# Rottie Tails in the Ring



## Pai

I was reading Dog News this morning, and saw at the back of the latest issue an ad by the ARC reminding judges that the breed is supposed to be docked and to not reward naturally-tailed dogs.

Not to go into the whole docking debate again, but I was curious as to why they felt the need to buy a reminder ad in a dog show magazine? Are the number of natural-tail Rotties being seen in the ring going up lately? Is there a clique of Rottie 'rebels' that are putting tailed dogs into the ring?


----------



## RedyreRottweilers

I'm not sure if the numbers of tailed exhibits are rising, but ARC feels the need to remind judges and the general dog showing committee from time to time that our breed standard states DOCKED SHORT, leaving one or two vertebra.

And yes, there is that "clique" out there who feels that this portion of the breed standard is insignificant, can be ignored, or interpreted in whatever way they see fit.

This will be my only comment on this topic as it nearly always degenerates into a flame specatacle.


----------



## Pai

No prob, I was just wondering if this was becoming a common thing, since they felt a need to make a statement like that.


----------



## Reiko89

I definitely am not saying I disagree that these dogs should have their tails docked as per the standard, but I don't see what the issue with HAVING a tail is, I find this dog very handsome. The only thing I think I disagree with is cropping ears... or tail docking at home, my mom bought two yorkies from two different breeders who docked at home, one dog grew up with almost no tail and the other has a tail that's too long.... I ALSO strongly dislike people who dock Pitty tails.... They SHOULD NOT have docked tails....


----------



## Pai

Thing is, the proper place for people to debate the current standard's requirements is within the breed club. It's kind of rude to just burst into the ring with a tailed dog (which is controversial) to make a 'statement', imo. The judges at a show are SUPPOSED to use the *breed club-approved standard* to make their judgements in the ring. It's wrong for them to be asked to disregard it, even if they might personally disagree with parts of it, since _their job_ is to stick to the standard and not get involved in politics or personal opinions (ideally, anyway).

In other words, to bring a tailed Rottie into a show and present it before a judge is putting that judge on the spot and asking them to basically publically disregard the breed standard in front of everyone in the ring and ringside. It's not fair to the judge, since they're not supposed to take a stand against or for any special interest group within a breed.

If certain breed club members want to show tailed Rotties, they could host their own shows for 'natural tails' with a different standard and invite a judge to that, instead. Or make their own club. Though personally I don't think it would be helpful for there to be a split in the Rottie breed purely over tail docking, since usually once a breed splits the two types end up becoming very different.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers

I'm not going to cmment on that dog, but it is way incorrect in many respects. It is not the tail AT ALL. It is the BREED STANDARD. Just because they outlawed tail docking right under the noses of the Germans does not mean that we in the US need to alter OUR breed standard which has called for a docked exhibit from it's inception in the 30s.

They can leave the tails on them in Europe or wherever all they freaking want to. The STANDARD is the STANDARD, period.

Also MANY people dock tails at home. It really is no big deal, IF you know what you are doing.


----------



## Willowy

So what would be the proper course of action if a reasonable number of people disagree with the standard? Petition the breed club for an amendment of the standard? Start their own breed club? 

I think it would probably be better for the breed as a whole to allow tailed Rotts to show under the same standards (except for the docked tail), rather than force a split.


----------



## Reiko89

RedyreRottweilers said:


> I'm not going to cmment on that dog, but it is way incorrect in many respects. It is not the tail AT ALL. It is the BREED STANDARD. Just because they outlawed tail docking right under the noses of the Germans does not mean that we in the US need to alter OUR breed standard which has called for a docked exhibit from it's inception in the 30s.
> 
> They can leave the tails on them in Europe or wherever all they freaking want to. The STANDARD is the STANDARD, period.
> 
> Also MANY people dock tails at home. It really is no big deal, IF you know what you are doing.


I know you're a rottweiler expert and everything and you probably just could tear that dog apart conformationally, but I am not an expert, I am a pet owner, if I were looking for a PET rottweiler, I would not pass this dog up just because he has a tail, yes, it's a dumb thing to ignore the breed standard because of what you believe, and I don't agree with people who think they know better and try to change the standard on their own by refusing to dock the tails. And sorry if I seem dumb for not liking home docked tails, but I have never seen someone who could do it right, I've seen dogs with bald patches on the end of their tail, and then the no tailed yorkie and the long tailed yorkie, I just think if you can't do it correctly, then don't do it.


