prevent the anticipated campaign of orchestrated
responses from docked breed groups that would seek to convince
Sutherlands
AVJ gift
HE family of the
late Dr A. K.
Sandy
Sutherland, has kindly
donated his full collection of Australian
Veterinary Journals
every edition printed up
to the time of his death
in October to the AVA.
Dr Sutherland was a
major figure in the
Association and the
profession.
He was a Life Fellow
of the AVA, was
National President, had
served as President of
both the Queensland
and Victorian Divisions
at different stages of
his career.
He also won the Gilruth
Prize, the Associations
highest award, in 1979.
Another significant
involvement with the
AVA was his work as
Editor of the AVJ
between 1966 and
1972.
Dr Sutherland was still
an active volunteer
member of the
Melbourne-based
Editorial Committee up
to the time of his death.
76
the ACT Government the idea had no merit and no support. AVA
adopted the view that most Australians had never really thought
about the issue BUT when presented with the stark reality that the
barbaric practice is cruel, painful and unnecessary they would be
likely to get angry about its continuation in their communities.
AVA urges practitioners to raise the issue with their clients to try to
rally support behind the ACT Minister for Urban Services, Mr
Brendan Smyth (pronounced Smith) in his bid to be the first
politician in Australia to initiate a law banning cosmetic tail docking. The proposed ACT law is officially open for public comment
until the end of this month. Send a letter today or you might
miss the opportunity to help create a whole new community view
on this significant animal welfare issue.
The address for support letters is: Attn: Ms Tamsin Davies,
Office of Mr Brendan Smyth, ACT Minister for Urban Services,
GPO Box 1020, CANBERRA 2601.
GST UPDATE FEBRUARY 2000

This update reflects some recent ATO
developments:
Draft business activity statement
The Tax Office has issued a draft of the
Business Activity Statement (BAS). The
aim of the BAS is to bring together the
reporting and payment of a wide range of
business tax entitlements and obligations
under the New Tax System. It will replace
several existing Tax Office forms from 1 July
2000.
Businesses will be required to remit quarterly tax instalments, net payments under
the GST, the PAYG system, the FBT system, the wine equalisation tax, the luxury
car tax and to claim refunds of wholesale
sales tax (see point (4) below). A draft BAS
form and the accompanying 118-page
instructions are available on the Tax Offices
Tax Reform site at www.taxreform.ato.gov.au
Input tax credit without a tax invoice
A ruling sets out the circumstances in which
the Tax Office will exercise discretion under
the GST Act to allow an entity to claim an

input credit without holding a tax invoice.
The ruling relaxes the requirements for documents issued before 1 July 2000 to the
extent that the price of the taxable supply
does not have to be shown if the amount of
GST payable is shown.
The ruling provides that an entity is entitled
to an input tax credit for a creditable acquisition without holding a tax invoice where:
the entity holds a document issued before
1 July 2000 for a taxable supply made on
or after that date;
the document contains the following information:
he suppliers name or trading name;
the suppliers address; and
the date of issue; and
the document shows either:
the price of the taxable supply and a
statement indicating that the price
includes GST; or
the amount of the GST payable.
Oops! AVJ readers pass our January test
NUMBER of AVJ readers

passed our secret test in
the January edition spotting the incorrect photo used in
one of the news stories.
Unfortunately, the Editor was not
among them! Due to an inadvertent production error, compounded by the rush to ensure the
January issue was completed early
to avoid Christmas shutdowns, we
managed to change the appearance
of the new Victorian Opposition
Leader, Mr Denis Napthine, by
running a picture from an unpub-
lished story in his spot (on page 6).

The second victim of this mix-up
was Dr Graeme Allan, a prominent Sydney vet, recently
appointed as Adjunct Professor of
Veterinary Radiology at Sydney
University. We now present an
actual photograph of Mr Napthine
as supplied and certified by his
personal staff. Our apologies to
both men and thanks to the generosity of spirit of those victims
and readers who passed the abovementioned test for finding some
humour in the situation.
Mr Denis Napthine
Aust Vet J Vol 78, No 2, February 2000
News Extra
Docking ban a non-issue

to Scandanavian breeders
HE biggest Finnish daily newspaper recently ran a story

about the effects of the ban of puppy docking. Along with
other Nordic countries, Finland made cosmetic tail amputation illegal for anything but medical reasons in 1996.
Dog owners and breeders interviewed in a dog show were mostly
satisfied that the puppies are able to stay intact. Most had harboured serious doubts before the ban, but found no problems with
tails after they were left intact. Would they start having the dogs
docked again, given the chance? Absolutely not, was the answer of
all except one, who used to get his livelihood from importing
docked dogs from Eastern European countries, where the practice
is still legal.
I spoke with Dr Tapani Parviainen, Chief of Veterinary Services in
southern Finland, about the docking issue. He explained that the
ban was preceded by intense lobbying by some breeders. Their
main concern was that docked dogs would seem odd and would
therefore not be appreciated by judges in international competitions. I mentioned the stories, circulating in Australia, about the
alleged damage to full tails in previously docked breeds. Dr
Parviainen had a good laugh. According to him the unequivocal
Letter from
Europefrom
JoukoKoppinen
experience in Scandinavia is that docking is merely a cosmetic
operation with no significance in preventing tail injuries.
For a period after the ban came into force, some breeders took their
pregnant bitches to Estonia to whelp. The puppies were then
brought back without tails. Now this trade has been banned. In
addition to all Scandinavian countries, the UK and several States
and Cantons in Germany, Switzerland and Austria have forbidden
docking, and the EU has expressed a negative stand on the practice. The American Veterinary Medical Association has this year
started to lobby for banning cosmetic tail amputation in the USA.
The Scandinavian dogscape has permanently changed. A longtailed Boxer or Old English Sheepdog no longer catches anyones
attention. In contrast, a rare canine amputee appears awkward and
incomplete.
UK and France still at war over BSE
RITISH authorities report that the incidence of mad-cow disease is gradually

diminishing. In the first half of 1999, about
24% fewer cases were diagnosed than in a
similar period the previous year. The number
of cattle culled during last 12 months for
BSE was 5% of that slaughtered in 1995, the
peak year of the epidemic. In all, 37% of
British beef herds have had BSE.
French authorities, steadfastly opposing the
importation of British beef on the grounds of
consumer safety, point out that the diminished incidence still represents some 3000
cattle, whereas in France the number of cattle diagnosed in 1999 was in the low 20s.
This is ammunition for the continuing crosschannel war of words. The British emphasise
that regardless of the absolute numbers, their
incidence is going down and the French
numbers are possibly growing.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in Europe, BSE incidence is increasing for the time being. In
Switzerland cases numbered about 30 in
1999. More alarmingly, Portugal had over
130, up from 12 cases in 1994 and 106 in

1998. The European Commission has
reported shortcomings in the countrys BSE
control measures. The continuation of the
export ban of Portuguese beef will be decided
in early 2000.
The squabbling over BSE may occasionally
be farcical, but the casualty rate of
Creutzfeld-Jakob disease is deadly serious.
The variant close to BSE has claimed 48 lives
since 1995, all but one in the UK. Britishbased Animal Pharm news magazine reported
in December that the latest person to fall ill
with this deadly disease was a 13-year-old
girl. Her age causes doubts about the incubation period and other features of the disease.
It is possible that more deaths may follow for
some time, as BSE may have contaminated
an unknown number of human vaccines in
the 1980s, when the threat was not recognised.
In view of all this, it was a pleasure to note
that Australias official freedom of BSE and
scrapie made news here in November.
Winter blues in the frozen north of Europe
INNISH vets do not

need to treat tick paralysis or sunburn.
Leaving pets inside a car
would
rather
cause
hypothermia than heat
stroke in this climate.
The seasons speciality is
frostbite. The temperatures
are down to -30C in
130
Lapland, and we are enjoying brisk winter weather

even here in the south.
Frostbite affects the dogs
ear and tail tips, and in an
especially nasty way, the
scrotum.
There hardly is a more
pathetic sight than a
Whippet on a cold, snowy
morning.
Despite being carefully
rugged they seem almost to
shake their joints loose.
In contrast, Huskies and
other arctic breeds enjoy
their natural environment
immensely.
(By Jouko Koppinen, former
Scientific Editor of AVJ).
EU stays tough on hormone

beef, somatotropin and most
antibiotics
HE European Commissions
ban of beef from hormonetreated cattle is unlikely to change.
Preliminary findings from still
continuing scientific studies seem
to confirm the risks for the consumer, and the EU is expected to
maintain its cautious stand in this
issue.
The
World
Trade
Organisation had earlier declared
the ECs ban illegal.
The Commission decided to continue to prohibit the use and marketing of bovine somatotropin. It
agreed with the earlier scientific
report, according to which treating dairy cattle with the hormone
would increase the number of foot
problems and mastitis cases, thus
compromising the welfare of
treated animals.
It seems that soon there will be
only three antibiotics registered as
growth promoters for animals in
the EU, as the Commission considers scientific recommendations
to ban avilamycin. While the
pharmaceutical industry vehemently rejects the arguments for
the ban, the Commission is
already reflecting on how to phase
out the remaining three.
Aust Vet J Vol 78, No 2, February 2000
News Extra
L e t t e r s
Continued from page 205
Pomeranians and daintily

lead them around the park, a
park to which beggars and
other undesirables are
refused entry. The servants
avoid eye contact with those
on the other side of the fence
and pretend not to notice as
the dogs defaecate beneath the
swings and urinate on the
roses. Their constitutional
over, eight canine feet are fastidiously wiped clean, coats
are brushed and the party
departs in air-conditioned
comfort.
The discussion about responsible pet ownership in the
Australian veterinary and general communities continues.
Should not we, as a profession, be discussing what level
of pet care is compatible with
responsible global citizenship?
As we walk our pampered
pooches through Australias
well-tended parks, gardens
and state forests, do we avoid
the eyes of the developing
world? Do we avert our eyes
and pretend that the millions
left unable to feed their children, access the most basic
education, or even purchase a
life-saving course of amoxil,
are neither our problem nor
our responsibility?
Across a fence (or across cultures, nationalities, socioeconomic groups or hemispheres)
distance may insulate us but
it doesnt dilute the injustice
of the world nor lessen the
obligation inherent in our
privilege and opportunity.
What standard of pet care is
responsible and what is
immoral? When does kindness to animals become, even
if indirectly, cruelty to people?
Dr Deborah Storie,
dstorie@virtual.net.au
206
Anti-docking
website
T was wonderful to read

your views on tail docking. I
am very much opposed to
docking and believe it is about
time it was banned. It has
been succesfully outlawed in
Europe and I would love to
see Australia follow suit.
I work as an assistant in a veterinary practice and am developing my own anti-docking
website. My parents work in
the Internet industry and are
helping me with the project.
When it is finished I would
love to hear the views of AVA
members about the site and its
contents. The main things it
will feature are a video of a vet
actually performing a docking
proceedure so that people can
see how it really is done and to
show that the pups do feel
pain contrary to what the
pro-dockers say. It will also
have pictures of dogs from
breeds that have traditionally
been docked but with their
tails intact so that people
can see what they should look
like. The site will also carry
extensive text on the subject.
If your members or readers
have any suggestions on what
else I can put on the site that
might help the anti-docking
cause, I would love to hear
them. Keep up the wonderful
work and good luck with your
campaign to win support for
the proposed ACT anti-docking legislation. I will be sending my letter to the Minister
very soon and I hope your
members can encourage a real
flood of mail to help get an
official ban underway.
Kelly Maher,
kelly@smile.com.au
Pups tails saved
E want to express our

gratitude to the AVA
and to Dr Roger Clarke for
convincing us to spare the tails
of our newborn cocker spaniel
pups from the pointless and
painful process of docking.
We are not professional breeders but found ourselves in a
situation where we discovered
our dogs had become
extremely friendly! From discussions in our local area, we
learned that Dr Clarke had
been waging a strong campaign against docking for
many years and decided to
seek his advice on what we
should with our pups. He
made us aware of the AVAs
strong stance against docking
as an utterly unnecessary
and unjustifiable mutilation
of a dog.
When our eight pups were
born we were amazed at how
gorgeous they were, especially
how their natural tails made
them even more attractive
than the modified versions
which most people now mistakenly believe are true cocker
spaniels. We are now total
converts to the anti-docking
cause. It has been a great life
experience for us helping to
give birth to these puppies and
helping to nurture them.
These past few weeks have
been wonderful for us to share
and we have been given memories that will last us forever.
We are frantically taking photographs of the pups at every
opportunity so we can convince other people what beautiful animals they are. Most
people think cocker spaniels
are beautiful anyway, but we
can now show those who are
unaware that this breed has
traditionally been mutilated at
birth just how adorable they
are when they are allowed to
keep the tails nature gave
them. We have decided to

send some photos of our litter
to Dr Clarke for use in his
important anti-docking work.
Thanks again to Dr Clarke
and the AVA. Keep up the
good fight we will do everything we can to ensure your
save the tails message is
heard by as many people as
possible.
John and Renea Goebel,
Gold Coast, Qld
Strange US idea
The anti-docking movement
(and anti-ear cropping) is
starting to swell in
the US as well as in Australia
and other countries. However,
in an October 1999 issue of
the JAVMA there is a very
strange response from a vet in
favour of docking stating that
there is no difference between
cosmetic docking and spaying. The letter said:
Why do we support spaying
if dogs have more to lose
(their reproductive function)
in the operation whereas no
function is lost with cosmetic
docking.
The writer appears to have
neglected the importance of
spaying and
Neutering in controlling the
numbers of unwanted animals. I doubt if docking
would lead to less strays.
I hope this very strange argument doesnt enter the present
campaign.
Diane Ryan BVSc
Diane.ryan@agric.nsw.gov.au
Correspondence
News items and general
correspondence should be
submitted to the Managing
Editor, AVA House, 134-136
Hampden Rd, Artarmon
NSW 2064, Australia or PO
Box 371 Artarmon NSW
1570 Australia. Telephone
(02) 9411 2733, fax (02)
9411
5089,
email
editor@ava.com.au
Web
address www.ava.com.au
Aust Vet J Vol 78, No 3, March 2000
News
Tail docking
ban inches a
step closer
oves
to
implement
a
nationwide ban on the
cosmetic docking of dogs tails
came closer in April with Western
Australia legislating to halt the practice,
although full support from all States is yet
to be obtained.
The AVA, whose policy is firmly against
purely cosmetic tail docking, issued a
media release (p246) condemning the
failure of NSW and the Northern
Territory to go along with a national ban
at the Primary Industries Ministerial
Council meeting of State Agriculture
Ministers in Brisbane.
There is no valid reason for an extension
of time sought by NSW and NT, given
such a groundswell of support in favour
of a national ban and that the majority of
States and Territories have committed at
this meeting, said Dr Jo Toia, National
AVA President.
Tail docking is usually performed on two
to five-day old pups. The procedure is
often carried out in a non-sterile
environment by people lacking veterinary
or surgical training, using scissors or a
tight rubber band that cuts off circulation
and causes the tail to die. A scientific
paper in the April AVJ (Tail docking in
dogs: a review of the issues, Aust Vet J 81
4 p208) concluded that there was no
adequate justification for cosmetic tail
docking. The ACT prohibited the
practice in November 2000.
Some politicians went to Brisbane
expecting unanimous support. One,
Victorian Minister for Agriculture Bob
Cameron, had said he was confident all
States would implement bans.
I want to see a national ban on the
practice and I am confident that my
interstate colleagues will support this
view, he was quoted as saying. I will
begin to institute Victorian legislation to
ban the practice as soon as national
agreement is reached.
In the lead-up to the meeting of State
Agriculture Ministers, Veterinary Science
Aust Vet J Vol 81, No 5, May 2003
Anne Quain (left)

and fellow
students, members
of the group
Veterinary Science
for Animal Welfare,
say No to tail
docking at VSAWs
anti-docking event
at the University of
Sydney on April 9.
WA bans tail docking

New regulations to ban the cosmetic
amputation of dogs tails came into
effect in Western Australia on April 4.
Local Government and Regional
Development Minister Tom Stephens
said the regulations prohibited the
docking of a tail unless performed by
a registered veterinarian for
therapeutic or prophylactic purposes.
He said the decision followed an
extended consultation period and took
into account the deliberations of a
working group on tail docking.
Stephens said veterinarians would be
banned from removing the whole of a
dogs tail unless it was for health
reasons or in circumstances where the

tail had been severely damaged
through injury.
I recognise that a wide range of views
exist within the community about this
issue, he said. However, there is no
valid reason to amputate dogs tails for
cosmetic purposes. The days of tail
docking for cosmetic purposes and
making grooming easier are surely
gone, particularly when it can be a
very painful process if performed
without anaesthetic.
It is also widely recognised that dogs
tails are important for canine
communication and balance.
for Animal Welfare, a student group

within the Faculty of Veterinary Science
at the University of Sydney, added its
voice to the push for a national ban. Anne
Quain, President of VSAW, said that as
future veterinarians, students were against
tail docking for cosmetic purposes
because it is cruel and unnecessary.
The fact that it is painful and can cause
medical complications is further reason to
ban the practice, she said. VSAW
organised a meeting at the University of
Sydney on April 9 that heard Associate
Professor Dr Geraldine Hunt, head of
small animal surgery at the universitys

Sydney Clinic, talk about the medical
indications for tail amputation. Nearly
100 people, including about 70 members
of VSAW wearing T-shirts against tail
docking, attended. The T-shirts, designed
by third year vet student Kelly Gilbert,
had the words Fancy a stubbie? No
thanks and a picture of a tail-waving dog
on the front, and Dog Tails Mean Happy
Endings! and Say NO to tail docking
on the back. Quain said the group sold
more than 100 of the $15 T-shirts in two
days.
237
Scientific
Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved?

PC BENNETT and E PERINI
Animal Welfare Centre, Department of Psychology, Clayton Campus, Monash University, Victoria 3800.
Email: p.bennett@med.monash.edu.au
The debate about tail docking in domestic dogs continues to

rage in many developed countries and attitudes expressed by
different community groups remain diametrically opposed.
Veterinary associations and welfare organisations typically
want the practice banned, while many breeders and pure-bred
dog associations just as vigorously oppose the introduction of
anti-docking legislation. In recent years, much data have been
accumulated concerning the welfare implications of tail docking. A recent evaluation of this literature suggests that the practice has little to recommend it and that, in the absence of reasonable case-by-case justification, it may constitute an unacceptable abuse of a sentient species. Given this situation, it is
difficult to understand why many canine interest groups, presumably representing those people who care most about the
welfare of companion dogs, should continue to hold such
strong attitudes in favour of tail docking. In this review we
attempt to explain why different community groups might
espouse strong but opposing attitudes, despite having access
to the same information. We argue that the theory of cognitive
dissonance, popular among social psychologists, may provide
a useful framework within which to understand, and attempt to
alter, attitudes that persist even though they appear contrary to
available empirical evidence.
Aust Vet J 2003;81:277-282
he issue of tail docking in domestic dogs is complex,

involving economic, aesthetic, welfare and moral considerations. It seems, however, that the practice is associated with few, if any, benefits, and that it may cause both acute
and chronic harm to at least some dogs. In a recent review1 we
argued that tail docking can only be defended when clear benefits accrue to the individual dog. Thus, it may be appropriate to
dock specific dogs expected to engage in activities as adults in
which tail damage is encountered on a frequent basis, particularly if appropriate veterinary care is unlikely to be available. It
may also be appropriate to dock individual dogs in which accumulation of faecal material may become a significant health
issue, those that are born with deformed or painfully misshapen
tails, and those for which the presence of a docked tail may
result in a significantly improved quality of life. In these cases
tail docking could potentially be justified on utilitarian grounds,
particularly if adequate anaesthesia and analgesia is provided at
the time of docking.
Impossible to justify, however, is the widespread practice of
docking all members of a given breed. Widespread tail docking
cannot be defended on the basis of arguments from tradition or
to satisfy breed standards created in another time and place,
when little was known about animal central nervous system
functioning and very little regard was paid to animal welfare
considerations. It also cannot be justified simply because some
humans prefer the docked look or find it more convenient to
own a tail-less dog. This would constitute an acceptable reason
for docking only if it was conclusively demonstrated that
absolutely no harm is ever associated with the process. On the
contrary, although the existence of pain and suffering in any animal cannot be conclusively proven scientifically for philosophical reasons, available evidence strongly suggests that docking
may be associated with both acute and chronic pain. There is no
reason to suspect that even very young pups do not experience
substantial pain when their tails are removed. Nor is it likely that
they avoid the pain experienced by other organisms as the normal physiological processes known to be associated with limb
amputation take place. That the docking process occurs just
before the critical socialisation period, and may leave at least
some puppies in pain during this period, simply makes the practice more difficult to justify, as does the fact that it may leave
some dogs with chronic physical problems and possibly unable
to communicate effectively with both conspecifics and humans.
Even if these adverse consequences have not been proven
beyond doubt to exist, the potential for harm associated with tail
docking is sufficiently great for the burden of proof to be upon
those who would dock tails, to prove that no harmful effects are
associated with the procedure. In the absence of such evidence,
we concluded that widespread tail docking should not be condoned by our community.1
Given this state of affairs one can understand moves by veterinary associations and welfare bodies to have the practice of tail
docking banned. Indeed, one might wonder why legislation
should be necessary to curtail a practice that is, at the very least,
suspected to cause pain and which also seems to lack any reasonable countering justification. Yet, paradoxically, those who
defend tail docking most strenuously include many individual
dog breeders and many pure-bred dog associations, presumably
representing those people who care most about the welfare of our
canine companions. Perhaps, as described above, there are times
when tail docking should be recommended on utilitarian
grounds and this may explain why a total ban has not, thus far,
been supported by canine advocates. To explain why many
breeders continue to routinely dock all puppies, despite having
access to the information provided by veterinarians, scientists
and welfare organisations, requires a stronger argument, however, and it may be necessary to go beyond the practice itself to
look at psychological theories concerning attitudes and the factors that make some attitudes extremely resistant to change. In
this paper we argue that the theory of cognitive dissonance, popular among social psychologists, may provide one useful framework within which to understand, and attempt to alter, attitudes
that persist even though they appear contrary to available empirical evidence.
Cognitive dissonance theory

The theory of cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential theories in social psychology.2,3 It was first proposed in 1957
by Leon Festinger,4 who noted that people often behave in ways
that are incompatible with their stated attitudes or beliefs.
Similarly, people frequently possess or endorse two or more units
of knowledge (cognitions) that seem incompatible or dissonant
(disagree) with each other. Festinger4 believed that when cogni277
Scientific
tions are dissonant with each other, or with subsequent behaviours or actions, this causes psychological discomfort, and that
people are highly motivated to avoid or reduce such discomfort
by trying to eliminate the dissonance that exists between their
cognitions and/or actions. Reduction of dissonance is an important factor in explanations of attitude and behaviour change.
Strategies to reduce dissonance, most of which occur unconsciously, typically underlie many changes in attitudes, beliefs
and behaviours. Paradoxically, however, the same processes can
lead to cognitive rigidity, whereby a person maintains existing
beliefs, despite strong evidence suggesting they are mistaken,
resulting in a profound resistance to attitude or behaviour
change.
According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, there are several ways in which dissonance can be reduced. These are typically divided into direct and indirect methods.5,6 One direct way
in which dissonance can be reduced is for the person to alter one
of the dissonant elements. This may involve behavioural change
but, because behaviour is typically highly resistant to change,
this strategy generally concerns a change in attitude or opinion.5
A second direct strategy requires that the person either reject
new cognitions that are dissonant with those already held or add
cognitions that are consonant with ones existing knowledge
base. Whereas people wishing to accurately understand new
information tend to process it impartially, those wishing to
defend a preferred position tend to show a clear bias, focusing
on information that supports their existing view and/or discredits the opposing view.7-9 A third direct strategy is to devalue or
trivialise the importance of dissonant cognitions, perhaps while
simultaneously increasing the importance of other knowledge
units.10
As an example of these strategies, Festinger4 and Steele11 have
used the health conscious smoker who wishes to give up the
habit. Many smokers simply do so, altering their behaviour in
order to reduce the dissonance between this behaviour and their
health-conscious attitudes. Those who feel unable to achieve
behavioural change may reduce dissonance by selectively looking for pro-smoking information. They may dismiss anti-smoking campaigns as political propaganda and selectively read newspaper articles describing potential benefits of smoking such as
stress relief. Alternatively, they may trivialise the smoking behaviour, convincing themselves that smoking is not so harmful as
drinking alcohol, driving too fast, eating fatty foods or failing to
exercise.
Indirect strategies to reduce dissonance typically involve
either misattributing the uncomfortable psychological state to
something else3,5 or using various tactics to bolster self esteem and
self worth, which are not directly related to reduction of existing dissonance.6,12 Thus, the smoker may misattribute the discomfort felt while smoking to worry about time lost from other activities. Alternatively, they may be a good community citizen, a
model parent and a dutiful employee, so that their inability to
quit the smoking habit becomes less central to their self concept.11
The method selected to reduce dissonance, and the result of
any strategies employed, depends on the degree to which any of
the particular cognitions, attitudes or behaviours contributing
to the dissonance are resistant to change. This, in turn, depends
on several factors. One of these is the number of cognitions
and/or attitudes with which the given cognition is incompatible.
Hence, the same new dissonant knowledge element typically
causes far more discomfort in a person with many opposing
278
knowledge elements and behaviours than in a person with few

opposing knowledge elements and behaviours. Consider the
teenager who smokes in the absence of any real evidence that it
is damaging their health and the doctor who smokes despite
being familiar with relevant health statistics and with people
whose lives have been devastated by lung cancer. The teenager,
according to Festingers4 theory, is likely to experience only mild
smoking-related cognitive dissonance and, therefore, is poorly
motivated to alter their behaviour or beliefs. In contrast, the
doctor is likely to experience intense psychological discomfort
and should be highly motivated to reduce the dissonance caused
by their smoking habit.
Another factor that determines the level of dissonance caused
by a given knowledge unit and the strategies used to reduce this
dissonance concerns the relative importance of the cognitions to
the individual.11 Inconsistencies involving cognitions central to
valued goals, or to the persons self concept, arouse particularly
high levels of dissonance. Moreover, since cognitions central to
the persons self concept are highly resistant to change, inconsistencies in this area are more likely to lead to the use of alternative strategies to reduce dissonance, such as distortion of conflicting information or trivialisation.10 Additional relevant factors concern situations in which the individual feels personally
responsible for behaviour that is counter-attitudinal or hypocritical,3 when they publicly advocate one view but inadvertently practise another,6,8 or when they freely behave in a way
that has foreseeable aversive consequences for others.3,10 Under
these conditions dissonance is increased and the motivation to
reduce it strengthened. Thus, the smoker who is extremely
health conscious suffers more dissonance than one for whom
health is a lower ranked value; the one who provides anti-smoking material to students suffers more than the one who works
for a tobacco company; the one who chooses freely to smoke
suffers more dissonance than the one who is encouraged to
smoke by friends and family; and the one who knows smoking
may have negative consequences for a co-habiting young child
suffers more than the one who lives alone.
Dissonance is also likely to be substantial if a person engages
in an unpleasant activity in order to obtain a desired outcome,
since performing the behaviour is dissonant with its being
unpleasant. To reduce this dissonance the person tends to later
exaggerate the desirability of the outcome. This might occur, for
example, when a person undergoes an unpleasant initiation
process in order to join an exclusive group. This person, as
described in Harmon-Jones and Mills,2 tends later to rate the
group as more important and more enjoyable than a person who
did not have to undergo such an unpleasant initiation process.
A similar phenomenon, the induced-compliance effect, occurs
when somebody does or says something which is at odds with a
prior belief or attitude, perhaps because of promised rewards or
punishments.13 When there is no choice about engaging in a
counter-attitudinal behaviour, little dissonance is aroused.
When a person lacks sufficient external justification for engaging
in a counter-attitudinal behaviour, however, a great deal of cognitive dissonance results, leading to high motivation to reduce this
dissonance via the strategies described previously.14
A consequence of cognitive dissonance, which is important in
the present context, is that, when decisions are made difficult by
the presence of many conflicting consonant and dissonant
knowledge units, the person, once the decision is made, is
highly motivated to reduce the resulting psychological discomfort. Such people tend to engage in a process called spreading
Scientific
the alternatives.2 This means that they modify their existing
knowledge units so that the option they selected becomes more
desirable than it was initially, while the non-selected alternative
becomes less desirable. They can, therefore, feel confident in the
decision made, with over-confidence being a common consequence of this process.15 A person deciding whether or not to
take up smoking may initially consider that there are valid reasons both for and against. Once the difficult decision is made,
however, they are more likely to emphasise the benefits of the
chosen course of action, while simultaneously focusing on the
likely costs associated with the rejected alternative. They are also
likely to feel very confident in their view, whereas previously
they were both undecided and uncertain.
Cognitive dissonance theory applied to tail docking

