# Why do they dock the tails on certain breeds?



## pi1otguy (Jan 1, 2011)

I'm sure there's some great reason, but as a n00b dog owner I've got no idea why they dock tails in some breeds. The best I've read is something about them waging it so hard that they'd break it if it was there.

The main reason it bugs me is because I have a hard time reading unknown dogs without tails. It's hard enough to read them as they close in on you, but tailless makes it near impossible in the few seconds it takes to close in on us.

It's a very odd thing to read your dog reaction to an unknown dog in order to discern intent, especially since I don't want to be rude by taking an unnecessarily defensive posture.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Most of the breeds who are traditionally docked, are working dogs, sporting gundogs, herding dogs, etc. I know with my breed, their tails are thin (at least the part that gets docked is) and can break easily, so they were docked to prevent injuries in the field, and my breed is still worked today. There is also the problem of "happy tail" which can cause painful hematomas from the dog constantly hitting hard objects at fast paces, you can't fix a tail, you either bandage it up and hope for the best or you amputate.

Go look up pictures of dogs who were not docked, who got injured in the field, it's not a pretty sight. 

Terriers- Most terriers were go to ground dogs, meaning they went into holes after vermin or other quarry. If something went wrong and the dog panicked or was getting hurt, you needed to get them out quickly, and a limp tail just wasn't going to cut it. So they docked to provide a sturdy handle for getting dogs out holes quickly. 

Working dogs- Docking tails on guarding type dogs, gave one less thing an intruder could grab onto to get the upper hand. 

You look at the breeds that are not docked, they either have very thick tails, have naturally short tails, or they have lots of feathering to protect their tails.

Oh and I can read my weimaraners just fine with their docked tails.


----------



## RedGermanPinscher (Jun 22, 2012)

Although for the most part, tails today are docked for cosmetic purposes, originally tails were docked and ears were cropped to help lessen the chance of injury whilst the dogs were doing their jobs.

I too can read my pinscher just fine.


----------



## momtolabs (May 27, 2012)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Most of the breeds who are traditionally docked, are working dogs, sporting gundogs, herding dogs, etc. I know with my breed, their tails are thin (at least the part that gets docked is) and can break easily, so they were docked to prevent injuries in the field, and my breed is still worked today. There is also the problem of "happy tail" which can cause painful hematomas from the dog constantly hitting hard objects at fast paces, you can't fix a tail, you either bandage it up and hope for the best or you amputate.
> 
> Go look up pictures of dogs who were not docked, who got injured in the field, it's not a pretty sight.
> 
> ...


This. I have had rottweilers and can read their signs, really well. My labs have tails and it is hard telling from just their tails. You can learn by other body parts, also. It just differs dog from dog. You got to learn on how to read a dog, not just the tail  Most days today though it is for the show ring. I know for rottweilers they are "getting there tail back", although most prefer the docked look. 

I am not sure about other breeds though.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

I agree with Chaos, adding that:

Some Herding breeds - Docked tails because the tail could be stepped on and broken. 

I read my Aussie (docked) and my ACD/Stumpy (natural bob) just as well as I can read the schnauzer/poodle with a tail.


----------



## pi1otguy (Jan 1, 2011)

To be fair, I'd presume that most of us can read our own dogs regardless of tail. My concerns with reading dogs come to light when I'm out and about and spot an unknown dog (or dogs) approaching us. Sure I can still read them, but without a tail it currently takes me so long that they close the distance on me by then. I just feel luck that out of the dozens of dogs to run towards us, only 3 seemed less than friendly & that was indicated to me by my dogs body language.

Ok, I guess I can understand herding and working dogs being docked just as some have dew claws removed too. I guess I was referring mainly to dogs without jobs (family pet).


----------



## RedGermanPinscher (Jun 22, 2012)

pi1otguy said:


> To be fair, I'd presume that most of us can read our own dogs regardless of tail. My concerns with reading dogs come to light when I'm out and about and spot an unknown dog (or dogs) approaching us. Sure I can still read them, but without a tail it currently takes me so long that they close the distance on me by then. I just feel luck that out of the dozens of dogs to run towards us, only 3 seemed less than friendly & that was indicated to me by my dogs body language.
> 
> Ok, I guess I can understand herding and working dogs being docked just as some have dew claws removed too. I guess I was referring mainly to dogs without jobs (family pet).



Most likely, it is because it has cosmetically become the norm for the breed standard and most people want their dogs to resemble the breed standards as closely as possible. For others it is unfortunately, done so that they can be used as a status symbol. And then there are those that are done for medical purposes.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

Docking and Cropping started out as a function. It was to help the dog in the long run.
Now, it's in the standard, so for dogs showing, it should occur. 
For pets, I believe it's purely cosmetic. And for me I believe there's two sides to this one. It's either just for cosmetic purposes, they want their dogs to look like their standard says, or, in the cases of people with big egos, it's for status. And this is mostly for cropping, I believe.
As far as dewclaws go, from what I understand a dog can easily get them caught on things and be injured. I know Aleu has done this before. .-.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

pi1otguy said:


> The main reason it bugs me is because I have a hard time reading unknown dogs without tails. It's hard enough to read them as they close in on you, but tailless makes it near impossible in the few seconds it takes to close in on us.
> .


Really, every part of the dog's body is "readable" The lips, the eyes, the skin around the eyes, the ears, the body posture. As Brenda Aloff says, trying to acess body language by looking at one thing is like trying to make sense of a sentence by a single word. I have no more trouble reading a dog with a short tail than a dog with a long tail. Frequently people who try reading a dog by the tail alone really misinterpret what they are seeing. For instance, the dog is not wagging its tail because it is happy to see you, but because it is thinking how good you're going to taste. Also, physical charateristics sometimes have as much to do with tail carriage as emotion. (A somewhat tucked tail in a sight hound may be normal, while a nor**** dog who carries the tail over the back may have a lowered tail if the tail is straight out.
In my breed, tail docking has a couple of reasons - one is that the breed has a strong natural bob tail gene, and can have tails of any length. Many long bobs look quite funny. Another reason is to keep them from being injured doing pen work on stock. Shoot, around here most of the working ACDs/Heelers are docked, despite it not being to their breed standard.

Okay, that was weird. I used a description for a dog from northern areas of the world, (which I should have spelled "nordic" and the list apparently thought it was a cuss word. I wonder what they do with a guy named Richard?