----------



## Willowy

Well, in all fairness, some of the worst dock jobs I've seen were done by a vet. Not all of them can do it either. I don't thiink it's covered in vet school. And I imagine to get good at it, everybody messes up the first few times they do something.


----------



## Inga

I have never seen a bad dock job done by a vet but I have seen many butchered cropped ears by vets. Docking isn't rocket science, but each breed has it's own standard for length. Rottweiler's is 1-2 vertebrae, Boxer's, German Shorthairs, etc... slightly longer. Each one has it's own and many backyard breeders don't breed to standard, don't even educate themselves on what the standard is so obviously, they don't worry about docking to standard either. There are good breeders that dock their own pups, and do it well.


----------



## Keechak

A friend of mine and a great Dobe breeder braught her last litter in to get docked and one of the puppies came out with only one vertibre left! Needless to say The breeder was royally PO'ed and the vet got an earfull.


----------



## Inga

Keechak said:


> A friend of mine and a great Dobe breeder braught her last litter in to get docked and one of the puppies came out with only one vertibre left! Needless to say The breeder was royally PO'ed and the vet got an earfull.



Does Candy currently have a litter?


----------



## Keechak

Candy doesn't breed, but Barb had a litter a year or so ago.


----------



## Xeph

Any news on Turk? Is he finished yet?


----------



## Kyllobernese

The Vet in our area will not dock a dog or take their dewclaws off which means you are going to get a lot of people doing their own and not necessarily knowing what they are doing. I know someone who is banding their puppies tails like they do on lambs, haven't seen any of the results and don't think I would want to.


----------



## Laurelin

To the OP I have seen more tails in the ring, but not necessarily in rotties. I noticed quite a few tailed dogs at Reliant in traditionally docked breeds.

To Red, what happens if someone imports an adult rottie to show in the US?


----------



## ADA

The Breed Standards are set by a smallish group of breed people any one of whom dare not or is very unlikely to break away from "tradition" for fear of the repercussions it is likely to have on their dogs in and out of the ring. 
It should be remembered that the Rottweiler originates in Germany and if the Germans have reinvented thier breed then perhaps N America should pay attention. The AKC standard (framed by the US breeders and rubber stamped by the AKC) states _@Tail--Tail docked short, close to body, leaving one or two tail vertebrae. *The set of the tail is more important than length.* *Properly set, it gives an impression of elongation of topline; carried slightly above horizontal when the dog is excited or moving*._> Obviously this clause would not apply to a docked dog! So an undocked dog has every right to be in the ring and given FAIR appraisal by the breed judge (or a refund of their entry fee...!) In fact in Sept 07 an imported undocked Dutch Rottweiler was an American and Canadian Kennel Club Champion.
To be able to show in some of the big European Shows it is now obligatory to have an undocked and uncropped dog.
see http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/utilwork_12.htm [URL="http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/utilwork_12.htm"] [/URL 
In the USA it is understood that the breed carries the von Willibrand gene and if parents are carriers it could result in a litter dying when docked - but who knows how often this happens other than the breeder/vet - and who is going to tell?......


----------



## RedyreRottweilers

ADA said:


> The Breed Standards are set by a smallish group of breed people any one of whom dare not or is very unlikely to break away from "tradition" for fear of the repercussions it is likely to have on their dogs in and out of the ring.
> It should be remembered that the Rottweiler originates in Germany and if the Germans have reinvented thier breed then perhaps N America should pay attention. The AKC standard (framed by the US breeders and rubber stamped by the AKC) states _@Tail--Tail docked short, close to body, leaving one or two tail vertebrae. *The set of the tail is more important than length.* *Properly set, it gives an impression of elongation of topline; carried slightly above horizontal when the dog is excited or moving*._> Obviously this clause would not apply to a docked dog! So an undocked dog has every right to be in the ring and given FAIR appraisal by the breed judge (or a refund of their entry fee...!) In fact in Sept 07 an imported undocked Dutch Rottweiler was an American and Canadian Kennel Club Champion.
> To be able to show in some of the big European Shows it is now obligatory to have an undocked and uncropped dog.
> see http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/utilwork_12.htm [URL="http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/utilwork_12.htm"] [/URL
> In the USA it is understood that the breed carries the von Willibrand gene and if parents are carriers it could result in a litter dying when docked - but who knows how often this happens other than the breeder/vet - and who is going to tell?......