Festingers4 theory provides a useful framework within which
to examine the attitudes of various community groups towards
tail docking in domestic dogs. On the one hand are the veterinarians and veterinary associations, whose attitudes towards
docking appear to have changed quite markedly in recent years
even though some veterinarians still earn part of their livelihood
by performing tail docking procedures. One reason for the
widespread anti-docking attitude may be that the recently accumulated anti-docking information is consonant with the existing knowledge structures possessed by veterinarians.
Veterinarians are, almost by definition, concerned primarily
with the health and welfare of animals, rather than with their
appearance. They are strong public advocates for animal welfare
issues, have a good knowledge of physiology and anatomy, a reasonable knowledge of accepted indices of animal pain, no real
vested interest in maintaining breed standards or breed type
and an established respect for knowledge provided by scientists
and other veterinary practitioners. They are also generally comfortable with the fact that medical knowledge is constantly
changing, and that many practices used widely in the past are no
longer considered best-practice or even acceptable today.
Finally, veterinarians performed docking operations in the past
because they are paid to do so and, therefore, had external justification for their actions. All of these factors mean that their self
concept is unlikely to be threatened by new anti-docking information and that they are unlikely to challenge the scientific
sources of anti-docking information. Because the new information is consonant with many pre-existing knowledge structures,
it causes little, if any, cognitive dissonance.
The average veterinarian, then, probably experiences little
psychological distress on being presented with information that
tail docking may cause pain and suffering for the animals
involved. Those who were previously uncomfortable with performing surgery for cosmetic reasons, but who felt that they had
no real choice as it was part of their job, may actually feel
relieved because they do now have a reasonable justification for
not docking. Others may feel some discomfort about the fact
that they have docked many puppies in the past, but many veterinarians easily resolve this dissonance by choosing not to dock
in the future. Bringing current behaviour in line with accepted
knowledge and advocated standards is acknowledged as being
the most direct and effective way for a person to maintain their
personal integrity in the face of new information that renders
previous behaviours regrettable, particularly when public advocacy ensures that the imbalance between previous behaviours
and current beliefs is made public.6
Potential difficulties arise primarily for those veterinarians

who resist behavioural change and who must, therefore, find a
way to reduce the dissonance caused by conflict between antidocking knowledge structures and pro-docking behaviour. Like
the cigarette-smoking doctor described above, this dissonance
has the potential to be considerable, although it may be effectively ameliorated by the fact that veterinarians can cite several
good reasons for continuing to dock. Some may argue that they
have no choice but to dock puppies, primarily to prevent home
docking operations that may be less adequately conducted, or
perhaps to ensure the quality of life of a dog that may be discriminated against on the basis of being undocked, or even to
retain valued customers who demand tail docking, thereby protecting the financial interests of their employees. Such veterinarians, engaging in a practice that is unpleasant in order to
obtain a desired outcome, but doing so with reasonable external
justification, are perhaps likely to exaggerate the desirability of
the outcome relative to its alternatives, thus adding cognitions
consonant with their behaviour. They may also choose to focus
on the many positive benefits they bring to dogs (an indirect
strategy for reducing dissonance) and may minimise the extent
or duration of putative docking-associated pain (trivialisation).
Any of these effort-justification alternatives will effectively
reduce the dissonance caused between anti-docking attitudes
and pro-docking behaviour, so that some individual veterinarians can continue to dock tails without experiencing extreme
psychological discomfort, even while most veterinarians might
choose to act otherwise.
On the other side of the equation are the breeders and canine
organisations, whose attitudes appear to have altered little in
recent years, despite their having access to the same information
responsible for altering the attitudes and behaviours of veterinarians. It seems reasonably safe to assume that most dog breeders develop a strong emotional attachment to their dogs. While
there are probably some who engage in dog breeding for commercial reasons or to satisfy other personal goals, breeding and
caring for dogs is a challenging hobby, which consumes
resources and time. Breeders, therefore, are generally people
with a strong commitment to the canine community, to their
particular breed, and to their individual dogs. Because of this,
they typically spend time gaining information about their animals, act as public advocates for canine health and welfare
issues, and are often considered to have expert knowledge about
relevant topics such as diet, exercise, genetics, health and canine
behaviour. This implies that breeders know the facts about tail
docking and that they will have carefully weighed up all relevant
information before engaging in the process. Indeed, whereas
docking may barely rate a mention among the tough moral
issues faced by other members of the community, anyone who
breeds docked dogs will have at least thought about the issue
and those who care most about their dogs are likely to have
thought about it at some length. How then, can the pro-docking attitudes of these groups be explained?
Consider the experienced breeder who has been having their
dogs docked for many years. This person probably initially
thought about the docking process, but did so in the absence of
any convincing scientific evidence to indicate that docking was
a problematic issue. They also requested that their initial litter
be docked in the absence of strong community concern about
animal welfare, in the absence of any overt concern by veterinarians about the process, and in the presence of written standards and authoritative canine control councils stressing that
279
Scientific
docking is appropriate in those breeds that were traditionally
docked. They may never have observed the immediate reaction
of pups to docking or may have misattributed any psychological
discomfort felt during this procedure to some other variable.
They may also have never heard of the word neuroma and the
chronic pain often associated with amputated limbs and may
have watched many docked dogs live apparently normal lives,
perhaps excelling in sports such as agility or obedience. They
may be genuinely concerned about canine welfare issues, and
probably have many close friends who dock dogs and who are,
nonetheless, caring, intelligent, well-informed members of the
canine-loving community.
For people such as this, emerging scientific evidence against
docking, and the changing attitudes expressed by veterinarians
and welfare organisations, are clearly dissonant with many existing beliefs. Moreover, the situation fulfils many of the criteria
that are known to increase the dissonance experienced when
some attitudes and behaviours are mismatched with others.
First, the new information is dissonant with many existing attitudes and behaviours, rather than with just a few. Second, the
cognitions in question are central to the persons values and selfconcept. Third, unlike the veterinarians, the individual breeder
is personally responsible for choosing to engage in the pro-docking behaviour, which evidence would now suggest is hypocritical with respect to their stated values. Fourth, they may well
have publicly advocated those values. Fifth, it is being claimed
by respected veterinary experts that this behaviour may have
foreseeable adverse consequences for those animals with which
they identify so closely. Sixth, since few breeders claim that tail
docking is pleasant, most are engaging in an unpleasant activity
in order to obtain a desired outcome. Finally, the financial
rewards for docking (and dog breeding in general) are minimal.
This means that most breeders have chosen to dock willingly,
without the comfort experienced by veterinarians who can use
high levels of external motivation to justify their counter-attitudinal behaviour.
Given this state of affairs, it seems inevitable that extremely
high levels of cognitive dissonance will be experienced by established breeders who care deeply about the welfare of their dogs
but who are exposed to new anti-docking information. High
levels of dissonance, in turn, lead to high levels of psychological
discomfort and strong motivation to reduce this discomfort.
Attempts to reduce the discomfort may take many forms. Some
breeders might simply change their attitudes about tail docking
and cease to dock their dogs. This may be particularly difficult,
however, since it requires not only accepting the new scientific
evidence against docking, but also accepting that ones previous
decision to engage in docking practices was inappropriate, that
the canine association and standards that one has supported in
the past are at odds with at least some aspects of canine welfare,
and that one may have inadvertently, but willingly and freely,
subjected many of ones much-loved canine companions to
chronic pain or discomfort. Because of this level of difficulty,
those breeders who do cease to dock their dogs are likely to
engage in spreading of alternatives, and may become particularly anti-docking in their approach. Cooper and Fazio3 describe
several examples of people in other contexts who cope with having engaged in behaviours that contravene core values by reevaluating their behaviour or attitudes. Once these people
accept responsibility for having previously engaged in an act that
they later feel is undesirable or hypocritical, they often attempt
to make amends by becoming overzealous in promoting alternative behaviours.
280
An easier course of action, from a psychological perspective, is

for the breeder to retain their view of the self and the external
world, choosing instead to reduce dissonance using other direct
and indirect methods. Hence, they may directly reject the new
information as inconclusive, taking advantage of the fact that it
is impossible to prove the existence of pain in members of
another species. They may also discredit the source of the information, focus on and exaggerate evidence suggesting that tail
docking may have some positive effects, argue that docking is
necessary because of external forces, such as market demand or
to satisfy breed standards and do well in the show ring, and
downplay or trivialise the significance of tail docking relative to
other health and welfare issues. Breeders may also reduce dissonance indirectly by engaging in other canine activities that bolster their self concept as a caring, loving, canine representative.
The spreading of alternatives effect potentially means that
docking is perceived much more positively than it was when the
decision to dock was initially made, that the pro-docking
breeder becomes over-confident in evaluating their knowledge
base, and that those who do choose not to dock are likely to be
ostracised, discredited and maligned.
Consider, also, members of the public who are considering
purchasing a dog. Few people have probably given tail docking
any serious thought and those who purchased docked dogs in
the past most probably assumed that the experts knew what
they were doing. Now the experts appear divided, with veterinarians and welfare organisations publicly providing anti-docking literature, but breeders and canine associations insisting that
tail docking is appropriate and desirable. One might presume
that new owners would initially approach the issue of tail docking with an open mind, objectively seeking out accurate information from a range of sources. Those with a scientific or welfare background are perhaps most likely to accept the advice of
veterinarians and welfare organisations, and may put pressure on
breeders to produce dogs with tails. Those sceptical of such
sources, or with a strong desire to compete in canine sports
where non-docked dogs might face discrimination, may be more
inclined to reject the scientific information and accept the
advice offered by breed organisations. Still others may avoid
thinking about the issue by selecting a breed that is not customarily docked. Given the increased objectivity of new owners, however, and given that the weight of evidence appears firmly on the
side of the anti-docking view, more and more new owners might
be expected to insist on obtaining undocked dogs.
Finally, consider those who are new to breeding and who
potentially face many conflicting knowledge units when deciding whether or not to dock their puppies for the first time.
These people are exposed to polemic alternatives, which make
objectivity difficult. Those with cross-bred dogs are perhaps
most likely to consult a veterinarian for advice, with the result
that fewer and fewer cross-bred dogs are likely to be docked.
New breeders of pure-bred dogs, however, are typically already
part of a culture that strongly promotes docking, and they are
likely to be influenced by established breeders and breed clubs,
who assume mentorship roles. Regardless of the decision made
by the new breeder, they immediately become susceptible to the
processes to reduce cognitive dissonance that are associated with
the spreading of alternatives effect. Those who choose to dock
are likely to become more and more pro-docking, while those
who elect not to dock may exaggerate the problems associated
with tail docking and exaggerate the importance of tails for
communication, balance and aesthetics.
Scientific
What can be done to change existing attitudes?

If it is assumed on the basis of our previous review1 that widespread docking cannot be ethically justified, then it is important
to consider how the attitudes of those who continue to dock can
be altered. In Australia, the introduction of proposed national
legislation banning tail docking would resolve many of the
issues, although it cannot be expected to alter the pro-docking
attitudes of established breeders, whose knowledge structures
and self concepts are such that they firmly believe docking to be in
the best interests of their dogs. Such individuals may cease
breeding or change breeds, selectively breed naturally bob-tailed
dogs, lobby the government to rescind the legislation, or find
health-related reasons to have their dogs docked. State-specific
legislation is more problematic. It is likely to remove any justification for veterinarians who feel a responsibility to continue
docking in spite of having anti-docking attitudes and it may
induce compliance in those who believe docking is appropriate
but who also believe themselves to be law abiding, responsible
citizens. The motives of the government are likely to be challenged
and discredited, however, and many dogs will simply cross the
necessary borders in order to be docked, or may be docked illegally by individual breeders, since enforcement of the legislation
will be difficult without accompanying attitude change.
The introduction of legislation in Australia does little to
address the issue of attitude change, both in Australia and in
other countries where docking is legally permitted. In order to
create change in the absence of legislation, those who wish to
halt the unnecessary docking of companion dogs may need to
employ methods designed to promote attitude change. Indeed,
one of the advantages of analysing the tail docking issue from
the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory is that it provides
several means by which even the most entrenched community
attitudes and behaviours might be altered. Fewer people now
drink and drive, many resist the temptation to sunbake or
smoke, compliance with seatbelt laws is high and most responsible community citizens register and de-sex their companion
animals. Might it also be possible to alter community attitudes
towards tail docking?
The answer to this question is yes, although it should be
acknowledged that breeders of docked dogs and pure-bred dog
associations will remain highly resistant to change for the reasons described above. A more receptive audience is likely to be
provided by the general public and by those who are new to
breeding, especially those who possess little information about
tail docking. These people are unlikely to have previously
engaged in the procedure and should, therefore, be more able to
objectively process the information from both sides of the
debate. These people should experience less dissonance when
provided with anti-docking information, particularly if it comes
from reputable sources such as veterinarians, welfare associations
and converted dog breeders. The public do not directly make
decisions concerning tail docking and most reputable breeders
would deny breeding for profit rather than to improve the quality of the breed. It remains true, however, that breeders must find
homes for the dogs they produce. If the public demands
undocked dogs, therefore, breeders may be forced to modify
their behaviours, even if their attitudes initially remain in favour
of docking. Since anti-docking behaviour and pro-docking attitudes will result in dissonance, those breeders who currently justify their decision to dock by arguing that it is a process
demanded by new owners (the external motivation method of
reducing dissonance) may eventually alter their attitudes accord-
ingly, especially if peers and professional bodies are likewise adopting more tolerant attitudes towards those who do not dock.
Changing the attitudes of those with strong pro-docking
knowledge structures and behaviours will be difficult, but such
changes are achievable. An excellent example of such a profound
shift is provided by Bernard Rollin16 in his discussion of
American cowboy attitudes towards rodeo (see also the discussion of attitude change in Wood).8 In the 1970s, rodeo became
a target for animal welfare groups, who developed a petition
calling for the sport to be abolished, due to the pain and fear
believed to be experienced by the animals involved. This engendered a siege-like mentality among cowboys involved in rodeo,
resentful at being told what to do by urban politicians who, they
felt, had no real knowledge of the sport. Over several years,
Rollin worked with members of the Western cattle culture.
Rather than accusing these people of being cruel or engaging in
morally unacceptable behaviours, Rollin began by drawing a
clear distinction between the cowboys and modern agriculturalists who use technology to exploit animals and who care most
about profit and productivity. The difference, Rollin argued,
was that the cowboy has a relationship with animals based on
old-fashioned husbandry and care. Ranchers are typically not
cruel people who do not care about animals, but people whose
livelihood has, for many decades, depended on their understanding and responding to animal needs. From their own ethical perspective, then, some aspects of rodeo were clearly problematic. Once this was accepted, the cowboys themselves facilitated the process of change in order to reduce the cognitive dissonance created.
The tactic used by Rollin was also employed by the president
of the USA 1963-69, Lyndon Johnson. Johnson realised that
ethics cannot be taught by providing a list of rules and that, in
trying to force any person to alter their belief structure, one only
creates resistance. Instead, ethical disagreements are best
resolved by using the persons own ethics to extract the desired
conclusion, primarily by making individuals relevant beliefs
salient, and by encouraging them to realise that their actions are
not consonant with these beliefs. Whereas Prohibition was
forced on people and failed because it was actively resisted,
Lyndon Johnson realised that most Americans already accepted
two premises, the first being that All humans should be treated
equally, and the second being that All Blacks are human. By
elucidating these core beliefs, and then emphasising that they
were dissonant with the way Blacks were treated, he was able to
convince people to change both their attitudes and behaviour in
ways that could never have been attained through the use of
force (discussed in Rollin).16
This same approach might prove effective in relation to tail
docking. Attitude change will not be promoted by castigating
breeders for engaging in the practice. Instead, breeders and
breed societies should be encouraged to re-examine tail docking
in light of their own belief structures and codes of practice. Few
breeders would argue that the welfare of their dogs is unimportant. Few would engage in a practice that they believed caused
significant pain (82% believe that puppies experience no or only
mild pain during docking)17 or had any adverse effects on the
dogs they cherish. Few would agree that a written standard or
market forces could compel them to cause any harm to their
dogs. The point is that breeders and breed societies do not have
these beliefs, because of the processes described previously for
reduction of cognitive dissonance. Indeed, they cannot have
these beliefs, because doing so would mean that they engage in
281
Scientific
psychologically hypocritical behaviour each time a tail is docked,
and the distress created would border on being unbearable.
Perhaps breeders who argue that docking is painless should be
encouraged by veterinarians to hold their puppies while they
undergo the procedure and to discuss how one might identify
pain in a newborn pup. Those who feel that the pain experienced by puppies is justified by potential benefits should be
encouraged to read literature relevant to the issue with an open
mind, and to participate in research aiming to identify such
benefits. Clubs and breeders should be encouraged to publicly
advocate their views on animal welfare, so as to ensure these are
salient when future decisions are made, and they should be
encouraged to explore how breed standards and codes of ethics
related to breeding practices might be reinterpreted in light of
new evidence about the potential impact of tail docking. It has
previously been argued that one of the best ways to decrease
overconfidence is to decrease the threat inherent in admitting
ignorance.15 The goal, then, is to encourage breeders to admit
that the evidence on both sides of the debate has remained
inconclusive until recently, but that newer evidence provides
strong grounds for re-evaluating existing attitudes and behaviours. Care must be taken to preserve the self concept of people
who have a strong emotional attachment to their dogs and a
strong commitment to the welfare of these same animals. By
acknowledging that these people have always made decisions
with the best interests of their animals in mind, and that animal
welfare has always been of central concern to most dog breeders,
the hypocrisy of tail docking in light of currently available information becomes immediately apparent. In this environment
such knowledge is less threatening, and so the possibility of attitude and behaviour change is enhanced.
Conclusion
Knowledge about canine nervous system development and
the chronic effects of limb amputation in other species, including humans, provides a prima facie case against carrying out tail
docking in dogs except in special, medically indicated, cases.1
Indeed, it is difficult to believe that tail docking would even be
considered by the community, by veterinarians, by welfare
organisations or by dog breeders and owners, were it not already
an established practice. Yet some of those who have engaged in
and/or sanctioned docking for many years are likely, for psychological reasons, to remain vigorously opposed to any change in
current practices. A seeming necessity for national legislation to
curb tail docking is unfortunate, reflecting our history as a soci-
282
ety in which animals were conceptualised as objects, able to be

manipulated and surgically altered, without anaesthetic, to suit
relatively trivial human goals. A more acceptable solution is to
promote attitude change among the public and especially
among those who choose to dock dogs. This can best be
achieved by first acknowledging that such people are not cruel
or uncaring, but have always acted according to what they genuinely believe to be the best interests of their animals. In possession of evidence to the contrary, but with their self concept
intact, such people are well placed to alter community attitudes
towards docking, and to take a leadership role in altering the
way in which our society perceives animals in general.
References
1. Bennett PC, Perini E. Tail docking: a review of the issues. Aust Vet J
2003;81:208-218.
2. Harmon-Jones E, Mills J. An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and
an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In: Harmon-Jones E, Mills J,
editors. Cognitive dissonance: progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology.
Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association, 1999: 3-21.
3. Cooper J, Fazio RH. A new look at cognitive dissonance theory. Adv Exp Soc
Psychol 1984; 17:229-266.
4. Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Illinois: Row Peterson, 1957.
5. Petty RE, Wegner DT. Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. The handbook of social
psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998: 323-390.
6. Stone J, Wiegand AW, Cooper J, Aronson E. When exemplification fails:
Hypocrisy and the motive for self-integrity. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997; 72:54-65.
7. Lundgren SR, Prislin R. Motivated cognitive processing and attitude change.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1998; 24:715-726.
8. Wood W. Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Ann Rev Psychol
2000; 51:539-570.
9. Frey D. Recent research on selective exposure to information. Adv Exp Soc
Psychol 1986; 19:41-80.
10. Simon L, Greenberg J, Brehm J. Trivialization: the forgotten mode of dissonance reduction. J Pers Soc Psychol 1995; 68:247-260.
11. Steele CM. The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the
self. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1988; 21:261-302.
12. Blanton H, Cooper J, Skurnik I, Aronson E. When bad things happen to
good feedback: Exacerbating the need for self-justification with self-affirmations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1997; 23:684-692.
13. Harmon-Jones E, Brehm JW, Greenberg J, Simon L, Nelson DE. Evidence
that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996; 70(1):5-16.
14. Stalder DR, Baron RS. Attributional complexity as a moderator of dissonance-produced attitude change. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998; 75:449-455.
15. Blanton H, Pelham BW, DeHart T, Carvallo M. Overconfidence as dissonance reduction. J Exp Soc Psychol 2001; 37:373-385.
16. Rollin BE. Rodeo and recollection-applied ethics and western philosophy. J
Phil Sport 1996; 23:1-9.
17. Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK. Tail docking in dogs: a sample of attitudes of veterinarians and dog breeders in Queensland. Aust Vet J 1996;
73:86-88.
(Accepted for publication 23 September 2002)
News
Tails we win! AVA posts significant

victories on docking issue
ongratulations
to
Bruce
Cartmill and Sam MacMahon,
Presidents of the NSW and NT
Divisions respectively, for their
activities in driving the ban on tail
docking into those two States.
NT has confirmed the ban and NSW is
expected to make an announcement.
This means that all States will ban tail
docking. Work is now underway to
strengthen legislation by removing a
loophole allowing some breeders to
continue these outdated practices.
AVA is leading the consumer trend:
there are now two advertisements on
national TV showing undocked dogs
a Visla and an English Springer Spaniel.
It is when these undocked dogs are
accepted as normal by advertisers that
consumer sentiment really begins to
turn. If you have any photos of whole
dogs, put them up in the waiting room
and draw attention to what your
professional association has achieved.
Doggie demographics dip

Dr Chris Baldock has presented
research on dog ownership to the AVA
Board and others that shows dog
ownership has plateaued and may drop
in the next few years. Similar research in
the mid-1990s on cats was somewhat
ambivalently received by the profession
but has been confirmed by further
surveys. Chris estimates that the
reduction in cat ownership alone has
resulted in up to 350 fewer
veterinarians needed in Australia to
service the cat population.
It is likely that Chris will tour parts of
Australia to deliver the presentation
personally to AVA Divisions and we will
try to present it in other forums as well.
Keep your eyes open for local meeting
dates.
The case of the single-issue

member
In 2002-03, AVA undertook consumer
research with members, ex-members
and non-members to examine their
446
viewpoint
AVA President Jo Sillince
attitudes to AVA. All the groups

provided similar feedback AVA is well
respected, is the voice of the profession,
and known and respected by
governments.
The research highlighted the key
benefits of membership the Journal,
the Branch network (which underlines
the collegiate nature of AVA), the
Conference, the lobbying activities on
members behalf, the focus on higher
things such as codes of ethics, the
Complaints and Ethics committees,
and so on.
So what does it mean to be a non
member? Non-members choose to
render themselves powerless within the
profession and with government. Nonmembers condone the procedures,
policies and practices of AVA because a
non-member has no chance to change it
and little chance to be heard in public.
On the other hand, a member of AVA
has a chance to be heard and to lobby
from within. The power of the AVA
democracy means that each member
has the chance to be heard in at least
four forums the Journal, the Policy
Council, the Special Interest Groups
and the Divisions as well as to
communicate directly with Board
members and the President. There is no
such chance to influence colleagues
from the outside.
Animal welfare gone mad?
I was privileged to be invited to speak

on poultry welfare issues at the
Commonwealth Veterinary Conference
recently. What an eye-opener. Part of
the UK group spoke about the welfare
aspects of allowing cattle to be out in
the rain and welfare aspects of friction
rubbing of udders during walks to the
dairy parlour. The EU is talking about
completely offloading cattle from
trucks and grazing overnight for any
trip longer than 8 hours. (Interestingly
there was no comment about the stress
of unloading, reloading and mixing
social groups.) The UK farm welfare
group has declared that religious
killing should be banned unless
stunning is carried out, which has
caused a huge storm of protest in
Europe the same Europe that
supports restrictions on transport.
The UK group then declared, it was
time that these sensible EU/UK
requirements were incorporated into
the global agenda. The EU seeks to
impose its version of animal welfare
into the latest WTO trade negotiations,
which would have ramifications for
Australian trade.
Feeling slightly affronted? At present we
can largely only examine animal welfare
in the light of our own culture, religious
beliefs and ideological norms. The
traditional Christian/Anglo Saxonbased ideals of respect for sentient
beings, but allowing use of most species
for food and so on, may manifest rather
differently in other cultures.
Are we at liberty to criticise animal
practices in other countries when we are
subject to criticism? Should we seek to
develop an outcomes-based worldwide
welfare code that tries to recognise
different cultural norms and practices?
As we sometimes feel free to criticise
those cultures that do not conform to
our ideals of animal welfare, it is
becoming increasingly apparent that
even with so-called developed
countries there are emerging differences
in concepts of animal welfare that mean
this is a re-emerging issue of
significance. Stay tuned.
Aust Vet J Vol 81, No 8, August 2003
Scientific
Australian
VETERINARY
JOURNAL
SCIENTIFIC SECTION
EDITOR
COLIN WILKS
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
KEITH HUGHES
Tail docking in dogs: a review of the

issues
PC BENNETT and E PERINI
Animal Welfare Centre, Department of Psychology, Clayton Campus, Monash
University, Victoria 3800. Email: p.bennett@med.monash.edu.au
Different groups in our community hold strong views about tail docking in domestic
dogs. These range from veterinary associations and welfare organisations, which
typically want the practice banned, to purebred dog associations, which vigorously
oppose the introduction of antidocking legislation. An evaluation of the tail docking
issue, which is informed and nonemotive, requires the integration of moral views
with biological and behavioural facts. In recent years, much data have been accumulated concerning the welfare implications of tail docking. Unfortunately, however,
there has been limited transfer of this knowledge to people interested in the issue. In
this review some of the main arguments for and against canine tail docking are
presented and evaluated.
Aust Vet J 2003;81:208-218
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
NORMAN ANDERSON, GLENN BROWNING,
COLIN CHAPMAN, ROBIN CONDRON,
TREVOR FARAGHER, STEVEN HOLLOWAY,
KEITH HUGHES, TONY LEPPER,
JOCK MCLEAN, CARL PETERSON,
ANDREW TURNER, COLIN WILKS
Brunswick, Victoria 3056.
Telephone: (03) 9387 2982, 9387 8808.
What is tail docking?
JOURNAL ABSTRACTS
ALAN LAWTHER
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT AND

DESKTOP PUBLISHING
ANNA GALLO
The Australian Veterinary Journal welcomes

original contributions on all aspects of
veterinary science.
Submission of a manuscript for publication

will be held to imply that it is a record of
unpublished original work of the author(s)
and, if accepted will not be published elsewhere in whole or part without permission.
The Journal reserves the right to reject any
manuscript.
Send contributions to the Scientific Section
of the AVJ to:
Editor,
AVA House, 272 Brunswick Road,
International -61 3 9387 8808

