Thanks everyone so much for all the information. I wasn't really sure how I felt about it before but now I know how I feel about it and I think they should leave the full tails.

Thank you for starting this thread. I enjoyed reading the different points of view, and I really liked reading the information that Shannon linked and Ann posted. It really made me think. Although I love the look of the medium docked tail, it really hurts me that we are doing this to our babies who we love so much just for the sake of beauty. It seems so painful for them, and it made me so very sad. I love the long tail on the Biewers, and I am constantly reminded of AprilLove's beautiful video of the Biewer tail wag. We might have a difficult time getting undocked tails from show breeders in North America who are breeding for their next show pup. My breeder, however, that entrusted our precious Katie with us has been showing Yorkies with docked and undocked tails (so that she can also compete in Europe), and she has done quite well attaining championships for these Yorkies in North America. I think it says a lot that throughout the rest of the world, tail docking is banned.

Although the comparisons to human medical studies/evidence is absolutely correct, the difference here is that dogs are still chattle -- property. So the same rules will never apply no matter how much pain a puppy must tolerate.:( People can do to whatever they want to a given breed. Change is slow. People fear change.

It won't take a study to change the rules. It will just take time.

My question was more rhetorical than literal. What I was trying to get at was more about why people accept the practice bc that's the "way it's always been done" and why they're asking for studies before ceasing these practices, but never asked for studies/solid proof prior to allowing them to happen to their dogs. We'd never let this kind of thing happen to ourselves, our kids, our family etc (major medical interventions without proof of real efficacy), so it concerns me when we have such a vastly different standard for those in our care, our dogs.

We all prob realize we won't get many studies in the animal field except as they pertain to vaccines, meds, food trials, and a few other things...unfortunately.

*Guys, I was thinking about adding Concretegurl's article to the library (or, do you want to add it concretegurl...? Lemme know)...and then if someone had some good opposing info we could add that as well so both sides of the issue are represented.

Lisa, I swear AprilLove's babies' tails are some of the most gorgeous ever! Stunning :love:. I bet your breeder has a very unique perspective into both sides of this issue. I hope someday she'll be able to lead the way toward a new way of thinking about docking; that would be wonderful. Maybe her little undocked kiddos will change a little piece o' the world :).

Actually, we do... to our little boys when they are born :(

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.

