Tail Docking - Yes or No

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gemy

I go back n forth with tail docking. Sir Teddykins you seem quite adept at doing searches on here, we have had numerous threads on the subject one such thread, actually posted research/learned opinions, my old memory is pulling up Nancy1999 as one such poster who linked research. Perhaps you might be successful in searching for the links.


Dr Chris Zinc through slo mo videos of agility dogs, you can actually see how the dog uses the tail as a counterbalance, and then not to mention the dew claws to in particular add stability on the quick turns at the end of the apparatus.


Right now, imo tail docking done by a vet or a very very experienced breeder provides no long lasting injury to the small 3 day old puppy. My docked dog,, communicates very well with his docked tail.


We don't do agility with him anymore due to his back injury.


In terms of the hunting breeds - I will point out Labs are smooth and a short coated dog and their long tail would not catch many burrs or brambles in the field, plus in search and rescue that tail is used by the victim to hold onto. I know this because I was training Magic in water rescue, and I had to devise for his docked tail and alternative method.


If you have ever watched working trials, the working Goldens do not have the long fluffy hair on their tail and or their legs. It is either trimmed off and or bred out by the working dog breeders.


Goldens and Labs have very sturdy tails and unless an unfortunate accident like getting a tail caught in a door, usually do not break their tail.


In the protection breed that I own, a long tail is actually a disadvantage to the guard and protect dog. It can easily be used by the attacker against the dog. Now having said this, there are some breeds that do have a long tail. The first that comes to mind is the GSD.


I will point out that breeds that have traditionally been docked for years and years of breeding, the long tails that we are seeing now have an interesting array of presentation. After all we don't have a standard for the tail for docked breeds. It has been prox 10 yrs since Europe went the way of banning docking and we are finally just beginning to see some uniformity on tails.


At this point in time I have not seen persuasive evidence that cropping tails when done correctly has any negative long lasting health concerns.


I also agree with Jeanie that it is much easier to care for and to provide a good sanitary trim for most pet owners on a docked tail dog.


For the breed that I breed, I will need to make a decision on docking or not the tail, I likely will not dock, as then any if I am lucky enough to have a show prospect dog, will be able to compete internationally.


There are an array of much more invasive and potential riskier procedures to the health of a dog then docking.

Yes, there is some research, but not a great deal, someone has to be motivated to do the research, unless a breed club would actually do it I'm not sure who would. Vets do not have to report these things. Here's one study.


Since the ban:


Since docking was banned in Sweden in 1989, there has been a massive increase in tail injuries amongst previously
docked breeds. Within the 50 undocked Pointer litters registered in that year with the Swedish Kennel Club, 38% of
dogs suffered tail injury before they were 18 months old and two years later, by 1991, the number of individuals with
tail injuries had increased to 51% in the same group (Gunilla Strejffert, Report to the Swedish Breed Council for German
Shorthaired Pointers, 1992, Borlange, Sweden). Even more alarming is the fi nding that only 16% of injury cases had
improved, 40% showed no improvement and more than half of dogs with tail injuries had regressed during the
two year period!
An ad hoc survey amongst owners of English Pointers in South Africa, also a shorthaired breed, indicate that at least
one out of fi ve English Pointers suffers from some sort of tail injury during their life. The English Pointer’s tail is traditionally
not docked mainly because of a relatively short tail in proportion to its body, with a lower risk of tail injury (Fig 2)."

From the same report: Why a broken tail is more dangerous than a broken leg, finger or toe.



"If tail damage occurs during adulthood it often does not heel well or does not heal at all. This is mainly due to the
injury being constantly banged against objects, poor blood circulation in the tail and constant licking and chewing by the
dog (Fig 6). The healing process can be painful and protracted with considerable distress to the dog. Injuries often result
in necrosis of the tail tip.
This can sometimes be treated with partial amputation but secondary problems can occur in the healing process,
which actually makes it necessary to amputate the tail several times before the healing process is achieved."


http://www.wingshooters.co.za/pdf/Ta...ctSheet-LR.pdf

[Nancy1999]

Gemy found another one in case you are interested, this is interesting because it indicates that these don't have to be working dogs, 38% occurred around the house. Also, there is information on which dogs are more likely to have problems and describe things as width of tail wag.


