docking tails for yorkies illegal

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by NatNatt

I thought docking their tail was for their heath...because its has to stay clean down there and they can get very sick and even die for its dirty and has dingle berry. Correct me if Im wrong.

I think it may have originated because Yorkies were used as ratters, they worked in mining caves and crawled through tunnels to get rats. Miners could pull out the dog by the tail without risk of injury (and wouldn't confuse a rat's tail with a Yorkie's tail.) I imagine there is quite a bit of variation in natural tail length between yorkies, since this trait hasn't been considered when breeding, and I've seen some with their natural tails that looked only an inch or so longer than a docked tail, and others whose tails looked longer than their bodies. The longer and skinnier the natural tail, the more chance of injury, just stepping on the tail could cause injury. Regarding sanitary reasons, it's possible, that a yorkie with a natural overly long tail might have more problems in that area, some seem to have a problem holding their tail up.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I think it may have originated because Yorkies were used as ratters, they worked in mining caves and crawled through tunnels to get rats. Miners could pull out the dog by the tail without risk of injury (and wouldn't confuse a rat's tail with a Yorkie's tail.) I imagine there is quite a bit of variation in natural tail length between yorkies, since this trait hasn't been considered when breeding, and I've seen some with their natural tails that looked only an inch or so longer than a docked tail, and others whose tails looked longer than their bodies. The longer and skinnier the natural tail, the more chance of injury, just stepping on the tail could cause injury. Regarding sanitary reasons, it's possible, that a yorkie with a natural overly long tail might have more problems in that area, some seem to have a problem holding their tail up.

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.

[Mardelin]

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.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

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.

I find that pretty surprising, because I've never seen a dog with a tail that dragged along the ground. And that has never come up before as a reason for tail docking, despite the fact that this gets argued every few months. If you have photos of dogs with tails they can't manage, I'd love to see them.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I find that pretty surprising, because I've never seen a dog with a tail that dragged along the ground. And that has never come up before as a reason for tail docking, despite the fact that this gets argued every few months. If you have photos of dogs with tails they can't manage, I'd love to see them.

I did not say they were dragging them on the ground. I stated that if a dog with an incorrect tail set/topline is left with an intact tail it does not hold it up at the correct level.

[Nancy1999]

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.

Hmm that doesn't make sense to me either, but who knows? The point I'm making is that natural length of tail, has never been taken into consideration when breeding, so there will be great variation. The outlawing of docking is fairly new, and yes it's not a 100 percent thing where every undocked tail breaks, but it is being studied by some, how can you assume it's safe in such a short time? I don't think the correlation between LP and removal of the knees is appropriate, after all tail docking doesn't impair them in any way, whereas removal of the knees would seriously impair them. I really hope that more of our civil liberties aren't being taken away from us, and I hope the wind isn't blowing that way. I'm sure bans on dewclaw removal would come next, and how many ripped dewclaw threads have we read? Not many, perhaps, because most dogs have their dewclaws removed, but I've read enough threads about ripping, that I would always want them removed.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Hmm that doesn't make sense to me either, but who knows? The point I'm making is that natural length of tail, has never been taken into consideration when breeding, so there will be great variation. The outlawing of docking is fairly new, and yes it's not a 100 percent thing where every undocked tail breaks, but it is being studied by some, how can you assume it's safe in such a short time? I don't think the correlation between LP and removal of the knees is appropriate, after all tail docking doesn't impair them in any way, whereas removal of the knees would seriously impair them. I really hope that more of our civil liberties aren't being taken away from us, and I hope the wind isn't blowing that way. I'm sure bans on dewclaw removal would come next, and how many ripped dewclaw threads have we read? Not many, perhaps, because most dogs have their dewclaws removed, but I've read enough threads about ripping, that I would always want them removed.

Because the large majority of dogs have their tails, and they are fine, even if the tails are "ugly", long, or narrow. Plenty of yorkies have tails NOW. It's not like they have never had tails, and suddenly last year all of a sudden we're breaking new ground.

As for tails breaking because they are stepped on - it's a body part, of course if it's not there, it's not going to get injured. Yorkies get hurt jumping off things, does that mean show breeders want them to be bigger? Or does safety only matter when it's about meeting the standard?

FYI, women in the UK were given the vote almost 100 years before they were in the US - we can be pretty slow to pick up on good ideas sometimes.