Telefax: (03) 9388 0112,
International +61 3 9388 0112.
Email: avjsc@ava.com.au.
Instructions for authors and Statistical

guidelines for authors were published in
the January/February 2003 issue. Both
are available on http://www.ava.com.au
208
he subject of tail docking in domestic dogs has been reviewed previously1,2 but
remains controversial in many countries. It has traditionally been a widespread
practice, with approximately one third of all recognised pure dog breeds historically being docked. Tail docking has been banned in several European countries,
however, and is limited in others. In the UK, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
describes tail docking, unless medically indicated, as unacceptable. Paradoxically,
docking is only permitted in the UK if it is performed by a veterinary surgeon.2 Since
this means that a refusal to dock by this profession might virtually eliminate the practice, the fact that the College has never taken action against any veterinarian for
conducting the unacceptable procedure is perhaps indicative of continued ambivalence about tail docking. Accordingly, docking is legal and very common in many
other developed countries, such as the USA.
While docking is legal in most areas of Australia, some veterinarians refuse to
perform the procedure.3 Others report doing so only because they fear that inexperienced breeders will otherwise take matters into their own hands. The Australian
National Kennel Council (ANKC), in their Code of Practice for the Tail Docking of
Dogs, specifies that docking should only be carried out in respect of those breeds with a
known history or propensity to injury and/or damage in their tails in the course of their
normal activities for therapeutic and/or prophylactic purposes .4 As with other organisations, however, the ANKC has, thus far, failed to act against breeders who dock breeds
for which no scientific evidence of a propensity for tail damage exists. Clearly, then,
the issue of tail docking remains controversial. It is undoubtedly complex, involving
economic, aesthetic, welfare and moral considerations. In addition, there is a perceived
lack of scientific evidence directly relevant to the issue, which means that decisions are
made at least partially on the basis of inference and speculation. This paper reviews the
main arguments for and against tail docking in dogs, in order to facilitate a more
informed debate about the issue than is presently possible.
Tail docking refers to the amputation of part or all of an animals tail. It can be
accomplished by application of a tight rubber ring around the tail. This serves to
occlude blood vessels supplying those tissues distal to the ring, resulting in ischaemia,
necrosis and, eventually, loss of the tail. This banding method is commonly used in
agricultural species, such as lambs and dairy cows, and, in one Australian survey, was
reported to be used by 16% of dog breeders who perform their own docking procedures.3 In dogs, however, tail docking is more commonly performed via a surgical
procedure. According to the ANKC, docking may be conducted either by a veterinary
surgeon, by an experienced breeder, or by some other person in the presence of, or
with the assistance of, an experienced breeder. An experienced breeder is defined as
anyone who has been involved with a docked breed for a period of at least 5 years and
Aust Vet J Vol 81, No 4, April 2003
Scientific
who, within that time, has bred at least three litters of which
he/she has personally (under instruction) docked the tails of
these litters.4 This implies that tail docking may often be
conducted by breeders rather than by veterinarians, but we
could find no information detailing the proportion of docking
operations carried out by the different groups. Docking generally takes place between 3 and 5 days after birth. More often
than not, the puppies are given no anaesthesia or analgesia but
are simply restrained manually. The hair around the site of
amputation may be clipped. Part or all of the tail is then
removed using sharp scissors or a blade. One or more sutures
may be applied if necessary. Docking is not without risk and
anecdotal reports of puppies dying from shock or blood loss
abound. No published studies could be found, however, which
document rates of docking-related complications or deaths
either in veterinary surgeries or in the community.
Surgical amputation is sometimes considered to result in less
acute and chronic pain than banding, although this has been
tested only in lambs and available results (discussed later) are
equivocal.5-7 Also, since lambs are born in a more developed
state than are puppies, and are often docked at an older age, the
applicability of these studies to dogs is not known. When
docking very young puppies, anaesthesia has not been recommended until recently because the risk of convulsions, respiratory failure or cardiac difficulties was considered to be unacceptably high. Advances in veterinary medicine now mean that such
risks are reduced, but only 10% of veterinarians in an Australian
survey reported using anaesthesia when docking tails.3
Anaesthetic agents are generally unavailable to breeders who
dock their own puppies.
Arguments against tail docking in domestic dogs.
Since it is not customary in our society to remove limbs or

appendages from animals arbitrarily, it may be expected that tail
docking served some important function in the past. Indeed, if
tail docking was associated with established benefits in the past,
it might be assumed that those currently calling for a ban on the
procedure have a burden of proof to justify why a change to
existing practices is necessary. It is argued later in this paper that
there are no established benefits associated with tail docking in
dogs and that, for several reasons, the burden of proof actually
lies with those who support the procedure to demonstrate
unequivocally that it causes no detriment to the animal. First,
however, it is worthwhile considering the arguments most
commonly used to justify calls for a ban on tail docking.
Acute pain associated with tail docking
Many people who oppose tail docking do so on the grounds
that the docking process is likely to cause acute pain. In
contrast, those who support tail docking typically argue that
little, if any, pain is likely to be experienced due to the immature nervous system found in very young canines. Interestingly,
a survey conducted in Australia in 1996 found that 76% of
veterinarians surveyed believed that tail docking causes significant to severe pain, with none believing that no pain is experienced. In contrast, 82% of dog breeders believed that docked
puppies experience no, or only mild, pain, with only 18%
believing that docking causes significant pain.3 This difference
of opinion is interesting and is discussed further elsewhere. 8
More pertinent in the present context is the issue of whether
science is able to resolve the question of whether very young
puppies are capable of experiencing pain. A second issue
concerns whether or not the magnitude of this pain, if it exists,

can be assessed.
Can puppies feel pain? Pain is an inherently subjective
phenomenon that cannot be identified or quantified using
available technologies. It must, therefore, be inferred on the
basis of indirect measures. This is not an issue unique to the tail
docking problem but one that has plagued scientists and
philosophers for many years. We simply do not know when
another organism, including another human, is feeling pain,
but must infer this on the basis of their behaviour, their physiological responses, or their ability to verbally tell us that something hurts. Pain in humans, for example, may be measured by
asking the person Do you feel pain? Where? How bad is the
pain on a scale of 1-10?. The effectiveness of such measures
depends, of course, on the truthfulness of the person in question. For example, a child claiming to be in severe pain is more
likely to be believed if they are lying prone in a hospital bed
following major surgery, than if they have just been told by the
physical education teacher that a 3 km hike is to be undertaken.
Even verbal measures of pain, then, considered to be among the
most persuasive of all measures, are of limited veracity. A
congruence between reporting pain and actually feeling pain
can never be absolutely guaranteed.9
The problem of inferring pain is even greater in nonverbal
populations.10,11 In fact, in order to reduce our present reliance
on verbal responses so that nonverbal organisms are adequately
included, there have been calls for a change in the definition of
pain.9 Behavioural indices of pain, such as a reluctance to come
in contact with a potentially painful stimulus and distress vocalisations, are often employed, as are physiological indicators,
such as a raised concentration of plasma cortisol or corticosterone, depending on the species, and increased heart rate.
Webster,12 in his discussion of animal welfare science, argues
that in order to adequately understand the nature of pain in
animals it is necessary to consider three areas of research, physiology, behaviour and neurobiology, and that none of these are
sufficient in isolation. As an example, Webster12 discusses the
fact that ruminant species, such as sheep and cattle, that are
known to have thresholds to pain similar to those demonstrated
by humans,13,14 can sustain foot and leg injuries, that would
reduce a human to immobility, without displaying abnormal
behaviour. Evidence showing that species differ in pain reactivity and pain thresholds means that all of our current indices
of pain are of limited value when applied to nonverbal humans
and animals. We simply can never know for certain whether or
not these organisms feel pain as we do and as we alone are able
to subjectively report. Despite this difficulty, as a society we
typically make the anthropomorphic assumption that animals
and infants do feel pain when they show behavioural and/or
physiological changes that human adults exhibit when undergoing a painful experience.
Unfortunately, the problems associated with inferring pain
are magnified again when considering very young infants and
young animals, which may be physically incapable of displaying
behaviours thought to be indicative of pain.15 It may also be
impossible in these organisms to extract blood or saliva samples
in sufficient quantities to permit the measurement of stressrelated hormones, and the very act of collecting the samples
may be sufficiently stressful or painful to confound any results
obtained. Generally, in the absence of more acceptable evidence,
we make the assumption that these organisms feel pain when
put in situations that would cause pain to ourselves. This is an
209
Scientific
assumption that we feel justified in making on the basis of
erring on the side of caution and, indeed, some would argue,
one that is ethically mandated in our care of animals, young
infants and disabled adults.
Perhaps it is due to the difficulty of unequivocally demonstrating the presence of pain in very young organisms that very
few attempts have been made to assess whether pain is experienced when young puppies undergo tail docking. Studies using
other species, available in larger numbers, may be instructive.
Several research groups have reported that docking causes acute
pain and distress in lambs,5,6 piglets,16 and calves.17 In all
studies the animals demonstrated behavioural and/or physiological changes in response to docking that were interpreted as
being consistent with the presence of acute pain.
These results strengthen claims that the docking of dogs tails
is likely to cause acute pain, but this conclusion can still be challenged for two reasons. The first arises because most available
studies used banding to dock the tails rather than surgical
amputation. It could be argued, therefore, that the acute pain
responses observed in agricultural animals were caused by the
pressure of the bands on nociceptors in the skin at the site of
application, and that a lesser response might be expected
following the much more rapid surgery typically used to dock
dogs. Little scientific evidence directly addresses this issue
although, in two studies that compared three docking methods
in lambs at 5, 21 and 42 days, banding did appear to cause
more pain and distress, as measured using behavioural indicators6 and plasma cortisol levels,7 than surgical docking. A significant degree of pain resulted from surgical docking, however,
and it appeared greater than that caused by banding in conjunction with application of a clamp, which destroyed innervation
to tissue distal to the site of application. In addition, whereas all
three methods of docking were reported to cause considerable
pain for up to 3 hours following treatment, plasma cortisol
concentrations returned to baseline levels more rapidly in the
two banded groups than in the surgical group, in which they
remained elevated for over 3 hours.7 Interpretation of these
results is made difficult by the poorly specified relationship
between the various pain indicators used and actual pain, as was
discussed above. This issue is also discussed further in two
papers by Lester et al who argue that, since behavioural
responses vary depending on the docking methodology
employed, plasma cortisol concentrations may provide a more
accurate measure of docking-associated distress.5,18 On this
basis, the results provided both by Lester et al5,18 and by Kent
and Molony7 suggest that surgical docking may result in more
acute pain and more prolonged distress than does banding, at
least in lambs. Regardless of which method of docking causes
relatively more pain or distress than other methods, if it is
accepted that the degree of avoidance behaviour or the extent of
change in physiological indices is an indication of relative
severity of pain, then there are clearly reasonable grounds for
arguing that surgical docking causes some amount of acute pain
in the species studied, as does banding, and that either method
is also likely to cause pain in other physiologically similar
species, such as the dog.
A second issue that prevents easy generalisations from studies
using agricultural animals to dogs relates to the fact that dogs
are typically docked between 3 and 5 days of age, whereas lambs
and cattle are sometimes docked much later. At a later age it
might be expected that, since sensory and perceptive processes
are more developed, any pain associated with docking may be
210
intensified. There have been several studies that have examined

pain responses in animals docked at a fairly young age. In lambs
less than one week old, tail docking using a banding technique
caused distress for approximately thirty minutes, as indicated by
both behavioural measures and plasma cortisol levels.19
Interestingly, two breeds of lamb appeared to show an agedependent but different increase in the plasma cortisol response
to docking although, in both breeds, pain responses to tail
docking peaked in the period between 4 hours and a few days
following birth.20 Contrary to expectations, it was also noted
that the surgical method appeared more painful in 5-day-old
lambs, according to some behavioural measures, than in older
groups.6 A similar age effect, with younger animals exhibiting
more behavioural signs of pain than older animals, has also been
reported following docking in cattle.21
It seems, then, that immaturity may not protect some animals
against feeling acute pain during and immediately following the
docking process. The relevance of this information to the
current issue may still be questioned, however, on the grounds
that dogs, like most carnivores, are born in a much less developed state than are most herbivores. Whereas a 3- to 5-day-old
lamb exhibits a well developed nervous system and complex
behavioural repertoire, young pups of the same age have few
fully functional sensory organs and exhibit very few behaviours.
Newborn pups are unable to perceive or respond to visual or
auditory information. Might not they also be unable to feel
pain?
This question is difficult to answer conclusively, although it
has been established in other mammalian species that immaturity does not equal insensibility to pain. Newborn rat pups, for
example, actively respond to painful stimuli immediately after
birth, well before the modalities of vision and hearing are
completely functional (reviewed in Anand and Craig9).
Additional information comes from human studies. It is
instructive that, before 1987, it was widely believed that
neonatal humans lacked the neurophysiological equipment
necessary to experience pain. This belief was used to justify the
then common practice of performing invasive surgical procedures on infants without administration of analgesia, but was
challenged in a series of studies in the late 1980s.22 These established that the neonatal nociceptive system, and even that
possessed by preterm infants on the very borderline of survival,
has the anatomical and physiological equipment necessary for
pain perception.
Newborn human infants, and even those born prematurely,
also show behavioural and biochemical reactions consistent
with the perception of pain in response to medical procedures
that cause tissue damage.23-26 In one recent study, human
infants, born between the ages of 28 and 32 weeks gestational
age, learned to anticipate the simple heel-stick procedure used
to collect blood samples. These infants showed changed facial
expressions, cardiac reactions and movement durations when
their heel was raised before the procedure, indicating that they
were anticipating its occurrence, believed to be only mildly
painful.24 Administration of analgesia to infants improves clinical outcomes following medical procedures expected to be
painful, providing additional circumstantial evidence that the
pain experienced by neonatal human infants is similar to that
experienced by adults. Some authors have even argued that the
immaturity of sensory processing within the newborn spinal
cord of human infants leads to lower thresholds for excitation
and sensitisation, therefore potentially maximising the central
Scientific
effects of tissue-damaging inputs.27 A similar relationship might
be expected to pertain to adult and neonatal canines, unless
dogs differ in this respect from other mammalian species.
Arguing against such a remote possibility, the limited behavioural evidence available supports the conclusion that docking is
a painful procedure in canine pups. In a single available study,28
in which the responses of 50 pups to docking were recorded, it
was found that all puppies struggled and vocalised intensely and
repeatedly at the time of amputation, recording an average of 24
shrieks and 18 whimpers during and immediately after
docking. They also vocalised intensely as a suture was applied.
Studies examining animal pain responses typically use vocalisation as an indicator of pain and stress.15 Thus, the authors of
this study reasonably concluded that the pups did feel significant pain at the time of docking.
It seems, then, that whereas the existence of pain in young
dogs cannot be directly observed or measured at the present
time, all available evidence reviewed thus far is consistent with
the claim that docking causes acute pain to those dogs undergoing the procedure. In contrast, no evidence could be found to
support the counter claim that newborn pups do not experience
any pain at the time of docking.
How much pain do puppies feel? A related issue, and
perhaps an even more difficult one to resolve, concerns the
magnitude of pain felt by pups during docking. It seems quite
reasonable to accept that docking causes some pain, but to
argue nonetheless that the pain is minimal and completely justified by the benefits that accrue. We do, after all, allow our children and pets to be vaccinated and we permit potentially
painful medical procedures, such as circumcision, to be
conducted on members of our community, such as the young,
the aged and the intellectually disabled, who are unable to
describe their experiences of pain or consent to medical procedures. Of course, such procedures are conducted only after
careful consideration of the amount of pain likely to be inflicted
and the potential benefits. The benefits reported to be associated with tail docking are evaluated later in this paper. In the
following paragraphs, information relevant to determining the
magnitude of pain experienced during docking is considered.
In their discussion of tail docking in dogs, Noonan et al28
noted that breeders often use the fact that pups either suckle or
fall asleep immediately following docking to support their view
that the pups do not experience significant pain. However,
while such behaviour may indicate that the pain felt during
docking is minimal, there is no empirical evidence to support
an association between lack of pain and these behaviours. On
the contrary, other studies, in which young animals or humans
show increased feeding or what is known as a sleeping fit
following a painful or stressful experience, have concluded that
this may be either a displacement activity or an adaptive mechanism which ensures that the baby animal has sufficient nourishment and rest to survive under adverse circumstances.11,19,21 In
addition, as discussed in Noonan et al,28 suckling behaviour
may provide analgesia by stimulating the release of endogenous
opioids, with oral administration of carbohydrate-laden solutions being commonly used to reduce pain responses in human
infants.29 It is possible, therefore, that pups suckle following
docking to reduce docking-associated pain, rather than because
the pain they feel is minimal. This issue could be investigated
empirically by subjecting puppies to various experiences
believed likely to cause pain and noting their responses, particularly whether their sleeping or suckling responses increase or
decrease with the magnitude of pain believed to be inflicted, but

it would be ethically difficult to justify such a study.
A similar refutation can be levelled against the common argument that pups are unlikely to feel significant pain during
docking due to a reported lack of myelination in the nerve cells
responsible for pain conduction. This argument is not persuasive, since myelination is not necessary to enable nerve cell
conduction, but merely speeds it up.11,30 Puppies may experience docking related pain more slowly than older dogs, but an
estimated 0.25 second delay2 in pain perception says little about
the magnitude of pain experienced. Indeed, some authors claim
that puppies may be more sensitive to pain than adult dogs,
because inhibitory nerve pathways are also poorly developed.1,2
In human infants it is commonly argued that pain perception
may be magnified by the immature state of the spinal
cord27,31,32 and, in rat pups, there is evidence that very immature organisms may experience pain more intensely than do
more mature infants (cited in McVey31). In tailed animals, like
canines, the spinal cord extends further down the vertebral
column in infants than it does in adults, perhaps leading to a
higher risk of docking-related infection and, potentially, a
greater magnitude of pain.2
It is difficult to imagine how the issue of accurately assessing
the magnitude of pain associated with docking may be resolved.
Indeed, the issue is a philosophical one rather than a technological one, in that pain is inherently subjective. As there can be no
conclusive evidence of pain felt by others it may be instructive
that, in similar cases, where the magnitude of pain experienced
by members of our own community cannot be measured, we
tend to feel most comfortable in assuming the worst. The tail
docking procedure varies quite substantially from minor procedures such as vaccinations, in that it involves complete amputation of a limb. Very few people would feel comfortable amputating a limb from a human infant or an elderly family member
in the end stages of dementia without anaesthesia, so perhaps
there is cause to give puppies the same consideration. While the
evidence that pups feel substantial pain during tail docking is
not scientifically conclusive, it is compelling. Pups do exhibit
those pain responses of which they are capable, and there is
every reason to expect that they experience considerable pain
while being docked.
Of course, this in itself does not argue against tail docking per
se, but merely suggests that our present methodology should be
improved. The implicit conclusion that puppies should not be
docked without adequate anaesthesia and analgesia need not
imply that they should not be docked at all although, as
described above, any decision to impose a surgical procedure on
an organism unable to provide informed consent requires
careful analysis of the costs and potential benefits to that
organism. Certainly, given that very few people do appear to
administer anaesthesia or analgesia during docking, the potential painfulness of the procedure is a significant cost that needs
to be considered.
Chronic health problems associated with tail docking
Many of those who argue against tail docking would continue
to do so even were adequate anaesthesia and analgesia to be
provided at the time of docking. Some would do this on the
basis of claims that a number of chronic health problems are
associated with tail docking. Problems reviewed previously1
include atrophy and degeneration of tail and pelvic muscles,
leading to an increased risk of faecal incontinence, and compro-
211
Scientific
mised pelvic diaphragm integrity, leading to an increased incidence of perineal hernia. It has also been claimed that acquired
urinary incontinence is over-represented in specific docked
breeds,33 with one large study finding a significant statistical
association between tail docking and acquired urinary incompetence that was independent of other factors such as the size of
the dog.34
While these studies provide some cause for concern, evidence
supporting claims of increased health problems in docked dogs
is typically weak. A significant issue concerns a lack of
adequately controlled studies comparing docked dogs with
undocked dogs of the same breed. Without such studies, it is
possible to argue that some breeds are simply more susceptible
to these health problems and that any association with docking
is spurious, existing only because these breeds happen to be
among those that are docked. Indeed, it is conceivable that
some breeds were docked initially in an effort to minimise
health problems associated with genetic weaknesses, although
we were unable to find any evidence in support of this claim.
Individual breeders who dock their puppies clearly do not
believe that the risks outweigh the benefits of docking and, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, appear justified in
maintaining this view for the present time.
This conclusion is not without some risk, however, as, in the
absence of large scale, properly controlled studies, it is possible
that a significantly increased health risk, affecting a substantial
number of dogs overall, may not be evident to an individual
owner or breeder, or even to a breed club. Those who argue
against tail docking are equally justified, therefore, in maintaining the view that the procedure potentially causes harm to
some dogs. Unless tail docking is justified on some defensible
ground, the burden of proof falls on those who would dock to
prove that the procedure does not lead to chronic health problems in even a small percentage of dogs. Studies investigating
whether chronic health problems occur in the docked members
of a breed but not in the undocked members of the same breed,
or vice versa, are clearly required to resolve this issue.
Chronic pain associated with tail docking
The issue of whether chronic pain may occur in relation to
tail docking is an important one. In humans, chronic pain
following the amputation of limbs can take two forms. The
first, in which pain is referred to the missing limb, is sufficiently
common to warrant its own name, phantom limb pain (PLP).
According to one comprehensive review,35 PLP occurs in 50 to
75% of human amputees in the first week following amputation. In some people the pain resolves quite rapidly, but studies
suggest that up to 60% of amputees experience referred pain for
at least 2 years. Over 20% report daily pain attacks at 2 years
post-amputation. Persistent severe pain continues indefinitely
in 5 to 10% of human amputees. In addition to PLP, many
amputees experience considerable pain in the remaining limb
stump. Post-operative pain, lasting up to 3 weeks, occurs in
50% of amputees. Two years after amputation, stump pain
affects 21% of amputees.35 Some amputees describe the pain as
a stabbing sensation or electric current that is strictly localised
to the stump. Others report nerve storms during which sharp
shooting pains last for up to 2 days. Pain may be spontaneous or
triggered by stimulating the stump; even a light touch can result
in an unpleasant burning sensation.
The aetiology of PLP and stump pain remains controversial
although there is an association between the condition of the
212
limb prior to amputation and the subsequent occurrence of

PLP. Chronic pain is more common in those with severe preamputation pain. Neurological lesions can also moderate pain
experiences, as can psychological factors and the type of limb
injury sustained. None of these relationships is particularly
strong, however, and chronic PLP is experienced by normal
persons who lose a perfectly healthy limb, either through accident or misadventure.35 Stump pain is also most common in
amputees with clear stump pathology, such as skin or circulatory disorders. Importantly, however, stump pain also occurs in
people where the wound appears completely healed. According
to Jensen and Rasmussen,35 careful examination of stump sensibility reveals areas of hypalgesia, hyperalgesia, hyperpathia or
allodynia in almost all amputees.
It is difficult to generalise from adult human amputees to
neonatal pups, since amputation of an adult limb causes a
sudden cessation of afferent input to the spinal cord from the
severed nerves, while afferent input from the tail of a 3-day-old
pup is likely to be poorly developed. In addition, the tails of
most pups are assumed to be functioning normally prior to
docking, with no pre-amputation pain and no limb pathology.
There are reports that phantom limb experiences occur in up to
20% of people in which limbs are congenitally absent, or when
amputation occurs before the age of 6 years.36 Other studies,
reviewed in Melzack et al,31 have contradicted these findings,
however, leaving the issue open to conjecture. The fact that
ongoing pain occurs in even a small number of persons who
experience limb amputation very early in life, or who are born
with congenitally absent limbs, seems sufficient to raise
concerns about tail docking in dogs, especially in cases where
the potential benefits of docking are unclear or ethically indefensible. Since psychological factors are implicated in some cases
of PLP and stump pain in humans, however, and it is not clear
whether animals possess the cognitive apparatus required to feel
psychological distress upon the absence of a limb, it is relevant
to consider whether there are physiological mechanisms likely
to lead to chronic pain following limb amputation in nonhuman species.
Peripheral nerve sections in all mammalian species produce
many anatomical, physiological and biochemical changes.
These include spontaneous nerve tissue activity, increased sensitivity to mechanical stimuli and specific neurochemicals, and
the formation of nerve sprouts and neuromas. The presence of
neuromas may be particularly relevant in the present context, as
these are frequently observed to occur following amputation in
animals. Neuromas are bundles of nerve fibres that develop
almost inevitably when axons are severed in mammals and
birds. They consist of swollen, tangled masses of nerves, present
either as one large mass or as smaller, scattered masses.37 In
most cases, neuromas resolve over several weeks as the excess
axon sprouts degenerate and the mass regresses. They can persist
indefinitely, however, causing spontaneous nerve activity which
may be perceived as chronic pain. Neuromas have been documented in lamb tail stumps up to 6 months after docking,38 in
pig tail stumps following docking,39 and in the beaks of
chickens that have had their beaks trimmed.40 In chickens,
neuromas formed after partial beak amputation continue to
develop for at least 70 days and can persist for up to 70
weeks.37,40
We were unable to find any scientifically controlled studies
demonstrating the presence, or absence, of neuromas in dogs
following tail docking. This lack of evidence may simply be due
Scientific
to the fact that dogs, unlike farm animal species, are not regularly killed in large numbers soon after docking takes place, so
the appropriate assay cannot be conducted. It is possible that
dogs, due to the very young age at which they are docked,
develop less persistent neuromas than species treated later in life
but there is no evidence to support this claim. Indeed, in one
study in which three canines with docked tails were euthanased
for behavioural problems, all of the dogs were found to have
neuromas even though the docking process had occurred many
years previously.41 Due to the biased nature of this very small
sample, it would not be appropriate to generalise the findings.
In addition, those who support docking are typically able to
argue that they have lived with docked dogs over many years
without observing signs of pain associated with the tail stump.
Such anecdotal observations do not prove that docked dogs do not
develop neuromas or feel persistent pain, because dogs are adept
at hiding injuries and disguising pain. Certainly, many people
in our community experience constant pain due to arthritis or
other debilitating diseases without revealing this pain to those
around them. An alternative explanation is that subtle signs of
pain or discomfort are simply not noticed by many dog owners,
or that they are misattributed to other factors, such as a bad
temperament. While researching this paper the authors
obtained several anecdotal reports of docked dogs with
extremely sensitive tail stumps and other odd, stump-associated,
behaviours. Most owners of docked dogs report seeing no such
behaviours, however, and, in the absence of convincing evidence
one way or the other, the issue remains undecided.
The potential development of neuroma-associated pain
following docking, even if not established beyond doubt in
dogs, seems sufficient to raise welfare concerns about tail
docking. One might hope that neuromas develop in only a
small proportion of docked dogs and that most of them resolve
over a period of weeks or months. Even in this best case
scenario, however, one must question the value of subjecting
any dog to prolonged or constant pain unless there are clearly
defensible benefits associated with tail docking. Perhaps more
importantly, docking is typically carried out just before the critical
formative period of a dogs life, in which most of its enduring
social skills and behaviours are established. Since the impact of
chronic pain on our own ability to function adequately in
society is unquestioned, the justification for subjecting any dog
to this experience needs careful consideration.
Before completing this section, it is worthwhile briefly
considering evidence emerging from human infant studies,
which suggest that pain experienced early in life may increase
later sensitivity to pain and have behavioural ramifications
(reviewed in Whitfield and Grunau32). Male infants circumcised soon after birth with no analgesia display increased distress
when given vaccinations at 4 or 6 months of age, when
compared to infants either not circumcised or circumcised
following application of an analgesic cream.42,43 Preterm infants
who require treatment in an intensive care unit, later (at 4 to 5
years of age) similarly display higher somatization scores (physical complaints such as headache or stomach ache in the absence
of a clear organic cause) than age-matched controls.44
According to one review, prolonged pain in the newborn period
in preterm infants may produce a relatively permanent shift in
basal autonomic arousal, which may have long term sequelae
including effects on attention and learning and the development of behaviour problems.32 It is argued that the plasticity of
peripheral and central sensory connections in the neonatal
period means that early damage can lead to prolonged structural

