Thank you for answering my question.

As I said, I just don't understand why all breeds of dogs don't have docked tails if it were truly for sanity reasons and to prevent injury. If tails were such a problem, why don't they dock tails on Labs, Retrievers, etc? I mean... it seems to me the only reason tails are still docked is purely for looks and because it is "standard" to the human eye.

I didn't take your original question as an attack nor was I trying to be smart. Just trying to point out some other things that are done without really having a reason for doing it. (And let's face it...that could be a really long list.) I'm not knocking it...I dress mine up on occasion too, even though I don't see a real reason for it There are lots of things that are done without there really being a "point" behind doing them. :)

I really think the only reason is because it is what is called for by the standard. I think that for 'safety', ANY dog could suffer a tail injury, couldn't they?

OK, I wasn't sure, lol. I was hoping you weren't thinking I'm like all one-sided or something because I suppose I can see both sides of it. Yes, a lot of things in life are pointless, really. And I don't see a reason for dressing up dogs, either and I think people can go WAY overboard, for sure. Jackson wears clothes maybe 2-3x a year, if that.

That's what I'm saying... if the only reason is because it's "standard" then I think there should be exceptions. I don't think tail docking should be banned necessarily but I think a show dog should be allowed to have a full tail. Why can't we as humans just accept animals for what they are? I understand we do a lot of things to "change" our animals such as neutering, dewclaw removal, but these are for health reasons and it's a known fact. Tails are not really a huge problem for dogs. Yeah, any dog could suffer a tail injury, but any dog could also suffer a leg injury, an eye injury, and we don't remove those. I know -- farfetched. But I'm just saying, it's the same principle we're rolling on.

One must remember every breed when developed and admitted into the AKC as a recognized breed has a specified function. Lab and Retrievers a different function than a yorkie. The yorkie's function was a ratter and varmint hunter. When they were recognized and confirmed as a breed onto itself, docking tails served a purpose. When they began being shown, those powers that be felt the docked tail to medium length added to the overall look and balance of the dog. Myself I prefer it docked. I've seen the European dogs with undocked tails and most of the time their tails aren't held high, but somewhat tucked making the dog appear to have a low tail set. The dogs in England are shown on boxes, they aren't moved in the ring, but still appear to look unbalanced. Watching a dog in the US move around the ring with that tail upright does contribute to the proud look of confidence in a yorkie.

I do understand this, but Yorkies are not rat hunters anymore. I mean... Jackson would love to hunt Rats but that's not his "job" lol. You also stated that their tails were not docked because of rats, and they were grabbed by their topknot, soo how does the tail docking come in? I always thought it was so rats couldn't get it. I just don't like the idea of docking a tail simply to appease the humans. Yorkies are born with long tails, why not let them keep it? I love seeing Jackson's long tail held high all proud rather than a little nub that can't really show much emotion. I think the nubs are adorable too, since I think most all Yorkies are cute, but I'm just saying....

Not at this time. But, there are plans to have them compete in AKC Earth Dog Events and the real possibility exists that they will no longer be competing in the Toy Dog Group but, in the Terrier Group as they do in Mexico. So, they're true function may be reinitiated again.

Yorkies tails when correctly docked should not be a little nub. You are very lucky as most yorkies with undocked don't tails hold their tails up.

Again, as an exhibitor/breeder I prefer a docked tail....they look more balanced. The standard was written not to appease humans but, for the functionality of the dog.

Even the ugliest, most off balanced, weirdest looking dogs/mutts can function perfectly fine though. I don't think it's a matter of functionality personally, just for looks. But that's just my opinion.

Also, I have no doubt in my mind that yorkies are TRUE terriers. I've met enough to know that lol ;) I think Jackson would be extremely happy being able to chase and catch rats, rabbits, etc all day. But would people really USE them as "true" ratters like they once were as an actual job?? Very few breeds are used for what they were bred for nowadays (besides German shepherd as police dogs, etc) but I do think they still have very strong instincts of their ancestors. I'm glad to hear they may be uppted to the Terrier group because I think they are not really "lap dogs" like some others in the toy group. They weren't bred for companionship as some breeds like the French bulldog were.

Yes, they can function perfectly fine, I think it is two fold; functionality and looks. The standard was put in place in England way before my time and it has been changed, which makes it possible for it to change here, but not in the near future. Being a member of YTCA and knowing what it takes to open the standard up for change, well the reason would have to be very, very valid.

No, I don't think the yorkie will evolve to what it was over a a century and a half ago. Anyone thinking that these guys are lap dogs, better think again. Anyone inquiring about a pup from me are told that up front, although they are people dogs.

To me docking a tail is sort of the same as getting ears pierced. As soon as my daughter had the appropriate shots I took her to the mall and had her ears pierced. She was just over 4 months, she cried for a few minutes, got a snuggle and a bottle and all was fine. If I had waited till she was 2 or 3 years, she would have pulled on them and maybe caused an infection, that's why I did it so early.

I am not opposed to leaving the tails intact, same as un-pierced ears to me. Beautiful either way.

My 2 cents...
 

:thumbup: Well said Nancy. As for the law in NY regarding docking, it was not defeated, it was referred to the agriculture committee. The AKC website has a link to follow all pending legislation in each state and it's current status. The way the law has been written in NY, anyone who exhibits a dog in NY with docked tails WOULD be subjected to a fine of $500 (each animal). The law is unclear on how one would or if they even could prove the docking occurred prior to the enactment of the law. Effectively, NO ONE with ANY dog breed having been docked would be able to show in NY. Westminster, as well as ALL other shows would have to be cancelled or moved out of state. Unfortunately, there are many laws pending in many states which are poorly written and have repercussions that are probably unintended, but many are just bad for individuals rights - making breeding of any purebred dogs, with or without docking, cropping, etc., impossible or nearly impossible. As responsible pet owners, we should stay informed and contact our legislators and let them know we vote! :animal-pa
Here is a website from the dogwriters assoc.
NY Assembly anti-tail-docking bill: NY A07218 - Dog Writers Association of America Forums
Here is the link to AKC's legislative alerts: (sorted by state)
American Kennel Club - Government Relations - Legislation

hi mardelin, i gonna ask a hypathetical question now dont be laughin:D cud the yorkie ever be bred without a tail, i mean the way the standard is now.. i have 1 with and 1 without a tail and they both are beautiful,:animal36

I did hear of the odd yorkie being bred with a natural dock but the trait never bred on. Intrestingly a number of years ago a boxer breeder did an experiment to see if it could be achieved by out-crossing to a corgi line with a natural docked tail and see how long it would take to get back to a boxer with natural dock of show standard. It only took about 4 generations all told I think. This was working within the K.C.s own rules which allowed these things to take place to make improvements within a breed and still regester the off-spring. Many breeders have forgotten this and got too snobby about breed purity. This was how desired traits were introduced in the past after-all. He did produce a very nice male which got placed at shows, but breeders over here didn't want to know prefereing the head stuck in the sand method of dealing with issues and he was sold on to a breeder in another country.
I remember years ago while descussing the up-comming ban years ago with another, older breeder while mating one of my girls to her dog and she thought it was never going to happen.

when i got gatsby he had a short tail and his sister diddent i asked and the breeder told me he was born that way and he was the only dog she had ever seen born with a short tail i was hesitant to belive her but could this be true his tail is about two or two and a half inches and i was told by a local breeder thear is no such thing as naturally bobed yorkies

If they are born with a tail, it means they should have that tail. Simple thought!