Tail docking

[QuickSilver]

Just because PETA is against something doesn't by definition mean that it's wrong. If a fool says the sun comes up in the morning, that doesn't make it not true.

I'll admit to ignorance on the functional structure of the yorkie, I had not heard that about the top knot before. Though why couldn't yorkies have also been bred for fat tails?

Anyway, I think the good has to be measured against the bad. For instance, we remove dogs' sex organs for health and also to prevent overpopulation, even though this is also removing a body part. In this case, I believe the good far outweighs the bad, though some people disagree. But today, there is no reason besides cosmetic to remove a tail. If the tail is dragging through the mud, it seems like there's an obvious solution - keep the hair shorter.

The dog's tail functions as a rudder when running, helps them swim, and is a fundamental part of their communication. Weighed against... "tradition says we dock tails." Again, I can't see why someone can say it's "perfection" to cut a tail off (or for that matter, leave it on), because that is purely subjective. "Platinum" yorkies are very beautiful, but a show breeder would say it's not standard. Why isn't it standard? Because it's not traditional. To me, docking is obviously about the traditional look, and why not progress with the times and we learn more and strive to become more humane in our treatment of animals?

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Cares4Dogs

are you serious??? They pulled yorkie babies out of holes by their topknot?????

Yes.....that was the function of the topknot.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Just because PETA is against something doesn't by definition mean that it's wrong. If a fool says the sun comes up in the morning, that doesn't make it not true.

I'll admit to ignorance on the functional structure of the yorkie, I had not heard that about the top knot before. Though why couldn't yorkies have also been bred for fat tails?

Anyway, I think the good has to be measured against the bad. For instance, we remove dogs' sex organs for health and also to prevent overpopulation, even though this is also removing a body part. In this case, I believe the good far outweighs the bad, though some people disagree. But today, there is no reason besides cosmetic to remove a tail. If the tail is dragging through the mud, it seems like there's an obvious solution - keep the hair shorter.

The dog's tail functions as a rudder when running, helps them swim, and is a fundamental part of their communication. Weighed against... "tradition says we dock tails." Again, I can't see why someone can say it's "perfection" to cut a tail off (or for that matter, leave it on), because that is purely subjective. "Platinum" yorkies are very beautiful, but a show breeder would say it's not standard. Why isn't it standard? Because it's not traditional. To me, docking is obviously about the traditional look, and why not progress with the times and we learn more and strive to become more humane in our treatment of animals?

Read up on the founder of PETA.....they're real goal is to do away with pets completely.

I don't know why they couldn't have been bred for fat tails, they just weren't......maybe cause of the dogs that were used to finally arrive at the Yorkshire Terrier.

Remember the westie has shorter furnishings than a yokie

My yorkies can still swim and the communicate with their tails. As a matter of fact I had to work real hard to get one of mine to stop wagging it's tail while it was gaiting......took away from it's movement.....dog was just a happy son of a gun. Docking began in England and it wasn't done for a traditional look, but for a safety function.....

And as I said on another post.....speaking to Europeans....they wish the law was not as such, as their yorkies are now experiencing tail fractures.

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Just because PETA is against something doesn't by definition mean that it's wrong. If a fool says the sun comes up in the morning, that doesn't make it not true.

I'll admit to ignorance on the functional structure of the yorkie, I had not heard that about the top knot before. Though why couldn't yorkies have also been bred for fat tails?

Anyway, I think the good has to be measured against the bad. For instance, we remove dogs' sex organs for health and also to prevent overpopulation, even though this is also removing a body part. In this case, I believe the good far outweighs the bad, though some people disagree. But today, there is no reason besides cosmetic to remove a tail. If the tail is dragging through the mud, it seems like there's an obvious solution - keep the hair shorter.

The dog's tail functions as a rudder when running, helps them swim, and is a fundamental part of their communication. Weighed against... "tradition says we dock tails." Again, I can't see why someone can say it's "perfection" to cut a tail off (or for that matter, leave it on), because that is purely subjective. "Platinum" yorkies are very beautiful, but a show breeder would say it's not standard. Why isn't it standard? Because it's not traditional. To me, docking is obviously about the traditional look, and why not progress with the times and we learn more and strive to become more humane in our treatment of animals?

