From Concretegurl's second link:

1. THE PROCEDURE OF TAIL-DOCKING
Tail-docking involves the amputation of most or part of a dog’s tail. The amputation is usually done when
puppies are between two and five days old, using scissors or nail-clippers or sometimes with a tight rubber band
that cuts off the blood supply to the tail. The amputation is carried out by a veterinarian, although in some
instances, docking may be done illegally by dog breeders. Neither anaesthetic nor analgesia is generally used.
Between 50 and 60 of the 200 dog breeds eligible for registration by the Kennel Club have customarily been
docked1.

The tail is an appendage that forms the hindmost part of the dog’s backbone and usually consists of between
6 and 23 mobile vertebrae, enclosed in muscle that is served by 4 to 7 paired nerves. The tail muscles (located
on the hind part of the dog’s back as well as on the tail itself) are attached to the tail vertebrae by tendons.
Docking length varies, but short-docked dogs such as Rottweilers may be left with only 1 or 2 tail vertebrae.
Tail-docking therefore involves the cutting through or crushing of skin, muscles, up to 7 pairs of nerves and
bone and cartilage connections.

2. PAIN CAUSED BY TAIL-DOCKING
Pain can be classified as either ‘acute’ pain, which does not extend beyond the healing period, or chronic or
‘pathological’ pain, which continues after the wound has apparently healed. After reviewing the scientific
literature, the Animal Welfare Veterinary Division of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
concluded in 2002 that ‘tail docking definitely causes pain in neonatal puppies’.8 Moreover, detailed studies of
the pain caused by different methods of tail-docking have been carried out on young farmed animals that are
subject to routine mutilations such as tail-docking and castration. It is reasonable to conclude that if lambs or
other young animals feel pain when tail-docked, then puppies are also likely to do so.

2.1 Comparison with pain in docked farmed animals

Lambs are tail-docked in a similar manner to puppies - by the use of a blade or a rubber ring - again without analgesia.
Numerous studies of lambs’ behaviour and physiological responses have shown that they suffer considerable pain for up
to 3-4 hours after docking, even though sheep are a species likely to avoid showing pain. A 1997 study at the Royal (Dick) Veterinary School, Edinburgh, published in the Journal of Animal Science, concluded that the tail-docking of lambs is one of the ‘unequivocal examples of animals in pain’. The lambs exhibit abnormal standing (motionless ‘statue standing’ with splayed legs), abnormal locomotor activity (restlessness, kicking, rolling, and other ‘attempts to escape’), or abnormal lying (for example, lying motionless on the side with extended legs, giving no ‘evidence of conscious awareness’)2. According to studies by New Zealand scientists at Massey University, a knife and a rubber ring produce different types of pain and hence different types of abnormal response, but it was concluded that ‘acute distress’ lasts over four hours in lambs treated
with a knife and up to 90 minutes in lambs treated with a rubber ring.

Tail-docking also causes pain in pigs. The European Commission’s Scientific Veterinary Committee has
concluded that ‘tail docking is likely to be painful when it is carried out and it has been demonstrated that in a
proportion of animals it leads to neuroma formation and hence to prolonged pain’. According to a review of the scientific evidence from Monash University, published in the Australian Veterinary Journal in 2003, ‘there are clearly reasonable grounds for arguing that surgical docking causes some amount of acute pain in [lambs, piglets and calves], as does banding, and that either method is also likely to cause pain in other physiologically similar species, such as the dog.’ An Australian survey in 1996 found that 76% of the veterinarians surveyed believed that tail-docking caused significant to severe pain in puppies, with none believing that puppies experienced no pain at all.