I understand some people support tail docking, and while I don't agree with it, I have a much easier time when people don't cast around for evidence to support their preferences. We have a lot of responsibility to dogs, and it seems to me that we should really confront and question practices like this because they cannot speak for themselves. What is more important, doing right by dogs, or finding reasons not to change your mind?

Again, I understand that some people like dock tails. The best argument I've heard is that it doesn't hurt the pup and it's personal preference. I personally don't think personal preference is sufficient reason to remove a body part, and maybe other people don't either, which is why other stuff like breaking tails comes up.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

No, that's not the case. There are lots of yorkies with full tails. To keep your dog's anus clean, you should make sure to feed him a good food that he produces formed stools on, and keep the hair around that area closely trimmed.

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.

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Because the large majority of dogs have their tails, and they are fine, even if the tails are "ugly", long, or narrow. Plenty of yorkies have tails NOW. It's not like they have never had tails, and suddenly last year all of a sudden we're breaking new ground.

As for tails breaking because they are stepped on - it's a body part, of course if it's not there, it's not going to get injured. Yorkies get hurt jumping off things, does that mean show breeders want them to be bigger? Or does safety only matter when it's about meeting the standard?

FYI, women in the UK were given the vote almost 100 years before they were in the US - we can be pretty slow to pick up on good ideas sometimes.

I understand some people support tail docking, and while I don't agree with it, I have a much easier time when people don't cast around for evidence to support their preferences. We have a lot of responsibility to dogs, and it seems to me that we should really confront and question practices like this because they cannot speak for themselves. What is more important, doing right by dogs, or finding reasons not to change your mind?

Again, I understand that some people like dock tails. The best argument I've heard is that it doesn't hurt the pup and it's personal preference. I personally don't think personal preference is sufficient reason to remove a body part, and maybe other people don't either, which is why other stuff like breaking tails comes up.

I love you! You type so I don't have to

Totally agree.

I still think tail docking is totally pointless, besides giving people cosmetic pleasure for how their dog looks.

I've seen, surprisingly, 3 Yorkies in my real life with full tails, and they all held them proudly. I saw one on It's Me or the Dog with a full tail and same thing. As I said in my previous post in this thread, I get sooo many comments (literally everyone who has a convo with me at the dog park) about why all Yorkies don't have their full tails and how they prefer it that way.... so if we're talking about preference, in my area of town, full tail wins. I visit dog park approx 1-3x per week and probably talk to dozens a week. I probably see atleast 1 other docked tail Yorkie owner a week and even though their dogs is docked, they wish it was full.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Because the large majority of dogs have their tails, and they are fine, even if the tails are "ugly", long, or narrow. Plenty of yorkies have tails NOW. It's not like they have never had tails, and suddenly last year all of a sudden we're breaking new ground.

As for tails breaking because they are stepped on - it's a body part, of course if it's not there, it's not going to get injured. Yorkies get hurt jumping off things, does that mean show breeders want them to be bigger? Or does safety only matter when it's about meeting the standard?

FYI, women in the UK were given the vote almost 100 years before they were in the US - we can be pretty slow to pick up on good ideas sometimes.

I understand some people support tail docking, and while I don't agree with it, I have a much easier time when people don't cast around for evidence to support their preferences. We have a lot of responsibility to dogs, and it seems to me that we should really confront and question practices like this because they cannot speak for themselves. What is more important, doing right by dogs, or finding reasons not to change your mind?

Again, I understand that some people like dock tails. The best argument I've heard is that it doesn't hurt the pup and it's personal preference. I personally don't think personal preference is sufficient reason to remove a body part, and maybe other people don't either, which is why other stuff like breaking tails comes up.

Let's be clear on one thing, I'm not casting around any evidence, there is no evidence, but only isolated cases of injuries and people are looking into it. Statements such as "the majority of dogs have their tails, and they are fine" contributes little evidence. Many breeds were never docked so of course they would be fine with not docking, but once a breed is docked and breed over and over, you will get variation in tail lengths that could be unsafe. Breeders have never had to take the length of the tail into consideration. As stated before, docking is allowed for working dogs, so vets do know that an undocked tail presents some sort of a safety hazard or there wouldn't be any exceptions. I do not think the standard should be changed just to suit public whims, every change should be considered carefully, and health should be always taken into consideration. Obviously, your mind is made up, and you believe this is a terrible procedure, I don't, but I really don't have a preference in looks, I think both tails are cute. We will have much more knowledge in five years or so years on the safety of this, what's the hurry? People here have a choice, you can support breeders who choose not to dock tails, it's your choice to do this, and I don't mind if YOU choose not to have a yorkie with a docked tail. What I do mind is people who tell others they have no choice in the matter. I do not believe that this is harmful procedure. Of course, the English have lots of great ideas, I just think really great ideas, don't have to be forced, and I'm really not sure this idea was theirs anyway.