and functional alterations in pain pathways that can last into adult
life.27 While these effects have not been demonstrated to occur
in species other than humans, the benefits of tail docking would
need to be reasonably compelling to justify exposing any animal
to the potential risk of a prolonged sensitivity to painful stimuli.
Impaired locomotion associated with tail docking
Some authors who argue against docking claim that the tail is
important for balance and agility and, therefore, that docked
dogs may be handicapped relative to their tailed conspecifics.1
This argument seems intuitively plausible but is not supported
by empirical evidence. Given that most animal species, particularly those with lifestyles requiring speed and agility, possess
tails, one might assume that these limbs confer some kind of
evolutionary advantage. Unfortunately, however, no scientific
studies have been published comparing the locomotion of
docked dogs with those that are undocked. In the absence of
such evidence, the impaired locomotion argument against tail
docking is unconvincing, particularly when one considers the
success of docked dogs in agility competitions and in such
demanding activities as hunting, retrieving and herding. It is
possible that dogs are just so good at these activities that minor
performance deficits due to docked tails are not easily detected.
Studies examining the development of agility, balance and
general locomotion in docked and undocked pups of the same
breed would be required to clarify this issue. A comparative gait
analysis of docked and undocked members of the same breed
would also be invaluable.
Impaired communication associated with tail docking
Another argument against tail docking is that docked dogs
may be socially disadvantaged relative to other dogs, in that
they lack one of the main appendages used in canine communication.2 Again, there is little evidence to support this claim. It is
well established that dog tails are used for communication45 and
it is possible that docked dogs, particularly those that are
docked close to the base of the tail, might be socially disadvantaged. Indeed, it is often stated that docked dogs engage in a
number of compensatory behaviours, such as butt-wiggling (in
which the entire back end of the dog wiggles furiously from side
to side), in order to communicate. Whether docking may lead
to an increase in social misunderstandings, particularly aggression, either from or towards the docked dog, however, has not
been rigorously investigated. It would be informative to investigate this issue in adult dogs that receive tail amputation for
medical reasons, but no such studies could be located.
A related difficulty concerns the docked dogs ability to
communicate with members of the human species, who are
typically taught in pet education programs to read dog body
language primarily by observing the tail. It is possible that our
children are endangered by docked dogs, simply because their
ability to communicate with the dog is impaired, although this
has not been demonstrated. Studies examining the ability of
children to understand dog posture in docked and undocked
breeds would be useful in this respect, as would studies
comparing the number of bites each year inflicted by docked
and undocked dogs, relative to their prevalence in the community.
Summary of arguments against tail docking
From the preceding discussion it can be seen that there are
several reasons why the practice of tail docking might be
opposed, especially when carried out in its present form. There
213
Scientific
seems little doubt that docking causes acute pain in all species
studied and, although the magnitude of pain cannot be ascertained, there is no reason to believe that amputation of a limb in
a young puppy should be any less painful than amputation of a
limb in any other animal, whether infant or adult. The fact that
puppies appear to recover quickly from the docking process may
indicate that the pain is minimal, but this cannot be tested and
the relationship between apparently normal behaviours, such
as sleeping and suckling, and pain relief is unknown. In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, therefore, docking should
perhaps always be carried out after administration of an appropriate anaesthetic and using the best possible technique.
Analgesia following docking is also clearly indicated.
Whether docking should be completely banned for the
reasons listed above is less certain. Evidence suggesting that
docking may be associated with several physical difficulties,
locomotor deficits and/or impaired communication skills may
be accumulating but, with well controlled studies lacking, it is
yet to be convincing. Perhaps the strongest argument against
docking is the fact that it may be associated with the presence of
neuromas and chronic pain, or increased pain sensitivity, in at
least some dogs. This has also not been demonstrated empirically, however, and it is perhaps unlikely that many docked dogs
experience significant chronic pain as, even though dogs may
mask pain extremely well, it might be expected to affect their
behaviour in a systematic way, evident to those who know the
species well. At most, then, it might be claimed that there is a
weak prima facie case against tail docking on the basis that it
may have detrimental effects, even though these have not yet
been conclusively demonstrated. Whether this justifies a total
ban on the process then depends on whether significant benefits
are derived from tail docking, and whether these outweigh the
potential for pain and suffering inherent in the procedure.
Arguments in support of tail docking in domestic dogs.
Given prima facie evidence that even a minimal amount of

harm is likely to be associated with docking, the burden of
proof falls on those who support docking to show that definite
benefits outweigh the possible costs. In agricultural species such
as lambs, pigs and dairy cows, docking is considered by some to
be necessary because it serves some utilitarian function,
preventing injury or disease in the docked animals, their
conspecifics, or their human handlers.46 Whether docking
achieves these aims, and whether they justify the removal of an
animals tail, are issues for debate elsewhere. The task in this
paper is limited to establishing whether there are valid reasons
for docking dogs. The main arguments raised by pro-docking
lobby groups are considered below.
Maintaining tradition
Tail docking in many dog breeds is an established custom
believed to have been introduced some 2000 years ago in order
to satisfy various motives. These include primarily functional
reasons, such as to prevent damage to vulnerable tail tips in
breeds used for hunting and retrieving in dense undergrowth,
for ease of manipulation of terriers working in burrows and
other confined spaces, and to prevent diseases such as rabies.
They also include economic reasons, with some working dogs
being docked to prevent the imposition of luxury dog taxes in
some circumstances. Some breeds also appear to have been
docked initially for primarily aesthetic reasons, while others,
representing breeds where some members are born with natu-
214
rally bobbed tails, were presumably originally docked to

preserve breed uniformity.2
Some might argue that traditionally docked breeds should
remain docked simply to preserve these traditions and to retain
the distinctive appearance of the relevant breeds. Indeed, many
people who dock claim that they do so mainly in order to
comply with the official standard for the breed concerned. This
argument from tradition, while popular, seems ethically unconvincing as a justification for tail docking. While it is true that
some breeds have traditionally been docked within the limited
history of the specific breed, the development of purebred dogs
is itself a relatively recent phenomenon. Doubtless, the ancestors of some breeds can be traced back to antiquity, and there
are claims that docking was introduced as early as 65 AD.47
There is little indication that dogs, as they evolved from their
wolfish forefathers, emerged sporting a traditionally docked
appearance, however, and there is no convincing evidence to
suggest that docking was a common procedure in primitive
societies, from whose canine companions modern day dogs
were developed. Humans living in developed countries cannot
use surgical techniques to create a distinctive looking animal
and then argue that such a look is natural or even traditional.
Dogs were traditionally undocked long before they were traditionally docked and any argument for tail docking purely in
terms of retaining tradition is flawed in that it exists only by
reference to our own limited cultural history.
The traditional grounds for tail docking should also be evaluated within the context of our current social climate. A persuasive argument against docking tails merely to preserve tradition
concerns the fact that when the traditionally docked breeds
were being developed, animals were defined by most people
purely as human possessions. They enjoyed no legal or moral
protection and humans were free to do with them as they liked.
The prevalent view, based on the thesis of the French philosopher, Ren Descartes (1596-1650), was that animals were
simply mechanical automatons, unable to feel pain or
emotions.48 Vivisection without any form of anaesthesia was
widely practiced by scientists and mistreatment of animals was a
legal issue only if it impacted on the physical or financial wellbeing of their owners.
The Cartesian philosophical position regarding the status of
animals is no longer widely accepted, at least not overtly.
Physiological, biochemical, behavioural and psychological similarities between humans and other mammals are now well documented and animals are widely perceived as feeling, and in some
cases possibly even thinking, biological organisms, to which
humans, as moral agents, owe a substantial duty of care.49,50
This is reflected in our support of animal welfare organisations
and is codified in relevant laws. Given this significant change
from the views held by our forebears, recourse to a defence of tail
docking purely on the grounds of tradition appears untenable.
It is equally unacceptable in our contemporary context to
dock tails simply to comply with a written standard of the kind
used by purebred canine bodies in order to define the characteristics of each particular breed. Many breed standards were originally drafted at a time in which there was little knowledge of
comparative physiology and in which animal welfare was of
little concern. Breed standards, like all written laws and
community guidelines, can and do change as cultures evolve
and knowledge accumulates, with amendments to breed standards being published on a regular basis. One might be justified
in preserving human traditions involving inanimate objects
Scientific
such as steam trains and clothing styles, and one might like to
adhere to written specifications when reproducing historical
artefacts. When our traditions and our written codes concern
practices involving species capable of pain and suffering, in
contrast, they cannot be condoned on this basis alone.
The argument from tradition, then, is critically flawed. It
reflects both a human arrogance towards history and tradition
and a disregard for the changing status of animals within our
community. If tail docking in dogs is to be continued then the
defenders of the practice have a burden of proof to show that it
is justified in terms of some kind of overall gain for either the
individual animal or the community, as is claimed to be the case
for other docked species, and/or that amputating a dogs tail
simply has no significant welfare implications. Having already
established that tail docking may indeed have significant welfare
implications, the following sections consider whether the procedure may nonetheless be justified by some kind of gain for the
individual organism.
Prevention of tail damage
Proponents of tail docking often cite many practical benefits
believed to be associated with the procedure, although these
purported benefits appear rarely, if ever, to have been demonstrated scientifically.1,2 One of the most common claims is that
some breeds that are traditionally docked tend to engage in
activities as adults during which tail damage is likely to be
frequent. Docking is argued to be necessary, therefore, to prevent
the pain and discomfort associated with adult tail damage. This
rationale for tail docking clearly does not condone the widespread
practice that exists today, which includes many dog breeds that
were traditionally docked for reasons other than preventing
injury. Moreover, if docking is to be justified for the purpose of
preventing adult tail damage in any breed, two assumptions
require empirical support. First, evidence is required to support
the claim that these traditionally docked dogs are particularly
likely to sustain tail damage if left undocked, and that they are
likely to do so in sufficient numbers to justify docking all
members of the particular breed. Second, it is necessary to
establish that tail damage in adult dogs is likely to cause
substantially more suffering than does the docking process.
Unfortunately, persuasive evidence with which to either
support or refute such claims is lacking. Since tail docking has
been banned in Sweden, there has reportedly been a significant
increase in the number of dogs from some breeds presenting to
veterinary clinics with tail damage.51 There are also anecdotal
reports of increased tail damage in dogs left undocked in other
countries, and the Council for the Promotion of Docked Dogs
displays numerous graphic photos of tail damage on their web
site.52 No scientifically controlled studies have been reported,
however, and other available anecdotal evidence, suggesting that
the incidence of tail damage in European countries remains low,
indicates that these few examples may be misleading. Many
traditionally docked breeds for which a propensity for tail
damage is claimed, simply do not engage in high risk activities.
In addition, for almost all breeds that are traditionally docked, a
corresponding breed can be found that engages in the same
kind of activities but that has traditionally not been docked.2
This calls into question the veracity of the argument, although
it has not yet been established empirically whether some breeds
do suffer extensive tail damage as a result of carrying out particular activities or whether some breeds may have specific tail
characteristics that render them genuinely more predisposed
towards tail damage. This will only be established if controlled

scientific comparisons between docked and undocked dogs of
the same breed are undertaken.
Perhaps more significantly, the percentage of dogs that engage
in traditional activities appears to have declined substantially in
our increasingly urban communities, with most dogs now
serving primarily as companion animals. While companion
dogs, especially those with long thin tails, may sustain tail
damage through repeatedly banging their tail on hard indoor
surfaces, there is little evidence to suggest that this is a common
occurrence. Indeed, one study which examined records from
over 12, 000 dogs treated at a university clinic found only a low
incidence (47 cases) of tail damage overall. This study found no
significant difference in the rate of tail injury (fractures, lacerations, dermatoses, self-trauma and neoplasia) between docked
(0.31%) and undocked (0.41%) breeds so the findings do not
support the argument that docking serves to reduce tail
damage.53 It should be noted, however, that the study did not
contain undocked dogs from customarily docked breeds. As
mentioned previously, only a controlled study, including equal
numbers of docked and undocked dogs from the same breed, is
likely to reveal whether these breeds are particularly prone to
tail damage, and whether docking significantly reduces the incidence of injury in such breeds.
Another study, surveying over 2000 visits to an animal emergency clinic in Australia, found only three presentations for tail
injuries, all of which reflected difficulties that occurred immediately post docking.1 It would be useful to supplement this information with similar studies conducted in rural areas, where the
number of dogs engaged in high risk activities may be greater,
and with the type of controlled study mentioned above. In the
absence of such information it is impossible to conclude that
tail damage is likely to become a frequent event if docking is
ceased or, conversely, to conclude that tail damage will not
become more frequent. The percentage of dogs that actually
engage in high-risk occupations, and their rate of tail injury
relative to those sold as companion animals, must also be ascertained. Until this is done, it is impossible to sustain the argument that all dogs from certain breeds should be docked for the
purpose of preventing future tail damage.
Even if it is conceded that a percentage of dogs from some
traditionally docked breeds may sustain tail damage as adults if
docking ceased, the argument for docking any individual dog
on this basis requires the additional assumption that tail damage
creates more overall suffering than does the practice of docking.
This argument would be strengthened if it was established that
tail damage in adult dogs is particularly painful and difficult to
treat, compared with the acute, and possibly chronic, pain
suffered following neonatal tail docking, but this has not been
demonstrated. Until such evidence is available, the argument is
moot. It is possible that some dogs are more prone to tail
damage, either because of the structure of their tail or because of
their traditional occupation, and that tail docking prevents
substantial future pain in these dogs. It is equally possible that
this is not correct.
Given a presumption against removing animal limbs without
convincing evidence to justify such procedures, the absence of
appropriate studies in this area represents a significant difficulty
for those who support tail docking, even in those breeds that
may be expected to sustain tail damage. Indeed, the removal of
tails in all members of a dog breed, just because some may
sustain tail damage as adults, does not appear justified unless
215
Scientific
the degree of suffering is at least suspected to be substantial.
Even here, the ethical dilemma is one of weighing potential pain
from the possibility of tail damage against certain pain from
what may turn out to be an unnecessary preventative measure.
As a society we are often comfortable in making such judgements and readily sanction vaccination procedures in order to
prevent later illness. With respect to tail docking, however, the
judgement seems more akin to routinely removing tonsils or
appendices from all infants in order to avoid possible tonsillitis
or appendicitis in a few adults later in life. Fewer people would
presumably feel comfortable making a decision of this type.
Even those who would agree to dock all tails from a particular
breed, where a reasonably large number of dogs seem likely to
engage in a high risk activity, cannot use this argument to
defend tail docking to the extent that it is currently practiced.
Prevention of accumulation of faecal material
Another claimed benefit of docking in some breeds is that it
potentially reduces the accumulation of faecal material around
the tail area on dogs with excessive coats. Such accumulation, it
is argued, is likely to result in significant irritation of the dog by
flies and possibly eventual infestation by maggots, as well as
considerable inconvenience to the dogs owner.2 Again, there is
little direct evidence to support this claim, although studies
involving sheep and cows may be instructive. In one study
involving 3000 lambs on seven different farms, half of which
were docked in the first week of life, it was found that undocked
lambs tended to accumulate slightly more faecal material
around the tail area than did their conspecifics, and that
undocked lambs did become infested by flies significantly more
often than those lambs that were docked.54 Another recent
study, involving dairy cows, found no association between
docking and faecal accumulation,46 however, and earlier studies
(cited in Tucker et al46) found that docked dairy cattle actually
carried a higher fly load than did their undocked conspecifics.
In addition, there is evidence that docked cows, unable to use
their tail to dislodge flies, engage in several unusual fly avoidance behaviours.55 The different findings in these studies almost
certainly reflect the different species studied, in that the thick
wool possessed by sheep is more prone to accumulate faecal
matter than the flatter coat of dairy cows. Hence, one might
argue that these studies support claims that long-haired dogs,
such as Old English Sheepdogs, are most likely to benefit from
docking. Those who propose this argument, however, must take
into account the many similarly long-haired dog breeds that are
not traditionally docked, and the general observation that dogs
are rarely, if ever, intensively farmed under conditions that
render other coat management systems impractical. If docking
is genuinely beneficial to long-haired dogs, then one might
argue that all long-haired breeds should be docked and,
conversely, that docking should perhaps be restricted to longhaired breeds. Unless docking is conclusively shown to cause no
significant pain or suffering and the presence of a tail is demonstrated to be unimportant for other reasons, however, it is difficult to justify removal of a dogs limb for hygiene purposes.
Other, less intrusive, options, such as clipping, grooming or a
change of diet, clearly exist in nearly all cases.
Maintaining breed quality
Another argument, which is put forward to support a continuation of tail docking in some breeds, concerns the maintenance of breed quality. A ban on tail docking may compromise
216
this in several ways. First, in dog breeds that have been docked
for many years, no consideration has been paid to characteristics
like tail set or length. A wide variety of appearances may therefore be expected if docking ceased. Individual breeders, trying
to develop and maintain a breed type, may feel compelled to
select their breeding stock on the basis of tail characteristics
alone, perhaps resulting in neglect of other important characteristics such as structural soundness or temperament. Breeder
selection for traits believed to be desirable has already resulted in
enormous difficulties in some breeds. Selection for large heads,
for example, has created breeds unable to deliver puppies naturally, while selection for brachycephalic faces has led to breeds
unable to exercise or control heat loss effectively. In breeds
where some individuals are born with naturally bobbed tails, it
has been claimed that selection for shorter and shorter tails, in
order to mimic the docked appearance, may lead to a higher
incidence of spina bifida and other spinal cord defects. A related
argument is that the cessation of docking in some countries,
such as Australia, would prevent export of some dogs to overseas
countries where docking is accepted. Since overseas sales are
typically more lucrative than local sales, this may damage the
dog breeding industry in these countries and have indirect
effects on the quality of dogs able to be produced.
Possibilities such as this warrant some consideration in the
tail docking debate but are not compelling, especially if there
are significant welfare concerns associated with the docking
process. An increased incidence of spina bifida or any other
related health difficulties has not been documented in those
countries in which docking has been banned and improved
breeder education would seem to provide a potential solution to
this possibility. The economic problem may seem more
intractable, although the banning of tail docking in several
European countries means that undocked dogs from other
countries may actually be more desirable in those countries. As
with previous arguments, however, it seems difficult to maintain
that all members of a particular breed should be docked simply
because a handful of dogs might be expected to find homes in
countries where docking is practiced. More importantly,
performing any surgical manipulation of an individual dog for
the purposes of export dollars or for maintaining a breed type
seems at odds with the ethical codes adopted by most breeder
organisations. These codes typically emphasise that the welfare
of individual dogs should be considered in all breeding decisions. They also typically include a clause stating that the
breeder will breed only to improve the standard of the breed,
and not for any commercial purpose. If there is compelling
evidence to suggest that tail docking may compromise the
welfare of any given dog, engaging in the practice for profit may
inadvertently contravene the ethical codes of the very same
breed clubs that promote the practice. Certainly, with respect to
the ANKC Code of Ethics4 discussed previously, any justification for docking other than direct health and welfare benefits is
disallowed.
Maximising quality of life for individual dogs
As mentioned previously, a percentage of pups in some traditionally docked breeds are born with tails that are naturally
shortened or bobbed. In some breeds, these natural bobs
include animals born with misshapen or deformed tails. Tails
may be kinked or twisted or simply short and poorly positioned. Breeders who cease docking may find that these dogs are
difficult to find homes for, although an appropriate publicity
Scientific
campaign may result in members of the public being prepared
to offer homes to dogs with unusual tails simply because they
support an anti-docking policy. It is also possible, however, that
there is pain or discomfort associated with the misshapen nerve
endings in these deformed tails, and that the dogs, in these
cases, might benefit from the docking procedure. This has not
been demonstrated as yet, but the argument may provide a
defensible therapeutic rationale for docking at least some dogs,
on the grounds of the dogs own welfare. It does not, of course,
justify docking all members of a breed, most of which will not
have deformed tails.
Personal preferences
A final argument in defence of tail docking concerns the fact
that some people simply prefer docked dogs. For some, this may
be a convenience issue, in that docked animals may be less likely
to knock valuable objects from coffee tables or hall stands and
less likely to spray mud across the furniture. More common,
however, are dog owners and breeders who select their breed on
the basis of its distinctive characteristics, including the way the
animals look, and who have a personal preference for the
docked look. These people may well acknowledge that there is
some pain associated with the docking process, that there is a
small chance that the dog will experience ongoing physical
problems or chronic pain, and that no benefits accrue to the
dog directly as a result of tail docking. They insist, however, that
the suffering the dog experiences is negligible or at least insignificant and, therefore, that docking can be justified on cosmetic
grounds, simply because the dog will look better with no tail.
Whether personal preference is sufficient to justify tail
docking depends on other factors. As a community we support
the rights of individual members to select the type of dog they
own, its gender, coat length and colour, as well as a host of other
characteristics. If it were established beyond doubt that tail
docking has no welfare implications, then personal preference
might justify tail docking, particularly if it meant that dogs,
which were otherwise left homeless or in poor homes, found
loving and caring owners. On the other hand, a pertinent
ethical issue here is not simply whether an individual has the
right to physically manipulate the appearance of a pet dog, but
what the exercise of this right might say about our community
values.
Dogs are an extremely important part of our community and
are used by many parents to teach appropriate values to their
children. Some couples raise a litter of pups in order to teach
their family about nurturing and care and others spend large
sums of money on a sick or injured pet rather than have their
children think that animals are expendable. Feeding the pet dog
is one of the first responsibilities assumed by many children and
regular grooming and walking schedules may be used as an
enjoyable chore for which the child receives their first pocket
money. Dealing responsibly with doggie behavioural challenges
can be a useful way of demonstrating to children that they
remain valued even when their behaviour is unacceptable,
although all too often dumping the inconvenient family pet
provides a model of irresponsibility that most children could do
without. Pets play a large role in teaching children empathy
towards animals, which has been shown to generalise to other
situations.56,57 They also function as important therapeutic
agents in many contexts,58 with visiting dogs becoming a
regular sight in Australian nursing homes and hospitals.
If docking results in pain and there are no sufficiently
compensating gains for the animal, then it may well be a practice that can justifiably be classified as a form of abuse.
According to Agnew,59 definitions of animal abuse typically
include three features: that the harm inflicted is socially unacceptable; intentional or deliberate; and unnecessary. Certainly,
tail docking appears to fulfil the second and third criteria. Many
people would feel justified in arguing that it also fulfils the first.
It may be argued, therefore, that a community in which tail
docking is condoned, despite fairly convincing evidence that it
has no demonstrated benefits and may significantly compromise the welfare of at least some of the dogs involved, provides a
paradoxical model of pet dogs. On the one hand, dogs are
revered as much loved companions and family pets. On the
other, they are seen as objects, able to be bought and sold,
disposed of, euthanased, mistreated, exploited and surgically
modified at will. While such a perception of animals does
persist in many sections of our society, it is neither a defensible
nor a desirable one, except within a most perverse form of
ethical and moral philosophy. Moreover, since there is an established association between animal abuse and other forms of
anti-social behaviour,60,61 it is possible that a community in
which tail docking is condoned on a large scale, purely to satisfy
personal preferences, sets a dangerous precedent for at least
some of its young members.
Summary and conclusion
In summary then, it seems difficult to argue that tail docking,
as the widespread practice that it presently is, is justified. It
cannot be defended on the basis of arguments from tradition or
to satisfy a breed standard created in another time and place.
Moreover, there is no clear evidence that any kind of benefit
associated with tail docking exists that can outweigh the potential harm that may be caused to the animals involved. There are
several reasons that may be used to support tail docking in some
breeds, or at least to justify the docking of specific dogs within
those breeds. These reasons concern individual dogs that are
expected to engage in activities as adults in which tail damage is
encountered on a frequent basis, particularly if appropriate
veterinary care is unlikely to be available, those in which accumulation of faecal material may become a health issue, those
born with deformed or painfully misshapen tails, and those for
which the presence of a docked tail may result in a significantly
improved quality of life. In all of these cases tail docking of individual dogs could potentially be justified on utilitarian grounds,
but only if the expected benefits outweigh the harm that is
potentially associated with the docking process, and also only if
adequate anaesthesia and analgesia is provided at the time of
docking.
More difficult, if not impossible, to sustain is the argument
that tail docking is justified simply because some humans prefer
the docked look or find it more convenient to own a tailless
dog. This would constitute an acceptable reason for docking
only if it was conclusively demonstrated that absolutely no
harm is ever associated with the process. On the contrary,
although the potential for harm cannot be proven scientifically
for philosophical reasons, available evidence strongly suggests
that docking may be associated with both acute and chronic
pain. Relevant anatomical and physiological differences
between dogs and members of our own species are minimal and
there is every reason to suspect that even very young pups do
experience substantial pain when their tails are removed, and
that they continue to experience pain as the normal physiolog-
217
Scientific
ical processes known to be associated with limb amputation
take place. That the docking process occurs just before the critical socialisation period simply makes the practice more difficult
to justify, as does the fact that it may leave some dogs with
chronic physical problems and possibly unable to communicate
effectively with both conspecifics and humans.
References
1. Wansbrough RK. Cosmetic tail docking of dogs. Aust Vet J 1996;74:59-63.
2. Morton D. Docking of dogs: practical and ethical aspects. Vet Rec
1992;131:301-306.
3. Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK. Tail docking in dogs: a sample of attitudes
of veterinarians and dog breeders in Queensland. Aust Vet J 1996;73:86-88.
4. Australian National Kennel Council Code of Practice for the tail docking of
dogs. http://www.ankc.aust.com . 2002. Retrieved 26-08-2002.
5. Lester SJ, Mellor DJ, Holmes RJ, Ward RN, Stafford KJ. Behavioural and
cortisol responses of lambs to castration and tailing using different methods. NZ
Vet J 1996;44:45-54.
6. Molony V, Kent LE. Behavioural responses of lambs of three ages in the first
three hours after three methods of castration and tail docking. Res Vet Sci
1993;55:236-245.
7. Kent LE, Molony V. Changes in plasma cortisol concentration in lambs of
three ages after three methods of castration and tail docking. Res Vet Sci
1993;55:246-251.
8. Bennett PC, Perini E. Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved?
Aust Vet J in press.
9. Anand KJS, Craig KD. New perspectives on the definition of pain. Pain
1996;67:3-6.
10. Franck LS, Miaskowski C. Measurement of neonatal responses to painful
stimuli: a research review. J Pain Sympt Manag 1997;14:343-378.
11. Wolf AR. Pain, nociception and the developing infant. Paed Anaes
1999;9:7-17.
12. Webster AJF. What use is science to animal welfare? Naturwissenschaften
1998;85:262-269.
13. Ley SJ, Livingstone A, Waterman AE. The effect of chronic clinical pain on
thermal and mechanical thresholds in sheep. Pain 1989;39:353-357.
14. Whay HR, Waterman AE, Webster AJ. Associations between locomotion,
claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum
period. Vet J 1997;154:155-161.
15. Dubner R. Methods of assessing pain in animals. In: Wall PD, Melzack R,
editors. Textbook of pain. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. 1994:293-302.
16. Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Priest J, Ainscow J, Blackshaw JK. Behavioural
observations of piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching.
Appl Anim Behav Sci 1994;39:203-213.
17. Petrie NJ, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN. Cortisol responses
of calves to two methods of tail docking used with or without local anaesthesia.
NZ Vet J 1996;44:4-8.
18. Lester SJ, Mellor DJ, Ward RN, Holmes RJ. Cortisol responses of young
lambs to castration and tailing using different methods. NZ Vet J 1991;39:134-138.
19. Mellor DJ, Murray L. Effects of tail docking and castration on behaviour and
plasma cortisol concentrations in young lambs. Res Vet Sci 1989;46:387-391.
20. Mellor DJ, Murray L. Changes in the cortisol responses of lambs to tail
docking, castration and ACTH injection during the first seven days after birth.
Res Vet Sci 1989;46:392-395.
21. Eicher SD, Morrow-Tesch JL, Albright JL, Dailey JW, Young CR, Stankers
LH. Tail-docking influences on behavioral, immunological, and endocrine
responses in dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci 2000;83:1456-1462.
22. Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and
fetus. New Eng J Med 1987;317:1321-1329.
23. Schuster A, Lenard HG. Pain in newborns and prematures: current practice
and knowledge. Brain Devel 1990;12:459-465.
24. Goubet N, Clifton RK, Shah B. Learning about pain in preterm newborns. J
Devel Behav Pediat 2001;22:418-427.
25. Johnston CC, Stevens BJ, Yang F, Horton L. Differential responses to pain
by very premature neonates. Pain 1995;61:471-479.
26. Craig KD, Whitfield MF, Grunau RVE, Linton J, Hadjistavropoulos HD. Pain
in the preterm neonate: behavioural and physiological indices. Pain
1993;52:287-299.
27. Fitzgerald M, Beggs S. The neurobiology of pain: developmental aspects.
Neurosci 2001;7:246-257.
28. Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK, Priest J. Behavioural observations of
puppies undergoing tail docking. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1996;49:335-342.
218
29. Johnston CC, Stremler RL, Stevens BJ, Horton LJ. Effectiveness of oral
sucrose and simulated rocking on pain responses in preterm neonates. Pain
1997;72:193-199.
30. Fogle B. The dogs mind. Pelham Books, London. 1990.
31. McVey C. Pain in the very preterm baby: suffer little children?. Ped Rehab
1998;2:47-55.
32. Whitfield MF, Grunau RE. Behavior, pain perception, and the extremely lowbirth weight survivor. Clin Perinat 2000;27:363-379.
33. Adams WM, DiBartola SP. Radiographic and clinical features of pelvic
bladder in the dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1983;182:1212-1217.
34. Holt PE, Thrusfield MV. Association in bitches between breed, size,
neutering and docking, and acquired urinary incontinence due to incompetence
of the urethral sphincter mechanism. Vet Rec 1993;133:177-180.
35. Jensen TS, Rasmussen P. Phantom pain and other phenomena after
amputation. In: Wall PD, Melzack R, editors. Textbook of pain.Churchill
Livingstone, Edinburgh. 1994:651-665.
36. Melzack R, Israel R, Lacroix R, Schultz G. Phantom limbs in people with
congenital limb deficiency or amputation in early childhood. Brain
1997;120:1603-1620.
37. Lunam CA, Glatz PC, Hsu Y-J. The absence of neuromas in beaks of adult
hens after conservative trimming at hatch. Aust Vet J 1996;71:46-49.
38. French NP, Morgan KL. Neuromata in docked lambs tails. Res Vet Sci
1992;52:389-390.
39. Simonsen HB, Klinken L, Bindseil E. Histopathology of intact and docked
pigtails. Brit Vet J 1991;147:407-412.
40. Gentle MJ. Neuroma formation following partial beak amputation (beak trimming) in the chicken. Res Vet Sci 1986;41:383-385.
41. Gross TL, Carr SH. Amputation neuroma of docked tails in dogs. Vet Path
1990;27:61-62.
42. Taddio A, Goldback M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G. Effect of neonatal
circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys. Lancet
1995;345:291-292.
43. Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on
pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997;349:599-603.
44. Grunau RVE, Whitfield MF, Petrie JH. Early pain experience, child and
family factors, as precursons or somatization: a prospective study of extremely
premature and full-term children. Pain 1994;56:353-359.
45. Nott HMR. Social behaviour of the dog. In: Thorne C, editor. The Waltham
book of dog and cat behaviour. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 1992:97-114.
46. Tucker CB, Fraser D, Weary DM. Tail docking dairy cattle: effects on cow
cleanliness and udder health. J Dairy Sci 2001;84:84-87.
47. Vesey-Fitzgerald B. The domestic dog: an introduction to its history.
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. 1957.
48. Descartes R. Animals are machines. In: Regan T, Singer P, editors. Animal
rights and human obligations. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 1989:13-19.
49. Singer P. Animal Liberation. 2nd edn. Jonathan Cape, London. 1990.
50. Regan T. The case for animal rights. University of California, Berkeley. 1985.
51. Strejffert G. Tail injuries of Shorthaired German Pointer dogs in Sweden
1989. http://www.cdb.org/sweden.htm . 1992. Retrieved 15-10-2001.
52. Council of Docked Breeds. The case for docking. http://www.cdb.org . 1992.
Retrieved 15-10-2001.
53. Darke PGG, Thrusfield MV, Aitken CGG. Association between tail injuries
and docking in dogs. Vet Rec 1985;116:409.
54. French NP, Wall PD, Morgan KL. Lamb tail docking: a controlled field study
of the effects of tail amputation on health and productivity. Vet Rec
1994;134:463-467.
55. Phipps AM, Matthews LR, Verkerk GA. Tail docked dairy cattle: fly induced
behaviour and adrenal responsiveness to ACTH. Proc NZ Soc Anim Prod
1995;55:61-63.
56. Poresky RH. The Young Childrens Empathy Measure: reliability, validity
and effects of companion animal bonding. Psychol Rep 1990;66:931-936.
57. Poresky RH, Hendrix C. Differential effects of pet presence and pet-bonding
on young children. Psychol Rep 1990;67:51-54.
58. Fine A. Animal Assisted Therapy: theoretical foundations and guidelines for
practice. Academic Press, San Diego. 2000.
59. Agnew CA. The causes of animal abuse: a social-psychological analysis.
Theor Crim 1998;2:177-209.
60. Ascione FR, Arkow R. Child abuse, domestic violence and animal abuse:
linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention. Purdue
University Press, Indiana. 1999.
61. Ascione FR, Kaufmann ME, Brooks SM. Animal abuse and developmental
psychopathology: recent research, programmatic, and therapeutic issues and
challenges for the future. In: Fine A, editor. Animal-assisted therapy: theoretical
foundations and guidelines for practice. Academic Press, San Diego. 2000:325-354.
(Accepted for publication 23 September 2003)
Downloaded from veterinaryrecord.bmj.com on January 15, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports