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

Some dogs used for pulling carts also have docked tails so their tails aren't injured while they work.

If you are only looking at a dog's tail you are missing a lot of body language. It's just that- BODY language. You have to look at the whole thing. Are the ears up? Back? Down? Is the dog stiff and standing tall? Standing forward on its toes? Or is it loose and wiggly and relaxed? Is is cowering down? Is the mouth open and relaxed? Or is it closed and tense? Are the corners of the mouth drawn back or pushed forward? None of those have anything to do with the tail. Tail can be stiff up, straight out, tucked, and it could wagging during any of those postures even though one indicates tension/aggression/simply being alert, and one indicates submission/fear. A wagging tail does NOT mean the dog is happy and the tail alone tells you almost nothing about how the dog is feeling.


----------



## georgiapeach (Mar 17, 2012)

Many European countries have finally banned tail and ear cropping; areas of Australia have, as well - show dogs are required to be undocked, as well. It will take me awhile to wrap my head around that (especially with boxers' tails - uncropped ears don't bother me, for some reason). The dogs look so different!

Some cropping has also changed over the years. For example, poodles' tails are now cropped much longer than when I was young. Potsie's tail is copped "the old fasioned way" - short (he came that way), but most are much longer now.

The docked tails still wag! Just look at a boxer wagging its tail - of course, they tend to wag their whole rear end too (hence, many calling them "wiggle butts" - lol).


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

I have a natural/floppy eared boy with a docked tail. I think some Boxers just look ridiculous with a tail. I ruins the seriousness of the working Boxer sometimes, not to mention they get in the way. Duke does show and it's hard without cropped ears, even though it's allowed. He's only not cropped because we didn't know how to take care of them and he didn't come from a fantastic breeder. And yeah we get tr waggling butt all the time, I love it! I'd miss that with a tail possibly. 

For me part of docking and cropping is honoring the breed history. I don't know of pet owners think like that, but I do.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

Here in the UK docking became almost a necessity with many dogs because of tax. During the 1700's when the ruling class objected to income tax 
- taxes became very imaginative so things such as windows, hats and dog's tails were taxed. So a lot of dogs tails were docked to avoid it. Maybe they worked better without their tails but more likely people became used to seeing them docked... With guarding dogs tails are very vulnerable by being grabbed.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

Tradition, plain and simple. most people are able to choose not to chop off ears, because its done later, but chopping off tails is done so young thats buyers pretty much get what they get.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

True Miss B - I think it is very much about the look. Pets really don't have a reason to be docked.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

pi1otguy said:


> To be fair, I'd presume that most of us can read our own dogs regardless of tail. My concerns with reading dogs come to light when I'm out and about and spot an unknown dog (or dogs) approaching us. Sure I can still read them, but without a tail it currently takes me so long that they close the distance on me by then. I just feel luck that out of the dozens of dogs to run towards us, only 3 seemed less than friendly & that was indicated to me by my dogs body language.
> 
> Ok, I guess I can understand herding and working dogs being docked just as some have dew claws removed too. I guess I was referring mainly to dogs without jobs (family pet).


In other words, by your last sentence, I would assume you are one of those who thinks docking tails is "mean?" That's not even worth answering. And, if you can read dogs, it's not just your dog that you can read. And if all you are looking at is the tail, you can't really read dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

georgiapeach said:


> Many European countries have finally banned tail and ear cropping; areas of Australia have, as well - show dogs are required to be undocked, as well. It will take me awhile to wrap my head around that (especially with boxers' tails - uncropped ears don't bother me, for some reason). The dogs look so different!
> 
> Some cropping has also changed over the years. For example, poodles' tails are now cropped much longer than when I was young. Potsie's tail is copped "the old fasioned way" - short (he came that way), but most are much longer now.
> 
> The docked tails still wag! Just look at a boxer wagging its tail - of course, they tend to wag their whole rear end too (hence, many calling them "wiggle butts" - lol).


In FCI countries, many NBTs who have shortened or kinked tails are disqualified, despite the fact that they might be the best dog. In a breed where tail lengths are inconsistent, the breed is benefitted more by docking than not.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

I don't think it is mean just maybe unnecessary. Vets here (and in other countries) just didn't want to do it anymore. Aren't resources better spent somewhere else - my vet set up a free examination health check in areas that don't bother taking their dogs to the vets from the income that she would have had from tail docking.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

houndies said:


> I don't think it is mean just maybe unnecessary. Vets here (and in other countries) just didn't want to do it anymore. Aren't resources better spent somewhere else - my vet set up a free examination health check in areas that don't bother taking their dogs to the vets from the income that she would have had from tail docking.


I think it is up to the breeder (who will be doing the docking at about two days old) to decide how to spend their money. I know it was never an issue for me whether I would pay for tail docking or other medical considerations. If I couldn't afford both, I wouldn't have been breeding. I think the last litter I had done was about $5 per puppy (and that included lidocaine to numb the tail). Hardly a hardship. As to necessity, no, it's not necessary, but in some cases it's better for the breed. It's not necessary that I teach my dogs to sit pretty, spin, wave, etc. It 's a choice.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

It really isn't about money. What I have become aware with is it's about time with vets - they would rather spend their time doing something more meaningful than docking. Time and money could be spent in more worthwhile causes. Not only here in the UK I think a lot of US vets are feeling the same. 
It's not necessary to teach any of our dogs to sit pretty and beg, roll over and wave, crawl and bark, and sit up and give me five but yes it is a choice... and they do it!


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think it is up to the breeder (who will be doing the docking at about two days old) to decide how to spend their money. I know it was never an issue for me whether I would pay for tail docking or other medical considerations. If I couldn't afford both, I wouldn't have been breeding. I think the last litter I had done was about $5 per puppy (and that included lidocaine to numb the tail). Hardly a hardship. As to necessity, no, it's not necessary, but in some cases it's better for the breed. It's not necessary that I teach my dogs to sit pretty, spin, wave, etc. It 's a choice.


 
How is it better for the breed?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well I have seen bird dogs who spent the day hunting in multi-flora thorns that at end of day the tails were a bloody mess. Just sayin..


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> How is it better for the breed?