2.2 Puppies’ reaction to tail docking

Detailed observations of the behaviour of 50 puppies aged 3-5 days undergoing tail-docking, made by the Department of Companion Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Queensland, appear to confirm that tail-docking causes pain. The puppies were Dobermans, Rottweilers and Bouviers, whose tails are docked very short and therefore were treated with a suture to prevent uneven healing. The report stated that:

‘All pups appeared distressed by the amputation of the tail. Relatively continuous mild
vocalizations during the preparation of the tail turned dramatically to repeated and intense
shrieking vocalizations at the moment the tail was docked. The intensity of vocalizations
decreased slightly (but was still above the intensity made during preparation of the tail) in the
period between amputation and placement of the suture (if appropriate). At the moment of
piercing the skin for suture placement, vocalizations again returned to levels comparable with the
amputation. Similar intense vocalizations were noticed when pressure was placed on the suture
material as the knot was tied. The average number of shrieks made during the amputation of the
tail was 24 (range of 5 to 33). The average number of whimpers made during the amputation of
the tail was 18 (range of 2 to 46). All pups exhibited some degree of bleeding from the stump
following docking’.

When they were returned to their box, the puppies paddled about the box or made uncoordinated limb
movements, making occasional whimpers, before they settled to sleep within about three minutes. The puppies
were separated from the bitch for the procedure, because she tended to lick the tail stump, resulting in more
vocalisation by the pup.

It is sometimes suggested that the fact that puppies fall asleep or suckle within a few minutes of tail-docking
indicates that they are not in pain. However, it could indicate the reverse. Others have pointed out that there
may be evolutionary reasons for puppies sleeping and suckling, as a way of conserving strength at a time of
injury. It is also possible that the puppies suckle to reduce the pain, as it is known that the act of suckling
stimulates the release of endogenous opioids (endorphins) that produce analgesia.4
Docking in itself is a risk; although this appears not to have been scientifically studied, there are anecdotal
accounts of puppies dying from shock or blood loss as a result of docking.

2.4 Long-term pain from tail-docking

As with many humans, dogs may live with long-term pain without it being very obvious. There is evidence that
dogs may suffer from some types of ‘pathological’ long-term pain as a result of the tissue damage caused by
docking. Pathological pain can be characterised by one or more of the following:

• Spontaneous pain (in the absence of an obvious cause);
• Flare reaction (widening of the painful area);
• Exaggerated response to a painful stimulus (hyperalgesia);
• Referred pain (pain spreads from site of injury to other tissues);
• ‘Sympathetic dystrophy’ (a pathological interaction between the sensory and the sympathetic
nervous system, that controls many of the body’s organs and glands).

In humans, amputation is often associated with long-term pain; about one fifth of amputees report attacks
from ‘phantom limb’ pain or from stump pain even two years after amputation. Pain also occurs in a small
number of people who experience limb amputation very early in life, suggesting that this may be possible in
dogs.

Dogs may suffer pain from neuromas caused by tail-docking. Severing nerves in mammalian species produces
physiological and biochemical changes, including spontaneous nerve tissue activity. One result is the formation
of neuromas, swollen bundles of regenerating nerve fibres that develop when nerves are severed. These can
persist for weeks or indefinitely, causing spontaneous nerve activity that could be perceived as pain. Dogs may
therefore have increased sensitivity or pain in their tail stumps for long after the stump has apparently healed.
Neuromas have been observed in lamb stumps when the lambs were slaughtered six months after docking4 and
have also been reported in dogs.

Anecdotal accounts strongly suggest that tail stumps can cause long-term pain. In one study three dogs with
docked tails were euthanised for perceived behavioural problems, and all of them were found to have neuromas,
even though they had been docked many years previously. It is possible that these dogs were seen as having a
bad temperament when in fact their behaviour was a subtle sign that they had chronic pain. A 2003 review of
tail docking in the Australian Veterinary Journal commented: ‘While researching this paper the authors obtained
several anecdotal accounts of docked dogs with extremely sensitive tail stumps and other odd, stumpassociated,
behaviours’.

3. HEALTH AND WELFARE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TAIL-DOCKED DOGS

3.1 Hernia and incontinence

Because of the relationship between the muscles in the dog’s tail, back and pelvic area, tail-docking can have
long-term consequences for the functioning of the muscles associated with the rectum, anus and pelvis. Chronic
health problems associated with damage or degeneration of the tail and pelvic muscles include an increased risk
of faecal incontinence, acquired urinary incontinence and perineal hernia (when the rectum, abdominal contents
or pelvic contents break through the muscular wall of the pelvic cavity).