"Update 29th June 2010 (figures updated 2nd July)

Dogs with docked tails significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries says Veterinary Record

Dogs with docked tails are significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries, finds research published in this week’s Veterinary Record.

Among the 138,212 dogs seen by vets at the 52 practices during the study period, 281 were treated for a tail injury.

The owners of 224 of these injured dogs, as well as a random sample of 799 owners whose dogs had not been treated for tail injury were sent a questionnaire on dog tail injuries and docking.

Only 97 of the owners whose dogs needed treatment and 227 of those whose dogs had not been injured replied.

But their responses indicated that around one in three tail injuries (36%; 35 cases) had occurred at home as a result of the dog knocking its tail against a wall, kennel wall or other household object.

A further 17.5% (17 cases) were sustained outdoors, while 14.4% (14 cases) were caused by the tail being caught in a door. In 15 (15.5%) other causes were cited; and in 16 (16.5%), the cause was unknown. Almost half of the injuries (44%) were recurrent.

Over half the cases were treated with drugs and dressings, but in almost one in three cases, amputation was required. Eleven dogs did not need any treatment.

Certain breeds seemed to be more at risk, with springer and cocker spaniels almost six times as likely to sustain a tail injury as labradors and retrievers.

Greyhounds, lurchers, and whippets were almost seven times as likely to do so, possibly because of the lack of protective hair on their tails, say the authors. Dogs with a wide angle of wag were also almost four times as likely to be injured in this way, while dogs kept in kennels were more than 3.5 times as likely to sustain a tail injury.

Only 35 owners said their dogs had had their tail docked, and on the basis of their overall findings, the authors calculated that tail docking would reduce the risk of injury by 12%.

PLEASE REMEMBER that the 281 dogs with damaged tails were from just 52 veterinary practices. According to the RCVS there are 3000 verified vet practices in the UK. If these 52 were representative of them all, then circa 16,000 dogs would have suffered tail injuries in the UK for that 12 month period and circa 5,000 would have undergone adult tail amputation! Even if it were 50% of this figure, this is nothing short of a scandal, resulting from an Act of Parliament that was designed to protect the welfare of animals.

The full official study in pdf format can be viewed here: http://www.cdb.org/News/Veterinary%2...ort%202010.pdf

The CDB responded as follows;

The Council Of Docked Breeds would like to congratulate the team on undertaking what appears to be an excellent study. We ourselves appreciate that collating worthwhile data from dog owners who are experiencing tail damage is not a simple task, due to their minds being concentrated on getting the dog well again and not on filling out paperwork. The data available to the research team is impressive.

Having said that, the timing of the research seems to be too early to establish the true effect of the tail docking ban which came into force early 2007. The research was carried out during March 2008 and March 2009 and tail damage cases were defined as any dog presented to veterinary practices within the previous 12 months (just as the ban had begun). The mean age of the controls was 4.2 years old and of the tail damage cases 3.8 years old, so the majority of dogs recorded were born before the ban came into force, when tail damage cases are expected to be far lower than since the ban.

It is our experience that damage is less likely to occur in undocked dogs before they have reached the age of twelve to eighteen months. Traditionally docked breeds ceased being docked early 2007 and the number of undocked examples being born slowly increased initially. At the time of the research, the new influx of previously docked breeds were still too young to add to the number of tail damage cases to get a true picture. The study accepts that it does not reflect differences in the risk due to the legislation.

We also note that there were 281 tail injuries recorded from a population of 138,212 dogs attending the 52 participating practises. From this it was deduced that the risk of tail damage was just 0.2% or that 500 docked dogs would only prevent 1 tail damage case. Unfortunately, this simply shows the risk as a percentage of the total dog population and does not represent the risk to undocked dogs in previously docked breeds. Conversely, a number of breeds shown to damage their tails were breeds which have NOT historically been docked.

We read with interest that undocked dogs were most likely to damage their tail in the home and that dogs which were NOT worked would be just as likely to damage their tails, both points have been put forward by the CDB for many years.