In countries (with an already limited gene pool) it would allow breeders to concentrate on more important considerations than whether a tail is shortened or kinked. When registries pick something that is common in a breed and make it a disqualification, it's not particularly good for the breed. I understand that FCI judges can't even recognize an Aussie anyway.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

pi1otguy said:


> The main reason it bugs me is because I have a hard time reading unknown dogs without tails. It's hard enough to read them as they close in on you, but tailless makes it near impossible in the few seconds it takes to close in on us.
> 
> It's a very odd thing to read your dog reaction to an unknown dog in order to discern intent, especially since I don't want to be rude by taking an unnecessarily defensive posture.


I dunno..using the phrase "closing in on us" and "defensive posture"?
That sounds kinda serious!
My dog has a docked tail and it was probably done for cosmetic reasons only. I personally like the way it looks, and Im told its a painless procedure when its done at the right time.
Dogs communicate with a ton of body language..tails or no tails.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

pi1otguy said:


> To be fair, I'd presume that most of us can read our own dogs regardless of tail. * My concerns with reading dogs come to light when I'm out and about and spot an unknown dog (or dogs) approaching us. Sure I can still read them, but without a tail it currently takes me so long that they close the distance on me by then. * I just feel luck that out of the dozens of dogs to run towards us, only 3 seemed less than friendly & that was indicated to me by my dogs body language.
> 
> Ok, I guess I can understand herding and working dogs being docked just as some have dew claws removed too. I guess I was referring mainly to dogs without jobs (family pet).


I don't necessarily want strangers to be able to "read" my guardian breeds. Granted, my dogs don't run loose either.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Well I have seen bird dogs who spent the day hunting in multi-flora thorns that at end of day the tails were a bloody mess. Just sayin..


Only the tails? I know when mine work in heavy brush, their faces, chests and legs recieve the most scratches.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> In countries (with an already limited gene pool) it would allow breeders to concentrate on more important considerations than whether a tail is shortened or kinked. When registries pick something that is common in a breed and make it a disqualification, it's not particularly good for the breed. I understand that FCI judges can't even recognize an Aussie anyway.


 It's so easy now for shipped semen and importing dogs, I wouldn't imagine there would be much of a limited gene pool. Seems like if a tail is a disqualification for registration then the dog wouldn't be breeding quality, but I don't put near the emphasis on cosmetics as what many do. 
Then again I don't agree with docking for cosmetic purposes either, but if necessary to prevent serious injury then I think that's legit.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

juliemule said:


> Only the tails? I know when mine work in heavy brush, their faces, chests and legs recieve the most scratches.


Yes but not many people dock the face/chest/legs

I had a Weimie that would come back bleeding around the eyes, also not dock-able.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Yes but not many people dock the face/chest/legs
> 
> I had a Weimie that would come back bleeding around the eyes, also not dock-able.


Hmmm.... I should start a new breed standard


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

pi1otguy said:


> I'm sure there's some great reason, but as a n00b dog owner I've got no idea why they dock tails in some breeds. The best I've read is something about them waging it so hard that they'd break it if it was there.
> 
> The main reason it bugs me is because I have a hard time reading unknown dogs without tails. It's hard enough to read them as they close in on you, but tailless makes it near impossible in the few seconds it takes to close in on us.
> 
> It's a very odd thing to read your dog reaction to an unknown dog in order to discern intent, especially since I don't want to be rude by taking an unnecessarily defensive posture.


If you have trouble reading docked breeds you probably also have trouble reading breeds with naturally short tails as well what do you propose we do with them?


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Then again I don't agree with docking for cosmetic purposes either, but if necessary to prevent serious injury then I think that's legit.


My Rottie has a docked tail...She looks fantastic!
It was only done for cosmetic reasons...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> It's so easy now for shipped semen and importing dogs, I wouldn't imagine there would be much of a limited gene pool. Seems like if a tail is a disqualification for registration then the dog wouldn't be breeding quality, but I don't put near the emphasis on cosmetics as what many do.
> Then again I don't agree with docking for cosmetic purposes either, but if necessary to prevent serious injury then I think that's legit.


Thing is, NBT is common in the breed. In the US its not a concern, since we dock them and so tail length doesn't matter to us. So some of the best and most talented dogs (whom we consider to be breeding quality) carry the gene. They are a breed that is primarily established in the US and still relatively uncommon in many other places. Where would you suggest docking ban countries import their semen from? Since most pups in the US are docked as neonates, where would you suggest they import dogs from? Would you actually eliminate a dog who was talented and physically superior because it has a minor kink to it's tail? You can obscess over tails if you want to, but IMO, and the opinion of most American Aussie fanciers, there are many factors more worthy of consideration. Besides, an Aussie with a tail just looks . . . odd.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

pi1otguy said:


> To be fair, I'd presume that most of us can read our own dogs regardless of tail. My concerns with reading dogs come to light when I'm out and about and spot an unknown dog (or dogs) approaching us. Sure I can still read them, but without a tail it currently takes me so long that they close the distance on me by then. I just feel luck that out of the dozens of dogs to run towards us, only 3 seemed less than friendly & that was indicated to me by my dogs body language.
> 
> Ok, I guess I can understand herding and working dogs being docked just as some have dew claws removed too. I guess I was referring mainly to dogs without jobs (family pet).


It's done for looks with most dogs. It isn't even legal in some countries.

I get what you mean about reading the dog, though. Everybody can read their own dog, but it's harder to read someone else's dog. I had this problem last night with a mastiff approaching (without an owner), it was dark out and I couldn't see the tail, so I couldn't tell the dog's intent at all. I love dogs and I especially love big dogs, but that was a bit scary.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Thing is, NBT is common in the breed. In the US its not a concern, since we dock them and so tail length doesn't matter to us. So some of the best and most talented dogs (whom we consider to be breeding quality) carry the gene. They are a breed that is primarily established in the US and still relatively uncommon in many other places. Where would you suggest docking ban countries import their semen from? Since most pups in the US are docked as neonates, where would you suggest they import dogs from? Would you actually eliminate a dog who was talented and physically superior because it has a minor kink to it's tail? You can obscess over tails if you want to, but IMO, and the opinion of most American Aussie fanciers, there are many factors more worthy of consideration. Besides, an Aussie with a tail just looks . . . odd.


 No, as I stated I don't care much about cosmetics. I don't understand how a kinked tail could be a fault but docking makes it ok? The trait is still there.

I'm a firm believer that performance outweighs looks anyday. So tails really don't mean much to me. I don't think a breed looks better with a docked tail, but with a natural tail. 