ANIMAL WELFARE
Call for ban on the non-therapeutic

docking of dogs tails
A CALL for a total ban on the docking
of dogs tails for non-therapeutic purposes was made by representatives of
the BVA, BSAVA and the RSPCA at a press
conference held at the BVA headquarters
on January 9.
Calling the docking of dogs tails for
cosmetic purposes painful, unnecessary and unethical, the organisations
said that they hoped it would be banned
through the new Animal Welfare Bill,
which was to receive its second reading
in the House of Commons on January
10 (see p 35).
The Bill proposes a statutory ban on
mutilations, with certain specified
exemptions, such as neutering, that are
considered necessary for the overall welfare or good management of an animal
(VR, October 22, 2005, vol 157, p 495).
DEFRA stated, when the Bill was published, that it would not be for the
Government to alter the status quo on
tail docking and believed that it was an
issue for Parliament to decide. However,
at the press conference, the three organisations urged MPs, who will be given a
chance to debate the issue, to ensure that
the only exemption extended to the
docking of dogs tails was for therapeutic reasons. They stressed that a new
MORI poll showed that only 8 per cent of
the British public supported the docking of dogs tails for cosmetic reasons,
while 75 per cent opposed the practice.
Speaking at the press conference, the
BVA President, Dr Freda Scott-Park,
noted that the BVA had been campaigning vigorously to ensure that the nontherapeutic docking of dogs tails was
discontinued. With regards to prophylactic tail docking, she said that it was a
thorny issue, but that there was no scientific evidence to show that undocked
working dogs damaged their tails any
more than docked working dogs. The
BVA saw no justification for an exemption for working dogs, believing that
any such exemption would result in
dogs continuing to be docked.
Mr David Bowles, head of external
affairs at the RSPCA, said that while cosmetic docking remained legal, so did the
unhealthy but sanctioned view that
some pedigree dogs would fetch a better
price without their tails. Disreputable
breeders would therefore continue to
dock their puppies illegally. Many other
countries, like Denmark and Sweden,
had a total ban on tail docking and the
overwhelming worldwide trend was to
impose a total prohibition. It was time
for the UK to follow suit.
34
Describing when the debate on tail

docking might occur, Mr Bowles noted
that, after its second reading, the Bill
would go into a standing committee,
and would then receive its third reading
in the House of Commons. Votes on the
issue would occur during the various
processes. The Bill would then go to the
House of Lords.
A BVA policy statement on tail docking,
and a press release from the press conference are available at www.bva.co.uk
The BVA Animal Welfare Foundations
(AWFs) poster Every dog should have a
tail to tell . . . shows some breeds of
traditionally docked dogs sporting their
natural tails. The poster has been
endorsed by the BVA, the BSAVA, the
RCVS, the Blue Cross, the Dogs Trust,
the PDSA, the RSPCA and Wood Green
Animal Shelters. A copy of the poster
was sent to every UK veterinary
practice in December 2005 as part of the
BVAs campaign to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic docking
under the Animal Welfare Bill. Further copies can be obtained from
the AWF website, www.bva-awf.org.uk, or by contacting Clare Lynch,
e-mail: clarel@bva.co.uk. A similar poster was originally produced by the
Foundation in 1992 before a ruling that from July 1, 1993, only veterinary
surgeons could dock puppies tails
The Veterinary Record, January 14, 2006
News & Reports
avian influenza situation and their

possible implications for foodborne
transmission in the UK. The ACMSF concluded that the recent information on
avian influenza had not changed its risk
assessment and its advice remained the
same. It said that the risk of acquiring
avian influenza through the food chain
was low and that there was no direct
evidence to support this route of infec-
tion. It pointed out that evidence from

human infection indicated that direct
contact with infected birds was the
main risk factor and that the consumption of infected chickens had not been
identified as a risk factor.
The FSA says that it does not consider
that the current outbreaks of avian
influenza in countries outside the UK
pose a food safety risk for UK consumers.
ANIMAL WELFARE
Internet consultation reveals EU

citizens interest in welfare
A summary of the
responses to the
consultation can be
downloaded from
http://europa.eu.int/
comm/food/
consultations/action_
plan_farmed_
background_en.htm
THE results of a European Union (EU)wide online consultation on the welfare

of farm animals were published at the
end of last year. The consultation,
which closed on December 20, 2005,
had been held to gather information
about public attitudes to welfare and
the protection of farmed animals to
help inform the preparation of a
Community Action Plan on Animal
Welfare and Protection, which is due to
be published at the end of January.
Over 44,500 responses to the consultation were received, with the greatest number being submitted by German
citizens (253 per cent). The UK contributed 58 per cent of the responses.
Questions asked covered matters such
as the general welfare of farmed animals
in the EU, as well as the welfare of specific species, the sources of information
about welfare that consumers use and
the use of food labelling to indicate the
welfare conditions under which an animal was raised.
When asked their opinion on the
level of welfare and protection of animals farmed within the EU, 644 per cent
of respondents rated it as very poor or
poor. In particular, 628 per cent felt
that the welfare of broiler chickens was
very poor and 587 per cent felt that the
welfare of laying hens was very poor.
The welfare of pigs was rated very poor
by 488 per cent of respondents; however, the welfare of dairy cows was
thought to be very poor by just over
one fifth of respondents (214 per cent),
while that of beef cattle was regarded as
very poor by 339 per cent.
Respondents were asked a series of
questions concerning where they got
their information about animal welfare
within their own country. The most
important source of information overall was animal protection organisations,
with 444 per cent of respondents rating
this source as very important; books,
magazines, newspapers and leaflets,
were the next most important source of
information, with 317 per cent rating

them as very important. Information
from government was felt to be very
important by only 117 per cent, while
125 per cent gave this rating to information from farmers organisations. A
majority of respondents (606 per cent)
did not believe that consumers currently received enough information
about the conditions of welfare and
protection that animals are farmed
under in the EU.
A number of questions were also
asked about how useful the various
sources of information could be: 632
per cent of respondents said that films,
video, television and radio could be a
very useful source of information; 375
per cent responded that government
sources could be very useful.
In terms of food labelling, 78 per
cent of respondents certainly wanted
food products to be labelled more
clearly to indicate the welfare conditions under which they were sourced.
Overall, 783 per cent of people
who responded to the survey believed
that more certainly needed to be
done to improve the level of welfare
and the protection of animals farmed
within the EU, and 808 per cent said
that certainly the EU should do more
to promote a greater awareness of
animal welfare and protection internationally. With regard to imported
foods, 871 per cent of respondents
said that such foods should be produced
under conditions of animal welfare and
protection that were as least as high as
those applied in their own country.
The possible effect of improved animal welfare standards was also investigated: 80 per cent of respondents said
that they believed that producing food
under better welfare conditions would
result in better animal health; 569 per
cent said it would result in better food
safety and 746 per cent that it would
result in more ethically acceptable food
products.
ANIMAL WELFARE
Animal Welfare
Bill granted
second reading
THE Animal Welfare Bill was granted
a second reading in the House of
Commons on January 10 following a
debate lasting almost six hours.
Introducing the Bill, the Secretary of
State at DEFRA, Mrs Margaret Beckett,
called it the most significant and comprehensive proposal for animal welfare
legislation for nearly a century. It would
create a more flexible statutory framework, setting out key principles, but
leaving detailed matters to secondary
legislation. The Government believe
that flexibility is critical if our legislation is to keep pace with the expected
advances in animal welfare, she said.
Mrs Beckett reiterated that the
Government was inclined to support
the status quo on the issue of nontherapeutic docking of dogs tails (VR,
October 22, 2005, vol 157, p 495); however, she appreciated that there were
genuine and strongly held views on
both sides of the argument. The
Governments intention was that
Parliament should decide the issue,
and it hoped that MPs would have
the opportunity to express their views
during the passage of the Bill.
The Bill now passes to a standing
committee, which will consider the
individual clauses within the Bill and
may amend it, before reporting back to
the House of Commons. The standing
committee proceedings should be
brought to a close on January 26.
ANIMAL HEALTH
Industry launches
BVD control
campaign
AN industry-led campaign to control
and eradicate bovine viral diarrhoea
(BVD) throughout Britain was launched
on January 5. Veterinary surgeons and
representatives of the beef and dairy
sectors have agreed initially to establish
two working groups to develop an outline strategy for the disease and a communications plan.
At a recent meeting hosted by DEFRA,
researchers and representatives of the
British Cattle Veterinary Association
and the cattle industry agreed that, if the
industry was prepared to take the lead,
there was enough knowledge and suffi35
News & Reports
cient tools available to significantly

reduce the disease. Britain is unlike
other EU member states in that it currently has no BVD control policy.
Commenting on the new campaign,
Professor Joe Brownlie, of the Royal
Veterinary College, said: BVD is a serious disease that affects many cattle
farms in one way or another, and it is
causing significant financial losses for
many farmers. Industry organisations
in most other EU member states are
undertaking eradication campaigns
and, unless we get to grips with this
serious problem, Great Britain will be
left behind.
VETERINARY MEDICINES
to animal medicines under the

Medicines Act have been removed. It is
hoped that moving the AMI to the VMD
will preserve its skills and expertise and
will benefit both organisations.
The role of the AMI, which inspects
and approves manufacturers of medicated/zootechnical animal feedingstuffs
and retailers of certain restricted veterinary medicines under an agreement
with the VMD, will remain unchanged in
the short term, but will be reviewed
during 2006. The five inspectors will
continue to operate regionally, with an
administrative office based in either
Stoneleigh or Coventry.
Mr Steve Dean, chief executive of
the VMD, said that the AMI would reinforce the core strategic aims of the VMD
and provide improvements to the coordination and scope of its enforcement
activities.
Animal medicines
inspectorate
moves to the
ENDANGERED SPECIES
VMD
Increase in
THE Animal Medicines Inspectorate charges for CITES
(AMI) of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) became permits
part of the Veterinary Medicines
Directorate (VMD) on January 1.
Explaining the rationale behind the
move, the VMD says that, as a result of
the Veterinary Medicines Regulations
2005 coming into force last year (VR,
November 5, 2005, vol 157, p 599), the
RPSGBs statutory obligations in relation
THE charges for licences to trade in

certain endangered species are to be
increased later this year. Announcing
the increased fees last month, DEFRA
said that the charge for all import
permits, export permits and sales
certificates would increase to 20 from
early 2006, followed a year later by a

further increase to 25. Concessions
will apply to applications made for
educational, enforcement, scientific and
zoological purposes, when a fee of 10
per application will be charged. DEFRA
will retain the right to waive fees where
it considers it appropriate.
Article 30 certificates (which allow
scientific institutions in the EU to keep
specified endangered species) and applications to become breeders registered
under the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Flora and Fauna (CITES) will be assessed
without payment of a fee.
DEFRA consulted on proposals to
increase the level of charges in 2004
(VR, April 24, 2004, vol 154, p 518). It
points out that the charges for processing licensing applications have not been
revised since 1997, and that the new
level of fee is much lower than that suggested in the consultation document.
The biodiversity minister, Mr Jim
Knight, said that the increased charges
would be reinvested in the CITES licensing and enforcement systems, ensuring
that it maintained its robust high standards. He believed that the new fees
struck the right balance between
increasing revenue from fees and ensuring that people continued to comply
with the controls.
DEFRA is currently drafting legislation
to bring these changes into force. It is
anticipated that the first change will
come into force on April 1, 2006, with
the second increase following a year later.
Papers in this weeks Veterinary Record
36
Effect of PrP genotype on risk

of clinical scrapie in sheep
Campylobacter species in cats

and dogs in animal shelters
Parasite control methods in

sheep in south-west England
KNOWLEDGE of the associations between

the prion protein (PrP) genotype of sheep
and their risk of clinical scrapie has been
used to develop genotyping and breeding
programmes that aim to eradicate the disease. On p 43, Ms Sue Tongue and colleagues calculate the relative risk of the
development of clinical scrapie conferred
by different PrP genotypes. Genotype data
were obtained from the Scrapie Notifications Database of Great Britain (the case
population) and three other, non-case populations, and used to calculate the odds
ratio (OR) of clinical scrapie developing in
sheep of a given PrP genotype, compared
with the wild-type ARQ/ARQ genotype. The
genotypes ARH/VRQ and ARQ/VRQ had
estimated ORs ranging between 5 and 20,
indicating an increased risk of clinical
scrapie, and for VRQ/VRQ the ORs were
greater than 20. Eight genotypes had ORs
less than 1, indicating a lower risk of scrapie
than that associated with ARQ/ARQ.
Campylobacter species are zoonotic pathogens that can cause gastrointestinal disease
in human beings and animals; animals can
also be asymptomatic carriers. On p 51, Ms
Els Acke and colleagues study the prevalence of Campylobacter species in cats and
dogs living in two animal shelters in
Ireland. Rectal swabs or faecal samples
were taken from 120 dogs and cats in shelter 1, in which one kitten had diarrhoea,
and rectal swabs were taken from 46 dogs
in shelter 2, 22 of which had diarrhoea.
The swabs from 24 of 47 dogs (511 per
cent) and 36 of 48 cats (75 per cent) at
shelter 1 yielded Campylobacter species on
culture; 40 of the dogs (87 per cent) at
shelter 2, including 19 of the 22 with gastrointestinal signs, were positive. In shelter
1 the prevalence was significantly higher in
cats than dogs, and in animals less than six
months of age than older animals; no significant difference with age was observed
in shelter 2.
THERE is little information on the strategies used by sheep farmers to control parasites in their flocks, or of their perceptions
of anthelmintic resistance. On p 55, Ms
Dallas Fraser and colleagues describe a
questionnaire survey of 90 sheep farmers in
south-west England on their parasite management strategies. The farmers used a
variety of strategies, with most based on
information from the farming press, agricultural merchants and, to a lesser extent,
their veterinary surgeon. Macrocyclic lactones were the most commonly used products, and the choice was based primarily on
experience. Sixty per cent of the farmers
expressed concerns about the development
of anthelmintic resistance; 28 per cent had
experienced resistance, mainly to benzimidazoles. The authors state that resistance
is likely to be more common than reported,
and emphasise the importance of veterinary surgeons involvement in developing
sustainable parasite control strategies.
Call for ban on the non-therapeutic docking

of dogs' tails
Veterinary Record 2006 158: 34
doi: 10.1136/vr.158.2.34-a
Updated information and services can be found at:

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/158/2/34.2.full.html
These include:
Email alerting
service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in
the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to:

http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To order reprints go to:

http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to:

http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
News & Reports

ANIMAL WELFARE
Tight deadline for comments on tail

docking legislation
THE Government is allowing only
eight weeks for the submission of
comments on two draft statutory
instruments that will be among the
first pieces of secondary legislation
to be enacted under the new Animal
Welfare Act 2006, which received Royal
Assent on November 8 (VR, November
11, 2006, vol 159, p 646).
The draft Mutilations (Permitted
Procedures) (England) Regulations
and the draft Docking of Working
Dogs Tails (England) Regulations
were published for consultation on
November 21, and comments have
been invited by January 8, 2007. The
Government says that the shorter
than usual consultation period (12
weeks are normally allowed) is
because of the short time between the
passing of the Animal Welfare Act by
Parliament and the need to bring the
regulations into force. It considers
that, because the consultation does not
contain any major policy changes that
have not been made public already,
an eight-week consultation period is
acceptable. The Animal Welfare Act
2006 will come into force on April 6,
2007.
The new Act will ban certain mutilations procedures that involve interference with the sensitive tissues or
bone structure of an animal other than
for the purposes of medical treatment.
However, the Act permits the use of secondary legislation to exempt a number
of procedures from this general ban on
mutilations. The Government notes
that any procedure, whether listed in
the regulations or not, will continue to
be permitted if performed for medical
reasons.
The docking of dogs tails has been
explicitly excluded from the general
ban on mutilations as it is dealt with
in a separate section of the Act. Again,
the Act permits the Secretary of State to
make regulations about how working
dogs that will be exempt from a ban on
tail docking are to be certificated and
how exempted dogs are to be identified.
The consultation exercise is being
held to determine which procedures
should be exempted from the general
ban and also to determine which dogs
should be exempted from the ban
on tail docking, as well as the means
of identification and certification.
Responses are invited in the form of
answers to 38 questions that are asked
in the consultation document.
758
Mutilations
The draft Mutilations (Permitted
Procedures) (England) Regulations set
out the general circumstances in which
a permitted procedure should be conducted namely, in accordance with
the requirements of the legislation,
in such a way as to minimise the pain
and suffering it causes to the animal,
in hygienic conditions, and in accordance with good practice. However, they
do not specify the exact circumstances
in which each procedure may be performed. The Government says that this
would result in the legislation becoming unnecessarily over-prescriptive
and would risk omitting some circumstances in which it would be appropriate to allow a procedure. It recognises
that animal owners and vets consider
that some flexibility and discretion are
necessary in managing animals.
The Government also says that the
question of who performs the various
procedures described in the draft regulations is beyond the scope of the consultation because DEFRA is carrying out
a separate, and much wider, review of
the Veterinary Surgeons Act. It considers it inappropriate to pre-empt this.
The regulations set out which
procedures are being considered for
exemption from the general ban on
mutilations. Procedures have been considered for exemption on the basis that
they either secure an overall welfare
benefit or they are recognised management practices. They fall into the general categories of:
Procedures for controlling repro-
duction;
Procedures used for the purposes of
identification;
Other management procedures.
With regard to procedures for controlling reproduction, vasectomy, spaying, castration, ovum transplantation
and embryo collection and transfer are
all proposed as procedures that will be
permitted. The Government states that
the only change to the status quo in this
area will be a requirement for spaying
to be conducted under anaesthetic. It
notes that, currently, this is not a necessity, although it is routinely used.
As far as identification procedures
are concerned, the Government is not
proposing any changes to the status quo
and procedures such as freeze branding, tattooing, microchipping and ear
tipping, among others, will continue to
be permitted.
Procedures that fall into the other

management procedures category
include dehorning of cattle, sheep and
goats, disbudding of cattle, sheep and
goats, and dewclaw removal in dogs.
The Government says that it would
particularly welcome views on whether
the disbudding of calves aged seven
days or less by chemical cauterisation
should be banned; what the preferred
method is for disbudding goats (chemical cauterisation or thermocautery)
and why; and also whether it is necessary to maintain an exemption for the
disbudding of lambs.
There are also a number of procedures that the Government notes are
currently legal that will not be included
in the list of permitted procedures and
will therefore become illegal once the
new legislation is introduced. These
include the removal of anal sacs, the
castration of male birds by surgical methods, devoicing of birds, dogs,
horses and mules, ear cropping in dogs,
the insertion of prosthetic testicles in
dogs, claw removal (with the exception
of dewclaws) and the drilling of tortoise
shells. The Government lists 21 such
procedures in total and asks specifically
whether each should not be exempted
from the general ban on mutilations.
Docking of dogs tails
The draft regulations dealing with tail
docking of dogs detail the requirements that will have to be met before
a veterinary surgeon can certify a dog
as one that is permitted to have its tail
docked, and therefore dock the animal,
and also list the evidence that the veterinary surgeon must be shown as proof
of meeting the requirements.
The draft regulations specify which
dogs will be exempt from the general
ban on tail docking: these include spaniels and terriers of any type or combination of types, as well as types of hunt
point retrievers such as the Hungarian
vizsla, the Italian spinone and the weimaraner. The draft regulations also
specify the types of evidence that must
be presented to a veterinary surgeon by
an owner or keeper to support a request
for docking. These include official identification, such as that from the armed
forces, emergency rescue services or
police authority. Other forms of permissible evidence will be evidence that
the dog will be used for work in connection with lawful pest control, a current
shotgun or firearm certificate issued to
the owner or to the agent or employee
The Veterinary Record, December 2, 2006
The draft
regulations and
accompanying
documents are
available from
www.defra.gov.uk/
corporate/consult/
dogtail-mutilation/
index.htm, and DEFRA
has invited comments
by January 8, 2007.
The BVA is currently
formulating its
response. Members
who wish to contribute
are asked to submit
their comments to the
Association by January
1, 2007, linking their
remarks to the specific
questions posed in
DEFRAs consultation
document
News & Reports
of the owner most likely to be using the

dog in connection with the lawful shooting of animals, or a letter from, among
others, a gamekeeper or person with
shooting rights, stating that the breeder
of the dog to be docked is known to him
and that dogs bred by that breeder have
been used on his land or in his shoot or
for pest control purposes.
In order to dock a working dog
legally veterinary surgeons will have to
certify that they are satisfied that the
dam of the dog is of one of the specified types, that they reasonably believe
that the dog is not more than five days
old, and that the owner of the dog, or
another person they reasonably believe
to be representing the owner, has shown

them the required evidence.
The draft regulations also include a
draft of the certificate that will have to
be issued by veterinary surgeons to show
that a dog has been docked legally. This
certificate will also have a section to be
completed when the dog is permanently
identified as required by the legislation.
The Government considers that microchipping is the only way to uniquely and
permanently identify a legally docked
dog, but says that because of the size of
the puppy and the possible risk of infection, the microchipping procedure may
be carried out at a different time from
the docking of the tail.
The Veterinary Record, December 2, 2006
759
Tight deadline for comments on tail docking

legislation
Veterinary Record 2006 159: 758-759
doi: 10.1136/vr.159.23.758

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/159/23/758.full.html
These include:
Email alerting
service
Notes



Papers
Papers
Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in
Great Britain
G. Diesel, D. Pfeiffer, S. Crispin, D. Brodbelt
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.
The docking of dogs tails remains controversial and centres on
whether non-therapeutic docking reduces the risk of tail injury sufficiently to justify the ethical concerns of a prophylactic intervention
(Orlans and others 1998, Bennett and Perini 2003). A ban on nontherapeutic tail docking was introduced in Great Britain in early 2007.
In Scotland, a complete ban was introduced, in Wales the ban was
introduced with specific working breed exemptions, and in England
the ban was introduced with specific working breed-type exemptions
(Anon 2006, Defra 2007). The exemptions include dogs involved in
law enforcement, the armed forces, emergency rescue, lawful pest control and lawful shooting of animals. These variations in legislation
provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the association between
docking and tail injuries in a population of dogs including substantial numbers of docked and undocked animals, and to assess whether
Veterinary Record (2010) 166, 812-817

G. Diesel, BVSc, MSc, PhD, MRCVS,
D. Pfeiffer, DrMedVet, PhD, MACVSc,
DipECVPH,
D. Brodbelt, MA, VetMB, PhD, DVA,
DipECVAA, MRCVS,
Department of Veterinary Clinical
Sciences, Royal Veterinary College,
Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms,
Hertfordshire AL9 7TA
doi: 10.1136/vr.b4880
S. Crispin, MA, VetMB, BSc, PhD,