To gauge the full effect of the legislation, a repeat study would be required comparing only dogs in those breeds which were traditionally docked before the ban, were born AFTER the ban and the percentage of those that required veterinary attention to their new long tails.

This study was a giant leap forward but unfortunately, not breed specific and too early to evaluate the extent to which tail docking reduces the risk of tail damage in Great Britain, one of its primary aims.


New study says dogs with docked tails significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries says Veterinary Record

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Gemy found another one in case you are interested, this is interesting because it indicates that these don't have to be working dogs, 38% occurred around the house. Also, there is information on which dogs are more likely to have problems and describe things as width of tail wag.


"Update 29th June 2010 (figures updated 2nd July)

Dogs with docked tails significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries says Veterinary Record

Dogs with docked tails are significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries, finds research published in this week’s Veterinary Record.

Among the 138,212 dogs seen by vets at the 52 practices during the study period, 281 were treated for a tail injury.

The owners of 224 of these injured dogs, as well as a random sample of 799 owners whose dogs had not been treated for tail injury were sent a questionnaire on dog tail injuries and docking.

Only 97 of the owners whose dogs needed treatment and 227 of those whose dogs had not been injured replied.

But their responses indicated that around one in three tail injuries (36%; 35 cases) had occurred at home as a result of the dog knocking its tail against a wall, kennel wall or other household object.

A further 17.5% (17 cases) were sustained outdoors, while 14.4% (14 cases) were caused by the tail being caught in a door. In 15 (15.5%) other causes were cited; and in 16 (16.5%), the cause was unknown. Almost half of the injuries (44%) were recurrent.

Over half the cases were treated with drugs and dressings, but in almost one in three cases, amputation was required. Eleven dogs did not need any treatment.

Certain breeds seemed to be more at risk, with springer and cocker spaniels almost six times as likely to sustain a tail injury as labradors and retrievers.

Greyhounds, lurchers, and whippets were almost seven times as likely to do so, possibly because of the lack of protective hair on their tails, say the authors. Dogs with a wide angle of wag were also almost four times as likely to be injured in this way, while dogs kept in kennels were more than 3.5 times as likely to sustain a tail injury.

Only 35 owners said their dogs had had their tail docked, and on the basis of their overall findings, the authors calculated that tail docking would reduce the risk of injury by 12%.

PLEASE REMEMBER that the 281 dogs with damaged tails were from just 52 veterinary practices. According to the RCVS there are 3000 verified vet practices in the UK. If these 52 were representative of them all, then circa 16,000 dogs would have suffered tail injuries in the UK for that 12 month period and circa 5,000 would have undergone adult tail amputation! Even if it were 50% of this figure, this is nothing short of a scandal, resulting from an Act of Parliament that was designed to protect the welfare of animals.

The full official study in pdf format can be viewed here: http://www.cdb.org/News/Veterinary%2...ort%202010.pdf

The CDB responded as follows;

The Council Of Docked Breeds would like to congratulate the team on undertaking what appears to be an excellent study. We ourselves appreciate that collating worthwhile data from dog owners who are experiencing tail damage is not a simple task, due to their minds being concentrated on getting the dog well again and not on filling out paperwork. The data available to the research team is impressive.

Having said that, the timing of the research seems to be too early to establish the true effect of the tail docking ban which came into force early 2007. The research was carried out during March 2008 and March 2009 and tail damage cases were defined as any dog presented to veterinary practices within the previous 12 months (just as the ban had begun). The mean age of the controls was 4.2 years old and of the tail damage cases 3.8 years old, so the majority of dogs recorded were born before the ban came into force, when tail damage cases are expected to be far lower than since the ban.

It is our experience that damage is less likely to occur in undocked dogs before they have reached the age of twelve to eighteen months. Traditionally docked breeds ceased being docked early 2007 and the number of undocked examples being born slowly increased initially. At the time of the research, the new influx of previously docked breeds were still too young to add to the number of tail damage cases to get a true picture. The study accepts that it does not reflect differences in the risk due to the legislation.