Of course more is worthy of considering than a tail, that's why I can't see why someone would dock tails for looks only. Personally I think a cut off tail looks odd. I really enjoy seeing.the dobes and rotties from countries that don't dock. 

As far as them not importing docked dogs, that may be why the breed isn't common in dock ban places.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Roloni said:


> My Rottie has a docked tail...She looks fantastic!
> It was only done for cosmetic reasons...


Yes your dog is cute. Imo would look better with a natural tail though


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

Pawz I agree that the ban has cut out a lot of foreign dogs coming to the UK to compete but worse is here as some of the working dogs that did both work and show can't show in a paying event (like Crufts) except in N. Ireland and Scotland (that has a total ban on docking). I can understand that people who have been with their breeds working for decades and feel there are real reasons to dock are suddenly told they have to get permission to dock is a real knock especially that these dogs cannot show in conformation because of it. It slaps the KC's FIT FOR FUNCTION campaign in the face and yet another half cooked idea from the KC. Personally I don't get docking - never had any of the breeds. As far as kinks - hounds are often born with kinked tails due to big litters crowding in the womb. I have a kinked tailed girl who was a show dog in her former life (before us) but hey are never docked the kink grows out pretty much to the end of the tail and is only noticeable when you feel her tail.


----------



## pi1otguy (Jan 1, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> In other words, by your last sentence, I would assume you are one of those who thinks docking tails is "mean?" That's not even worth answering. And, if you can read dogs, it's not just your dog that you can read. And if all you are looking at is the tail, you can't really read dogs.


I don't think it's "mean". I'm simply coming from a uninformed position and was genuinely curious as to why. It's sort of like why 1st time owners or non-dog people may wonder why neuter vs vasectomy. The answer given for working dogs actually makes a lot of sense.
The reason I can read my dog quickly is that I've known her for sometime & feel I understand the changes in posture partially because I know her signals very well beyond just the tail. Unfortunately, I'm just not that good at telling excited-friendly from excited-aggressive in the few seconds it takes a dog to close the gap just yet.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

juliemule said:


> No, as I stated I don't care much about cosmetics. I don't understand how a kinked tail could be a fault but docking makes it ok? The trait is still there.


Unfortunately for this breed, the random rule of kinked tails being a DQ was made up out of the blue for FCI shows. It is not a rule anywhere in America, the land of the breed's founding.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Keechak said:


> Unfortunately for this breed, the random rule of kinked tails being a DQ was made up out of the blue for FCI shows. It is not a rule anywhere in America, the land of the breed's founding.


If its not a fault in America, why dock?

Does fci allow docked tail dogs?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

juliemule said:


> If its not a fault in America, why dock?


Kinked tails are not a fault but tails over 4 inches are a fault (in the US and Canada)


----------



## pi1otguy (Jan 1, 2011)

Roloni said:


> I dunno..using the phrase "closing in on us" and "defensive posture"?
> That sounds kinda serious!


Simply put, properly reading a dog running towards us is the difference between me calmly standing by as they greet vs me standing in front of Spirit and saying to myself "aw crap. Guess I'm gonna get bit today.". "defensive posture" for me just means making myself look bigger and getting ready block attempts to go around me. Luckily, there's only been 1 incident so far where there was a genuine threat to Spirit ... and her body language told me she was scared out of her mind.



Amaryllis said:


> I get what you mean about reading the dog, though. Everybody can read their own dog, but it's harder to read someone else's dog. I had this problem last night with a mastiff approaching (without an owner), it was dark out and I couldn't see the tail, so I couldn't tell the dog's intent at all. I love dogs and I especially love big dogs, but that was a bit scary.


And of course, once you've been in their company for a few minutes you can read them. Unlike most people here I'm relatively new to all things dog. As such it takes me a while to "learn" each dog I meet.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

pi1otguy said:


> To be fair, I'd presume that most of us can read our own dogs regardless of tail. My concerns with reading dogs come to light when I'm out and about and spot an unknown dog (or dogs) approaching us. Sure I can still read them, but without a tail it currently takes me so long that they close the distance on me by then. I just feel luck that out of the dozens of dogs to run towards us, only 3 seemed less than friendly & that was indicated to me by my dogs body language.
> 
> Ok, I guess I can understand herding and working dogs being docked just as some have dew claws removed too. I guess I was referring mainly to dogs without jobs (family pet).


Frankly I don't look at the tail of a dog, or use it only as a small portion of the indicators dogs give. I can see much more from the ears, eyes, hackles and body position. I guess growing up with docked breeds that tail was a small part of the body communication (though it's certainly used) and I never became dependent on it as a communication tool.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> No, as I stated I don't care much about cosmetics. I don't understand how a kinked tail could be a fault but docking makes it ok? The trait is still there.
> 
> I'm a firm believer that performance outweighs looks anyday. So tails really don't mean much to me. I don't think a breed looks better with a docked tail, but with a natural tail.
> 
> ...


They were just starting to gain a foothold before FCI made their stupid rule. Personally, I think a full tail on an Aussie looks really odd, and tails really don't mean much to me, because my dogs don't have them. Personally, I don't see disqualifying a good dog for having a tail which is normal fo their breed.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> If its not a fault in America, why dock?


Why not? Just because you don't like how it looks?


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

Breeders over many years have bred for bandy legs, flat noses, big heads, long fur, floppy skin etc. but when amputation of tails has been permitted they have not turned their attention to tail set, movement or length. There will be injury to tails as to any other part of a dog's body. Considering hundreds of thousands dogs fell into the docked dog groups there is bound to be some increase in injury as they now fall into the all dog group of "complete dog". As a facetious argument, if it had been considered wise to remove legs as a precautionary measure for injury and that had been banned, of course leg injuries would increase. 
As with any injury they usually happen for the reason that a dog has been in a dangerous situation or territory. e.g. confined space or dangerous terrain.
In countries where a ban has been in place far longer than the UK Vets say that 'there have been no reports of any alarming increase in tail injuries in working dogs. The general feeling is that working dogs of the former tail-docked breeds have become more used to handling their tails while working, resulting in a decrease of tail injuries.' (English Pointers are not docked but German Pointers are/were; Cardigan Corgis are not docked but Pembrokes are/were etc.

For history of tail docking see http://http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_18.htm
also see comments on http://http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_20.htm


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Why not? Just because you don't like how it looks?