Tail Docking - The Fritsch Report
There follows a letter from Prof. Dr. R. Fritsch, Leader of the Clinic of Veterinary Surgeons, Justus-Lieberg-University, to the German Kennel Club.
Quote
I have been asked by the German Kennel Club to give a professional opinion on the following questions:
• Will the removal of the tail and dew claws without anaesthetic on a four day old puppy, cause considerable pain?
• Is it necessary from the veterinary point of view, to shorten the tail or amputate the dew claws of certain breeds of dogs?
The docking of tails and the removal of dew claws in puppies less than 4 days old without anaesthetic, is not connected with any serious pain in such a way that it cannot be allowed from the point of view of the protection of animals.
The reason for this is (there are two expressions in German for which there is no English equivalent: "Nestfluchter" which means a young bird or young animal which very soon will leave its nest or its mother and therefore will have to find its own food; and "Nesthockern" which means a young animal that stays for a long time in the nest with its mother and is fed by her) the new born puppy belongs to the Nesthockern, in contrast with the horse, cow, sheep, pig and goat which are regarded as Nestfluchter.
The animals in the Nesthockern group are born relatively immature, completely naked, blind, deaf, very immobile and very helpless. Their nervous system at birth is not even fully developed. There are still cell divisions in the brain and some of the nervous threads are not fully developed. In psychological tests, it has been determined that the time between the nervous impulse and reaction (chronaxie) takes 3-4 times longer than it would in an adult. After about 10-14 days, when the animals eyes are opened (until then it has been more like an embryo) it is possible to determine the normal value of the impulse. In 1941, Volkhov determined that animals, at this period of life, had very little feeling of pain. The conscious feeling of pain is still not very likely at that age.
Schmidker wrote in his doctorate in 1951 about the feeling of pain in new-born puppies: "Incomplete development of the nervous system at the time of birth and the very high chronaxie value in connection with the fact that the animal is not able to react effectively to pain, gives us every reason to believe that the actual feeling of pain is very low in the new-born of this group of mammals (dogs). In other words, at this age and biological condition, it would have no absolute meaning to talk about pain". You therefore do not have to worry or fear that the dog will be made to suffer pain or psychological pain, if the tail has been docked or the dew claws removed, in the first few days after birth.
It is completely different though, with the Nestfluchter (animals which leave their nest or mother just after birth). In these animals, the nervous system id fully developed just after the moment of birth. All senses that serve to get rid of enemies and pain are fully developed. One can neither from physiological knowledge nor from just observation, say that these young animals feel a lot less pain than adults.
It would therefore be a contradiction in the law, for the Protection of Animals, to permit the shortening or docking of tails in pigs and lambs without anaesthetic, because they have fully developed threshold of pain, and , at the same time, forbid the docking of dogs. It is absolutely certain that the docking of tails on small lambs and pigs and also the castration of young pigs, goats and calves during their first days of life, will cause considerable pain if done without an anaesthetic. However, from the point of view of the docking of dogs, whose nervous system is not fully developed during the first few days of life, is completely acceptable from the point of view of the protection of animals.
The removal of dew claws is necessary in order to avoid later damages and illnesses. It is also recommended to dock the tails inbreeds which have long thin, weak and sparsely coated tails, in order to avoid later sickness and damage. At the same time tails should be docked in breeds that are used in such a way that there is a risk of injury to a tail e.g. hunting dogs. It is beneficial to avoid painful; injuries and therefore in the interest of the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY to animals.
The dew claw is the rudimentary first toe. They are often injured and the nail can grow into the skin causing considerable inflammation. The dog can easily catch them on different objects because they just hang on the side of their paws a non-functioning objects and can therefore damage themselves quite seriously. It is therefore in the interests of the law to recommend that these claws are removed as early as possible. Their removal is best done in the first week with a little clip with scissors.
The dogs tail on the other hand, whether it be in kennels or around the home, is in constant danger of damage by being hit against hard objects like walls, fences, tables, chair legs, radiators and of being trapped in doors. These injuries usually result in sores at the tip of the tail, which do not heal well because there is a poor blood circulation in this part of the tail.
By licking and chewing, the dog makes the condition worse and the skin and tissue will die. These conditions of necrosis of the tip of the tail is often seen in Great Danes and Dalmatians. German Shepherds are also often seen in veterinary surgeries.
This can sometimes be treated with partial amputation but secondary problems can occur in the healing process because the very poor blood supply is not conducive to this. This actually makes it necessary to amputate the tail several times before the healing process is achieved.
Hunting dogs are in great danger of damaging their tails when thrashing through thick undergrowth and young forest. Only tails that are thick and covered with long hair are protected, such as those of the wolf and fox.
Apart from the dangers that the dog is constantly confronted with in the human environment (as well as the fact that they have less hair than the wild dog) many breeds have a very lively temperament which often cause tail tip damage in the course of their exuberance, e.g. an undocked Boxer will constantly be subject to injury when using its tail when he expresses happiness.
As far as the behaviour of dogs is concerned, I cannot see that their ability to express happiness should in any way be altered by the docking of the tail.
From the veterinary point of view, therefore, there is absolutely no reason why the banning of the docking of dogs tails should be beneficial to them. In actual fact, it would be detrimental to their well-being if docking was abolished. Tail docking protects the dog as it is done to avoid problems with tail injuries and subsequent painful treatment that would often occur.
It is called Prevention!!

Dont other small breed dogs have their tails like maltese and what is the incidence of injury with tails that havent been docked. If maltese have docked tails Im sorry not trying to offend just really curious to know

No go ahead, it was sufficient I guess hope to find more there are significantly more studdies on the tail docking issue going on in Europe.