We also note that there were 281 tail injuries recorded from a population of 138,212 dogs attending the 52 participating practises. From this it was deduced that the risk of tail damage was just 0.2% or that 500 docked dogs would only prevent 1 tail damage case. Unfortunately, this simply shows the risk as a percentage of the total dog population and does not represent the risk to undocked dogs in previously docked breeds. Conversely, a number of breeds shown to damage their tails were breeds which have NOT historically been docked.

We read with interest that undocked dogs were most likely to damage their tail in the home and that dogs which were NOT worked would be just as likely to damage their tails, both points have been put forward by the CDB for many years.

To gauge the full effect of the legislation, a repeat study would be required comparing only dogs in those breeds which were traditionally docked before the ban, were born AFTER the ban and the percentage of those that required veterinary attention to their new long tails.

This study was a giant leap forward but unfortunately, not breed specific and too early to evaluate the extent to which tail docking reduces the risk of tail damage in Great Britain, one of its primary aims.


New study says dogs with docked tails significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries says Veterinary Record

THIS is the type of evidence that is appreciated in view of the question. Thank you!


Although biased, as the evidence has been presented by the CDB, it is at least something which HINTS at a possible benefit.


It would be interesting to see the incidence of broken tails amongst YT's, specifically, but this is a good starting point.


thank you!!!

[gemy]

Thanks Nancy I do hope that they repeat the research. Also I found the stats of in home injuries interesting to read.


Also length of tail might as well have a higher risk to break. The longer the tail the more *(whip or speed of wag), I can attest to that. Zoey had a long tail, much longer than Dara's, and boy when Zoeys tail got going it was like a whip into the back/side of your legs. Also her tail in our front hallway would whip side to side and hit either wall......


The stats will just have to come in a review maybe 2018 might be a good thing to do. It remains to be seen how breeders will weight the importance of tail length and curve of tail with in the overall structure of their breed. While all FCI standards were changed to accomadate this new European law, many standards tried to be as general as possible in describing the tail, after all they had no idea in the beginning what a long tail looked like in their breed.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

THIS is the type of evidence that is appreciated in view of the question. Thank you!


Although biased, as the evidence has been presented by the CDB, it is at least something which HINTS at a possible benefit.


It would be interesting to see the incidence of broken tails amongst YT's, specifically, but this is a good starting point.


thank you!!!

You're welcome. Not sure why you think the evidence is biased? Docking is an added expense to the breeder, why would a breeder want to do it if it wasn't in his opinion necessary?

Because most Yorkietalkers live in the states and most have their tails docked, I do not think you'll find any incidence of broken tails. I haven't read any threads yet. We have had many cases of torn of dewclaws, because many backyard breeders don't do dewclaws, although they do dock. I know I've read a minimum of five cases of torn off dewclaws, the nail gets caught in something and the dog tries to escape and the dewclaw is torn off, very painful.

I think we will be able to gather more docking information from the Biewer, since it's now in the AKC. It's a very close "cousin" to the Yorkie and since it originated in Germany, it's tail is undocked. I hope the ultimate decision is based upon the long term safest choice for the breed, but I do worry that the gene pool will become even more limited because some dogs will have to be eliminated from the breeding programs, due to unbalanced or too thin of a tail structure. Right now, breeders don't have to take that into account, but if docking is banned, they will have to breed for the proper tail.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gemy

Thanks Nancy I do hope that they repeat the research. Also I found the stats of in home injuries interesting to read.


Also length of tail might as well have a higher risk to break. The longer the tail the more *(whip or speed of wag), I can attest to that. Zoey had a long tail, much longer than Dara's, and boy when Zoeys tail got going it was like a whip into the back/side of your legs. Also her tail in our front hallway would whip side to side and hit either wall......


The stats will just have to come in a review maybe 2018 might be a good thing to do. It remains to be seen how breeders will weight the importance of tail length and curve of tail with in the overall structure of their breed. While all FCI standards were changed to accomadate this new European law, many standards tried to be as general as possible in describing the tail, after all they had no idea in the beginning what a long tail looked like in their breed.