I don't think a short tail looks bad. I don't agree with removing a body part for cosmetic reasons. That's why I wondered why its done. 
Greyhounds have thin tails. They run hard, yet they aren't docked. Most working dogs have no reason to have the tails or ears altered. Look at the dobes in countries where they keep them.natural, they work just fine.

So why? Just cut off the tails because you can?


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

juliemule said:


> Greyhounds have thin tails. They run hard, yet they aren't docked. Most working dogs have no reason to have the tails or ears altered. Look at the dobes in countries where they keep them.natural, they work just fine.
> 
> So why? Just cut off the tails because you can?


Greyhounds are a prime example of a breed when worked where they have many leg injuries and lameness. The logic would be to find which leg of Greyhounds gets injured more than the others and remove at birth to prevent the injury.
(Although it should be borne in mind that docking is causing an injury in itself)


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

ADA said:


> Greyhounds are a prime example of a breed when worked where they have many leg injuries and lameness. The logic would be to find which leg of Greyhounds gets injured more than the others and remove at birth to prevent the injury.
> (Although it should be borne in mind that docking is causing an injury in itself)


Your comparing apples to oranges and your conclusions are not 'logical' at all. Legs are essential for a dog to be a dog. If we simply lobbed off all four legs it would seriously handicap the dog. Yet docking the tail does not handicap the dog in anyway because tails are not essential parts of the dog, proven by natural tailless dogs.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> The general feeling is that working dogs of the former tail-docked breeds have become more used to handling their tails while working, resulting in a decrease of tail injuries.'


They pass that on to their pups, interesting wonder how these general feelings get started. A dog with high drives would no doubt be wagging/flagging tail more vigorously than a low drive dog. So maybe then to get less injury to tails we breed low drive dogs. Which could get us dogs that have less drive for hunting birds/etc. 

Do I know that for sure, no it's just my general feeling of what could happen. Just sayin'.....


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I don't think a short tail looks bad. I don't agree with removing a body part for cosmetic reasons. That's why I wondered why its done.
> So why? Just cut off the tails because you can?


If it is done at the proper time, and done correctly, it is virtually painless. Vaccines probably hurt worse. My dogs do not suffer from being tail-less. They are agile and quick. They can communicate very effectively with their bodies. So, again, other than your personal preference, why not? It seems to me that with as many real issues as there are in dogs, tail docking is basically a non-issue, and a stupid thing to focus on as "cruel" or abusive (or even egocentric) is just plain dim. Spaying and neutering are likewise voluntary and only necessary for the owner's convenience. And yet the very people who will have a cow if you cut a dog's tail off routinely sing the praises of removing those organs. People circumcize baby boys, they pierce the ears of their baby girls. None of that is, strictly speaking, necessary. But dock a tail in a breed which is frequently tail-less anyway, and oh, brother. If you don't like it, stick to non-docked breeds. If that's your choice, I am happy for you.

Look at this poor dog and how she can hardly navigate with her stubby little tail:


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> People circumcize baby boys, they pierce the ears of their baby girls. None of that is, strictly speaking, necessary. But dock a tail in a breed which is frequently tail-less anyway,


I absolutely love the comparison, PawzK9 you have made my day. When you are right, you're right. The argument that the dog does not have a choice in the program is not gonna fly. Somewhere out there I'm sure is a baby with a couple tatoos.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> If it is done at the proper time, and done correctly, it is virtually painless. Vaccines probably hurt worse. My dogs do not suffer from being tail-less. They are agile and quick. They can communicate very effectively with their bodies. So, again, other than your personal preference, why not? It seems to me that with as many real issues as there are in dogs, tail docking is basically a non-issue, and a stupid thing to focus on as "cruel" or abusivoe (or even egocentric) is just plain dim. Spaying and neutering are likewise voluntary and only necessary for the owner' convenience. And yet the very people who will have a cow if you cut a dog's tail off routinely sing the praises of removing those organs. People circumcize baby boys, they pierce the ears of their baby girls. None of that is, strictly speaking, necessary. But dock a tail in a breed which is frequently tail-less anyway, and oh, brother. If you don't like it, stick to non-docked breeds. If that's your choice, I am happy for you.
> 
> Look at this poor dog and how she can hardly navigate with her stubby little tail:


 I'm sorry you feel its stupid. I feel the same about docking. However its not virtually painless, I have assisted in hundreds of dockings, and it does hurt. The pups cry, yelp, and try to squirm away. Doesn't seem painless to me.

Vaccinations are not for cosmetic purposes. I for sure will stick with breeds that aren't docked, or cropped.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

pi1otguy said:


> Simply put, properly reading a dog running towards us is the difference between me calmly standing by as they greet vs me standing in front of Spirit and saying to myself "aw crap. Guess I'm gonna get bit today.". "defensive posture" for me just means making myself look bigger and getting ready block attempts to go around me. Luckily, there's only been 1 incident so far where there was a genuine threat to Spirit ... and her body language told me she was scared out of her mind.


We actually share the same concerns..
I have a 100 lb female Rottie (very well behaved and animal and people friendly) . I spent a lot of time socializing her and teaching her . 
However..
If a strange dog came running towards us ..I would be just as concerned as you....probably even more so.


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Yet docking the tail does not handicap the dog in anyway because tails are not essential parts of the dog, proven by natural tailless dogs.


The tailless gene is not necessarily a "stump" tail and the gene can throw a tail in varying lengths (another reason for docking to have been encouraged by breeders for the show ring). Also it is genetic defect with other complications and if bred for is likely narrowing the gene pool and increasing other health problems in the breeds affected. The tailless gene is a potentially lethal gene in utero.


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> If it is done at the proper time, and done correctly, it is virtually painless.
> Pain is subjective and the above observation needs scientific evidence
> http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_4.htm


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

I think it's wrong to remove part of the dog's body like ears or tails just for looks. They are still cute. They are still functional. But why do it? Just because you can.. that doesn't make it right. You're cutting off part of your dog's body! How is that ok?!

Edit: I am ok with docking/cropping for functionality. But for cosmetics only? Absolutely not.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Sibe said:


> Edit: I am ok with docking/cropping for functionality. But for cosmetics only? Absolutely not.


Think of it as mans intervention in "Speeding Up Darwins Theory Of Evolution"..
Its a useless appendage ...Eventually all dogs in the future will be tailess.