You can't compare them just because they are a toy breed, the Maltese has been around for almost three thousand years, and early breeders may have bred for tail, or the Maltese may have always had a thicker tail. Another consideration is that the Maltese's tail is carried over the back not upright or down. My point is Yorkie breeders have never had to breed for tail, and many Yorkies tails are extremely thin. I do hate the way some breeders make such a short stub and many breeders aren't trained to do this property.

You can say that again Chachi has the smallest tail I have ever seen there is like no expression in it at all. And hes a bigger yorkie so it just looks odd on him. It is sad

Ann first I want to say I JUST NOTICED your siggy line..:D:D:D 5 out of 4 ppl. So not only are fractions not understood, (teehee), but mathematically it is impossible to have more than 100 concrete things/ppl etc. http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/images/icons/love.gif

As I alluded to in an earlier post, the YT club of Canada is reworking the standard for just this issue. And I will be fowarding some of these articles, for that committees review and edification.

There are very real concerns here on both "sides" of the issue. But beyond this is how to we "figure out" how to change to standard. One way is to say simply undock tails are not to be penalized. But the reality is that, none of us have the knowledge base here, to say the tail if left long, must be so many inches long, or .50 of body length as measure from withers to tail set. The tail is to be carried aloft when in movement. A gay tail is to be penalized, as well as a tail carried below back height at movement.

Then there is the impact to the breeding pool. Trust me I know this, as we are in the middle of wrapping our brains around the BRT standard changes. The difference in tail length, width, carriage, etc is pretty amazing when you look at some of the International Specialties. Quite frankly I have no idea how a tail left long would turn out if I mated Magic, and wanted to keep all tails undocked.

We are of course are communicating with our Russian friends, some folks in Germany, and some in Sweden. As they have a good 5-10 yrs more experience with this undocked tail business.

If you want to make a difference with your breed, join your Breed Club! In the USA you would be joining one of the Regional and or Local Breed Clubs. Get involved. All active members get to vote on standard changes!!

And btw, I do believe that docking should also include a standard length. With the BRT's it is suggested to leave 3-4 vertebrae intact.

I know there are several members here on this forum, who if they were Canadian, I'd be ringing your doorbell;)

True in America, but not so for the rest of the world. Years ago I remember reading a study as to why it was done and it came done to $$$$. The piece cut off is used and needed by the medical profession.

On you tube there is a vid (i'll see if I can find it) were men who had circumcisions later in life, said it was a bit like being colour blind now that it was cut off. They'd lost so much extra sensation or something like that.

Cont... couldn 't find the youtube vid, it was several years ago, but this one pretty much covers it. WARNING -(it is not for the fainted hearted as it shows what is actually done to a baby and the baby screams)

Cutting off something 'in case it gets damaged' be it a dog's tail/ears or a humans parts, just sounds crazy. I'm glad docking is banned here, having witnessed it being done to poodle pups. I wonder how the ban effected the breeding show dogs lines over here?

Historically speaking we began doing it after WWII...because many soldiers in the trenches got infections, medical experts said it was a necessary precautiins, needed for hygeine and it would also aid in reproductive rates abd women's health. I belive it was also said to prevent the spread of some stds....also remenber the climate after WWII many jewish men in hiding we identified as such by being found to be circumsized...part of our reasoning was not only the perceived at the tine medical bennifits but to stop discrimination of jewish identification. American was the only country to use both the nedical and sympathetic (they called it sympathetic not my word) reasoning.

Ya know at that time we didnt know if another attempt at Jewish genocide would happen or not abd I can absolutely see the need for such solidarity, however at the time and eveb decades later medical advice was so political and purchasable...pregnant women were told to take up smoking to aid in morning sickness, to controm the risk of csections being needed, and to not get fat during pregnancy drs actually said smoking exercised your lungs!

Anywho off topic sorry wanted to add that. Where I live only 30% of newborn males are circumsized...so that outcast issue is opposite here than in other areas.

I beleive in Europe only English elite for a short time chose the procedure.

