[pstinard]

Originally Posted by pstinard

Here's an article on tail docking from the American Veterinary Medical Association with footnotes:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/FA...l-docking.aspx

I can find scholarly articles, but of course I'm on my computer from home and they are behind a pay firewall. Here's a couple:

Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues - BENNETT - 2008 - Australian Veterinary Journal - Wiley Online Library

Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved? - BENNETT - 2008 - Australian Veterinary Journal - Wiley Online Library

If you're interested, I can copy and paste parts of the articles when I'm on a university computer tomorrow.

Here is the summary from this article: Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues - BENNETT - 2008 - Australian Veterinary Journal - Wiley Online Library

Summary and conclusion

In summary then, it seems difficult to argue that tail docking, as the widespread practice that it presently is, is justified. It cannot be defended on the basis of arguments from tradition or to satisfy a breed standard created in another time and place. Moreover, there is no clear evidence that any kind of benefit associated with tail docking exists that can outweigh the potential harm that may be caused to the animals involved. There are several reasons that may be used to support tail docking in some breeds, or at least to justify the docking of specific dogs within those breeds. These reasons concern individual dogs that are expected to engage in activities as adults in which tail damage is encountered on a frequent basis, particularly if appropriate veterinary care is unlikely to be available, those in which accumulation of faecal material may become a health issue, those born with deformed or painfully misshapen tails, and those for which the presence of a docked tail may result in a significantly improved quality of life. In all of these cases tail docking of individual dogs could potentially be justified on utilitarian grounds, but only if the expected benefits outweigh the harm that is potentially associated with the docking process, and also only if adequate anaesthesia and analgesia is provided at the time of docking.

More difficult, if not impossible, to sustain is the argument that tail docking is justified simply because some humans prefer the docked look or find it more convenient to own a tailless dog. This would constitute an acceptable reason for docking only if it was conclusively demonstrated that absolutely no harm is ever associated with the process. On the contrary, although the potential for harm cannot be proven scientifically for philosophical reasons, available evidence strongly suggests that docking may be associated with both acute and chronic pain. Relevant anatomical and physiological differences between dogs and members of our own species are minimal and there is every reason to suspect that even very young pups do experience substantial pain when their tails are removed, and that they continue to experience pain as the normal physiological processes known to be associated with limb amputation take place. That the docking process occurs just before the critical socialisation period simply makes the practice more difficult to justify, as does the fact that it may leave some dogs with chronic physical problems and possibly unable to communicate effectively with both conspecifics and humans.