You know something....Please don't take this the wrong way but everytime a show breeder has something to say about the standard and up holding the standard you always have some kind of disagreement against it....It's just been my observation to your posts...

Donna Bird
Brooklynn's Yorshire Terriers

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Read up on the founder of PETA.....they're real goal is to do away with pets completely.

I don't know why they couldn't have been bred for fat tails, they just weren't......maybe cause of the dogs that were used to finally arrive at the Yorkshire Terrier.

Remember the westie has shorter furnishings than a yokie

My yorkies can still swim and the communicate with their tails. As a matter of fact I had to work real hard to get one of mine to stop wagging it's tail while it was gaiting......took away from it's movement.....dog was just a happy son of a gun. Docking began in England and it wasn't done for a traditional look, but for a safety function.....

And as I said on another post.....speaking to Europeans....they wish the law was not as such, as their yorkies are now experiencing tail fractures.

Well said Mary....My yorkies are the same way! Their tails never stop wagging and my hubby always calls Krissy's tail a motor boat because she wags it so fast and yes they are all docked and none of my yorkies have any trouble swiming nor using their tail as a means of communications. Actually I can always tell when something is wrong when they have their tail tucked, up ect....especially when they keep it tucked I know something is either on them or they aren't feeling good and well their tails are docked once again so I just can't see what would be any different if the tail was longer...it's used in the same function short as it would be long but as long as the standard says docked and YES I will adhere to the Yorkie standard

[QuickSilver]

Yes, you are right, because I do disagree with a lot of it. Explaining my position on that would take way too much time, but to me, just saying "it's the standard" is not meaningful. In what area of our lives do we decide to do things the way we did them 100 years ago, just because? I'm sure there are some things that aren't coming to me, but especially our understanding of animal behavior and our standards of what's humane (to all creatures, including ourselves) has changed SO much over the last century, why cling to it here?

Again, whether PETA says this or that is irrelevant. You can disagree with 99% of what PETA says, and agree with 1% of it. BTW, I have read a fair amount on PETA. Don't worry, I'm not a member.

Also, just because a dog can function without a body part doesn't mean it's not necessary. A three legged dog can run just fine, but it doesn't mean three is as as good as four.

[Cares4Dogs]

QuickSilver.....I saw pics of your Thor on your profile (he's adorable)....but he appears to have a cropped tail?

[QuickSilver]

Sure - I adopted him at two years old. I had no control over his tail, and if it were up to me, he'd still have it. Thank you for the compliment.

[friscomom]

Mardelin said in a separate thread:

I've spoken to a few people in Europe where docking is no longer practiced and some wish it could still be done as, they some of their dogs are experiencing tail fractures. The yorkie tail is thinner than other canines.

This is the only sensible reason FOR that I have seen so far. I can't see myself giving a dog to a person who insisted I cut off its tail because they 'like them that way', but hey, that's just me, and I seem to be outnumbered in this department?

I apologize for use of the term FREAK while my 'fingers were running'; adrenalin had me pretty good on realizing my puppy's tail didn't look right because it had been cut off by someone. I have never heard of this practice. My understanding is that canines make extensive use of their tails for a wide variety of important purposes, not the least of which is critical social communication. However, if we are to believe the yorkie tail is fragile and prone to injury then I find it somewhat more acceptable. I also understand that Frisco can live well enough despite this handicap.

I do not understand the concerns relating to breed protection and puppy mills, but will be reading this thread and attempting to educate myself. The other thing I do not know is what dew claws are for, but I will go look that up somewhere else.

Thank you to the moderator for not locking this thread.

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Yes, you are right, because I do disagree with a lot of it. Explaining my position on that would take way too much time, but to me, just saying "it's the standard" is not meaningful. In what area of our lives do we decide to do things the way we did them 100 years ago, just because? I'm sure there are some things that aren't coming to me, but especially our understanding of animal behavior and our standards of what's humane (to all creatures, including ourselves) has changed SO much over the last century, why cling to it here?

Again, whether PETA says this or that is irrelevant. You can disagree with 99% of what PETA says, and agree with 1% of it. BTW, I have read a fair amount on PETA. Don't worry, I'm not a member.