From the veterinary point of view, therefore, there is absolutely no reason why the banning of the docking of dogs tails should be beneficial to them. In actual fact, it would be detrimental to their well-being if docking was abolished. Tail docking protects the dog as it is done to avoid problems with tail injuries and subsequent painful treatment that would often occur.
It is called Prevention!![/QUOTE]
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
Excellent article Nancy!!!! PREVENTION AS OPOSED TO CORRECTION....CRISIS AVOIDANCE AS OPPOSED TO CRISIS MANAGEMENT!~

Nanc - I don't know if you saw my post just above your article post...but I was asking in that post if anyone had some good articles on the pro-docking side so that if we put something in the library about it, we'd have articles on both sides of the convo. Do you think the articles you found would be good ones to use for that? Thanks for spending the time in getting the info. (and thanks to Concretegurl too, who found the other 2 articles)

No I didn't see it. I'm not sure if they are good or not. You need someone with more expertise than I have to tell you the faults of the articles, but they don’t seem to be blatantly biased. These have been linked on other YT threads, I didn't search them down. By the way, I’m not sure anyone is “pro docking” any more than someone is pro-abortion, it’s more about choice, and what’s best for the breed overall. In my opinion, saying it’s amputation seem to be a gross exaggeration. Cutting the skinny tip isn’t amputation, but if a dog breaks the tail, since tails don’t heal well, sometimes they do have to amputate the complete tail as well as butt muscle. I haven’t done that much research on the issue, and I believe as Loraine said they are still getting information from the European clubs on the long term effect of not docking anymore. Bottom line though, is I believe we should support the breed clubs. Anytime we make it harder for reputable breeders to breed, we are effectively killing the breed. Once true dog fanciers are out of the picture, all that will be left are people breeding for the money.

Yeah, but doesn't the docking itself introduce the initial insult to the body? Aside from the pain caused (and its potential sensational and traumatic repricussions) to an otherwise healthy life form, what about infection (ie, staff) that can occur when we purposefully traumatize and expose a body part? What about neurological deficits (that the dogs can't complain about) that result from a snip too close to nerve endings?

I had a minor hernia operation over 15 years ago, and I still suffer a loss of sensation on my leg. How does anyone know the extent of damage caused by docking??

I understand "prevention" for the working animal. Like I previously mentioned, during the Industrial Revolution when Yorkies had to fit themselves into tight spaces with surrounding machinery that could catch a tail, it seems logical to remove part of the tail to prevent entanglement and a horrific death. But, come on, no Yorkie does that work anymore! The purpose for docking has ended. Whatever the learned articles say, human action/interference is the sole cause of the initial cut/damage/pain/suffering, etc.

So, IMHO, the purposeful injury and maming of another living thing should also cease. But I'm also the type who doesn't kill a spider or bug despite the heebie jeebies I get every time I catch and release the insect. I hope - one day - the Yorkie human community will accept the great gift of the Yorkshire Terrier just as God created them!

As a child I think I was marked for life by the 1 1/2 year battle of a dog that frequented our neighborhood and that lived with a broken and rebroken and gnawed tail, which would partially heal, get re-injured, get really gross a few times, swell, leak pus, etc. and the dog would disappear for a while(we never knew where he lived), reappear with the tail partially hanging, looking better, hardly swollen, and then you would see him again with it freshly re-broken, all swollen up, all red in the area around break, missing hair there, and he would endlessly gnaw on it. I tried over and over to get him to stop, come to me to I could get him to Mother, but he'd just run off, stop and chew. The break just apparently never healed and I'm sure he got no vet care. His chewing on it didn't help either! He was very skinny so I don't even know if he belonged to anyone. Us kids in the neighborhood would throw him cookies and bread and things we could get from our moms. Eventually, I guess somebody tried to amputate his tail or it rotted or fell off, leaving the bone exposed and the skin withdrew from the end.

