>A gun licience on its own is not proof that the puppies are going to be used for working. If the dam doesn't work how on earth are you going to determine at three or four days old that these puppies are suitable >to work.
Actually, this is untrue. There is a very specific list of criteria which a breeder can provide to have puppies docked, and one of them is a current firearms licence. This is accepted as valid proof that the puppies "are most likely" to be used for working purposes. (Whether or not we agree that it is proof, this is what the law will accept.)
See here: (vii)a current shotgun or firearm certificate issued to the owner of the dog, or to the agent or employee of the owner most likely to be using the dog for work in connection with the lawful shooting of animals;
Taken from here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1120/regulation/3/madeWithout a licence, instead fulfilling any of these criteria will suffice as well:
viii) a letter from a gamekeeper, a land-occupier (or his agent), a person with shooting rights, a shoot organiser, a club official, a person representing the National Working Terrier Federation, or a person engaged in lawful pest control, stating that the breeder of the dog whose tail is to be docked is known to him and that dogs bred by that breeder have been used (as the case may be) on his land, or in his shoot, or for pest control.
You'll also notice the recurrence of the phrase "most likely" - that is, the vet does not need to be 150% certain that each individual puppy will be used for working. But has to believe it is "most likely" that the dog will be used in this way.
It does us no good at all to scaremonger vets into thinking their jobs are on the line. They are not.