[QuickSilver]

Just to clarify: my point is that plenty of yorkies all around the world have tails, and had tails before it was formally outlawed. I know the eppy of "It's Me or the Dog" Britster is talking about, and it shows beautiful yorkies with full tails. Not only was this filmed several years ago, the dogs themselves were adults - clearly they had "non-mandated" tails.

Additionally, docking has been banned for a long time in many countries. Denmark, for example, has banned tail docking for twelve years. In Germany, it's been banned for almost twenty. There has been plenty of time to collect data on tail breakages, and it doesn't exist.

It maybe be different for working dogs, but yorkies aren't working - they are companion dogs.

FYI, my opinion on this has changed. I used to believe it was utterly barbaric, and now I just think it's a bad idea, which is likely where I'll stay. If it weren't banned by almost every other country in the West, I probably wouldn't call for it to be illegal here, but it appears to me that the rest of the world is on the right track, and we should follow their example.

[JenniferLeigh]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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?

No but you can't compare the two. A knee is a little more important than a tail.

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 in 1991, the number of individuals with tail injures had increased to 51% of the group.

http://www.k9alliance.com/resources/...-FactSheet.pdf

I would rather crop my doberman's tail at birth than risk a tail injury. If an injury does occur, and the tail needs to be docked. It would cause much more pain and discomfort for the animal.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by JenniferLeigh

No but you can't compare the two. A knee is a little more important than a tail.

http://www.k9alliance.com/resources/...-FactSheet.pdf

I would rather crop my doberman's tail at birth than risk a tail injury. If an injury does occur, and the tail needs to be docked. It would cause much more pain and discomfort for the animal.

The LP comparison was somewhat facetious. On a more serious note, why don't we increase the standard weight limit for yorkies, to prevent:

- Increased danger from other dogs and predators.
- Getting stepped on.
- Injuries from basic activities like jumping or bumping into things.
- Whelping.

Why is safety only of concern when it's about protecting the standard?

I don't know much about the Canadian K9 Alliance, but it appears their sole purpose is to support tail docking, ear cropping, and dew claw removal. I'd be interested to know who funds them. I am highly suspicious of ANY organization that tries to defend ear cropping, as I think the cons of that procedure are much more clear cut than they are for docking.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by JenniferLeigh

No but you can't compare the two. A knee is a little more important than a tail.

http://www.k9alliance.com/resources/...-FactSheet.pdf

I would rather crop my doberman's tail at birth than risk a tail injury. If an injury does occur, and the tail needs to be docked. It would cause much more pain and discomfort for the animal.

Thanks for the facts and figures.

[JenniferLeigh]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Why don't we increase the standard weight limit for yorkies, to prevent:

- Increased danger from other dogs and predators.
- Getting stepped on.
- Injuries from basic activities like jumping or bumping into things.
- Whelping.

Why is safety only of concern when it's about protecting the standard?

I don't know much about the Canadian K9 Alliance, but it appears their sole purpose is to oppose tail docking, ear cropping, and dew claw removal. I'd be interested to know who funds them. I am highly suspicious of ANY organization that tries to defend ear cropping, as I think the cons of that procedure are much more clear cut than they are for docking.

We'll agree there! I think they probably should increase the standard weight limit, but thats another thread for another day .

I think the solution is not to outlaw cropping all together but try to improve the standards in which it is done. For example, some countries have banned the practice except by a licensed veterinarian.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by JenniferLeigh

We'll agree there! I think they probably should increase the standard weight limit, but thats another thread for another day .

I think the solution is not to outlaw cropping all together but try to improve the standards in which it is done. For example, some countries have banned the practice except by a licensed veterinarian.

I have to admit, I was thrown off when you agreed with me. Hee.


Since this thread has come back to life, I'd like to add this point:

- Many exhibitors here say you should only buy a dog from someone who shows dogs.

- Tail docking must be done within a few days of birth.

- Show breeders can't tell for many months which puppies have show potential.


So, when you put this logic together, there actually isn't a choice on whether you can buy a US yorkie with an undocked tail.