That dog suffered so much with that awful mess of a tail. He had a very thin tail carried low and out and I never did know where he came from or whose he was or what ever happened to him. But after his tail was gone, he only came around a few times more and then never came again. We always called him the ghost dog because he was white, we never knew when he would come, where he came from or where he would go. But he would stay in the neighborhood for a couple of days at a time when he came and then go. Nobody near by had a dog like that or let their dogs out of their yards.

I now know that most tail injuries are slow to heal due to the constant motion and often not much blood supply, and that he probably had osteomyelitis in site of the broken bone of the tail and with little blood or nerve supply in that thin tail, it just wouldn't heal and then he'd get in a fight or who knows but he'd get it re-broken. I saw enough of his suffering with it as a little kid who loved dogs to just about drive me nuts. He wouldn't let you catch him or even come close to you but he'd show up from time to time with that thing so red and so swollen and all gnawed looking, that it stuck with me forever. Even subconsciously.

Except for two GSD's, I always had dogs with tails docked at infancy once I grew up and got my own dogs. I wasn't even conscious of it until recently but every single dog I had in my life except our early GSD's(my husband wanted those) had docked tails. I guess it was my subconscious thinking that by getting a dog that had had a minimal procedure done as an infant before it had either vascular or neurological maturity in the tail sure beat what that poor dog went through years back. Things really bad like that stay with you. I guess I always ensured myself I'd never have to see a bad tail injury happen to one of my dogs as I always chose those with short tails. Course if that happened to a dog of mine, he'd be at the vet in a heartbeat but still, I subsciously apparently ensured myself it was an injury I'd likely never have to see again by only getting dogs with very short tails. Still I know that not all dogs in this day and time with broken or injured tails get any vet care and shudder, thinking of that old dog and his awful tail trouble.

Yes, but of course a stray could have all sorts of "trouble" - including, but not limited to, the tail. That's different from suggesting increased injury to an undocked, primped, happily homed yorkie.

And I find it strange that people would like to rely upon soon to be released reports from other countries addressing the dreaded tail injury increase after docking was banned. PLEASE NOTE: OF COURSE tail injuries should increase because -- MORE DOGS HAVE THEIR INTACT TAILS! It's simple ARITHMATIC and PROBABILITY!

I am nearly certain, however, that the increased injury to intact tailed yorkies is MINIMAL compared to the the injuries sustained by ALL yorkies at our collective hands when tail docking was the norm. At that time, MOST if not ALL yorkies suffered injury.

IMHO, our own fear of change is preventing this change from happening sooner.

I'm sorry what injury are you suggesting? Initial injury at time of docking? Subsequent injury as a result of the docking?

And yes it is relevant to understand the percentage of dogs, that need to be "put under" for major surgery when adult injury of tails occur. That in all likelihood would not have been necessary if their tails had been docked, at an early age. And most especially in breeds that historically had always had docked tails.

I've shared my story before. I had both an undocked tailed BRT and a docked one. My heart was in my mouth numerous times, with her enthusiastic waving of her tail as it hit into walls, corners, bookcases, et al.

Not to mention when we went hiking in the woods. So many burrs, et al seemed glued to her tail. The sanitary aspect, well that is a non starter as far as I am concerned. But she was at real risk of injury to her tail. Unfortunately she died very young from cancer, and luckily I never had to put her under for a "tail injury" surgical correction. But I was always concerned about it, it was a constant worry for me.

The "injury", if you will, is the initial trauma, insult, assault to the body of a living creature - the cut of the tail. As I previously mentioned, yorkies can't complain if the 'snip' results in nerve damage, infection, fear, stress, brainwave changes/alterations, or whatever else could happen when WE interfere with other LIFE forms.

I have no problem with alteration as a means of PREVENTION, ie, when Yorkies were actually working dogs in mills with machinery that could catch a wayward tail. Yet, I strongly feel that the docking alteration AT THIS TIME is irrelevant to the breed.

Maybe breeders (well meaning, reputable and overall good) fear that their lines would be sacrificed if some other body (ie the AKC) decides that the length of the tails in their lines are too long, short, ugly or whatever.