As the tail is essentially an extension of the dog’s back and spine, part of the musculature of the tail is formed
from muscles associated with the functioning of the dog’s hind body as a whole. The dorsal (upper) muscles of
the tail are direct continuations of the musculature of the upper side of the dog’s trunk and their tendons attach
to the tail vertebrae (coccygeal vertebrae). The rectococcygeus and the levator ani muscles are associated with
the perineum (the area surrounding the anal canal and urogenital tract) and also attach to the tail vertebrae.
The rectococcygeus muscle forms part of the hind wall of the dog’s trunk around the anus and the attachment of this muscle on the tail helps to support, anchor and stabilise the anal canal and the rectum. The levator ani
muscle similarly surrounds the genitalia and the rectum and helps to contain the contents of the pelvic cavity.
Both of these muscles also have roles in moving the tail (either up and down and from side to side) and in
movements involved in the process of defecation.9 Tail-docking involves the removal of muscle, tendons and
vertebrae.

Cutting off the tail therefore affects muscles involved in important functions such as defecation and
maintaining the strength of the pelvic musculature. From the mid-1980s onwards it has been suggested that
these muscles may fail to develop properly in a puppy after docking, or may degenerate if an adult dog is docked.
There is evidence that flat-faced (brachycephalic) breeds, such as the Boxer, which are traditionally tail-docked,
have a predisposition to perineal hernia, and also that the levator ani and coccygeus muscles are not fully
developed in docked Corgis as compared to long-tailed Corgis.

Urinary incontinence (sphincter mechanism incompetence) is related to inadequacy of the pelvic muscles.
Urinary incontinence in bitches has been found to be more common in breeds such as the Old English Sheepdog,
Rottweiler and Doberman (traditionally docked breeds), while there was a reduced risk in the Labrador
Retriever and the German Shepherd (traditionally undocked dogs). The association between tail docking and
acquired urinary incontinence was independent of other factors such as the size of the dog.4,9 In large breeds it
has been estimated that the incidence of urinary incontinence in spayed female dogs is as high as 30% and a
1997 review in Veterinary Record concluded that ‘Docking itself appears to be a risk factor’.

3.2 Movement, communication and behaviour

Most animals whose lifestyles require agility have tails; the dog’s tail both supports and stabilises the back
and aids balance in various activities. 4,8

Dogs’ tails (i.e. the tail’s carriage and movement) are very important in communicating the dog’s emotional
state and mood, including friendliness, dominance, submission and antagonism. This applies equally to the dog’s
relationship with people and with other dogs. It is clear that removing the tail deprives a dog of what the British
Veterinary Association refers to as a ‘vital form of canine expression’. Docking can lead to misunderstandings
in social interaction with people and with other dogs, which could have serious consequences. In particular,
children may find it much harder to understand the mood and intentions of a dog whose tail has been removed.4,8
Dogs without tails and those with tails may find it difficult to communicate with each other efficiently and this
could lead to increased aggression.

The pain and distress caused by tail-docking may also negatively affect the socialisation process in puppies.
A 2003 review points out that ‘docking is typically carried out just before the critical formative period of a dog’s
life, in which most of its enduring social skills and behaviours are established. Since the impact of chronic pain
on our own ability to function is unquestioned, the justification for subjecting any dog to this experience needs
careful consideration’.4

4. DOES TAIL-DOCKING PREVENT INJURY?

4.1 Evidence from veterinary clinic records

A common argument of the proponents of tail-docking is that dogs with undocked tails are likely to suffer tail
injuries. This view is not supported by the evidence that exists from records of dogs attending veterinary clinics,
which indicate that tail injury requiring veterinary attention is a relatively rare event. In addition, although there
is a lack of large-scale controlled studies of docked and undocked dogs of the same breed, the evidence that
exists does not support the claim that undocked dogs are at higher risk of tail injury.

