Unnecessary tail docking

I was disappointed by the one-sided approach taken by Louise Gray on the docking of dogs' tails (8 February).

It is widely recognised as an unnecessary and cruel procedure. This is not a statement made blithely by ignorant city dwellers; instead, it is one taken on full consideration of the facts.

The Scottish Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, like most veterinary surgeons and veterinary bodies, consider there is no convincing evidence to suggest working dogs are likely to suffer disproportionately if their tails are left on.

Indeed, in countries where docking has been banned, there are no veterinary surgeons clamouring for a return to docking on welfare grounds.

ALISTAIR LAWRIE, Chairman, SPCA, Queensferry Road, Edinburgh

I did not ban the docking of working dogs' tails on the grounds of "fighting outdated class wars", nor to make "political points" (editorial, 8 February). My only concern is animal welfare.

The ban on tail docking was not taken lightly. I listened carefully to all of the representations made to me. In the end, I was persuaded by the unanimous view of the following bodies: the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; the British Veterinary Association; the British Small Animal Veterinary Association; Moredun Research Institute; and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

ROSS FINNIE, Minister for animal health and welfare, Scottish Executive