And what is your experience with the Rottweiler Breed, the American Rottweiler Club, and the ARC Rottweiler breed standard? The breed standards are voted on by the entire club, as are any changes made to it. Changes must pass by a 3/4 margin to be approved. The Rottweiler standard has not been changed since 1990, when it was altered from allowing 3 missing teeth to allowing one, and other minor changes. 

It was reopened in I think 2007, changes were proposed, but not ratified, so it is closed for 5 years from that date. OUR breed standard has nothing to do with Germany or the FCI, THANK GOD. Thank God ONE country and ONE breed club has had the stones to keep this breed in its original state.

The tails are changing the entire breed where docking has been outlawed, and NOT for the better. Tell you what. When I can take my LEGALLY docked dogs and show them at the Klub Show, then we should entertain opening our rings to the tailed dogs.

Until then drug store cowboys like you should butt out.


----------



## Willowy

RedyreRottweilers said:


> Tell you what. When I can take my LEGALLY docked dogs and show them at the Klub Show, then we should entertain opening our rings to the tailed dogs.


I don't see why whether you're allowed to show in other countries or not has any bearing on whether tailed Rotts should be allowed to show in the U.S. The 2 things have nothing to do with one another.

And it sounds like you have a problem with people trying to change the tail set. . . Again this has nothing to do with docking or not. If the tailed dogs were judged by the same standard, tail set and everything, what's the difference? If one of your dogs went undocked, nothing would change except that the dog would have a full tail. Correct tail set remains the same regardless of the length of the tail.

I don't think people should be forced to betray their convictions or give up on showing their heart breed. As long as they don't force you not to dock, what does it hurt if they choose to show a tailed dog?

And nobody answered my question---what would be the proper course of action for the Rott-showing people who wish to show a tailed Rott? A breed split with a separate breed club, petitioning the existing breed club, or something else entirely?


----------



## sassafras

RedyreRottweilers said:


> The tails are changing the entire breed where docking has been outlawed, and NOT for the better.


I understand if you don't want to get into this, but I'm curious what other changes you are seeing. It's a shame if the overall quality or soundness of the dogs is suffering.


----------



## Inga

RedyreRottweilers said:


> Tell you what. When I can take my LEGALLY docked dogs and show them at the Klub Show, then we should entertain opening our rings to the tailed dogs.
> 
> .


Exactly! 

My biggest issue with this is that I don't want to lose yet another "right" that I have. If tailed dogs become allowed, the "docking is cruel" people will start fighting the legal right to chose docking or not. We as American Citizens have lost so many rights as it is. If I want a docked dog, I think it is my "right" and do not want to lose that "right". 

I have no issue with people owning tailed Rottweiler's and I have no issue with them showing them, but the AKC standard calls for a docked tail and a dog with a tail should be penalized. If they want to show tailed dogs, go to Europe. IF their dog is a quality dog, it should compete well there. There are "German Shows" here they can show at as well, I believe.

I just never understand why people always insist on changing things. I especially don't understand why people who are not even involved in owning a certain breed start screaming for change of said breed.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers

Willowy said:


> I don't see why whether you're allowed to show in other countries or not has any bearing on whether tailed Rotts should be allowed to show in the U.S. The 2 things have nothing to do with one another.
> 
> And it sounds like you have a problem with people trying to change the tail set. . . Again this has nothing to do with docking or not. If the tailed dogs were judged by the same standard, tail set and everything, what's the difference? If one of your dogs went undocked, nothing would change except that the dog would have a full tail. Correct tail set remains the same regardless of the length of the tail.
> 
> I don't think people should be forced to betray their convictions or give up on showing their heart breed. As long as they don't force you not to dock, what does it hurt if they choose to show a tailed dog?
> 
> And nobody answered my question---what would be the proper course of action for the Rott-showing people who wish to show a tailed Rott? A breed split with a separate breed club, petitioning the existing breed club, or something else entirely?


The breed standard is the breed standard. I stated in a previous post that the Standard for the Rottweiler is closed for at least 3 more years before alterations could even be CONSIDERED. The American Rottweiler Club owns the Breed Standard for the Rottweiler in the US, and no changes can be made except through the procedures established for such by the ARC.