The records of over 12,000 dogs in the small animal practice teaching unit of the Royal (Dick) School at
Edinburgh, included only 47 cases of tail injury. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in
the rate of tail injuries (fractures, lacerations, skin problems, etc.) between docked and undocked dogs.11,4
In Australia an analysis of 2000 visits to an animal emergency clinic found only 3 cases of tail injuries, all of
which were due to problems that arose just post-docking.

A 1996 study of veterinary records from 10 clinics in Denmark found that out of 70,000 dogs treated in a year
there were 26 incidents of tail injuries (i.e. a rate of 4 tail injuries per 10,000 treated dogs). The report
commented that tail injury is a ‘relatively rare injury’.12 On the basis of these records, there was no difference
between the number of tail injuries in undocked dogs from traditionally docked breeds (i.e. traditionally docked
before a ban in 1991) and in traditionally undocked breeds.

In addition, it has not been demonstrated that tail damage in adult dogs is particularly difficult to treat and
that it creates more suffering than the acute, and possibly chronic, pain caused by docking of neonatal dogs.4
The review of tail-docking in 2002 by Defra’s Animal Welfare Veterinary Team pointed out that basic first aid
would probably be adequate to treat most cases of tail injury.

4.2 ‘Working dog’ breeds and lifestyle

A common argument of the proponents of tail-docking is that the lifestyle of dogs of ‘working breeds’ puts them
at increased danger of tail injury. This is unconvincing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of dogs
of traditionally working breeds are now kept as companion animals or for showing, rather than for work.
According to Defra’s review of the issue, ‘true working animals constitute only a very small portion of dogs
within the UK... It is also both improper and unsubstantiated to suggest that all puppies in any litter, working
or non-working, will suffer tail injury in later life and thus should all be docked soon after birth as a
precautionary measure’.8

There is considerable inconsistency in the arguments put forward for docking certain breeds and not others.
These relate both to the claim of increased risk of tail injury and to the claim that long-haired breeds become
soiled with faeces around the tail area. According to a 2003 review of the issue in the Australian Veterinary
Journal, for almost all breeds that are docked, there is a corresponding breed that traditionally engages in the
same kind of activities but is not docked, which ‘calls into question the veracity of the argument’.4

The review of tail-docking by Defra’s Animal Welfare Veterinary Team in 2002 pointed out a number of
inconsistencies that strongly suggest that the motivation for docking is cosmetic, more one of breed standards
and tradition than of preventing injury or fouling of the dog:8

• Foxhounds and sheepdogs are the most common working dogs that are undocked, yet have an
extremely active life involving moving in woodland and scrub. The Defra review states that
there appears to be no evidence that they suffer damaged tails.
• A number of breeds of spaniels (Cocker, Springer, etc.) and terriers (Jack Russell, Airedale,
West Highland, etc.) and Old English sheepdogs are still docked, but there are anomalies within
each variety. Thus some spaniels -Cavalier King Charles, Irish Water and others - are undocked.
Although many terriers are docked, others - such as Bedlington, Bull, Skye - are not docked.
Many large breeds, similar to the Old English, that were formerly used as guard dogs for sheep
flocks, such as German Shepherd, Pyrenean, and others, are undocked.
• Border terriers, trained to kill foxes and move underground, may be docked or undocked.
• The fox itself is a canine that has no trouble moving above or underground with a full tail. The
Defra review points out that there is no evidence that foxes suffer tail injuries related to their
physical form or behaviour.

The fact that some breeds of working dog are docked and that other breeds that work in similarly rough
terrain are not docked suggests that it is not necessary to dock working dogs’ tails to prevent injury and that
in reality docking is being carried out for cosmetic reasons. Moreover, most docked dogs are kept as companion
animals or as show dogs and there can be no argument for docking their tails.
Some claim that docking is necessary to prevent long-haired breeds becoming soiled with faeces around the
tail area. The Defra review stresses that Afghan hounds, Bearded Collies and Maltese terriers have long-haired
coats and tails and do not require docking to avoid fouling of the tail region, ‘but rather proper and careful
grooming which can include clipping hair in that region by the owner. This is non-invasive, less painful and
indicative of a better approach to animal welfare’.