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

Roloni said:


> Think of it as mans intervention in "Speeding Up Darwins Theory Of Evolution"..
> Its a useless appendage ...Eventually all dogs in the future will be tailess.


I don't see any wild canids with no tails.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Roloni said:


> Think of it as mans intervention in "Speeding Up Darwins Theory Of Evolution"..
> Its a useless appendage ...Eventually all dogs in the future will be tailess.


It's not useless to the dog.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Roloni said:


> Think of it as mans intervention in "Speeding Up Darwins Theory Of Evolution"..
> Its a useless appendage ...Eventually all dogs in the future will be tailess.


Wut? I think you need a lesson on the theory of evolution if you think it backs up that claim. Here's your first lesson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

This is even granting the dubious notion that a dog's tail is no longer needed.


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

What about doing it just to honor the history of the breed? Not to mention showing a natural eared dog is quite a pain! I'm doing it now.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

boxerlover876 said:


> What about doing it just to honor the history of the breed? Not to mention showing a natural eared dog is quite a pain! I'm doing it now.


If none of the dogs were cropped, showing a natural-eared dog wouldn't be a pain .

And, no, I don't approve of doing anything for "tradition" or to "honor history". I think most things done in the past are best left in the past.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

boxerlover876 said:


> What about doing it just to honor the history of the breed? Not to mention showing a natural eared dog is quite a pain! I'm doing it now.


It's still the same breed, with tails or not. So you can honor the history, and not put it through ear cropping.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I'm sorry you feel its stupid. I feel the same about docking. However its not virtually painless, I have assisted in hundreds of dockings, and it does hurt. The pups cry, yelp, and try to squirm away. Doesn't seem painless to me.
> .


Shrug. I just consider it a non-issue compared to real neglect or abuse. Especially considering the fact that the people who do it tend to be more invested in their dogs' wellbeing than the majority of owners, whether you approve of their taste or not. I do find it odd that you would assist in hundred of procedures of which you so adamantly disapprove. And it sounds to me like you must have worked for vets(?) who weren't very good at it. I've only assisted with the docking of my own puppies' tails. But they were more concerned about being removed from their littermates than the docking itself - which was a quick yip (nothing more than when they are subject to a vaccination poke and done with lidocaine - which is very good at numbing - I had to use it on my port just today - without it the needle is painful, with it I barely feel it) and a single stitch. Then they go back to sleep when put back with the other puppies, and there is no sign of discomfort after the procedure.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADA said:


> Cardigan Corgis are not docked but Pembrokes are/were etc.
> ]


Pemmies with short tails may or may not be docked. Like the Aussies, they have a strong background of natural bob tails. So much in fact that a geneticist who wanted to breed a bob tailed Boxer (so he wouldn't have to look at long tailed ones) added Pembroke to the mix.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADA said:


> http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_4.htm


Oh, now THERE'S an unbiased source (not)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Sibe said:


> I think it's wrong to remove part of the dog's body like ears or tails just for looks. They are still cute. They are still functional. But why do it? Just because you can.. that doesn't make it right. You're cutting off part of your dog's body! How is that ok?!
> 
> .


And spaying and neutering is cutting out parts of the dog's body. Note: I'm not opposed to s/n. But it is what it is. And it's generally done for the convenience of the owner. And that's okay. Just as docking for cosmetic purposes is a personal choice, in my opinion. And nobody's business except the breeder, the vet and the puppy's new owner.


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> And spaying and neutering is cutting out parts of the dog's body. Note: I'm not opposed to s/n. But it is what it is. And it's generally done for the convenience of the owner. And that's okay. Just as docking for cosmetic purposes is a personal choice, in my opinion. And nobody's business except the breeder, the vet and the puppy's new owner.


Glad we are thinking the same way...I guess it's ok to take out organs, but not to cut off part of a tail


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> And spaying and neutering is cutting out parts of the dog's body. Note: I'm not opposed to s/n. But it is what it is. And it's generally done for the convenience of the owner. And that's okay. Just as docking for cosmetic purposes is a personal choice, in my opinion. And nobody's business except the breeder, the vet and the puppy's new owner.


 Spaying.and neutering prevents lots of neglect, abuse and death. It also has health benefits, so I wouldn't say its only a convenience. Nothing to do with cosmetics either. So its a big difference there.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

boxerlover876 said:


> Glad we are thinking the same way...I guess it's ok to take out organs, but not to cut off part of a tail


Again, what benefits are there to docking? There are benefits to spay/neuter.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Spaying.and neutering prevents lots of neglect, abuse and death. It also has health benefits, so I wouldn't say its only a convenience. Nothing to do with cosmetics either. So its a big difference there.


It's basically a toss-up healthwise - especially for males. For females, I think spayed is slightly healthier for older females not being bred. If you mean it prevents unwanted and unplanned litters - so does careful management.


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Again, what benefits are there to docking? There are benefits to spay/neuter.


Not getting in the way of sports, they could run on their own tail, not breaking the ends of it and it bleeding, not running it over if drafting or carting, etc.


----------



## momtolabs (May 27, 2012)

I;m not an expert at tail docking AT ALL but here is my two cents on it. 

As others have said, it is up to the breeder on what they want to do. In most cases it is BETTER for the puppy to have it's tail docked. What if it is out herding at lets say, 2 years old. A cow steps on it and breaks it. The only thing to fix it is docking the tail. It would be MUCH more painful for them then as to have it done as a very young puppy. They could also get poop and other things matted up in their fur while they are out working and that could also be very painful. Do some herding breeds work with a tail,yes. But it is safer for there tail to be docked. If they are not working and in the show ring it is because that is the standard and as someone else said, it is hard to compete with a dog not in standard. Is it possible, yes but a lot harder. For cosmetic purposes that is because that is what the breed "looks" like now. People want what they want. If they want the tail docked that is THEIR decision. If you have that big of a deal with it, contact the people who set the standard and tell them. I doubt they will listen though.


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Oh, now THERE'S an unbiased source (not)


It is presumed that you did not read the peer reviewed article (from an unbiased science based source). There are others.

For those who say "what if"? Injury to a leg or tail can never be a certainty. 
Docking is inflicting an injury in the first place. 
The tailless gene does not breed true and as with docking to a stump may cause spinal/anal/bladder problems. It also narrows gene pools which then proliferate other health problems.