GERMANY, and the ADRK, are completely responsible for what has happened globally with disallowing docked dogs. They got caught with their pants down, and the law against docking in Germany was passed before they even knew what was going on. The gun dog breeds STILL dock in Germany.

People can show a Rottweiler with a tail if they want to in any AKC ring they choose. Most of the time they will be at the end of the line or shown the gate. Judges who disregard the breed standard do not get entries, and therefore, they do not get assignments from show giving clubs.

The tails are and have changed the entire breed. The majority of breeders who have been breeding and not docking for the last decade have finally gotten the tails down like they want instead of up over the back. The way they did this was to change the angle of the pelvis, the slope of the croup, the length of the body, and the rear angulation in the dog. The dogs are longer, with steeper pelvis/croup, longer bodies, and more extreme rear angulation to compensate for the other changes in the dog so as to keep decent drive from the rear. You could dock most of these dogs with tails and they would NOT look like a Rottweiler. Add to that the intense concentration on head type in many European breeding programs, to the detriment of other important structural issues such as shoulder layback and overall balance, and it is a train wreck. Let's top it all off by the fact that few if any European breeders do any cardiac or eye testing. So what if dogs drop dead, and they do over there, (and here if they have certain European lines) and most people who have been breeding/owning/exhibiting Rottweilers in the US for much more than 10 years are NOT interested in this crap.

This is a complicated multi faceted issue which anyone who is not intimately associated with this breed long term will not understand.

More barstool cowboy work.


----------



## Willowy

RedyreRottweilers said:


> People can show a Rottweiler with a tail if they want to in any AKC ring they choose. Most of the time they will be at the end of the line or shown the gate. .


There must be something that I don't understand. If someone is "shown the gate", then they CAN'T show their dog, contradicting your claim that they can show their dog...... ????



> The tails are and have changed the entire breed. The majority of breeders who have been breeding and not docking for the last decade have finally gotten the tails down like they want instead of up over the back. The way they did this was to change the angle of the pelvis, the slope of the croup, the length of the body, and the rear angulation in the dog. The dogs are longer, with steeper pelvis/croup, longer bodies, and more extreme rear angulation to compensate for the other changes in the dog so as to keep decent drive from the rear. *You could dock most of these dogs with tails and they would NOT look like a Rottweiler*. Add to that the intense concentration on head type in many European breeding programs, to the detriment of other important structural issues such as shoulder layback and overall balance, and it is a train wreck. Let's top it all off by the fact that few if any European breeders do any cardiac or eye testing. So what if dogs drop dead, and they do over there, (and here if they have certain European lines) and most people who have been breeding/owning/exhibiting Rottweilers in the US for much more than 10 years are NOT interested in this crap.


That's not about not docking. You said as much in the bolded part. If people are changing the breed that's an entirely different issue. If you make it about docking/not docking, you're going to lose supporters. It's about breeders trying to change the breed. That's what you should be fighting against, and making that clear to observers.



> This is a complicated multi faceted issue which anyone who is not intimately associated with this breed long term will not understand.


Sometimes I think I'd like to get into dog showing/etc. But honestly it's not looking attractive when this petty crap is going on. And dog show people don't seem very welcoming. When I get lectured by a stranger in Petsmart about the evils of not docking (because I commented to him that his Rott's tail was much shorter than my Rott's tail--his dog had NO tail, when she wagged it looked like a worm under the skin, sort of creepy really--and he said that a bad dock is better than no dock, etc. and on and on), and your average anti-docker just thinks docking is wrong and doesn't have any idea of dog show politics, insulting and lecturing us doesn't exactly make us want to run out and join your side. Really.


----------



## sassafras

RedyreRottweilers said:


> The tails are and have changed the entire breed. The majority of breeders who have been breeding and not docking for the last decade have finally gotten the tails down like they want instead of up over the back. The way they did this was to change the angle of the pelvis, the slope of the croup, the length of the body, and the rear angulation in the dog. The dogs are longer, with steeper pelvis/croup, longer bodies, and more extreme rear angulation to compensate for the other changes in the dog so as to keep decent drive from the rear. You could dock most of these dogs with tails and they would NOT look like a Rottweiler.


Thanks for the explanation, although it IS a shame.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers

Willowy said:


> There must be something that I don't understand. If someone is "shown the gate", then they CAN'T show their dog, contradicting your claim that they can show their dog...... ????