5. VIEWS OF THE VETERINARY AND RELATED PROFESSIONS (please see the link for this part)

7. SUMMARY

• Tail-docking is an amputation involving cutting or crushing skin, muscle, nerves, tendons and
bone and cartilage connections.

• Tail-docking definitely causes acute pain to puppies and is thought to also cause long-term pain
due to pathological nerve activity as a result of tissue damage and the development of
neuromas.

• Neonatal dogs, as with other young mammals, are likely to feel pain just as intensely, if not
more so, than more mature dogs.

• Important muscles of the pelvic and perineal region of the dog continue onto the dog’s tail and
attach to the tail vertebrae. There is evidence that docking weakens the muscles involved in
defecation and in maintaining the strength of the pelvic diaphragm, leading to increased risk of
faecal incontinence, perineal hernia and urinary incontinence in bitches.

• The removal of the tail deprives the dog of an important means of expression of its intentions
and emotions and can lead to misunderstandings with both people and other dogs. The pain and
distress caused by docking may also compromise the socialisation process in puppies.

• The removal of the dog’s tail may reduce the strength of the dog’s back and compromise its
balance and agility.

• Tail injuries are relatively rare (for example, 4 per 10,000 dogs treated in clinics) and the
evidence does not indicate that undocked dogs have an increased risk of tail injury. It is not
acceptable to dock the tails of huge numbers of puppies simply to avoid a small number of
possible tail injuries in adult dogs, particularly as most of those injuries can be treated by basic
first aid.

• The overwhelming majority of dogs of traditionally ‘working breeds’ are now kept as companion
animals or show dogs, often in an urban setting, and do not engage in work or high-risk
activities.

• Within the varieties of working dogs (spaniels, terriers, guard or sheep dogs) there are striking
inconsistencies between those breeds that are docked and those that are not docked. The fact
that many working breeds are not docked even though they work in similarly rough
environments to those breeds that are docked suggests that docking is in fact being done for
reasons of cosmetics, breed standards and tradition rather than out of any real risk of tail injury
in working dogs.

• The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), the British Veterinary Association and the
British Small Animals Veterinary Association all are opposed to the tail-docking of dogs except
for the therapeutic docking of an injured or diseased tail or, in the case of the RCVS, genuinely
preventive reasons.

8. RECOMMENDATION
The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill and the Animal Welfare Bill in England and Wales prohibit mutilations including the tail-docking of dogs but allow the Scottish Executive, the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales to make exceptions.

Advocates for Animals believes that all tail-docking of dogs should be prohibited except for the therapeutic docking of an injured or diseased tail.

I had to chuckle at the first link bc of the irony of how they "do it to avoid tail damage" - ! Um, so they do themselves exactly what they purport they're trying to prevent. That really strikes my irony funny bone a bit :p.

I read the stats, but I'd want to know the details of those stats rather than take them at face value. Meaning, what kind of injuries were sustained...a nick / a cut / a break / a what? Statistics can be manipulated to mean anything, so the details of the stats are very important.

This part, though, actually made me toss the whole organization out on its butt:

2. For reasons of hygiene

Long haired, thick coated breeds like the Yorkshire Terrier and Old English Sheepdog are docked to avoid the hair around the base of the tail becoming fouled by faeces. Even with constant grooming and washing, such fouling is unpleasant. If allowed to get out of hand, it can lead to severe problems of hygiene, or even flystrike and subsequent infestation by maggots. Hygiene problems can be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether by docking.

If a person is going to use POOP in the fur as an excuse or recommendation to amputate a tail, then that makes the whole thing 100x more suspect to me. I'm sorry but a dog owner can and should take care of *any* breed's bum area (tail or no tail) to avoid draggers or whatnot. Pfeiffer has a full tail, Marcel and Wylie are docked...and guess what...Pfeiffer actually has the LEAST incidence of ever having a poop-in-fur prob.

--That 2nd link is amazing read - so I posted it almost in its entirety. Very thorough article, thanks for sharing it! :)

The second link was so informative. I read the entire thing and it just makes me feel even more strongly about not docking. Is it even possible, though, to change the AKC standard for yorkies or all dogs, to eliminate docking?