----------



## Loki Love (May 23, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Shrug. I just consider it a non-issue compared to real neglect or abuse. Especially considering the fact that the people who do it tend to be more invested in their dogs' wellbeing than the majority of owners, whether you approve of their taste or not.


I completely agree with this - well said. If cropping/docking is the WORST thing one does to their pet - that's miles above some of the average pet owners out there. I love the look of a good crop (and Loki's is fantastic - I'm totally biased though!).


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Loki Love said:


> I completely agree with this - well said. If cropping/docking is the WORST thing one does to their pet - that's miles above some of the average pet owners out there. I love the look of a good crop (and Loki's is fantastic - I'm totally biased though!).


 By no means is it the worst thing done. I just find it odd, how many praise positive training, don't even like a leash correction, humane collars, etc, yet have no issue cutting off a puppies tail.

My dogs work. I train with hundreds of working dogs a year. Know plenty of working ranch dogs. Lots of protection sport dogs. Even breeds that are normally docked, left natural, and I haven't seen an issue with tails. I have seen dewclaws torn off quite often. Many leg injuries, and yes a tail injury is possible, but nothing where I have seen it would be better to remove them. To each his own.
I don't know any carting dogs. I honestly agree that if the tail was in the way and caused injury it would be best to dock as pups, but I see that most dogs its done only for looks now.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

momtolabs said:


> I;m not an expert at tail docking AT ALL but here is my two cents on it.
> 
> As others have said, it is up to the breeder on what they want to do. In most cases it is BETTER for the puppy to have it's tail docked. What if it is out herding at lets say, 2 years old. A cow steps on it and breaks it. The only thing to fix it is docking the tail. It would be MUCH more painful for them then as to have it done as a very young puppy. They could also get poop and other things matted up in their fur while they are out working and that could also be very painful. Do some herding breeds work with a tail,yes. But it is safer for there tail to be docked. If they are not working and in the show ring it is because that is the standard and as someone else said, it is hard to compete with a dog not in standard. Is it possible, yes but a lot harder. For cosmetic purposes that is because that is what the breed "looks" like now. People want what they want. If they want the tail docked that is THEIR decision. If you have that big of a deal with it, contact the people who set the standard and tell them. I doubt they will listen though.


I have better issues that I spend my time on for k9 welfare. However I don't support breeders who dock. I dont feel its best to dock, and that what if injury is much more likely a leg would be stepped on, or the dog getting kicked in the head or chest.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> By no means is it the worst thing done. I just find it odd, how many praise positive training, don't even like a leash correction, humane collars, etc, yet have no issue cutting off a puppies tail.
> 
> My dogs work. I train with hundreds of working dogs a year. Know plenty of working ranch dogs. Lots of protection sport dogs. Even breeds that are normally docked, left natural, and I haven't seen an issue with tails. I have seen dewclaws torn off quite often. Many leg injuries, and yes a tail injury is possible, but nothing where I have seen it would be better to remove them. To each his own.
> I don't know any carting dogs. I honestly agree that if the tail was in the way and caused injury it would be best to dock as pups, but I see that most dogs its done only for looks now.


So which is it - to each his own? or we should do what you think best? You seem to want to have an opinion on what I do with my dog. What is a "humane" collar. I simply don't see tail docking, done correctly and done at the right age as something that causes a lasting issue for a dog the way random or poorly applied aversives do. And I don't care whether you do or don't choose to do it? I am not by the way, "praise positive" as I think most dogs need a stronger motivator to begin with. And most dogs learn stronger wtih a better motivator.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADA said:


> It is presumed that you did not read the peer reviewed article (from an unbiased science based source). There are others.
> 
> For those who say "what if"? Injury to a leg or tail can never be a certainty.
> Docking is inflicting an injury in the first place.
> The tailless gene does not breed true and as with docking to a stump may cause spinal/anal/bladder problems. It also narrows gene pools which then proliferate other health problems.


I read the article. If I were a peer, I would review it as biased hogwash. 
Nobody is suggesting here that we "breed for" a NBT. Docking actually broadens gene pools by offering a wider variety of show quality and talented dogs because breeders and judges have no need to obscess about the perfect natural tail (whatever that is proposed to be)


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> So which is it - to each his own? or we should do what you think best? You seem to want to have an opinion on what I do with my dog. What is a "humane" collar. I simply don't see tail docking, done correctly and done at the right age as something that causes a lasting issue for a dog the way random or poorly applied aversives do. And I don't care whether you do or don't choose to do it? I am not by the way, "praise positive" as I think most dogs need a stronger motivator to begin with. And most dogs learn stronger wtih a better motivator.


Pawz not everything pertains to you. I never said anywhere that docking leaves lasting negative effects. I have an opinion on what is done with dogs in general, as do you, you have often stated. 

There were many statements made about the reason why docking is done, and anymore it is a cosmetic reason, not for health reasons. 
Very few actual benefits to docking, which is what the original op question was, is the reason why docking is done.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Its a useless appendage ...Eventually all dogs in the future will be tailess.


Hmmmmmmm! 

If that's true possibly the man of the future may be born brainless.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

Ha!!! and that will be when pigs do take over.

You know there are much bigger fish to fry than docking tails. It's great that the US has quite a liberal standard as far as competing and leaves it up to the owners.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Hmmmmmmm!
> 
> If that's true possibly the man of the future may be born brainless.


 The future is here.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

juliemule said:


> The future is here.


I did not want to say that, but you do have a way with words.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

juliemule said:


> Spaying.and neutering prevents lots of neglect, abuse and death. It also has health benefits, so I wouldn't say its only a convenience. Nothing to do with cosmetics either. So its a big difference there.


It has JUST as many (and far more dangerous) Health PROBLEMS. S/N is a convenience, look at Germany, S/N is illegal (as is removing any body part) unless medically needed (due to disease), there is NO overbreeding, few dogs in shelters because people are taught RESPONSIBILITY. I don't agree with the law, but the dog culture there is COMPLETELY different. Here dogs are throw away items, in Germany they are valued for their working ability and companionship and dog ownership is a priveledge.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

Wouldn't it be really great to have a world wide database of our dogs? Unfortunately it really isn't here - perhaps things are lost in translation...


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> It has JUST as many (and far more dangerous) Health PROBLEMS. S/N is a convenience, look at Germany, S/N is illegal (as is removing any body part) unless medically needed (due to disease), there is NO overbreeding, few dogs in shelters because people are taught RESPONSIBILITY. I don't agree with the law, but the dog culture there is COMPLETELY different. Here dogs are throw away items, in Germany they are valued for their working ability and companionship and dog ownership is a priveledge.