If someone wants to enter a dog knowing full well that they are bringing a dog to the ring with something that is largely viewed as an eliminating fault, they are certainly able to do so. Nothing is stopping anyone from entering their Rottweiler with a tail in any show ring in the US. What I and MANY others in this breed hate are the crybaby drug store barstool cowboys who have NO IDEA what leaving tails on around the globe is doing to this breed. They can show their dog with a tail and take their chances just like anyone else does that shows dogs with light eyes, missing markings, level bites, etc etc etc.




Willowy said:


> That's not about not docking. You said as much in the bolded part. If people are changing the breed that's an entirely different issue. If you make it about docking/not docking, you're going to lose supporters. It's about breeders trying to change the breed. That's what you should be fighting against, and making that clear to observers.


OF COURSE IT IS ABOUT DOCKING. If they were docking, and showing docked dogs in Europe, as they did EVERYWHERE except Sweden prior to 1998, NONE OF US WOULD BE DISCUSSING THIS. They are changing the breed BECAUSE OF THE TAILS. Do you get that? 




Willowy said:


> Sometimes I think I'd like to get into dog showing/etc. But honestly it's not looking attractive when this petty crap is going on. And dog show people don't seem very welcoming. When I get lectured by a stranger in Petsmart about the evils of not docking (because I commented to him that his Rott's tail was much shorter than my Rott's tail--his dog had NO tail, when she wagged it looked like a worm under the skin, sort of creepy really--and he said that a bad dock is better than no dock, etc. and on and on), and your average anti-docker just thinks docking is wrong and doesn't have any idea of dog show politics, insulting and lecturing us *doesn't exactly make us want to run out and join your side. Really.*


Good. VERY good in fact.


----------



## Willowy

RedyreRottweilers said:


> Good. VERY good in fact.


Well, you guys are the ones who are afraid docking will become illegal in the U.S. If it ever came to public vote you'd WANT the majority on your side. But if insulting and alienating people is more satisfying to you for now, no skin off my back.

Before I joined DF I was kind of "meh" about docking. Now I'm against it. Largely because of the pro-dockers and their antagonistic attitudes. I'd like to think that if I met a pro-docking breeder in real life and the subject came up, we could have an intelligent discussion about pros/cons etc. and come away with respect for the other person's opinion, even if we don't agree, instead of the breeder going all looney psycho on me.. But I doubt it.


RedyreRottweilers said:


> OF COURSE IT IS ABOUT DOCKING. If they were docking, and showing docked dogs in Europe, as they did EVERYWHERE except Sweden prior to 1998, NONE OF US WOULD BE DISCUSSING THIS. They are changing the breed BECAUSE OF THE TAILS. Do you get that?


Maybe some of it is about the tails. But if someone was breeding to the same standards you strive for, the ONLY difference being that they didn't dock, it wouldn't be the same issue, would it? So it's not all about the docking.


----------



## cshellenberger

Ok, Wil let me put it this way, by changing the rear angulation to get a *down natural tail* you're geting a dog with a 'roached' back that is being 'condemned' in the GSD. That is the back end these dogs are getting instead of the more square configuration the breed is SUPPOSED to have to do its job (cart pulling and gaurd work) which can have a DEVESTATING effect on a breed that is already having huge problems in the hip and knees due to overbreeding 15-20 years ago. The dogs with a down natural tail will NOT be able to carry the standard becasue the only way to get the down natural tail is to change the rear end.

I too have seen some terrible doc jobs done by vets who aren't familiar with the procedure or the standard for the breed. The worst was a litter of poodles who were docked so short they had to be stitched, one was docked through the vertebrae. The lesson is to be SURE the vet doing the job is familiar with both the procedure and the breed in question, same rule for ear cropping.

Honestly I would not consider a breeder that was breeding for natural long tails in the Rott, they aren't breeding to standard and could be harming the health of the breed by changing the conformation of the dog so drastically. .


----------



## sassafras

Willowy said:


> Maybe some of it is about the tails. But if someone was breeding to the same standards you strive for, the ONLY difference being that they didn't dock, it wouldn't be the same issue, would it? So it's not all about the docking.


Well, I think the point is (as I'm understanding it) that to breed so the natural tail looks correct, they CAN'T breed to the same standards.