DVA, DVOphthal, DipECVO, FRCVS,
Department of Anatomy, University of
Bristol, University Walk, Clifton, Bristol
BS8 1TD
E-mail for correspondence:
gilldiesel@yahoo.co.uk
Provenance: not commissioned;
externally peer reviewed
812 | Veterinary Record | June 26, 2010
country (England, Scotland or Wales) and location (rural or urban) are

risk factors in themselves.
A previous study conducted in Edinburgh in 1985 showed that
tail injuries were rare, with the estimated prevalence being 0.39 per
cent (Darke and others 1985). That study estimated that not docking a dogs tail increased the risk of a tail injury 1.28 times, but this
was found to be not significant (95 per cent confidence interval [CI]
0.61 to 2.69 per cent). A more recent survey, which recorded the types
of injuries and causes of lameness in dogs involved in game shooting, showed a highly significant association between tail injuries and
being undocked among springer spaniels (P=0.008) and cocker spaniels (P=0.004) (Houlton 2008). Both these studies represented a subset of the dog population in Great Britain and were conducted before
implementation of the restrictions on docking. Additionally, the study
by Houlton (2008) of working dogs relied on a convenience sample,
and the study by Darke and others (1985) is more than 20 years old;
therefore, further work to evaluate tail injuries in Great Britain was
considered necessary. The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of
tail injuries, to ascertain the extent to which docking reduces the risk
of tail injury, and to identify other major risk factors for tail injury in
dogs attending veterinary practices in Great Britain.
Materials and methods
Participants and procedure
A case-control study design was used nested within a cohort of dogs

attending veterinary practices between March 2008 and March 2009.
Power calculations carried out before the study estimated that approximately 250 dogs with tail injuries would be required. However, these
calculations were revised on the basis of preliminary estimates of the
prevalence of dogs with docked tails among the dogs recruited into the
Papers
study. The revised sample size calculations estimated that approximately 90 to 120 cases of tail injury would be required based on the
detection of an odds ratio of 0.3 to 0.5, assuming that the prevalence
of docking among dogs was approximately 12 to 14 per cent (95 per
cent confidence level, 80 per cent power, case:control ratio of 1:4)
(Win Episcope 2.0; CLIVE).
A list of mixed and companion animal veterinary practices was
taken from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Practice Register
(RCVS 2008). This list was stratified by country (England, Scotland
or Wales,) and then the list for each country was stratified by location
(rural or urban) based on the postcode classification of the practice
location (Office for National Statistics 2006). A sample of veterinary
practices was then randomly selected, using random number generation, from each of these lists. The practices in the sample were
approached to determine whether they were using one of seven specified computerised practice management systems (RoboVet or PremVet
[Vet Solutions], Midshires or Ventana [Consulsoft], Teleos [Teleos
Systems], Vet-one [Gemhader Software] or RxWorks [RX Works]),
and whether they were willing to participate in the study. Data were
extracted from the practice database of all participating practices, to
obtain a list of all dogs that had attended the veterinary practice in
the previous 12-month period and their clinical histories. A free-text
search was used to identify all dogs that had sustained a tail injury by
searching for the word tail. The search detected all words containing
tail whether there was a space or not before or after the word.
Cases were defined as any dog presented to the veterinary practice
within the previous 12 months for treatment of a tail injury, including fractures, dislocations, lacerations, contusions, self-trauma and
neoplasia. Tail problems relating to neoplasia and self-trauma were
included as it has been reported anecdotally that in some of these cases
there is an underlying chronic traumatic injury that eventually leads
to the development of a tumour or a self-traumatic injury. A list of all
dogs that had attended each of the participating veterinary practices
during the same one-year period as the case dogs was obtained, and
control dogs were then randomly selected from this list by random
number allocation. For each case, approximately four control dogs
were randomly selected. Dogs selected as controls that had sustained
a tail injury within the past 12 months but had not been treated by
a veterinarian were excluded as controls. Dogs suffering from water
tail/limber tail were excluded from the study as these injuries are not
well understood and it is thought that they are due to muscle fatigue.
It was also thought that including these dogs as cases would result in a
weakening of the power of the study and the possibility of examining
associations between risk factors and typical tail injuries.
Questionnaire design
The owners of the selected cases and controls were sent a questionnaire
during 2008 and 2009. The questionnaire was designed and pretested
before the study. The questionnaire was reviewed by five epidemiologists and eight clinicians. It was then pretested on five dog owners to
ensure it was clear and easy to follow. The questionnaire was also
translated into Welsh. A prepaid reply envelope was supplied with the
questionnaire, in addition to a disposable tape measure to enable owners to measure the length and height of their dog. The questionnaire
investigated aspects relating to the size, temperament (as perceived by
the owner) and breed of the dog, the home environment, whether
the dog was used as a working dog and the nature of any tail injuries
(Table1) (questionnaire available on request from GD). Tail wag angle
was assessed by asking the owners to estimate how far the tail deviated
from the midline position by selecting one of three options provided
in the form of a diagram. Dog owners who returned their questionnaire were entered into a monthly prize draw in order to increase the
response rate. A second questionnaire and reminder letter were sent to
all owners if no response was received within four weeks.
Data analysis
All data were entered into a predesigned database with data entry
validation rules (Access 2003; Microsoft). The data were checked,
cleaned and then exported to Stata version 9 (Stata Corp) for analysis. The weighted risk estimates were calculated accounting for the
sampling strategy by using the Stata survey commands. Additional
TABLE 1: Risk factors evaluated in a case-control study of tail

injuries in dogs in Great Britain
Factor
Dog characteristics
Owner details/type of activity
Age, sex, neuter status, breed, weight, height, tail

length, body length, coat length, coat type, body
condition, docked before injury, tail shape, tail hair,
temperament, tail wag angle, tail wag in circles,
bottom wag, style of tail wag
Country, urban/rural, veterinary practice, uses dog
for work, shows dog, where is dog kept, type of
property, how many other dogs owned, frequency
of exercise, exercise hours, exercise environment,
type of work, frequency of work, work hours, work
environment
risk approximations were calculated for working and non-working

dogs, for docked and non-docked dogs, and for individual breeds or
breed types based on estimated denominator data. This was calculated
by using the proportion calculated from the data relating to the control dogs enrolled in the study. Attributable risk, number needed to
treat and population attributable risk fraction were calculated where
appropriate.
The analysis assessing risk factors initially involved univariable
screening. This was done using chi-squared tests of association and
univariable logistic regression. The xtlogit command (with country
and urban/rural as fixed effects and veterinary practice identity as a
random effect) was used in order to account for the clustering in the
dataset. All variables were assessed for collinearity using a correlation
matrix, and where two variables were found to be highly collinear
a decision was made to exclude one variable from the model based
on considerations including a priori importance of the risk factors,
strength of associations and missing values (Dohoo and others 2003).
All continuous variables were assessed graphically for normality. All
variables that had a P<0.2 on univariable screening were put forward
for multivariable analysis. Manual forward and backward stepwise
multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models were developed
assessing the addition or removal of individual variables using the likelihood ratio test. Statistical significance was set at the 5per cent level.
If the likelihood ratio test was not significant, it was also checked
whether the variable had a confounding effect by assessing changes in
the coefficients and significance of other variables in the model before
being removed. All final model variables were assessed for interactions. The fit of the model was assessed using Hosmer-Lemeshow
goodness-of-fit test on the basic logistic regression model. As the xt
commands in Stata version 9 do not support goodness-of-fit tests, further diagnostics, including the calculation of leverage and delta-betas,
were used to identify any outliers or highly influential observations.
The quadchk command was used on the final xtlogit model to
assess the sensitivity of the quadrature approximation. The change in
coefficients was less than 0.01 per cent and therefore it can be assumed
that the choice of quadrature did not significantly affect the results.
Due to the a priori interest in working dogs, the variable work was
forced into all models to assess its significance. Several multivariable
models were developed in order to assess various aspects of the data.
A model was developed for all dogs in the study using different breed
classifications, for spaniels only and for working dogs only.
The breed, sex and age of the dogs owned by non-responders among
the cases and controls were compared with those that did respond in
order to assess the representativeness of cases and controls. Additionally,
the types of injuries recorded among the non-responding cases were
compared to those of the cases whose owners did respond.
Results
A total of 314 veterinary practices were contacted initially. Of

these practices, 198 either refused to participate or did not have a
suitable computer system to be eligible for inclusion in the study.
Theremaining 116 practices were then sent a letter requesting their
participation in the study, and 52 agreed to participate. The practices that did not agree to participate stated one of the following
reasons: they did not want to participate in a study looking at such a
topical issue, they did not have the time, or they were uncomfortable
June 26, 2010 | Veterinary Record | 813
Papers
TABLE 2: Number of dogs that were tail docked and that were
used for work among the cases and controls in a study of the risk
factors of tail injury
Working
Cases
Not
working
Total
0
12
12
2
83
85
2
95
97
Docked
Not docked
Total
Working
Controls
Not
working
Total
9
8
17
26
177
203
35
185
220*
* Two owners did not state whether or not their dogs tail was docked
TABLE 3: Number of dogs of specific breeds/breed types, and

whether they were or were not used for work, among the cases
and controls
Breed/breed type
Labradors and other
retrievers
English springer
spaniels
Cocker spaniels
Border collies, rough
collies
Jack Russell terriers
Lurchers, greyhounds,
whippets
Other
Total
Working
Cases
Not
working
Working
Controls
Not
working
Total
16
19
Total
34
38
13
17
16
1
1
3
5
4
6
1
2
4
30
5
32
0
2
1
14
1
16
1
0
14
6
15
6
1
12
33
85
34
97
2
17
108
205
110
222
contacting their clients with questionnaires. The 52 participating

veterinary practices provided clinical records for 138,212 dogs that
had attended the practices within the previous 12-month period. A
total of 281 cases were identified among these clinical records, but
questionnaires could not be sent to all cases at the request of some
practices. Three practices withdrew from participating in the study
after their database had been queried, meaning that data were available on the number of cases and number of dogs attending the practice but the owners of these cases could not be sent questionnaires.
Additionally, there were some cases that had recently died or been
euthanased; the veterinary practice requested that a questionnaire
not be sent to the owners of these dogs. A total of 224 questionnaires
were sent out to owners of cases and 799 to owners of controls.
Of all the cases, 97 owners responded (response rate 43.3 per cent),
and 227 of the owners of controls responded (response rate 28.4 per
cent). Five controls were excluded because these dogs had sustained
a tail injury in the previous 12-month period but had not been seen
or treated by a veterinarian. Among these five controls, two working
dogs had sustained an injury while working and the other three dogs
had sustained a household injury. One of these dogs had a docked
tail before sustaining an injury. The proportion of male dogs among
the controls was 48 per cent and among the cases it was 53 per cent.
The mean (sd) age of the controls was 6.3 (4.2) years and of the cases
it was 5.7 (3.8) years.
There was no significant difference between the proportions
of specific breeds among the cases that responded and the cases
that did not respond (P=0.351). Additionally, there was no significant difference in age (P=0.985) or sex (P=0.686) between the
case responders and non-responders. Similar results were found
when comparing the responders and non-responders among the
controls (breeds P=0.974; age P=0.974; sex P=0.561). There was
no significant difference in the type of tail injuries recorded in the
clinical data between the case responders and case non-responders
(P=0.873).
Tables 2 and 3 show some descriptive results of the number of
dogs that were docked, the number used for work and the number of
dogs of specific breeds among the cases and controls enrolled in the
study. Among the 29 working dogs, all were used for game shooting
except for five dogs: one of these was a racing greyhound, one was a
German shepherd police dog and three were herding collies.
Risk of tail injury
The weighted risk of tail injuries seen by veterinarians across all regions
was 0.23 per cent/year (95 per cent CI 0.20 to 0.25 per cent). The risks
of tail injury in each country and location are given in Table 4.
Based on the proportion of working and non-working dogs
among the cases and controls, the approximated risk among
working dogs was 0.29 per cent (32 injuries among 10,974 dogs,
95 percent CI 0.21 to 0.43 per cent) and the approximated risk
among non-working dogs was 0.19 per cent (249 injuries among
127,238 dogs, 95 per cent CI 0.17 to 0.22 per cent); 29 was the
number of working dogs among those that did respond, while 32 is
the approximated number of working dog injuries expected had all
the owners responded to the questionnaire, out of the total 10,974
clinical records. Working dogs had a statistically significantly higher
risk than non-working dogs (P=0.032). The approximated risk for
docked dogs was 0.03 per cent (six injuries among 21,285 dogs,
95per cent CI 0.01 to 0.06 per cent) and for undocked dogs it was
0.23 per cent (275 injuries among 116,927 dogs, 95 per cent CI 0.21
to 0.27 per cent). Undocked dogs had a significantly higher risk than
docked dogs (P<0.001). The attributable risk was calculated from
these risk approximations and was found to be 0.20 per cent for
docking, and therefore the number needed to treat to prevent one
tail injury was 500 dogs. The population attributable risk fraction for
docking was a decrease of 11.9 per cent. Risk approximations were
also calculated for breeds, and these results are given in Table 5.
Types of tail injury
Of the 97 cases for which a questionnaire was completed, 70.1percent

(68 cases) were reported to be lacerations and bleeding, 20.6 per cent
(20 cases) fractures or dislocations, and of the rest (9.3 percent, nine
cases) six cases were self-trauma and three cases were neoplasia. The
questionnaires reported that 44.3 per cent (43 cases) were recurrent
tail injuries (based on the owners assessments) and 53.6per cent (52
cases) were not recurrent; in two cases it was not stated whether the
injury was recurrent. According to the owners assessments, 36.1 per
cent (35 cases) of the injuries were caused by the dog knocking its tail
against a wall, kennel wall or another household object, 17.5 per cent
(17 cases) were injuries from undergrowth or fences during exercise
or work, 14.4 per cent (14 cases) were due to the tail being caught in
a door, 15.5 per cent (15 cases) were due to other various causes, and
in 16.5 per cent (16 cases) the cause was unknown. The majority
of injuries (57.7 per cent, 56 cases) were treated conservatively with
antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and dressings, 30.9 per cent (30 cases)
resulted in amputation of the tail, and 11.4 per cent (11 cases) did not
require any specific treatment.
Risk factors for tail injuries
The major risk factors for tail injuries identified in the final multivariable model are shown in Table 6. Breed was an important factor:
English springer spaniels had 5.97 times the odds of sustaining an
injury compared with labradors and other retrievers, and greyhounds,
lurchers and whippets had 6.85 times the odds. Dogs with docked
tails had 0.03 times the odds of an injury compared with the dogs
that were undocked. Dogs kept in kennels during the day, at night
or both had 3.60 times the odds of sustaining a tail injury compared
with those that were not kept in a kennel. Also, dogs that wagged
their tails in a very wide angle had 3.72 times the odds, and those that
wagged their tail in a moderately wide angle had 2.91 times the odds,
of sustaining an injury compared with the dogs that wagged their tails
in only a narrow angle.
Other factors (the height and weight of the dog, body length, coat
type and type of tail hair) were also shown to be significant factors
(results not shown). However, these factors were not included in the
final model as there was strong collinearity with the variable breed,
which increased the standard errors of the estimates for breed and
made the model unstable.
The variable work was forced into the model due to the a priori
interest in work as a risk factor, despite this variable not being significant. A variable classifying dogs into game shooting, other type of
work or no work was also assessed and found to be not significant.
There were no interactions found and the fit of the model was good
Papers
TABLE 4: Risk estimates for tail injury among dogs living in
different countries within Great Britain and locations (rural
or urban). No significant difference was found between any
countries or locations
Category
England
Urban
Rural
Scotland
Urban
Rural
Wales
Urban
Rural
Weighted risk for
Great Britain
Number of
cases
Number of dogs
at risk
65
22
36,509
13,442
48
72
25,816
29,679
72
2
281
31,646
1120
138,212
Risk
estimate (%)
95% CI
0.17
0.18
0.16
0.22
0.19
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.18
0.23
0.13-0.21
0.14-0.22
0.09-0.23
0.18-0.26
0.14-0.24
0.18-0.30
0.18-0.28
0.18-0.28
0.00-0.43
0.20-0.25
CI Confidence interval
TABLE 5: Risk approximations for tail injuries in dogs of different

breeds/breed types
Breed/breed type
Labradors and other
retrievers
English springer
spaniels
Cocker spaniels
Border collies, rough
collies
Lurchers, greyhounds,
whippets
Other
Number
of
cases
Approximate number
of dogs at risk
Risk
estimate (%)
56
23,911
0.23
0.18-0.30
47
10,366
0.45
0.34-0.60
12
3179
0.37
0.22=0.66
18
20,732
0.08
0.06-0.14
9675
0.03
0.01-0.09
47
3870
1.22
0.90-1.61
98
66,479
0.15
0.12-0.18
95% CI
(Hosmer-Lemeshow model fit statistic P=0.733). The area under the

receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the logistic regression
model was 0.7854 and there were no particularly high leverage or
delta-beta values (defined as delta-beta >1.0, leverage >2 k/n, where k
is the number variables and n is the number of observations) (Hosmer
and Lemeshow 2000), which indicated no highly influential observations and supported good model fit.
Due to the high level of collinearity of many variables with breed
and the increased odds in spaniels, the model was repeated restricting the analysis to only spaniels (cocker and English springer spaniels). The results of this model are shown in Table 7. This shows that
whether a dogs tail was docked or not was the most important factor,
with docked dogs having 0.008 times the odds of sustaining a tail injury compared to dogs with undocked tails. The dogs sex was included
in the model as it had a confounding effect on docking. Work was
forced into the model but was found to be non-significant. The fit of
the model was good and the area under the ROC curve was 0.930.
The model development was repeated using the different classifications of breeds according to the current English and Welsh legislation for tail docking (results not shown). The results of these models
showed similar results to the model shown in Table 6. A model was
also developed restricting the analysis to just working dogs. In this
case, docked dogs were at significantly lower risk of sustaining a tail
injury compared with those with undocked tails, and dogs kept in
kennels were at a significantly higher risk (results not shown).
Discussion
This study has been able to estimate the risk of tail injuries in Great
Britain and identify major factors associated with a tail injury occurring in a large population of dogs attending a veterinary practice. The
overall risk of injury was low, and trauma not associated with work
accounted for the majority of injuries seen by participating veterinary
practices. Work in itself was not a major risk factor, and characteristics
such as the dogs breed, tail wag angle and docking status were more
important factors associated with tail injury in practice-attending

dogs.
The overall weighted risk of tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain
was estimated to be 0.23 per cent per year, which was lower than the
prevalence (0.39 per cent) found by Darke and others (1985). This
suggests that tail injuries requiring treatment in the general dog population of Great Britain could be rarer than previously thought. The difference in results between the studies may be due to differences in the
population studied. In the study by Darke and others (1985), the study
population was predominantly urban, and restricted to dogs attending
the University of Edinburghs small animal clinic. In the present study,
the dogs sampled were selected from veterinary practices throughout
Great Britain, in both urban and rural areas, and therefore were more
likely to be representative of the general dog population of Great
Britain. The study in Edinburgh included dogs with tail lacerations,
contusions, fractures, dislocations, self-trauma, neoplasia and dermatoses among the cases. However, the present study included only dogs
with lacerations, contusions, fractures, dislocations, self-trauma and
neoplasia as cases. Dogs with tail dermatoses were not considered
as cases for the present study as there are many potential causes of
this condition, such as allergies, flea infestation or even impacted anal
glands. In addition, the risk estimate in the present study is based on
a population of 138,212 dogs, whereas the study by Darke and others
(1985) based the risk estimate on a population of 12,129 dogs.
The risk of tail injuries found in the present study indicates that
tail injuries are very rare, and the approximated risk of tail injuries in
working dogs was only slightly higher at 0.29 per cent. In the study
by Houlton (2008), 21 of 668 (3.14 per cent) working dogs studied
sustained injuries including articular pathology, fractures and muscular injuries, among which tail injuries were included. However, direct
comparison of these risks cannot be made due to the differences in the
populations of dogs studied: the study by Houlton (2008) focused only
on working dogs but the present study included all practice-attending
dogs, of which working dogs represented only a small proportion
(9.1per cent). In addition, the risk estimated by Houlton (2008) related
to many different types of injury, not just tail injury.
The present study found no significant difference in risk between
England, Scotland and Wales, or between urban and rural areas. This
could indicate that there are no differences at all and the rate of tail injury is so low that minor policy differences between the countries have
no practical consequences, or that these differences have yet to have
a significant impact on the likelihood of tail injuries. This study was
started approximately one year after the introduction of the new legislation, and therefore it may be too soon to detect differences in the risks of
tail injury due to the differences in legislation. Dogs born after the ban
on tail docking would have been at most 18 to 24 months of age at the
time of the study. Additionally, the current legislation does not prevent
docked or undocked dogs from being moved between countries.
The most common type of tail injury reported in the present
study was lacerations and bleeding. This is similar to the findings
of Houlton (2008), where tail tip injuries were the most frequently
reported tail injury. It was also interesting to note that 44.3 per cent
of the tail injuries were reported to be recurrent injuries. This shows
an agreement with anecdotal evidence that suggests that tail injuries
are very difficult to treat, often resulting in many treatment attempts
before finally having to amputate the tail. In the present study, almost
one-third of tail injuries requiring veterinary treatment resulted in
amputation.
The risk factor analysis identified several important risk factors.
English springer spaniels and cocker spaniels were both at much
higher risk compared with labradors and other retrievers. This finding
supports that of Houlton (2008), who found that tail injuries were
much more common among these breeds than labradors or pointers.
Additionally, it was found that greyhounds, lurchers and whippets
were at a significantly higher risk than labradors, and also higher than
English springer and cocker spaniels. It has been anecdotally reported
that the high risk among greyhounds, lurchers and whippets may be
due to their long, whip-like tails, which have very little hair cover for
protection (Anon 2008). However, it is important to keep in mind
that, despite these breeds being shown to be the highest risk groups,
the overall risk of tail injuries was still low.
Papers
that breed was masking the effect of work.
However, in the model examining only
spaniels, work was still non-significant.
The present study had only low power to
Number of Number of
evaluate work as a risk factor based on the
Variable category
cases
controls
(se)
Odds ratio
95% CI
P
prestudy power calculations (8 per cent of
Breed
the control population were working dogs),
19
37
1.00
Labradors and other retrievers
and further work on working dogs may be
English springer spaniels
16
16
1.786 (0.655)
5.97
1.65-21.52 0.006
merited.
Cocker spaniels
4
5
1.558 (0.989)
4.75
0.68-33.03 0.115
The present study suggests that dogs
Border collies/rough collies
6
32
0.753 (0.546)
0.47
0.16-1.37
0.168
that are docked are less likely to sustain a
1
15
1.492 (1.096)
0.22
0.03-1.93
0.173
Greyhounds, lurchers, whippets
16
6
1.924 (0.604)
6.85
2.10-22.39 0.001
tail injury. This supports the findings of the
Other breeds
33
103
0.152 (0.365)
0.86
0.42-1.76
0.677
study conducted by Houlton (2008), which
Missing
2
8
showed that there was a strong association
Tail docked before injury
between tail injuries and undocked English
No
181
1.00
93
springer and cocker spaniels. In contrast,
Yes
2
33
3.467 (0.913)
0.03
0.01-0.19
<0.001
Tail wag angle
Darke and others (1985) found no signifi Narrow
10
61
1.00
cant association. The difference in findings
Moderately wide
28
62
1.066 (0.464)
2.91
1.17-7.21
0.021
from the latter study may have been related
Very wide
57
91
1.315 (0.433)
3.72
1.59-8.70
0.002
to that study assessing the customary/tradiDog kept in kennels (during night, day or both)
tional docking status of breeds and not the
No
78
201
1
actual docking status of individual dogs, the
Yes
17
13
1.281 (0.508)
3.60
1.33-9.75
0.012
Work use*
predominately urban clientele, the lack of
No
197
1
84
adjustment for confounding factors, and the
Yes
11
17
0.339 (0.656)
0.71
0.20-2.58
0.605
small sample size. In the present study, the
Intercept
1.906 (0.493)
results of the additional models for spanRandom effect of practice identity ()
0.009 (0.013)
0.350
iels only and for working dogs only also
* Forced into model due to a priori interest in working dogs
showed tail docking to be an important facCI Confidence interval
tor in reducing the likelihood of a dog sustaining a tail injury. This is to be expected,
as if a dog does not have a tail, it has no tail
TABLE 7: Results of multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model of risk factors
to injure, or if it has a tail of reduced length,
associated with tail injuries in spaniels in Great Britain (the number of observation used in
it is less likely to injure the shorter tail. The
the final model was 41)
important factor to examine is the level of
Variable category
Number of cases Number of controls
(se)
Odds ratio
95% CI
P
protection that docking provides and how
much more likely an undocked dog is to
Tail docked before injury
19
4
1
No
sustain a tail injury. The population attribut Yes
1
17
4.885 (1.390)
0.008
0.0004-0.12 <0.001
able risk fraction estimate indicates, assumSex
ing a causal association, that tail docking in
Male
14
8
1
the dog population studied is responsible
Female
6
13
2.108 (1.214)
0.121
0.01-1.31
0.082
for a 12 per cent reduction in tail injuries,
Work use*
No
15
13
1
which could be considered to be a large
Yes
5
8
0.068 (1.144)
0.934
0.10-8.81 0.953
and notable decrease. However, in absolute
Intercept
2.758 (1.073)
terms, the attributable risk was small at
0.012 (0.030)
0.426
Random effect of
0.20 per cent, and the number of dogs that
practice identity ()
would need to be treated (docked) in order
* Forced into model due to a priori interest in working dogs
to prevent one tail injury was very large,
at 500 dogs. Additionally, when considering these results, due to the low number of
docked dogs among the cases, extrapolation
Factors such as height, weight, body length, coat type and tail hair
of the results to the general dog population in Great Britain should
were found to be significant factors on univariable analysis. However,
be interpreted cautiously. One of the factors of interest at the start
these factors could not be included in the final model because they
of the study was the length of the dogs tail, and not just whether or
were highly collinear with breed.
not it had been docked. Some breeds of dog have their tails docked to
In the final model, tail wag angle was found to be a risk factor,
two-thirds the normal length (for example, Weimaraner, Hungarian
with dogs that reportedly wagged their tails over a very wide angle
vizsla), others to half the length (for example, miniature poodle), and
being at greater risk. This intuitively makes sense, as the wider a dog
other breeds have most of the tail removed (for example, rottweiler,
wags its tail, the more likely it is to knock the tail against objects in
Welsh corgi). Unfortunately, due to the small number of docked dogs
its surroundings compared with dogs that wag their tails in a narrow
among the cases, it was not possible to categorise dogs into different
angle; in addition, the force with which dogs wag their tails may be
docking lengths in this study.
greater over a wide angle. A dog being kept in kennels was found to
Tail docking remains a controversial issue, as evidenced by recent
be an important risk factor for a tail injury. This could possibly be
correspondence (Davidson 2006, King 2007, Penny 2007) and the
due to the size of the kennels being too small in relation to the size
number of submissions received by Parliament in the drafting of the
of the dogs, thereby increasing the chances of the dog knocking its
Animal Welfare Bill (Defra 2002). The debate is centred on whether
tail against the kennel wall. It could also be closely linked to working
non-therapeutic tail docking reduces the risk of tail injuries sufficiently
dogs (58.6 per cent of working dogs lived in kennels, while only 5.2
to justify the ethical concerns regarding this prophylactic intervention
per cent of non-working dogs lived in kennels). However, the vari(Bower and Anderson 1992, Morton 1992, Bennett and Perini 2003).
able work was found to be non-significant regardless of whether the
A study conducted in Sweden reported that, after a tail docking ban
kennel variable was included in the model. This suggests that work
was put in place, the incidence of tail injuries in German shorthaired
itself was not a major risk factor after adjusting for other major facpointers had increased (Strejffert 1992). However, that study also had
tors. Work was highly collinear with breed, and it could be argued
several weaknesses: it followed a limited number of litters (53), did not
TABLE 6: Results of a multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model of risk factors
associated with tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain (the number of observations used in the
final model was 309 out of 319)
Papers
make comparisons between docked and undocked dogs, did not compare animals before and after the ban, and did not make any statistical
comparisons to support the conclusions. Therefore, conclusions based
on the study should be examined cautiously.
It is important to be aware of the limitations of the present study.
Due to the random sampling and selection of veterinary practices,
only a small number of working dogs were included in the study.
This could potentially decrease the chance of finding any significant
association between work and tail injuries. Additionally, many of the
variables in this dataset were highly collinear, forcing decisions to be
made as to which variables to include and which to exclude from the
final model. This, too, may have resulted in the presence of residual
confounding, thereby weakening any associations or potentially
masking others. One of the potential biases could be the representativeness of the sample selected. The numbers of veterinary practices
selected in each region were not sampled by probability proportional
to size. This is because there is a very high proportion of practices in
England, such that if this approach had been used, almost no practices
would have been selected in Wales and Scotland, making it impossible
to estimate the risk of tail injuries in these regions with any confidence. Additionally, only practices using specific software packages
were included in the study, and it could be argued that this makes the
sample unrepresentative of the general population of dogs in Great
Britain. However, the cooperation of the some of the biggest software
companies was obtained and seven different practice management
systems were included. As mentioned previously, the sample may be
unrepresentative because not all injuries would have been seen by a
veterinarian. This bias was also highlighted by Houlton (2008). Some
dogs that had sustained a tail injury may not have been examined by
a veterinarian. It is likely that the present study was biased towards
evaluation of major injuries, as more minor injuries may be less likely
to be examined and/or treated by a veterinarian. Five control dogs had
to be excluded because they had sustained a tail injury in the previous 12-month period but not been seen by a veterinarian. This may
indicate that the prevalence of all tail injuries could be higher than
estimated in this study; however, these injuries were likely to be less
severe, as they had not been seen by a veterinarian, and therefore less
likely to raise welfare concerns. Additionally, the number of untreated
injuries among the controls was based on a relatively small sample
(fiveof 227 controls, 2.20 per cent) and the likely range in the true
value would be great (95 per cent CI 0.94 to 5.35 per cent).
The response rate of practices was low, and the average response
rate of dog owners (cases and controls) was 35 per cent. This may
be due to the controversial nature of tail docking, with some people
unwilling to participate. Comparison of a number of key characteristics available suggested that responders were representative of the
target population.
This study is the largest study to date and the first study to assess
the risk of tail injury and risk factors for dogs from all parts of Great
Britain allowing objective assessment of the frequency of injuries
and risk factors associated with them. The present study has suggested that the overall risk of tail injuries is low, although specific
breeds including spaniels, greyhounds and lurchers were at substantially higher odds of injury. The final multivariable risk factor model
showed that being a working dog was not a major risk factor for
tail injury, and other factors, including breed characteristics and levels of activity of dogs, were more important than work itself in the
practice-attending population. Docking appeared to have a protective effect against injury, as expected; however, it was calculated that
500 dogs would need to be docked in order to prevent one tail injury.
Further studies focusing on what appear to be the highest-risk groups
of dogs would be valuable.
References
ANON (2006) Animal Welfare Act 2006. Chapter 45. Stationery Office
ANON (2008) Why the tail-docking of dogs should be prohibited. www.onekind.org/
info-hub/reports/108-tail-docking. Accessed June 3, 2010
BENNETT, P. C. & PERINI, E. (2003) Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues.
Australian Veterinary Journal 81, 208-218
BOWER, J. & ANDERSON, H. P. (1992) Confronting cosmetic surgery: cropping and
docking not clear-cut issues. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 200,
1595-1597
DARKE, P. G., THRUSFIELD, M. V. & AITKEN, C. G. (1985) Association between tail
injuries and docking in dogs. Veterinary Record 116, 409
DAVIDSON, D. (2006) Non-therapeutic docking of dogs tails. Veterinary Record 158, 70
DEFRA (2007) Regulatory Impact Assessment: Draft of the Docking of Working Dogs
Tails (England) Regulations 2007. www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/em/uksiem_20071120_
en.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2009
DEFRA (2002) The consultation on an Animal Welfare Bill: an analysis of the replies.
www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/documents/awbillconsultanalysis.pdf.
Accessed March 26, 2009
DOHOO, I., STRYHN, H. & MARTIN, S. W. (2003) Model building strategies. In
Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. University of Prince Edward Island. pp 317-334
HOSMER, D. W. & LEMESHOW, S. (2000) Assessing the fit of the model. In Applied
Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons. pp 167-187
HOULTON, J. E. (2008) A survey of gundog lameness and injuries in Great Britain in
the shooting seasons 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics
and Traumatology 21, 231-237
KING, R. (2007) Docking of dogs tails. Veterinary Record 160, 99
MORTON, D. (1992) Docking of dogs: practical and ethical aspects. Veterinary Record
131, 301-306
OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS (2006) Postcode Directories. Census Geography
Data Unit/EDINA
ORLANS, F. B., BEAUCHAMP, T. L., DRESSER, R., MORTON, D. B. & GLUCK, J.
P. (1998) Should the tail wag the dog? In The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in
Ethical Choice. Oxford University Press. pp 273-287
PENNY, R. H. C. (2007) Docking of dogs tails. Veterinary Record 160, 99-100
RCVS (2008) Directory of Veterinary Practices 2008. RCVS
STREJFFERT, G. (1992) Tail injuries of Shorthaired German Pointer dogs born in Sweden
1989. www.cdb.org/countries/sweden.htm. Accessed March 25, 2009
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Government and
Defra for funding this study. They would particularly like to thank
the practice management companies, Midshires, RxWorks, Teleos,
Vet-one and Vetsolutions, for assisting with the data querying. They
also thank all the veterinary practices and owners who participated in
the current study, without whose cooperation this study would not
have been possible.
Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great