I do agree the hygiene part seems pretty ridiculous...especially when we hear the term "but bath" here anyways...I am finally willing to admit...they are times I break out a baby wipe to wipe rhe bottoms of my short tailwd dogs. So its really a moot point to me and rather silly to use it in an argumet for docking justification.

Anecdotally, most of Lucy's poops are small and firm. Nothing sticks. I do take a clipper to her hind quarters every so often. Also,when she does her business, she lifts her tail and nothing gets soiled. She's a little lady.:)

Very interesting thread. Still glad my dog had his tail docked and dews removed as an infant. The moment I see empirical long-term studies from noted specialists that there are overall net health benefits to the Yorkshire Terrier not having a tail or dew claws, I'll be picking out my future dogs with tails/dews, but certainly not until then.

What is far more troublesome to me than dogs with docked tails/dews are those dogs bred deliberately to have known and recognized health and function problems, such as the huge-headed/shouldered, pushface bulldog with its narrow pelvis, the outrageously wrinkled breeds, the overly long-backed breeds and push-faced breeds with pop eyes and obvious trouble just breathing and sometimes seemingly just walking. After seeing the BBC documentary about the many health problems of people breeding dogs specifically for the purpose of creating exaggerated features pleasing to the judge's eye or current popular thinking of what is preferable while creating functional problems for the dog's daily existence, I realized many breeds lately do have pretty bad problems to live with because of popular opinions. So before changing a lot of things about dogs from what has worked successfully for years for them, I always hang back and wait to see whether current popular thinking really works out best for each dog in the long run.

I like the look of a docked tail and a intact tail. I wouldnt be upset if the standard changed but while there at it include larger yorkies and partis in the standard. I know this is Jmo

Me too! The breeder that I got Max from (I wouldn't recommend her) said that his tail has never been docked. I believed her at first but now I'm not so sure. His tail is longer than a docked tail, but waaaaay shorter than any undocked tail I've ever seen on a yorkie.

Thats a problem too there is no consistency in the docked tail length by these breeders that are doing it so why do it. My Chachi barely has a tail

:thumbup:

I love Brody's intact tail...not keen on Mia's way too short docked tail...I wish hers was intact as well. Both have dew claws.

Just for fun info...I may also 'like' the Yorkie mid length dock "look" and tail hair cascade, but, I like the 'look' of a Ferrari parked in my yard, keys in my hand...it's what I might have to do to get one, and what damage may occur that stops me. :p

I think a lot of what is done is purely for cosmetic reasons, unnecessary, and dangerous, and if the dog were given the choice, what would s/he want? But I suspect people who do dock tails and remove dew claws are unaware of the real truth and/or only do them to conform to the standard and only changing the standard would protect from physical alteration/mutilation. I've had people tell me they'd rather not dock tails and remove dew claws, but wouldn't be able to sell the puppies if they didn't...and wouldn't be able to keep them all, either...and especially wouldn't be able to show them. It would be a show dog career ender for them. They don't want/like to, but feel they must.

Truthful, accurate education facilitates choice, and makes the right choice much easier to make. Unfortunately, the final owner does not usually/always get the choice...the dog never does...since the decision as to what physical alterations are made typically happens long before the newborn pup has found a forever home...during its first week of life.

This thread has been very informative. Thank you all for the information. :)

I live in Northern Ireland where its now illegal to dock dogs tails so even though its the standard for this breed it cant be done

Jeanie - I so agree with what you're saying in the 2nd paragraph! Ugh, the breeding for things that are unhealthy, deadly, etc just for the goal of money or winning shows makes me ill.

I hear you on the desire for empirical long-term studies, but I'm curious why you wouldn't want those before allowing their tail to be amputated (and claws, ears etc)? As a nurse, we always look for studies to prove you *should* perform a surgery or any intervention that alters the body...instead of doing the surgery automatically and keep doing it until there are studies in the future to show you shouldn't do it. Do you know what I mean? In the medical field, if we removed body parts or did other permanent alterations as part of preventive medicine *without proof*...holy heck... the whole field would be in prison. Me included :p!