Personally I'd rather see docking continue and dogs with healthier hips and knees than be stubborn about the docking. I've watched tail docking performed correctly (in a litter of GSP bred by an acquaintance of my boss, I was curious) and IMO it wasn't like a barbaric procedure or anything. My dogs have seemed more painful for longer after a routine spay or neuter, quite honestly. But I've had a dog with terrible hips that I adopted as a 7 year-old who I'm quite sure was painful every day of her life despite out best efforts to control her pain. *shrug*


----------



## Pai

cshellenberger said:


> I too have seen some terrible doc jobs done by vets who aren't familiar with the procedure or the standard for the breed. The worst was a litter of poodles who were docked so short they had to be stitched, one was docked through the vertebrae. The lesson is to be SURE the vet doing the job is familiar with both the procedure and the breed in question, same rule for ear cropping.


I don't plan to own any docked/cropped breeds in the future, but if I did I would prefer to have those things done by a reputable breeder than a vet, personally. A lot of the time the breeders have had a lot more experience and they know how to do the job properly. The vets often just have a vague idea that 'you're supposed to cut bits off' and don't understand any of the breed-specific nuances to it.


----------



## cshellenberger

Pai, 
I've seen beautiful dock jobs done by knowlegable vets, both the vets my mother used did PERFECT jobs on both ears and tails on every litter, they were OLD SCHOOL vets and knew their business well. The really bad dock job I witnessed was done by a veterinary intern. I'm surethere are breeders who can do the job, but I'd personally prefer a knowlegable vet do the procedure.


----------



## Nargle

Okay, I have a question. I don't mean to start a debate or stir up trouble or anything, I'm just curious.

Dog shows, conformation, breed standards, etc. all exist for the purpose of creating and evaluating the ideal dog genetically, correct? All a breeder can do is breed for the dog's genetics and try to make the dog as sound as possible inside and out. Tail docking does not effect the genetics in any way. It's done after the pup has already been created and his genetics have already been established. Why is something as insignificant as tail docking such a big deal in dog shows and the breed standard? Let's just forget about those breeding for "down tails" for a moment and focus on Rotties that are well bred (I guess with up tails). Breeding dogs that are unsound and could not work is a whole other story. But Red, if you left the tails on your puppies, it would not effect their genetics one bit. So why does it matter so much? Docked tails do not improve their ability to work. It does not prevent unwanted litters or improve the dog's health. It's just aesthetics. Isn't it based on an old fashioned tradition of docking tails on working dogs to avoid "companion" dog taxes? If the breed standard stated that all dogs must wear pink turtleneck sweaters, would it change the genetics of the dogs at all? Would it matter when trying to evaluate dogs for breeding and passing on their genetics? No. So why is it such a huge insult to the breed to try to show a Rottweiler with a full tail? It will be passing that tail on to its offspring, after all. 

I do not think that docking should be made illegal, but I also do not think that someone should be penalized in the ring for making an aesthetic decision about their dog that does not effect their breeding one bit (Sort of like discriminating between the color of the bow on a Yorki's topknot).


----------



## cshellenberger

It's the breed standard because of the breed was made to do (cart pulling) meant the natural up tail would interfere with the dogs job. The fact is, many of these dogs, because of the generations of docking have in fact developed a tail with no working nervous system which means if the tail gets damaged the dog can't feel pain and therefore can make the damge worse resulting in an amputation which is FAR harder to recover from and has a HUGELY increased risk of infection. I believe it was either Inga or Elana55 that had such a rottie witha tail, that tail caught fire and the dog didn't feel it and was severely injured. 

So docking at birth with little pain, nearly no bleeding and very low risk of infection or taking a chance of needing an amputation that will take weeks (sometimes months to heal) and has a high risk of infection. Also, a broken tail (aka happy tail) is a HUGE Pain to deal with and is very hard to heal whether the dog feels pain or not and has a very high amputation rate.


