The title of the article you quoted is “Why the Tail Docking of Dogs should be Prohibited”, this is a paper that describes one side of the argument only, which in my opinion is just to sway someone’s opinion in one direction only, not a good way to find the truth. There have been studies to determine the pain involved in tail docking.
Here’s another point of view:
Tail Docking - The Fritsch Report
Since the classic research by Adolph Portman (1944/1990), which verified the work of Herder, Gehlen and Plessner, the
validity of the Altricial/Precocial differentiation in animals has become a well-established scientific fact. More recently, this
gained new attention with research on artificial intelligence in information-processing systems ('Altricial self-organising
information-processing systems', Aaron Sloman & Jackie Chappell, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham,
UK).
Briefl y, animals belonging to the Altricial group (dogs, cats, some birds, rodents, etc.) are born relatively immature,
with a nervous system not fully developed. They have very little feeling of pain during the fi rst fi ve days after birth. The
blood circulation and the bones of the tail are relatively undeveloped or 'primitive'. This is in contrast to animals in the
Precocial group (pigs, sheep etc.), which are born fully developed.
Performed on altricial neonatal puppies, 3 days postpartum, the procedure is regarded as significantly less intrusive
than toe-clipping in rodents for laboratory identification. In the event the procedure is to be undertaken on other than
neonatal animals, there must be a strong scientific c reason for using this technique and the procedure must be done on
an anesthetized animal (Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,
1996). Tail docking in neo-natal puppies is certainly far less intrusive and painful than the shortening or docking of tails
in Precocial pigs and lambs, because the latter have a fully developed threshold of pain. .
http://www.k9alliance.com/resources/...-FactSheet.pdf
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).
A docking ban is no cure at all
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.
A docking ban is no cure at all
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.
It's not just working dogs
Sweden banned tail docking over ten years ago. Swedish veterinary reports indicate that 17% of Boxers are
Swedish veterinary reports indicated that 17% of Boxers are sustaining tail injuries in and around the home
environment. Wagging tails cannot be immobilised, and these injuries frequently result in tail amputation.
FACT SHEET
5
damaging their long tails in and around the home environment. While less than the 51% incidence of tail damage
sustained by pointer breeds in Sweden following the ban on tail docking, 17% still highly signifi cant.
The damage range from broken tips to total fractures further up the tail, just distal to the point where docking would
normally be carried out. Because treatment of the injury does not address the aetiology, the injuries keep recurring and
frequently end up requiring amputation.
Conclusion
Tail docking of the gundog breeds is practised not for cosmetic reasons but to prevent serious injury. Field
working is a human induced activitiy for which we must accept the responsibility. It is our duty to prevent
distress in our animals.
From the veterinary point of view, no scientifi c studies have been submitted to show why the docking of
gundogs' tails are benefi cial. Indeed, the treatment of tail injuries in adult dogs is a costly, protracted and
repetitive process compared to docking — and, in conclusion, infi nitely more painful and stressful to the
very animal whose welfare we seek to protect. After all, the reason for tail docking is a cornerstone of good
medicine and animal care. It is called:
Prophylaxis.
Policy Statement
It is the policy of the undersigned organisations that
1. From a professional veterinary point of view, failure to dock and clip in the prescribed manner the tails and
dew-claws of specifi c gundog breeds intended for fi eld work, is considered unethical; and
2. From a legal point of view, such failure is regarded as constituting animal cruelty.