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?