I feel badly for the breeders. However, that can not be the reason to preserve a barbaric and outdated practice that fails to serve a useful purpose.

Like I said, I bet the imperical data will show that amount of long term tail injury after a docking ban is MINIMAL compared to sparing the entire Yorkshire Terrier breed from the unnecessary harm, pain & injury caused BY the docking process itself. Just my opinion....

I'm confused as to why you think docking causes "harm and injury". Yes, it may cause a minimal amount of pain, but so do shots and microchips. I hope you are correct when you say the imperial data will show that damage is minimal, but in my opinion we shouldn't bet on something like this, we should gather the data.

Most of this thread addressed pain and trauma issues surrounding tail docking and it also made the comparison with human circumcision. IMHO anytime you cut a living thing unecessarily you induce trauma, cause harm and injure and assault that living thing. I don't care if it's deemed "minimal" or not. And I'm not well versed enough in yorkie speak to determine the level of pain any pup feels, perceives, senses or REMEMBERS during and from a docking procedure. For all we know, it could alter the personality of the pup entirely! So why do it?

Previously in this thread I referenced that recent medical studies have concluded that the process of circumcision in newborns introduces great pain and trauma to the infant - even tho it's a very "minimal" procedure. That pain and trauma is not only very real - but it can have long standing effects on an infant. Comparatively, why wouldn't the same logic apply here?

If I have a hang nail or small abrasion, I can flinch. Here, you have a new life, unsuspecting and unknowing of anything except air to breath & mother's milk, having a scissor taken to its tail. That's a real trauma. And why should we traumatize puppies without justifiable reason?

I don't know. Like I previously stated, I hope that in the future more enlightened thinking and logic will prevail.

Certainly we all hope for enlightened thinking and more clear logic to prevail.

What I read in this post with articles that Nancy posted, is that the neuro structure on dogs is NOT full developed at all at 0-5 days old, and that the procedure is quick, and relatively painless. It is an ouch on the pain scale. Now scientifically speaking, there is or there is NOT, neuronal structure present at L3/L4 or L4. If not or very little neuronal infiltration at that age, then there are literally no nerves to sen d messages anywhere.

Now compare that with what % of dogs as early/mid/adult dogs that have to go under the knife and anaesthia with injured tails. With a fully intact nervous system. And then there is the healing time, oh and yes, how many won't heal easily or quickly from the reasons you have read here. Poor blood supply, dogs chewing on tail, dogs wagging tails which is a natural behaviour, but whamoo, bangoo, they re-inure the tail. How much pain do ya think is involved with that?

Natural is NOT always BEST. If you had the gift of foresight, and could with a simple relatively painfree procedure dock your dog's tail, and thus avoid in the 3yr future a very painful and risky operation, and weeks of potential healing time from an emergency dock, would you?

IMHO, as opposed to DOCKING a TAIL, Shots & Microchips serve an abolute utilitarian and useful purpose. If you consider a Risk/Benefit Analysis, then the risk of harm cause by insertion of a chip (there absolutely is some risk of infection/pain, ableit small) is far outweighed by safety to the pup by being made trackable. Same analysis applies to shots/vaccines.

IMHO again, Tail Docking serves no real purpose (although there WILL be some Yorkies who injure their tails - just as they could injure other body parts as well!) Back in the 19th Century, the Risk of Harm to the Yorkie was GREAT. So it made sense to dock the tail. Now, uh, no. Yorkies don't have to squeeze themselves into tight places surrounded by metal moving parts for 12 hours per day!!!

I understand that some of those Breeders/Trainers for some larger animals (not Yorkies) who train the Dog to Attack and bite, have found that the length of their tails, has an impact on how mean they are.

The Trainer just cuts off a little at a time, and watches to see how mean the Dog gets. Some use a Cleaver, others use Pruning Shears, but the most handy (I hear) is a large Bread Knife. Just get a block of wood, and whack a little piece off at a time till it's just right. ;)

Oh that's horrible, where did you read about this?