Britain
G. Diesel, D. Pfeiffer, S. Crispin, et al.
Veterinary Record 2010 166: 812-817
doi: 10.1136/vr.b4880

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/166/26/812.full.html
These include:
References
This article cites 8 articles, 4 of which can be accessed free at:

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/166/26/812.full.html#ref-list-1
Article cited in:

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/166/26/812.full.html#related-urls
Email alerting
service
Notes



Welfare Implications of
Ear Cropping-Dogs
(December 10, 2008)
THE ISSUE
Some breeds of dogs in the United States customarily have their ears reduced with a blade or
scissors to modify their shape and, in some cases, allow a naturally drooping ear to stand upright.
Cropping is performed when dogs are between 6 and 12 weeks old depending on breed and body
condition. In larger breeds, after surgery the ears are positioned with tape, bandages or other devices to
encourage an upright position.1,2,3 Well-controlled studies addressing the animal welfare implications of
cropping dogs ears do not exist. However case studies support certain risks associated with the
procedure.
WELFARE CONCERNSRISKS
General anestheticCropping should always be carried out under full anesthesia, which itself
has associated risks.
Postoperative CareDogs will experience some discomfort during healing, stretching, retaping and bandaging, and other manipulations after surgery. Some will need their ears bandaged or
taped upright for days to months and they may be isolated from other dogs during this period.
Potential ComplicationsAs for any incision, cropped ears may become infected. Cropped
ears may also fail to stand or have a distorted shape or position potentially leading to subsequent
operations.4,5,6
REASONS GIVEN FOR THE PRACTICE
Animal BenefitsIt has been suggested that dogs with cropped ears are less likely to suffer
from infections of the ear canal. Although the development of some serious infections has been linked
to the presence of a heavy hanging ear5, there is no evidence that cropping prevents or successfully
treats these conditions. It has also been suggested that cropping avoids later ear injury8 or improves
hearing, but no evidence is available to substantiate these claims either.
Human BenefitsEar cropping produces an alert expression in dogs used for security or
guard work and may contribute to the distinctive appearance of a pedigree breed.9
LEGISLATION AND ACCEPTABILITY
The American Kennel Club supports owners who choose to crop: ear cropping, tail docking, and
dewclaw removal, as described in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed
character and/or enhancing good health.17 However, dogs with cropped ears may not compete in United
Kingdom Kennel Club events.18
Many veterinary organizations, in addition to the AVMA, oppose cosmetic cropping including
the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA)11 and Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
(CVMA). Individual veterinarians differ in their perspectives (e.g., letters8,14,15,16).
Cropping has been deemed unacceptable in the United Kingdom for more than a century10 and
is currently prohibited in Australasia and most European and Scandinavian countries.
SUMMARY
This information has been prepared as a service by the American Veterinary Medical Associations Animal Welfare Division.
Page 1 of 2
Ear cropping is a cosmetic procedure with potential negative outcomes for the animal.
REFERENCES
1. Jensen HE. Ear Trimming. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1950;116:428-31.

2. Leonard HC. Ear Cropping by Triangulation. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1958;133:108-10.
3. Hancock WB. Ear-cropping Technic. Vet Med Small Anim Clin 1968;63:860-865.
4. Vine LL. Corrective ear surgery. Vet Med Small Anim Clin 1974;69:1014-1020.
5. Sauer BW. Correction of faulty ear carriage in the dog with porous polyethylene implants. Vet Med Small Anim Clin.
1976;71:1071-1075.
6. Burns CC. Surgical technique for correcting ear trims. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1951;118:93-5.
7. Harvey C. Ear canal disease in the dog: medical and surgical management. J Am Vet Med Ass 1980;177:136-139.
8. Jacobs FS. Ear trimming in dogs [letter] J Am Vet Med Assoc 1990;196:679-680.
9. Stone RW. More on ear cropping and neutering [letter] J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;216:174.
10. Hobday FTG. Surgical Diseases of the Dog and Cat 1906 Baillire, Tindall and Cox: London
11. AHAA Reference detail. Ear Cropping/Tail Docking Position Statement. Available at:
https://secure.aahanet.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?site=resources&webcode=referenceDetail&postKey=409665b4-0d4e4b71-b8e8-019fcffa1b4d Accessed December 4, 2007.
12. California State Senate Website. AB 418 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Available at: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/0506/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_418_cfa_20050404_112819_asm_comm.html Accessed July 18, 2007.
13. Gumbrell RC. Canine ear cropping. New Zealand Vet J 1984;32:119-119.
14. Longair JA. A plea against ear cropping [letter] Can Vet J 1980;21:280.
15. Humble JA. More comments on letters about JAVMA cover art [letter] J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;221:1382.
16. Connell DL. More comments on letters about JAVMA cover art [letter] J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;221:1382.
17. American Kennel Club. Canine Legislation Position Statements
http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/position_statements.cfm#earcropping Accessed December 5, 2007.
18. The Kennel Club. Competing with docked or cropped dogs in the UK. Available at:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/979. Accessed December 5, 2007.
This information has been prepared as a service by the American Veterinary Medical Associations Animal Welfare Division.
Page 2 of 2
Ear Cropping and Canine Otitis Externa (FAQ)

Q: Are dogs with hanging ears more likely to get ear infections?
A: Otitis externa is an infection of the ear canal that is, in most cases, able to be
resolved with treatment. In a small number of cases it can become chronic and may
require surgical treatment and can infrequently lead to disfigurement and fatal
complications. Reports of several surveys indicate that when pedigree dogs are
grouped according whether they possess pendulous or erect ears, there is a higher
incidence of otitis externa in the group with pendulous ears. The difference in incidence
is in often in the range of 13 to 14% versus 5%.1,2 Otitis externa incidence, however, is
most closely associated with particular breeds within each group (whether ears are
hanging or erect), and is especially prevalent in Cocker Spaniels,1,3,4 Poodles,2,3,4 and
German Shepherd Dogs.4 It has been suggested that a hanging ear increases humidity
and so may promote the development of infection originating from a skin disorder or
irritant.5
Q: Why do long-eared breeds have higher rates of ear infection?
A: Breeds such as Cocker Spaniels seem to be predisposed to otitis externa due to a
greater density of apocrine glands and a predisposition to proliferative ceruminous
gland hyperplasia (i.e., proliferation of cells) and ectasia (i.e., dilation or distension).6
This clustering of risk factors suggests the risk of otitis externa in pedigreed dogs must
be considered on a breed-by-breed basis, and that grouping study samples by ear
shape (as described in the answer to the question above) may not be justified. Ear and
eye abnormalities are commonly linked to traits that may be selected for in a breed,
such as an all or partially white, merle or spotted coat.7 Therefore, although it is widely
believed that pendulous ears increase the risk of otitis externa, there is a lack of
unconfounded evidence establishing and quantifying the strength of this link.
A comparison might be drawn to studies showing higher incidence of incontinence in
docked breeds.8 Although there appears to be a correlation, it cannot be assumed that
tail docking is the cause of incontinence because traditionally docked breeds have
other confounding predisposing characteristics (e.g., larger overall body size). To
demonstrate that hanging ears are a significant risk factor (in general and by breed),
and that this risk is significantly reduced or eliminated by cropping, otherwise similar
dogs having cropped and uncropped ears would need to be compared. It should also
be noted that some people believe ear cropping itself is harmful in exposing the ear
canal to water and irritants, potentially leading to deafness,9 however this belief may
stem from a coincidental combination of a cropping tradition and a congenital defect in
a breed.10
Q: What should be done for dogs at increased risk of ear infection?
A: No group deems high incidence of otitis externa a valid reason for advocating
routine cropping of the ears of Cocker Spaniels or Poodles.11,12 Some breeds, such as
the Dalmatian9 and the Anatolian Shepherd Dog13 (where erect ears are an AKC
disqualification14) were historically cropped, but this tradition waned without apparent ill
effects. Nor are traditionally cropped breeds among those with the highest incidence of
otitis externa, even in countries where cropping is rare. Thus it cannot be assumed that
ear cropping has a medical purpose unless this is in some way demonstrated. Other
traits known to predispose a dog to ear/hearing problems and other defects are not
discouraged by breed standards adopted in the United States (e.g., blue eyes in
Dalmatians15) and may even be encouraged (e.g., white markings in Boxers).
Current veterinary opinion appears to be that ear conformation affects ventilation and
may be a factor contributing to otitis externa incidence and severity. However, most
dogs with hanging ears will not suffer from infections,16 and ear conformation is not
considered to be a primary cause. The basis for this opinion includes the low incidence
of otitis externa in many breeds with pendulous ears (e.g., Beagles, Setters6) and the
presence of other directly causal factors in otitis-prone breeds.
It has also been suggested there is no single primary cause of otitis externa and that
risk factors vary substantially by breed.6 In the future, it may be demonstrated that
certain breeds benefit from prophylactic treatment; however this recommendation is
unlikely to generalize to all breeds. Furthermore, the surgery commonly performed to
avoid (re)occurrence of otitis externa aims to open the ear canal rather than reduce the
pinna. In all of the scientific papers we reviewed the authors' recommendation was that
at-risk dogs should be monitored and treated proactively in a way that addressed the
primary causenone of these papers identified ear conformation as the primary cause.
Q: What if ear cropping is not being done for health reasons?
A: There has been long-standing opposition to ear cropping for the purpose of altering
appearance. For example the ASPCA requested removal of cropped ears from
American Kennel Club breed standards in 1895,17 and a similar recommendation first
appeared in AVMA policy in 1976. AVMA currently opposes ear cropping when done
for cosmetic purposes,18 as do several other national veterinary associations (e.g.,

Canada,19 United Kingdom20).
REFERENCES
1.
Baxter, M. Letter: Pityrosporum pachydermatis in pendulous and erect ears of

dogs. New Zeal Vet J 1976;4:69.
2.
Masuda A, Sukegawa T, Mizumoto TH et al. Study of lipid in the ear canal in

canine otitis externa with Malassezia pachydermatis. J Vet Med Sci 2000;62:
1177-1182.
3.
Fraser G. Aetiology of otitis externa in the dog. J Small Anim Practice

2008;6:445-451.
4.
Fernndez G, Barboza G, Villalobos A. Isolation and Identification of

microorganisms present in 53 dogs suffering otitis externa . Rev Cient
(Maracaibo) 2006;16;23-30.
5.
Huesser H. Otitis externa of the dog. VM/SAC, Veterinary Medicine & Small
Animal Clinician. Veterinary Pub. Co.: Chicago. 1922. p.463.
6.
Angus JC, Lichtensteiger C, Campbell KL et al. Breed variations in

histopathologic features of chronic severe otitis externa in dogs: 80 cases
(1995-2001). J Am Vet Med Ass 2002;221:1000-1006.
7.
Deol MS. The relationship between abnormalities of pigmentation and of the

inner ear. Proc Roy Soc Lond A 1970;175:201-217.
8.
Thrusfield P, Holt M. Association in bitches between breed, size, neutering and

docking, and acquired urinary incontinence due to incompetence of the urethral
sphincter mechanism. Vet Rec 1993;133:177-180.
9.
Drury, WD. British Dogs, Their Points, Selection, and Show Preparation. L. U.
Gill: London. 1903. pg. 377, 475.
10.
FTG Hobday, J McCunn. Surgical diseases of the dog and cat: with chapters on
anaesthetics and obstetrics. Bailliere, Tindall and Cox: London. 1906. p. 85
11.
Busch TJ. Letter: Canine ear cropping. New Zeal Vet J 1983;31:205.
12.
Smith BJ. Canine Anatomy. Blackwell: New Jersey. p.110.
13.
Anatolian Shepherd dog: an ancient breed. Rangelands 1982;4:63-65.
14.
Anatolian
Shepherd
dog
breed
standard.
American
http://www.akc.org/breeds/anatolian_shepherd_dog/
Kennel
Accessed
Club:
January
2nd, 2008.
15.
Strain GM. Aetilogy, prevalence and diagnosis of deafness in dogs and cats. Br
Vet J 1996;152:17-36.
16.
Rosser EJ. Causes of otitis externa. Vet Clin Small Anim 2004;34:459-468.
17.
ASPCA. Cropping dogs' ears: important action of the American Kennel Club.
Our Animal Friends: An Illustrated Monthly Magazine 1895:23;1-3.
18.
Ear cropping and tail docking of dogs. American Veterinary Medical

Association: http://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Ear-Cropping-andTail-Docking-of-Dogs.aspx accessed January 2nd, 2008.
19.
CVMA Website Cosmetic Surgery:

http://canadianveterinarians.net/ShowText.aspx?ResourceID=46 Accessed
December 15, 2008
20.
RCVS Website Your responsibilities to your patients:

http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=89720&int2ndPare
ntNodeID=89717&int1stParentNodeID=89642 Accessed December 15, 2008
174_176.QXD
4/11/2005
1:41 PM
Page 174
VIEWS
Letters to the Editor

More on ear cropping and
neutering
I read with interest the controversy generated comparing ear

crops and spays (JAVMA, Dec 1,
1999, pp 15811583). Since 20
years of practice has made me
more of a realist than idealist, I
thought I would offer some alternative viewpoints.
The principle behind the
Veterinarians Oath is first and foremost the benefit of society,
through protection of animal
health and relief of animal suffering. Note the wording is not
elimination of animal suffering.
Societal benefit will always
take preference over animal benefit.
Consequently, the profession supports livestock slaughter so people
can eat and helps ranchers raise
animals for clothing and pleasure.
The AVMA also supports animal
research, although here again animals do suffer.
Except for a few radical
activists in the profession, most
veterinarians recognize our obligation to help society with such
activities, while at the same time
ensuring as humane a treatment of
animals as society will allow. Like
it or not, ear cropping has a
tremendous economic benefit to
society, often helping veterinarians
pay employees as well as the rent.
At the same time, breeders and the
breed-related economy make a
profit selling dogs that are more
distinctive.
Cropping often makes a clear
distinction among breeds, which
translates into economic incentive.
Society is not only willing to pay
for that distinction, it currently
insists on it.
Please understand, I hate ear
cropping. It is a technically unchallenging chore that if done well will
create little if any favorable commentary. But crop one ear a little
shorter or thinner, however, and
the dog becomes a walking billboard advertising the guy who
butchered that poor dogs ears.
174
Views: Letters to the Editor
Also, I dont like the fact that

surgery is performed right when
the dog is developing immunity.
The procedure does bring satisfied
clients back, however, while refusal
has been proven to lose them.
Properly performed, it is a sterile procedure with anesthesia, postoperative monitoring, and
analgesia. Certainly this is less
painful than what many animals go
through when castrated, especially
livestock.
In his argument, Dr. Plotnick
mentions unnecessary surgery on
sentient creatures, the current
spin word popularized on Star
Trek: The Next Generation.
Unfortunately, Im not sure
whether the doctor refers to the
medical dictionary definition of
sentient as having feelings, which
would include every living thing,
or the popular interpretation of
recognition of self.
Before our profession insisted
on so much regulation and mandated neutering, the average family
could always afford a purebred
and we extolled their virtues. Now,
by the time the owner arrives at the
practice they have spent so much
to purchase a purebred they cant
afford proper veterinary care, and
animals that arrive from the shelter
are already vaccinated, dewormed,
and neutered, leaving little for the
profession. Truth is, overpopulation isnt the biggest killer of small
animals, it is societys preference
for purebreds over mixed breeds,
and that isnt going to change any
time in the foreseeable future.
I suggest we remain a little less
politically active and wait for society to change its views. Until then,
we should do the best we can for

the clients pet whenever they allow
us to do so.
Ronald W. Stone, DVM
Miami, Fla
As I was reading the responses
to Dr. Richard H. McCormicks Oct
1, 1999 letter (JAVMA, p 926) and
his subsequent reply in the Dec 1,
1999 issue (p 1582), I found
myself compelled to comment. As
veterinarians, we are trained in
medical and surgical technique as
well as diagnostic and therapeutic
strategy. As human beings, we are
entitled to our own opinions and
interpretations of what we choose
to do with those skills, as long as
they fall within acceptable ethical
guidelines. I respect Dr.
McCormicks right to his opinion
but felt that I should voice mine as
well.
I am one veterinarian in a 7doctor, mixed-animal practice.
Each of us has our opinions, varied
styles, and knowledge to contribute
for the betterment of the practice.
My area of skill is in small animal
medicine. We are in a rural county
in central Kansas with no access to
a humane society; thus, our hospital is the holding facility for the
countys stray, unwanted,
unclaimed, and abused animals. It
is heartbreaking to witness the
hundreds of animals that come
through our doors annually. In
many instances we are able to
reunite a lost animal with its owner
or find a home for a stray. It is a
sad reality, however, that we euthanatize hundreds of healthy, adoptable animals each year. This is an
Readers are invited to submit letters to the editor. Letters must be double-space
typed and should not exceed 500 words. All letters are subject to editing. Those pertaining to anything published in the JAVMA should be received within one month of
the date of publication. Submission via fax or e-mail (847/925-1329;
jaudin@avma.org) is encouraged; authors should give their daytime telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address, if available.
Letters containing defamatory, libelous, or malicious statements will not be published, nor will letters representing attacks on or attempts to demean veterinary societies, their committees or agencies, or persons serving on such committees or
agencies. Viewpoints expressed in published letters are those of the letter writers
and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the AVMA.
JAVMA, Vol 216, No. 2, January 15, 2000
174_176.QXD
4/11/2005
1:41 PM
Page 175
emotional hardship on all of us,

especially my staff who put countless hours in trying to place these
animals to save them from a death
sentence.
I dont profess to know what
these animals are thinking or wanting from their livesexcept maybe
just the chance to live. The primary
problem in our rural area is too
many animals that are not spayed
or neutered and not enough people
with the financial means to save
another dog or cat.
I think that, as humans beings,
we have strong opinions and emotions about what is right and
wrong and project those opinions
to everything around us. I will not
even touch the issue of ears and
tailsbecause I have my opinion,
and sharing it wont make a bit of
difference in the life of a dog or
cat. My opinion on spaying and
neutering, however, can make a
tremendous difference in my community. By strongly advising my
clients to have their dogs and cats
spayed or neutered at an early age,
I may prevent the euthanasia of an
entire litter (or more) of kittens or
puppies that are unwanted.
Any veterinarian who has had
to look into the eyes of a struggling, healthy young adult dog that
tries to lick your face while you are
injecting a lethal dose of barbiturate knows that population control
is a real issue. Dr. McCormick indicates that he has heard of instances
where humane societies have no
puppies for adoption. I challenge
him to take a head count of all the
healthy adult animals that are
available in those same facilities.
Puppies are easy to place, because
they are cute. Population control
is not just about puppies, it is
about the adult dogs that these
puppies become.
Roberta K. Lillich, DVM
Abilene, Kansas
I dont expect JAVMA to keep
printing responses and counterresponses to the issues raised by
Drs. Richard H. McCormick and
Frederick Zydeck indefinitely but
on the other hand I felt I couldnt
keep silent after reading Dr.
McCormick responds (JAVMA,
Dec 1, 1999, p 1582).
As a volunteer with various

humane groups, I have neutered
many homeless kittens and puppies
with results I consider consistent
with the veterinarians oath. I have
also seen homeless kittens, puppies, dogs, and cats that have been
truly mutilated, either intentionally
or by neglect. Surgical sterilization
is not a good idea that has gone
terribly wrong. In a perfect world,
it would not be necessary to be so
aggressive about neutering every
possible animal, but as even Dr.
McCormick must agree, this is not
a perfect world.
Dr. McCormick states that surgical neutering destroys an animals primary reason for existing.
Im not sure whether he is saying
that the animal itself feels worthless in its sterile state, or if he feels
the animal has no value if its
neutered. In either case, I would
disagree. I currently share my life
with 6 adopted dogs and 4 adopted
cats. They are all surgically sterilized. They dont act like animals
that have had their primary reason
for living taken from them. In fact,
they seem to be enjoying life a
great deal, and they are highly valued by myself and their many
other human friends.
Dr. McCormick will probably
never change his views, but I can
still hope that his views are in the
minority. It is in this hope that I
write this letter, as evidence that at
least some of us in the profession
feel differently.
Barbara Corson, RN, VMD
Fawn Grove, Pa
Dr. McCormick responds:
I have performed in excess of
10,000 ovariohysterectomies and
orchiectomies. With the exception
of pyometras and testicular tumors,
I never deceived myself into believing I was doing the animal a favor.
Veterinarians spay and neuter
dogs because they have the power
to do so. The animal is helpless to
prevent the invasion of its body.
This is the philosophy the world
adheres to; domination of the weak
by the strong. We have convinced
ourselves, in our own self-righteousness, that the end justifies the
means. If there are no puppies
available, we will force the adoption of mature dogs, even when the
prospective owner wants a puppy.