Seriously, I love some of the big breeds, but their tails seem so dangerous in the house. I remember one I had where I could never keep anything on the coffee table.

Yes, I think it might be a good thing if breeders start thinking of tail length and curve now. So many people not only have accepted the look, but love it, it might be good to start thinking about that. As I said in the previous post, I do worry about limited the gene pool. For example, a dog has everything else you want, but too long or too thin of a tail to be safe. Do you take it out of your breeding program, do you breed it with a dog who has a naturally stunted tail? I feel like making a law, is putting so much pressure on breeders.

[gemy]

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...ml#post4012519


Happy reading

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gemy

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...ml#post4012519


Happy reading

Oh cool, I lost a lot of my bookmarks when my computer died a earlier this year.

[magicgenie]

never mind, I've now thought better of posting hwat i wanted to say. Email me and I'll tell you what it was.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

this is all incredibly entlightening. i now eagerly await a call back from my physician to discuss prophylactic mastectomy. After all, I'm past child bearing age and wouldn't want to risk getting breast cancer. Ho-hum.
If I get banned for this, so be it.

Well if you have a certain cell type it is something you would seriously consider - who was the famous actress who had this done - she was in the 85% risk of breast cancer.


I lost my first cousin to breast cancer she was 34 yrs old with two young children. Back then we did not have the testing yet....

[magicgenie]

really, Gemy, things happen. I regret the analogy but this is about cutting tails off dogs for no life and death reasons.
I sincerely apologize to anyone who is offended by the comment I tried to correct. I, too, am passionate about the welfare of the Yorkshire Terrier as a breed but cannot deny the influence of my international background! Still friends, I hope.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

really, Gemy, things happen. I regret the analogy but this is about cutting tails off dogs for no life and death reasons.
I sincerely apologize to anyone who is offended by the comment I tried to correct. I, too, am passionate about the welfare of the Yorkshire Terrier as a breed but cannot deny the influence of my international background! Still friends, I hope.

Of course no problem still friends I like discussions that actually evoke different points of view - highlight different research - a brisk discussion etc.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

really, Gemy, things happen. I regret the analogy but this is about cutting tails off dogs for no life and death reasons.
I sincerely apologize to anyone who is offended by the comment I tried to correct. I, too, am passionate about the welfare of the Yorkshire Terrier as a breed but cannot deny the influence of my international background! Still friends, I hope.

Sorry for the poor choice of analogy, but after reading some case histories about the problems in healing a broken tail, it does seem like a like a simple fix to prevent a complex problem. However, I don't believe cutting off the breasts is a simple fix at all.


Do you take the tail into consideration when you are doing a breeding? I mean do you have a favorite, natural length or thickness?

[magicgenie]

Nancy, I'm pretty much done with you. I regret a post I unsuccessfully tried to retract. It ran right out of my fingers in the heat of the moment. My apologies are always deeply sincere.
As for the yorkie tails, I do have a developing theory, based on what I've oberved here, but am not ready to reveal it. I can tell you that my observations will prove that cutting off a Yorkie's tail is for purely cosmetic reasons.
I'd love to be friends with you, too, but you'll have to ease up on your efforts to discredit me for that to happen!
All best, Susan

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

Nancy, I'm pretty much done with you. I regret a post I unsuccessfully tried to retract. It ran right out of my fingers in the heat of the moment. My apologies are always deeply sincere.
As for the yorkie tails, I do have a developing theory, based on what I've oberved here, but am not ready to reveal it. I can tell you that my observations will prove that cutting off a Yorkie's tail is for purely cosmetic reasons.
I'd love to be friends with you, too, but you'll have to ease up on your efforts to discredit me for that to happen!
All best, Susan

You really do confuse me, I'm not sure what you want from me. I am in no way trying to discredit you. My questions are legitimate, I know tail variations exist among the Yorkie, but I don't know if breeders, who don't crop, breed for such things as tail structure. My mind is open on this issue, I'm just against making new laws if we don't have to. I would rather the change be gradual. For some breeds, I do think it's in their best interest, not sure about the Yorkie.