Tail docking in horses: a review of the issues

Abstract

Routinely performed painful procedures are of increasing interest and, in 2001 (Royal Order, May 17), Belgium prohibited docking in several vertebrates including horses. In 2004, opponents to this decision submitted a Bill (Doc51 0969/001) to Parliament, intending to obtain derogation for Belgian draught horses, which were traditionally docked. The Animal Welfare Council of Belgium, an official body advising the Minister of Public Health, was asked to evaluate this complex question, including biological, ethical and socio-economic aspects, on the basis of the available peer-reviewed studies. In this context, this study reviews legal aspects (overview of the European legislation), zootechnic aspects (uses of the Belgian draught horse) and biological aspects (pain potentially related to docking; horses’ welfare linked to insect harassment and hygiene, communication and reproduction) of tail docking in draught horses. We conclude that (1) there is no benefit for horses in tail docking, including Belgian draught horses, (2) potential advantages of docking are essentially in favour of humans and these advantages could be scrupulously re-evaluated, taking into account practices of other countries. Therefore, there is no need to dock any horse other than for veterinary reasons.

Horse-training techniques that may defy the principles of learning theory and compromise welfare

“…Although considered a breach of the rules under most codes of showing, it is difficult to detect after the agent itself has been passed by defecation. Inarguably, any manipulations of horse's tail carriage or conformation (including docking) should be undertaken only when there is a sound veterinary reason (Lefebvre et al, 2007).…”

Mammals repel mosquitoes with their tails

“…For example, tail docking is a procedure by which the distal tail vertebrae are amputated. It occurs in large numbers of horses for aesthetic reasons, but recently this practice has been challenged because it causes unnecessary pain and health risks to the animals (Lefebvre et al, 2007). Although there are arguments (Lefebvre et al, 2007) that docking improves a horse's hygiene and welfare, the results of our study suggest that shortening the tail length would inhibit a horse's ability to shoo away hazardous biting insects.…”

“…Tails in mammals serve many purposes, including defense, balance, communication and locomotion (Hickman, 1979). Many investigators have assumed that the tail is used to defend against insects (Mooring et al, 2007;Hickman, 1979;Samuel et al, 2001;Lefebvre et al, 2007;Siegfried, 1990), as shown in Fig. 1A.…”

“…Ungulates stand in large groups to reduce the number of insect bites per individual by spreading the attacks among the crowd (Mooring and Hart, 1992). Horses often stand next to one another head-to-tail or head-toshoulder and swish their tails to protect the head and hindquarters of their neighbors (Lefebvre et al, 2007). All of these defensive actions require the expenditure of energy.…”

Minimising pain in farm animals: the 3S approach – ‘Suppress, Substitute, Soothe’

“…The procedure is more linked to habits based on cultural (aesthetics and increased value) and technical objectives (Lefebvre et al, 2007) than to concerns on production quality or animal health. In this case, there may be more reluctance from defenders to give up tail docking, but laws prohibiting tail docking and the discrediting of horses with a docked tail in shows and sales from professional organisations encourages its disappearance (Lefebvre et al, 2007). Additional arguments can also be found when the procedure can be proven to have further disadvantages than evoking pain.…”