----------



## Keechak

Nargle said:


> Okay, I have a question. I don't mean to start a debate or stir up trouble or anything, I'm just curious.
> 
> Dog shows, conformation, breed standards, etc. all exist for the purpose of creating and evaluating the ideal dog genetically, correct? All a breeder can do is breed for the dog's genetics and try to make the dog as sound as possible inside and out. Tail docking does not effect the genetics in any way. It's done after the pup has already been created and his genetics have already been established. Why is something as insignificant as tail docking such a big deal in dog shows and the breed standard? Let's just forget about those breeding for "down tails" for a moment and focus on Rotties that are well bred (I guess with up tails). Breeding dogs that are unsound and could not work is a whole other story. But Red, if you left the tails on your puppies, it would not effect their genetics one bit. So why does it matter so much? Docked tails do not improve their ability to work. It does not prevent unwanted litters or improve the dog's health. It's just aesthetics. Isn't it based on an old fashioned tradition of docking tails on working dogs to avoid "companion" dog taxes? If the breed standard stated that all dogs must wear pink turtleneck sweaters, would it change the genetics of the dogs at all? Would it matter when trying to evaluate dogs for breeding and passing on their genetics? No. So why is it such a huge insult to the breed to try to show a Rottweiler with a full tail? It will be passing that tail on to its offspring, after all.
> 
> I do not think that docking should be made illegal, but I also do not think that someone should be penalized in the ring for making an aesthetic decision about their dog that does not effect their breeding one bit (Sort of like discriminating between the color of the bow on a Yorki's topknot).


Having a tail on a rottie DOES interfere with it's ability to do the work it was bred for.


----------



## waterbaby

Keechak said:


> Having a tail on a rottie DOES interfere with it's ability to do the work it was bred for.


Well, ok. So I have another ignorant statement/question - It doesn't _look_ like a tail would interfere. I mean, there's usually quite a bit of room between the dog and the cart. And I've seen other breeds of dogs with tails pulling carts. So does it really interfere with their work? And if so, why?


----------



## Nargle

cshellenberger said:


> It's the breed standard because of the breed was made to do (cart pulling) meant the natural up tail would interfere with the dogs job. The fact is, many of these dogs, because of the generations of docking have in fact developed a tail with no working nervous system which means if the tail gets damaged the dog can't feel pain and therefore can make the damge worse resulting in an amputation which is FAR harder to recover from and has a HUGELY increased risk of infection. I believe it was either Inga or Elana55 that had such a rottie witha tail, that tail caught fire and the dog didn't feel it and was severely injured.
> 
> So docking at birth with little pain, nearly no bleeding and very low risk of infection or taking a chance of needing an amputation that will take weeks (sometimes months to heal) and has a high risk of infection. Also, a broken tail (aka happy tail) is a HUGE Pain to deal with and is very hard to heal whether the dog feels pain or not and has a very high amputation rate.


If tails get in the way of pulling carts, then why is it that so many other breeds bred for draft work and pulling have full tails of all shapes and sizes? For instance, Alaskan Malamute, Siberian Husky, Collie, Leonberger, Bernese Mountain Dog, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog, and St. Bernard? 

Also, would you mind explaining to me how docking tails could cause the genetic tendency to lack a nervous system in the tail, or point me in the direction of a website that has more information? 

I'm not saying we should stop docking puppies, but I'm confused as to why a Rottweiler with a full tail but otherwise fantastic breeding wouldn't be allowed to show. Showing is a competition designed to evaluate breeding stock, and docking tails has nothing to do with genetics.


----------



## cshellenberger

Because the breed standard states that having tail is a disqualifying fault, you could register the dog in a show, but it would be DQ'd. The breed standard, as Red has stated isn't changeable for another THREE YEARS. 

When there has been no use for something generation after generation adaptation will take a natural course and start doing away with that feature. Our seletive breeding practices tend to speed that adaptation up. It's not just Rotties that are experianceing this phenonmenom other docked breeds are as well, it's just something the antidocking crew won't tell you. Something similar is happening with Dew Claws on breeds that traditionally have them removed, in those breeds some lines have no bone going into the dew claw, which means it can be even more easily injured due to an adaptation to make removal easier.


----------



## Willowy

Then we should ask ourselves: "is it ethical to create animals that couldn't function in their natural state?"


----------



## Pai

Willowy said:


> Then we should ask ourselves: "is it ethical to create animals that couldn't function in their natural state?"