I agree. Until that changes here, however it still prevents lots of problems. 

The health risks are give and take. Working as a tech, I saw many more problems from not spaying or neutering, than from it however. So its more than convenience. It still is not just for looks though.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I agree. Until that changes here, however it still prevents lots of problems.
> 
> The health risks are give and take. Working as a tech, I saw many more problems from not spaying or neutering, than from it however. So its more than convenience. It still is not just for looks though.


It seems to me the questions should be: 1 is it more painful than other procedures that are routinely done? (answer, no it is less painful. I did have one puppy who was a bit uncomfortable for about a day - he "cooked inutero" a little longer than he should of, so that when he was docked on his second day, he was developmentally probably a couple of days older. Still, the discomfort did not seem excessive and I owned him his full life and there were no issues from it. His smaller sister (probably from a tie two days later) had no discomfort. Most puppies seem to have forgotten about it within a few minutes of being snuggled back with their littermates. But then, I go to good vets and am present when they are done. 2. Are there unacceptable risks?(answer, no - it is a very low risk procedure, probably less so than vaccinations, and certainly less than s/n. As to the "peer reviewed" article. Being supposedly peer reviewed doesn't eliminate the possibility of bias, which this paper definitely was. In over 30 years in a NBT/docked breed, I've heard of a few problems with NBTs but none of the horrendous problems mentioned from a well docked tail. The only incontenence issues I've seen was from spaying, not docking. 
The questions being asked should be about the well-being/health of the DOGS. Unless you are just looking to demonize people who don't think like you think, the REASON people choose to dock is as irrelevant as why they choose to have their poodle clipped into pompons.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> It seems to me the questions should be: 1 is it more painful than other procedures that are routinely done? (answer, no it is less painful. I did have one puppy who was a bit uncomfortable for about a day - he "cooked inutero" a little longer than he should of, so that when he was docked on his second day, he was developmentally probably a couple of days older. Still, the discomfort did not seem excessive and I owned him his full life and there were no issues from it. His smaller sister (probably from a tie two days later) had no discomfort. Most puppies seem to have forgotten about it within a few minutes of being snuggled back with their littermates. But then, I go to good vets and am present when they are done. 2. Are there unacceptable risks?(answer, no - it is a very low risk procedure, probably less so than vaccinations, and certainly less than s/n. As to the "peer reviewed" article. Being supposedly peer reviewed doesn't eliminate the possibility of bias, which this paper definitely was. In over 30 years in a NBT/docked breed, I've heard of a few problems with NBTs but none of the horrendous problems mentioned from a well docked tail. The only incontenence issues I've seen was from spaying, not docking.
> The questions being asked should be about the well-being/health of the DOGS. Unless you are just looking to demonize people who don't think like you think, the REASON people choose to dock is as irrelevant as why they choose to have their poodle clipped into pompons.


 It's that its an unnecessary procedure that involves amputation of a healthy body part. If spaying is necessary to prevent irresponsible owners from letting dogs reproduce, that alone is a huge benefit. 

If cutting off a puppies tail prevented lots of problems, great. I really don't know why you have a problem with me not agreeing with tail docking pawz. That's great that you are all for it. Again, the reason for posting my views is that it was being said that it benefits the dogs. It doesn't, its a procedure almost always done for looks. Are you disagreeing on this? If not then what is your point? 
I also disagree with declawing cats, and owning wild animals as pets, if you would like to argue those as well


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> It's that its an unnecessary procedure that involves amputation of a healthy body part. If spaying is necessary to prevent irresponsible owners from letting dogs reproduce, that alone is a huge benefit.
> 
> If cutting off a puppies tail prevented lots of problems, great. I really don't know why you have a problem with me not agreeing with tail docking pawz. That's great that you are all for it. Again, the reason for posting my views is that it was being said that it benefits the dogs. It doesn't, its a procedure almost always done for looks. Are you disagreeing on this? If not then what is your point?
> I also disagree with declawing cats, and owning wild animals as pets, if you would like to argue those as well


It can prevent problems. If I was doing a lot of close pen work with my dogs, it could prevent a broken tail. Even most working ACDs around here have docked tails despite the breed standard. But, I don't work my dogs on stock for a living, so it is unlikely. It is also part of the breed standard and I like the way it looks. I am a little unsure why my opinion is "arguement" but yours is "opinion." We aren't talking about declawing cats or owning wild animals (neither of which I have). The closest thing to a wild animal I own is the ColliexMalamute(?) mix who could easily pass for a wolf hybrid. Everybody around here did refer to my Malinois as the Coyote mix. Do you know why it is custom for exporters of Malinois to the US to cut off body parts for identification? One of the dogs I met from the Air Force base had one ear neatly clipped straight across, and they said it was done before the dog was sent to them for some reason.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> It can prevent problems. If I was doing a lot of close pen work with my dogs, it could prevent a broken tail. Even most working ACDs around here have docked tails despite the breed standard. But, I don't work my dogs on stock for a living, so it is unlikely. It is also part of the breed standard and I like the way it looks. I am a little unsure why my opinion is "arguement" but yours is "opinion." We aren't talking about declawing cats or owning wild animals (neither of which I have). The closest thing to a wild animal I own is the ColliexMalamute(?) mix who could easily pass for a wolf hybrid. Everybody around here did refer to my Malinois as the Coyote mix. Do you know why it is custom for exporters of Malinois to the US to cut off body parts for identification? One of the dogs I met from the Air Force base had one ear neatly clipped straight across, and they said it was done before the dog was sent to them for some reason.


its not custom, or even that common, ear tagging, or notching, is done as an identifier from some breeders. I don't agree with that either, or do it. Tons of dogs are imported and this isn't performed. Though it could have been an injury that had to have a part of his ear amputated. However, mal breeders don't cut off their ears to prevent a possible injury.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Why is this being argued yet again?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> its not custom, or even that common, ear tagging, or notching, is done as an identifier from some breeders. I don't agree with that either, or do it. Tons of dogs are imported and this isn't performed. Though it could have been an injury that had to have a part of his ear amputated. However, mal breeders don't cut off their ears to prevent a possible injury.


But apparently some DO cut them off. The dog's handler stated that it was intentional, not an injury.


----------