Also, just because a dog can function without a body part doesn't mean it's not necessary. A three legged dog can run just fine, but it doesn't mean three is as as good as four.

You'll never see a show breeders/exhibitors position because you have no interest in it so your mind is closed to what we have to say and you have your mind so set against what we do...so therefore it probably never will come to you or will you get it. It's sad when one's mind stays so closed minded...Maybe you prefer puppymill/petstore or byb yorkies instead of what we put behind our breeding program?

Donna

[BamaFan121s]

Ahhh...the great "Tail Docking Debate" has reared it's ugly head once again. See what happens when you don't sign on for almost an entire day...you miss all the fun. Freaks, huh? Well, I've been called cruel, barbaric, insane, mean, ignorant and a variety of other niceties in regards to my stance on the subject, but I do believe this is the first time for being refer to as a "freak." (At least in regards to this topic. )

I understand both sides of the argument, I really do, but until it IS banned, it's a matter of personal choice and preference at this point. I don't mind when people are opposed to the practice, but what I do mind is being accused of abuse or the likes for opting to go the route of docking. Bottom line is, you can drag up evidence and opinions to support ANY side of almost ANY argument you try to make...docking is no exception, so it's really a moot point, IMO.

[WV~Yorkies]

I like docked tails and will keep doing it. I wouldn't have a problem leaving the tail if someone requested it.

[Lorrainelola]

My personal opinion, as I have stated on other threads, is that I don't believe in docking.
Here in the UK yorkies tails have never been docked. The yorkie originated from England. It would be interesting to know when it was decided that docking was a breed standard in America.

Othe posters have stated that the tail does in fact show what a dog is feeling etc. A wagging tail doesn't always mean a dog is happy. When a dog's tail is held horizontally it is an agressive display.

I was very much under the impression that the yorkies tail was used to drag them out of the hole where they had been ratting, not the top knot but obviously they aren't used for this anymore anyway.

We all have our own opinions and beliefs and from what I have read it appears we can have these views in an adult sensible manner.

As I have said before long tail, docked tail, floppy ears, erect ears we are all on here because we love our yorkies. I just love looking at the avatars and pics of all your yorkies, they are ALL precious, beautiful and handsome.
x x

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Yes, you are right, because I do disagree with a lot of it. Explaining my position on that would take way too much time, but to me, just saying "it's the standard" is not meaningful. In what area of our lives do we decide to do things the way we did them 100 years ago, just because? I'm sure there are some things that aren't coming to me, but especially our understanding of animal behavior and our standards of what's humane (to all creatures, including ourselves) has changed SO much over the last century, why cling to it here?

Again, whether PETA says this or that is irrelevant. You can disagree with 99% of what PETA says, and agree with 1% of it. BTW, I have read a fair amount on PETA. Don't worry, I'm not a member.

Also, just because a dog can function without a body part doesn't mean it's not necessary. A three legged dog can run just fine, but it doesn't mean three is as as good as four.

Standard has changed over the years, but it should change slowly, and not bend to what's the new popular trend. Some breeders seem to want to keep up with trends, and this has proved to be disastrous to other breeds. The Yorkshire Terrier breed's standard seems to be changing very slowly, and the YTCA which is the mother club is often criticized for not accepting new trends or colors fast enough, but until something has been thoroughly tested for safety the breeding of a particular trait should be discouraged. For example, breeding for the recessive gene that gives the parti color, we know that there are certain health risks with breeding for the recessive gene; many syndromes attach themselves to the recessive gene, it takes a lot of time to know if this is truly safe. Another example might be breeding excessively small noses or flat faces that could ultimately interfere with breathing, and the health of the dog. Standard isn't just an arbitrary thing, it's what sets one breed apart from the others. Few breeders actually pay that much attention to standard, and in 100 years a dog could be a full purebred yorkie, but have the kinky hair look of a poodle, long ears, and so on, and yet be sold as a pure registered AKC Yorkshire Terrier. I mean this is being done today, but most of the time we can see a LITTLE yorkie in the dog; in 100 years . . . I wonder? If you truly love the Yorkshire terrier breed, you should also want to protect the standard, and those breeders who breed to standard.

[MI Yorkielover]

Thumbs up for the civil debate on a sensitive topic