Thing is, that describes pretty much every domestic animal. The very act of domesticating them (which we now know changes hormones and instincts, not just the body) makes most unable to live in a 'natural state'. Their 'natural state' is to be cared for by humans. Dogs are a human creation, they have no 'natural state', and really, there are worse things out there than tail docking. How many hundreds of years have dogs had their tails docked and ears cropped, with pretty much zero evidence that it harmed their quality of life? If there was proof dogs were suffering from properly-done tail crops and docks, do you think people who are in those breeds are so cruel that they wouldn't care or change? But there _hasn't _been any. This debate always seems to revolve around people personally not liking the idea of cutting bits off puppies (even though pain killers are used in crops and in some docks), without anything more substantive. I wonder how many people who don't like crops/docks think circumcision, or piercing a HUMAN baby's ears are totally ok.

To only point to examples where it's been done incorrectly or cruelly is not fair, I could point out that it's possible to screw up a spay and cause serious harm to a dog, but it would be silly for that to be an excuse as to why we should stop spaying dogs (which is a far more extreme and invasive procedure than a tail dock).


----------



## Willowy

It's true that domesticated animals aren't "natural" but if they absolutely cannot function properly without human interventions, one wonders about the ethicality. I don't think breeding extreme Persians is ethical (due to serious matting if not combed several times a day, and breathing/eye issues), or any animal that always needs a c-section, etc. If normally docked dogs can't live a quality life without docking, that would fall into the same category.


----------



## Pai

Willowy said:


> It's true that domesticated animals aren't "natural" but if they absolutely cannot function properly without human interventions, one wonders about the ethicality. I don't think breeding extreme Persians is ethical (due to serious matting if not combed several times a day, and breathing/eye issues), or any animal that always needs a c-section, etc. If normally docked dogs can't live a quality life without docking, that would fall into the same category.


My main beef with Persians is that they used to have 'normal' faces. But then, I'm the type that is a fanatic about breeds being preserved the way they were originally designed. =P
I don't know a lot about cat breeds, but I hear their situation is similar to brachy dogs, in that bad breeders can screw them up very easily.

Though I agree with you about c-sections, though many breeds now do them for convenience rather than because they have to.


----------



## Nargle

cshellenberger said:


> Because the breed standard states that having tail is a disqualifying fault, you could register the dog in a show, but it would be DQ'd. The breed standard, as Red has stated isn't changeable for another THREE YEARS.
> 
> When there has been no use for something generation after generation adaptation will take a natural course and start doing away with that feature. Our seletive breeding practices tend to speed that adaptation up. It's not just Rotties that are experianceing this phenonmenom other docked breeds are as well, it's just something the antidocking crew won't tell you. Something similar is happening with Dew Claws on breeds that traditionally have them removed, in those breeds some lines have no bone going into the dew claw, which means it can be even more easily injured due to an adaptation to make removal easier.


Could you share with me evidence for this claim? Unless people are purposely breeding dogs to express the mutation causing a lack of nervous system or bones in the dew claw, but otherwise evolution doesn't work that way. A dog's DNA does not sense that their tails are normally removed and decide to do away with the nervous system. 

Also, I'm curious. If there is a high incidence of Rottweilers that lack a nervous system in their tail, I wonder how it could effect the rest of the dog if the mutation continues to be allowed to be bred.



Willowy said:


> It's true that domesticated animals aren't "natural" but if they absolutely cannot function properly without human interventions, one wonders about the ethicality. I don't think breeding extreme Persians is ethical (due to serious matting if not combed several times a day, and breathing/eye issues), or any animal that always needs a c-section, etc. If normally docked dogs can't live a quality life without docking, that would fall into the same category.


You have a very good point.


----------



## Keechak

I am one of the few aussie people that truly doesn't care about docked tails. I like a long tail as much as a docked tho I much prefer a natural bob of any length. In our American standards there is no protocol for how the tail should be carried it simply says Shorter than 4 inches. This means a tailed aussie can be shown with almost any tail carrage except corckscrew and curled and just suffer a fault of length. I speak for ASCA however and AKC is a compleatly different world for the aussie with a lot of petty unofficial requirements IMO.


----------



## melgrj7

Nargle said:


> Could you share with me evidence for this claim? Unless people are purposely breeding dogs to express the mutation causing a lack of nervous system or bones in the dew claw, but otherwise evolution doesn't work that way. A dog's DNA does not sense that their tails are normally removed and decide to do away with the nervous system.


Perhaps it is a result of mistaken selection. Perhaps puppies with less nerve endings in the tails healed better because they didn't bug their tails as much, so there was less scarring, so those pups were bred. Just a thought, probably not the case though I guess.


----------

