Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver  Last time this was hashed out, someone said the most sensible explanation that I've heard, which was that working dogs were taxed, and dogs with tails were considered working dogs. Actualy, now that I write that, it doesn't seem to make a tremendous amount of sense - why would a dog only be taxed if it had a tail? - but, well, there you go.
Nancy, where have you seen a yorkie that's had trouble holding up its tail? All the ones I've seen with full tails have lovely long ones that gently curl up over their back.
FYI to the poster above, dobermans do not have docked ears or tails in Europe, and they do perfectly fine. The "fragile" tail explanation does not hold water to me. It seems like a pretty self serving argument, there is very little evidence to support it, and it doesn't make a tremendous amont of sense anyway. Yorkies have trouble with LP, does that mean we should remove their knees, just in case?
IMO, it is only a matter of time before it's outlawed in the US. You can see the way the wind is blowing. |
Quicksilver,
I've seen some with full tails unable to hold them up correctly. This is usually caused by a bad topline and low tailset.
As far as the fragile tail....absolutely I converse with several European Breeders that since this law wasn't invoked have had yorkies with injured tails. Just be people steping on them. Tussling with their littermates, getting caught in a slammed door.