The current "hot" debate that has arisen in relation to the Animal Welfare Bill currently before Parliament has provided more evidence of our politically motivated classes being unable to think through the logical consequences of their prejudices, or of the cans of worms they open inadvertently.
I am not qualified to comment as regards the rights and wrongs of tail docking for "working dogs". It makes sense to me that if the undocked tail of a dog will suffer repeated injury during its working life, then docking very shortly after birth is the answer. Then again, routine docking of all dogs of certain breeds suggests that in many cases the purpose is more aesthetic, than for health reasons. The problem I have with all the concern generated by the issue, leaving aside the waste of parliamentary time that is likely to result, is the fuzzy thinking that it discloses.
Tail docking is not a great moral issue of our time. If it was, all such similar mutilation of mammal body parts would be up for debate. As Byron Walmsley, a Consultant Urological Surgeon, says in his letter to The Times today (21st January 2006):
"How can a Government that is so concerned for the welfare of puppy dogs' tails, continue to allow the practise of male circumcision for non-medical reasons?"
Quite.