After all, we know best dont we?
Surgery for the convenience of
the owner, in the case of spays, or
to alter the animals appearance is a
very straightforward proposition. To
cloud the issue is to deny the realities of the marketplace. If cosmetic
surgery was to be outlawed, does
anyone really believe that the pet
shops and grooming parlors would
hesitate to offer this service? By the
same token, if responsible dog owners choose not to have their dogs
spayed or neutered or, for that matter, choose not to have their dogs
ears trimmed, they should be able
to do so without being stigmatized
or otherwise suffer any penalty for
making this choice.
Richard H. McCormick, DVM
Miami, Fla
Setting the standards

for internship programs
The American Association of

Veterinary Clinicians (AAVC)
appreciates the opportunity to
respond to the concerns raised by
Dr. Etienne Cot in his recent letter
(JAVMA, Dec 1, 1999, p 1584). The
delay in responding was the result
of my efforts to consult with our
executive committee for their input
regarding my response.
Dr. Cot raises serious concerns
that are important to the AAVC and
all clinical educators. The issue of
internship standards has been discussed informally amongst AAVC
members for some time. In 1998,
the AAVC established an ad hoc
committee to survey academic clinical programs regarding the essential
elements of their internship programs. To further expand the discussion and to gather input from a
broader audience of interested clinicians and practitioners, the AAVC
held an educational forum on clinical internships at the 1999 annual
meetings of the American College of
Veterinary Internal Medicine
(Chicago) and the American
College of Veterinary Surgeons (San
Francisco). Although there is a
broad range of opinions on the specific standards for internship programs, there is general agreement
on a subset of core rudiments that
we believe may form the basis of
guidelines for internships that we
175
174_176.QXD
4/11/2005
1:41 PM
Page 176
would publish in the AAVC InternResident Matching Program

Directory. We believe it will be
important that any forthcoming
guidelines be clear, sensible, and
appropriate for general clinical
internships. We hope that all participating programs would consider
those guidelines and strive to meet
or exceed them in the development
and delivery of their training programs.
It is important to appreciate
that the matching program was created to serve solely as a source of
announcements for available training positions and to provide a centralized matching system that is
equitable for candidates and clinical programs. This source of listings, application, and acceptance
has undergone refinements and
improvement throughout its existence and evolved into a highly
successful and efficient program.
Participation in the matching
program by clinics and institutions
has always been voluntary, and it
would follow that adherence to the
advertised guidelines would be voluntary as well. As an association
dedicated to promoting postgraduate
clinical education, the AAVC does
not regulate or certify those institutions or clinics that participate in the
matching program. This important
fact is stated clearly in the matching
program directory to underscore the
need for personal assessment of programs and their track records by
perspective candidates. The AAVC
has neither the resources nor the
authority to inspect or certify clinical internship programs.
The AAVC encourages every
applicant to thoroughly review the
programs they are considering.
Applicants should consider contacting the program director for
clarification or assurances regarding the training program.
Applicants may wish to contact
previous program interns when
evaluating the merits of various
positions. The AAVC believes that
programs and candidates are well
served when both parties have a
clear understanding of what is provided and what is expected.
The AAVC believes that intern-
176
ships in clinical and academic

practice environments are valuable
learning experiences, and we
encourage every candidate to
approach their selection with an
awareness of the programs
strengths and record of success.
The AAVC is dedicated to continuing its efforts to improve the
matching program by developing
general internship guidelines.
Richard M. DeBowes, DVM, MS, DACVS
President, AAVC
Manhattan, Kan
Research collaborations
on rinderpest
Dr. Walter Plowright very

rightly deserves the prestigious
honor as 1999 World Food Prize
Laureate for his early 1950s
research and development of a tissue culture vaccine (JAVMA, Dec 1,
1999, pp 1567, 1576). However, it
might be noted that the actual
work on tissue culture and other
widely used vaccines began in the
United States and Canada during
the early 1940s as well as in Japan.1
Some of these early vaccines were
successfully and economically used
in Asia in the late 1940s as a result
of J. Nakamura and R. Reisingers
research.
It might be well to note that
many of the vaccines, including
those used prior to the development of tissue culture technology,
induced a lifetime immunity in cattle. Research by R. Daubney in
Egypt and R. A. Alexander in
South Africa corroborate this.
In the case of rinderpest in
cattle, as in the cases of smallpox
and poliomyelitis in humans, an
endless chain of research has
resulted in the almost complete
elimination of these highly pathogenic diseases.
Thus, the research of Edward
Jenner, Theobald Smith, Jonas Salk,
and others reinforces the concept
that perpetual explorations lead to
concrete solutions to serious problems.
Nels Konnerup, DVM
Camano Island, Wash
1. Am J Vet Res 1946;7(suppl):133237.
Ear-Cropping and Tail-Docking

www.peta.org
Humans can opt out of cosmetic surgery, but dogs aren't so lucky. We choose for
themand we often choose painful, unnecessary procedures such as ear-cropping
and tail-docking. To give certain breeds so-called "desirable" traits, unscrupulous
veterinarians perform cruel, disfiguring surgeries that cause dogs great suffering.
Dogs usually have their ears cropped when they are just 8 to 12 weeks old. At this
stage in their development, the trauma of the procedure can have a strong
psychological impact on the maturing pup. The process of taping and retaping a
pup's ears to force them to stand erect after they have been cropped can be
agonizing for the dog.
Puppies are normally just a few days old when their tails are docked. They are
generally not even given anesthetics to numb the pain. Compassionate
veterinarians object to the arbitrary removal of body parts used for
communication, balance, and expression. Dogs "talk" to their human companions
and other dogs using their ears and tails.
Performing medically unnecessary procedures that simply perpetuate the image of
dogs as fashion accessories is outrageous. This image is promoted by the American
Kennel Club at its canine beauty pageants and by breeders who believe that "their"
breed will be "ruined" if it does not maintain the image handed down by parent
breed clubs decades ago.
These procedures are so cruel that they are banned in many European countries.
For example, British kennel clubs outlawed ear-cropping a century ago, and
cosmetic tail-docking was stopped the U.K. in 1993.
Sadly, some veterinarians still see nothing wrong with mutilating a dog whose
guardian is willing to pay for it. The American Veterinary Medical Association
states that "ear-cropping and tail-docking are not medically indicated nor of
benefit to the patient. These procedures cause pain and distress and, as with all
surgical procedures, are accompanied by inherent risks of anesthesia, blood loss,
and infection. Therefore, veterinarians should counsel dog owners about these
matters before agreeing to perform these surgeries."

Letters to the Editor

Arguments for continuation
of ear cropping and tail
docking
In the December 15, 2008,

issue of the JAVMA,1 I read where
our representatives finally caved in
and decided that ear cropping and
tail docking should be eliminated.
The former policy, adopted in 1999,
stated that veterinarians should
advise clients seeking these procedures that it exposed their pets
to the risks of anesthesia, blood
loss, and infection. Any surgical
procedure, including spays and
castrations, lipoma removals, and
cosmetic surgeries, is associated
with the same risks of anesthesic
death, blood loss, and infection.
Now the welfare activists suggest there is little scientific evidence
that the cosmetic procedures of ear
cropping and tail docking convey
benefits to dogs. What exactly does
that mean? Did the AVMA Animal
Welfare Committee do their due
diligence and survey a large group
of veterinarians on this subject?
Might I ask when was the last
time an Animal Welfare Committee member enjoyed a dog show?
Regrettably, many probably do not
attend. Ear cropping and tail docking provide distinctive differences
in dogs of those breeds, including a
variety of appearances and personalities. Not every dog within a
breed looks the same. There would
be no joy in going to a dog show
of Doberman Pinchers and Boxers
with floppy ears and long tails.
As for scientific benefits, I
believe that dogs with cropped ears
have far less ear problems than
floppy-eared dogs. I also found it
quite amusing that Executive Board
member Dr. Larry Dee said, Leaders take risks, and theres a risk in
approving this policy, but its a risk
worth taking. He also stated his
observation that younger veterinarians found this procedure needlessly
painful for dogs. Dr. Dee, I know of
no scientific evidence that ears and
tails are any more painful than that
of any other part of the body.
598
I believe our Executive Board

would better serve by staying neutral
on this subject, as they have in the
past. Our representatives should assist us, not harm us. When countries
such as Great Britain and Canada
banned certain procedures in the
distant past, there were no pain
medications and, most probably, the
surgical amenities were not nearly
as good. With the advent of pain
medications and surgical suites often
as good as human hospitals, there is
no reason these procedures should
not continue to be offered.
Roger Gussett, DVM
Toledo, Ohio
1.
Nolen RS. AVMA opposes cosmetic ear

cropping, tail docking of dogs. J Am Vet
Med Assoc 2008;233:1811.
Dr. Dee responds:

I am familiar with Dr. Gussetts
comments because I heard them in
1999 when the House of Delegates
approved the previous policy on ear
trimming. Reduced ear infections,
fewer tail injuries, and the excuse
that laypeople will crop ears and
dock tails if we dont are all cited as
reasons to continue these cosmetic
procedures. Most of these arguments
are specious. We trim ears and dock
tails because we always have. We
do it because we like the way they
look. If we want to prevent ear infections, we should be cropping the
ears on Cocker Spaniels.
Change is uncomfortable.
When I was a student 40 years ago,
there was an understanding, especially in large animal medicine, that

to be a successful practitioner, one
had to make a profit for the producer. If the cow was worth less than
the treatment, she went to slaughter. Even though we discussed
animal welfare, we still performed
multiple survival surgeries in the
surgery laboratory with minimal
perioperative pain management.
As the dog has gone from the
yard to the porch to the kitchen
to the bedroom to the bed to
becoming a child substitute, we
are encouraged to be the animal
advocate. The profession struggles
with this split personalityto be
the animal advocate while assisting
industry to be profitable. This is
particularly difficult when animal
welfare changes may decrease the
profitability of vertically integrated
food animal production, resulting in higher food prices for the
consumer.
Our concern is that we might
offend those who have always
done it this way. I share that
concern. My uncle (Iowa State 39)
trimmed ears until he retired. My
father (Iowa State 39) trimmed ears
until he retired. My brother (Auburn 72) trims earsand does a
great job! We are not talking about
quality, technique, or pain relief;
we are talking about the scientific
rationale for the procedures.
One of the AVMAs five strategic
goals states that the AVMA is a
leading advocate for, and an au-
Instructions for Writing a Letter to the Editor

Readers are invited to submit letters to the editor. Letters may not exceed 500
words and 6 references. Not all letters are published; all letters accepted for publication are subject to editing. Those pertaining to anything published in the JAVMA
should be received within one month of the date of publication. Submission via e-mail
(JournalLetters@avma.org) or fax (847-925-9329) is encouraged; authors should give
their full contact information, including address, daytime telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address.
Letters containing defamatory, libelous, or malicious statements will not be published, nor will letters representing attacks on or attempts to demean veterinary societies or their committees or agencies. Viewpoints expressed in published letters are
those of the letter writers and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of
the AVMA.
JAVMA, Vol 234, No. 5, March 1, 2009
thoritative, science-based resource

on animal welfare. Basically, animal welfare is an important societal
issue, and the veterinary profession
needs to be at the table. We have to
demonstrate what we have always
said: that veterinarians are the most
knowledgeable, scientific resource
on animal welfare issues. The
challenge for the AVMA is that it
represents a very diverse profession,
with wide-ranging views on animal
welfare. While we respect and try
to assist all members of the association, we also have to lead. Leading
entails risk, including the risk of
offending a member and, in this
instance, the risk of being branded
as some radical animal welfarist,
animal rightist, PETA lover, for
example.
I appreciate and empathize
with Dr. Gussetts concerns. This
policy change was made to substantiate the concepts that veterinarians
should be the voice of animal welfare, that we are science-based, and
that it is the right thing to do.
Larry G. Dee, DVM, DABVP
AVMA Executive Board , District IV
Hollywood, Fla
Dr. Reynolds responds:
I am pleased to provide Dr.
Gussett with additional information
regarding the deliberations of the
Animal Welfare Committee that led
to its recommendation for modifications to the policy on ear cropping and tail docking of dogs. The
revised policy more clearly conveys
AVMA opposition to cropping dogs
ears and docking their tails for
cosmetic purposes, but is entirely
consistent with previous policy on
this issue.1
This policy was not revised at
the behest of activists, as Dr. Gussett suggests. Rather, an examination of the policy was completed in
accord with an Executive Boardestablished directive that all AVMA
policies be reviewed at least once
every five years. The committees
review included a comprehensive
search of the scientific literature
(peer-reviewed and nonpeerreviewed), consideration of the
historical and cultural bases for
the procedures, and a search for
survey data about the experiences
of practicing veterinarians. The
results of this extensive review have
been made available for AVMA

members and others in the form
of backgrounders2,3 and answers to
frequently asked questions4,5 on the
AVMA Web site.
The revised policy applies to
procedures performed for cosmetic
purposes. By limiting it in this
fashion, the committee attempted
to ensure that these procedures
could be performed when the need
for them could be substantiated (ie,
therapeutic or preventive purposes). That being said, consider the
following:
There is little scientific evidence that ear cropping effectively prevents otitis externa.
Many factors contribute to
this condition, including the
shape of the ear, the shape and
length of the horizontal canal,
and environmental conditions.
The ears of some breeds that
are particularly prone to otitis
externa (eg, Cocker Spaniels
and Labrador Retrievers) are
not cropped.
There is no scientific evidence
that ear cropping improves
dogs hearing.
Ear cropping may result in an
alert expression in dogs used
for security, guard, or military purposes; however, many
breeds used for such functions
do not have cropped ears or
docked tails (eg, Belgian Malinois, German Shepherd Dogs,
Golden Retrievers, Chesapeake
Bay Retrievers, and Beagles).
Limited information is available
on the incidence of tail injury
in dogs, but studies that are
available suggest the incidence
is low, particularly for dogs
whose primary function is as a
pet.
Injuries associated with heavy
brush encountered during
hunting are often used to justify tail docking; however, the
tails of many breeds traditionally used for hunting are not
docked.
I appreciate Dr. Gussetts desire
that revisions to AVMA policy be
considered carefully and that AVMA
entities suggesting those revisions
complete the appropriate review
before making their recommendations. By perusing the related
material available on the AVMA

Web site, AVMA members can see
that the Animal Welfare Committee
has met its obligation in this regard.
I disagree, however, that there is no
joy in going to shows where dogs
are allowed to exhibit the natural
conformations of their ears and
tails. If good breeding brings out
the essence of the dog, shouldnt
that essence include its normal
body parts (at least when removal
of those parts does not benefit the
dog in some way)?
James P. Reynolds, DVM
Chair, Animal Welfare Committee
Visalia, Calif
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
AVMA. History of policy on ear cropping and tail docking of dogs. Available
at: www.avma.org/issues/animal_
welfare/tail_docking_history.pdf. Accessed Feb 2, 2009.
AVMA. Welfare implications of dogs:
ear cropping (December 17, 2008).
Available at: www.avma.org/reference/
backgrounders/dogs_ear_cropping_
bgnd.pdf. Accessed Feb 2, 2009.
AVMA. Welfare implications of dogs:
tail docking (October 13, 2008). Available at: www.avma.org/issues/animal_
welfare/dogs_tail_docking_bgnd.asp.
Accessed Feb 2, 2009.
AVMA. Frequently asked questions
about ear cropping and canine otitis
externa. Available at: www.avma.org/
issues/animal_welfare/ear_cropping_
canine_otitis_externa_faq.asp. Accessed Feb 2, 2009.
AVMA. Frequently asked questions
about canine tail docking. Available at:
www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/
canine_tail_docking.faq.asp. Accessed
Feb 2, 2009.
Integrating our health-care

system
A new opportunity exists in

our country as an administration
that is projecting change takes
power in Washington. We should
use this opportunity and embrace
and promote the idea of integrating our health-care system. This
is an idea that can really resonate
at this time. The AVMA Executive
Board has approved participation
in the Healthiest Nation Alliance,1
whose vision is to develop an integrated national system where all
the participants value health and
work together to achieve optimal
health for all.
There is a clear path coming for
the future of medicine. The idea to
integrate all aspects of health care
599
needs to be expansive. We should

do the following:
v Integrate the human and veterinary health issues.
v Integrate medicine with
complementary and alternative
methods for a more inclusive
gold standard.
v Integrate the different global
health-care systems to see how
the best methods for delivery
are achieved.
v Integrate research to encourage
the collaboration of researchers
to work together to reach goals.
v Integrate the environmental issues with health so that we can
take the tough steps to identify
the origins of the environmental sources of illness.
600
My practice has seen a substantial increase in the number of cases

of cancer in dogs and cats. It actually overwhelms me some days. The
World Health Organization projects
that the cancer rate could be 50%
higher in humans by 2020.2 Our
animals are the canaries in the coal
mines. Since animals age six times
faster, we as veterinarians see multiple generations of animals grow
during our professional lives. Using
the knowledge we gain, veterinarians need to come together and use
our knowledge of multigenerational
health issues to be leaders in world
health. As an AVMA member for
greater than 30 years, and being
fortunate enough to have started
the exploration of integrative veterinary medicine3 in 1975, I have had
the experience of seeing the best of

all treatments working together to
provide the best combinations of
alternatives for our patients and the
families that love them.
Margo Roman, DVM
Main Street Animal
Services of Hopkinton
Hopkinton, Mass
1.
2.
3.
AVMA news. Rabies and other public

health policies revisited. J Am Vet Med
Assoc 2009;234:33.
World Health Organization. Media
Centre. Available at: www.who.int/
mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/
en/. Accessed Feb 2, 2009.
Chopra D, Ornish D, Roy R, et al.
Alternative medicine is mainstream.
The Wall Street Journal 2009;Jan 9.
Available at: online.wsj.com/article/
SB123146318996466585.html. Accessed Feb 2, 2009.
Ear Cropping and Tail Docking, Pros and Cons

DOG FANCY readers support alerting dog owners to ear cropping and tail docking
risks.
Ear cropping and tail docking - surgeries usually performed on dogs for cosmetic
reasons - have led the American Veterinary Medical Association to discourage its
members from performing the operations and the controversy could have an impact in
the show ring.
The American Kennel Club, the largest breed registry in the United States, specifies
docking - the amputation of part of a dog's tail - in more than 40 breeds. Veterinarians
generally dock puppies within a week after birth but sometimes perform the surgery on
older dogs for medical reasons, such as a tail-beater's constant fractures from
whipping it against hard objects.
Cropping - the surgical reshaping of a dog's ears - may be performed to correct birth
defects or damage from injury or disease, but the expensive and painful surgery is
typically sought on 8- to 10-week-old pups to make their folded ears erect for
conformation. Recovery requires splinting, tedious ear bandaging and pain medication.
The Schaumburg, Ill.-based AVMA recommended in 1976 that the AKC and other
breed associations drop cropped ears from breed standards and eventually prohibit
showing dogs with cropped ears. Tail docking is
illegal in Britain, and ear cropping is considered inhumane in England and several
other European countries.
As the standards endure, the AVMA has given its member veterinarians official
counseling: "Ear cropping and tail docking in dogs for cosmetic reasons are not
medically indicated nor of benefit to the patient. These procedures cause pain and
distress, and, as with all surgical procedures, are accompanied by inherent risks of
anesthesia, blood loss and infection. Therefore, veterinarians should counsel dog
owners about these matters before agreeing to perform these surgeries."
The statement does not prohibit veterinarians from performing either procedure, said
Gail C. Golab, Ph.D., DVM, assistant director for education and research for the
AVMA. It's intended to make owners aware of the inherent risks.
The AKC, based in New York City and Raleigh, N.C., fears animal-rights activists may
cite the resolution to pursue cruelty charges against owners who have their dogs
cropped or docked. It responded to the AVMA's decision in a prepared statement: "The
AKC recognizes that ear cropping, tail docking and dewclaw removal, as described in
certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving
breed character and/or enhancing good health. Appropriate veterinary care should be
provided."
The Denver-based American Animal Hospital Association tops a list of veterinary
associations that signed on to the resolution. "Owners should be informed," said Janice
Trumpeter, DVM, an AAHA staff veterinarian. "People think they need to have this
done for medical reasons. They don't."
The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights of Davis, Calif., began campaigning
seven years ago for such a policy statement, said board member Holly Cheever, DVM.
"We're happy to see AVMA take a more aggressive stance," she said, adding that
AVAR would endorse legislation outlawing the procedures unless they're performed for
medical purposes.
DOG FANCY asked for your opinion about the AVMA statement. We've tabulated the
responses and selected many of your decisive and heart-felt comments for this report.
CROPPING
Agree
"I am the elated owner of an American Pit Bull Terrier that still has her own
beautiful rosebud ears. Not for one second would I even consider chopping off
a part of her body. My stepdaughter works for a veterinarian and told me
pathetic stories of puppies whimpering in cages, waiting to heal from this gross
mutilation. I believe it would be a very good practice to inform clients about the
pain and the danger. Knowledge is power."
"I think breed registries should disqualify cropped ears as they have in England.
I have a vet who just won't do ear cropping."
"When we got our Dobie from the breeder, his tail was already docked. Initially,
we were going to have his ears cropped. Everyone does it. He wouldn't be a
proper Dobie without it, right? Wrong! He may not fit the perception of what a
Dobie is supposed to look like, but he's happy, healthy and the cutest
Doberman you've ever seen. We couldn't find any good reason to put him
through the pain of surgery and the discomfort of having his ears taped up all
that time."
"My husband has a bad memory of having his Doberman's ears cropped. The
dog bled really badly. I agree with the counseling. Our Boxers have their natural
ears."
"I do not believe they need cosmetic surgery. They are our companions and
best friends, not our meal tickets at Westminster."
"As a former veterinary technician, I can say it's heart-wrenching to watch

healthy ears being cut off with a scalpel for a more 'pleasing' appearance. I
agree owners should be counseled about the unnecessary pain that they might
be causing their dog."
"The AKC and all these other show organizations should be ashamed of
themselves for promoting such a horrible thing."
Disagree
"Veterinarians and animal welfare activists should focus their attention where
there really is a problem and leave our breeds as they are and always have
been. I hope the day never comes when I go to a dog show and cannot readily
recognize once docked/cropped breeds."
"Cropping is the choice of the owner. I had stitches removed today from my
Great Dane puppy's ears. Our vet is top-notch and I have never had a problem.
He put the dog under and gave him pain medication afterward."
"I had an experience with one veterinarian who adamantly opposed cropping a
Doberman's ears. We're not talking advice here; we're talking intimidation! I
changed vets. His job is to care for my pet's health, not moralize and pass
judgment."
"There's nothing wrong with ear cropping. People have been doing this for so
many years that the look has become natural and is now part of the breed.
Westminster will not accept these breeds without such markings."
DOCKING
Agree
"Our Dobies have whipped us with their tails, but no matter. Of course,
veterinarians should counsel owners about the pain. If owners aren't aware
these procedures cause pain, they shouldn't even own dogs!"
"Many people think it doesn't hurt the dog and that is why they have it done."
"I'm thrilled that the AVMA has adopted this statement. I fail to understand why
anyone would put their companions through unnecessary surgery for purely
cosmetic reasons."
"I have an adopted Cocker Spaniel whose tail was docked before I took her in
as an adult dog. I cannot imagine putting an animal through the pain and
possible complications for cosmetic reasons. These dogs are not typically used
for the purposes (hunting, for example) for which the practices of cropping and
docking were originated, so why put these babies through such pain?"
"We humans can be so arrogant. We think we need to improve on God's work. I

feel those dog owners and/or breeders who seek these mutilations should be
charged with animal abuse."
"After being advised by our veterinarian, we allowed Penny, our 5-month-old

Cocker Spaniel, to have her tail docked when she was spayed. Not only did she
suffer pain and distress but also phantom pains. For more than a week she
screamed and ran in circles while trying to find her missing limb. Penny would
scream in pain every time she sat or accidentally bumped her new stub. I have
since told everybody who will listen about our terrible experience and strongly
counsel others not to do the same."
Disagree
"I believe that docking tails is good for working dogs and dogs with thin tails,
which can be broken if they're whacked against something ."
"Some dogs should have their tails docked when they are pups. For example,
Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds really beat up their tails, especially while
being boarded. It can cause lots of trauma and infection."
"I have had Boxer pups' tails done when they were 1 day old. I held the pups
while it was done and could not discern any pain or distress. Unless it was
proven that this procedure caused pain, I would continue to have my dogs' tails
docked."
"I have a Miniature Schnauzer. A friend who is a breeder told us to get the tail
docked or it would be longer than the dog."
"I think it is fine for breeds that need their tails docked like the Rottweiler. I have
a 3-year-old Rottweiler myself and I think it's cute for him to have a little
'stubbed' tail."
"You should dock tails on the breeds that are supposed to have short tails
because it's done when they're a day or two old, and they don't know what's
happening, and no anesthesia is given."
Can Vet J. 2010 October; 51(10): 10571058.

PMCID: PMC2942042
Pgina 1 de 1
European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals

CETS No.: 125
Treaty open for signature by the member States and for accession by non-member States
Opening for signature
Place: Strasbourg
Date : 13/11/1987
Entry into force

Conditions: 4 Ratifications.
Date : 1/5/1992
Status as of: 18/1/2013

Member States of the Council of Europe
States
Signature
Ratification
Entry into
force
Notes
R.
D.
A.
T.
C.
O.
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
2/10/1997
10/8/1999
1/3/2000
Azerbaijan
22/10/2003
19/10/2007
1/5/2008
Belgium
13/11/1987
20/12/1991
1/7/1992
21/5/2003
20/7/2004
1/2/2005
Cyprus
9/12/1993
9/12/1993
1/7/1994
Czech Republic
24/6/1998
23/9/1998
24/3/1999
Denmark
13/11/1987
20/10/1992
1/5/1993
Finland
2/12/1991
2/12/1991
1/7/1992
France
18/12/1996
3/10/2003
1/5/2004
Germany
21/6/1988
27/5/1991
1/5/1992
Greece
13/11/1987
29/4/1992
1/11/1992
13/11/1987
19/4/2011
1/11/2011
1/3/2010
22/10/2010
1/5/2011
Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
X
Georgia
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
11/9/2003
19/5/2004
1/12/2004
Luxembourg
13/11/1987
25/10/1991
1/5/1992
Malta
Moldova
Monaco
Montenegro
Netherlands
13/11/1987
Norway
13/11/1987
3/2/1988
1/5/1992
Portugal
13/11/1987
28/6/1993
1/1/1994
Romania
23/6/2003
6/8/2004
1/3/2005
2/12/2010
2/12/2010
1/7/2011
Sweden
14/3/1989
14/3/1989
1/5/1992
Switzerland
13/11/1990
3/11/1993
1/6/1994
Turkey
18/11/1999
28/11/2003
1/6/2004
Ukraine
5/7/2011
Poland
X
Russia
San Marino
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
United Kingdom
Non-member States of the Council of Europe

States
Signature
Ratification
Entry into force
Notes
Total number of signatures not followed by ratifications:

Total number of ratifications/accessions:
R.
D.
A.
T.
C.
O.
2
22
Notes:
a: Accession - s: Signature without reservation as to ratification - su: Succession - r: Signature "ad referendum".
R.: Reservations - D.: Declarations - A.: Authorities - T.: Territorial Application - C.: Communication - O.: Objection.
Source : Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/print/ChercheSig.asp?NT=125&CM=&DF... 18/01/2013

Otectomias y Caudectomias Caninas-Deontologia

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Otectomias y Caudectomias Caninas-Deontologia

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Otectomias y Caudectomias Caninas-Deontologia

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Otectomas y caudectomas caninas

Deontologa y Veterinaria Legal

Adriana Llopis Palomares

2. Historia de las amputaciones

Estndares raciales y concursos.

Berger de los Pirineos

Grifn de Muestra de Pelo Duro

1. American Staffordshire Terrier - 10 de junio de 1936 (Aprobado o ltima reforma)

2. Bobtail (Old English Sheepdog) - 10 de febrero de 1990

Orejas: de tamao medio, se llevan cadas planas al lado de

3. Boston Terrier - 9 de enero de 1990

4. Bxer - 11 de febrero de 2005

5. Cocker Americano - 12 de mayo de 1992

6. Cocker Ingls - 11 de octubre de 1988

7. Dobermann - 6 de noviembre de 1990

8. Gran Dans - 8 de marzo de 1999

9. Mastn Napolitano - 13 de enero de 2004

10. Norofolk Terrier 23 de marzo de 1990

Orejas: pequeas y cadas en forma de V, muy

11. Pastor de Brie - 12 de enero de 1992

12. Pastor de los Pirineos - 11 de abril de 2006

13. Parson Russell Terrier - 13 de julio de 2004

aproximadamente a nivel del crneo.

14. Pinscher Miniatura - 7 de noviembre de 2005

15. Pointer - 30 setiembre de 1992

16. Rottweiler - 8 de mayo de 1990

17. Schnauzer gigante - 11 de octubre de 1983

18. Schnauzer miniatura: 9 de febrero de 1991.

perpendiculares al crneo y mirando hacia adelante. No

19. Welsh Corgi - 28 de enero de 1993

20. Welsh Terrier - 10 de agosto de 1993

21. Yorkshire Terrier 10 de julio de 2007

Hemos hecho un recogido de las razas en las que se practica la caudectoma y la

Dejar 2/5 de longitud

Dejar 3/5 de longitud (aprox. 4 cm)

Dejar de a 1/3 de longitud

Ccker spaniel americano

Dejar 1/3 de longitud (aprox. 2 cm)

Ccker spaniel ingls

Dejar 1/3 de longitud

Dejar 1/3 de longitud

Grifn de pelo duro

Dejar 1/3 de longitud

Springer spaniel gals

Dejar de 1/3 a de longitud

Springer spaniel ingls

Dejar 1/3 de longitud

Dejar 1/3 de longitud

Dejar 2/3 de longitud

Dejar una vrtebra (pegada al cuerpo)

Dejar de 1,25 a 2 cm (dos vrtebras)

Corgi gals (Pembroke)

Dejar una vrtebra (pegada al cuerpo)

Dejar 2 cm (dos vrtebras)

Dejar una vrtebra (pegada al cuerpo)

Dejar 3 cm (tres vrtebras)

Dejar 2,5 cm (dos vrtebras)

Dejar de 2/3 a de longitud

Dejar de 2/3 a de longitud