Tail Docking - Yes or No

[SirTeddykins]

Hi Nancy,


Biased just refers to the fact that only one side was presented by the CDB which was used to then support their opinion whereas the PetMD link presented pros and cons and then confirmed their support based on all evidence. If that makes sense? It doesn't discredit the CDB's stats, it just weakens their argument because it isn't balanced.


Gemy,


Thanks for the archive link! I do look through archives but I also like to engage in "live" discussion. Firstly, because it is often more interesting for me to be engaged in a discussion rather than read and archive as an outsider. Secondly, new opinions and evidence come to light in addition to new members who may or may not have been able to comment on the original thread - like me!


Anyway, thanks all. Like Gemy, I appreciate a discussion and all sides are equally relevant.


I keep learning which is great!

[gemy]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

Hi Nancy,


Biased just refers to the fact that only one side was presented by the CDB which was used to then support their opinion whereas the PetMD link presented pros and cons and then confirmed their support based on all evidence. If that makes sense? It doesn't discredit the CDB's stats, it just weakens their argument because it isn't balanced.


Gemy,


Thanks for the archive link! I do look through archives but I also like to engage in "live" discussion. Firstly, because it is often more interesting for me to be engaged in a discussion rather than read and archive as an outsider. Secondly, new opinions and evidence come to light in addition to new members who may or may not have been able to comment on the original thread - like me!


Anyway, thanks all. Like Gemy, I appreciate a discussion and all sides are equally relevant.


I keep learning which is great!

Me too about the learning! I was just so tickled pink that one of my searches actually yielded the post I was looking for! Awh the small pleasures of wee successes

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

Hi Nancy,


Biased just refers to the fact that only one side was presented by the CDB which was used to then support their opinion whereas the PetMD link presented pros and cons and then confirmed their support based on all evidence. If that makes sense? It doesn't discredit the CDB's stats, it just weakens their argument because it isn't balanced.


Gemy,


Thanks for the archive link! I do look through archives but I also like to engage in "live" discussion. Firstly, because it is often more interesting for me to be engaged in a discussion rather than read and archive as an outsider. Secondly, new opinions and evidence come to light in addition to new members who may or may not have been able to comment on the original thread - like me!


Anyway, thanks all. Like Gemy, I appreciate a discussion and all sides are equally relevant.


I keep learning which is great!

Thanks, I thought you meant that the actual study was biased.

[Mike1975]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I know tail variations exist among the Yorkie, but I don't know if breeders, who don't crop, breed for such things as tail structure.

Many yorkies in Europe have their tails curved over the back or worse the tail touches the back, giving a shih tzu appearance, upsetting the outline. Personally I don't like it. I prefer a more straight tail. As far as I know this is a trait that many breeders trying to improve.
Genetically, according to a list of traits generally agreed to be either dominant or recessive, (Ann Seranne - The Joy of Breeding Your Own Show Dog) the straight tail is dominant and the kinked or bend tail recessive.

One other thing that I have noticed is that many dogs with undocked tails are prone to a brighter color at the base of their tail. I dont know if this has something to do with the distribution of eumelanin in this particular point, considering the tan which is underside. The tip of the tail is always a darker color in order to prevent the tan from invading to the blue area.
(The color of the skin on the upper side of the tail is blue and on the under side is pink).

I was wondering whether this has something to do with docked or undocked tails. For example when the tail is docked the color particles can be distributed more evenly in a smaller area. When the tail is not docked, the same amount of color particles have to be distributed in a larger area. Could this be the reason that many undocked dogs have a brighter color at the base of their tails?
Just wondering


As far as history is concerned, the first standard as published in the "American Book of the dog" written by P.H. Coombs in 1878, didn't mention the tail at all.
https://archive.org/stream/americanb...rch/yorkshire+

In the Stonehenge book " Dogs of the British Islands" the Yorkie article is written by Hugh Dalziel. He writes:

"Yorkshire terriers. In assessing the value of points, shape, coat, and colour absorb nearly all. I would, however, give ten points for ears, and five for tail, and deduct points for cropped ears and docked tail; also for carriage of the tail over the back. There is no reason for mutilating pet dogs, and perfect tails and ears should be bred, not clipped into shape with scissors. Lady Giffard's Katie, in the engraving, has natural ears, and very good ones."

Katie and Huddersfield Ben seem to have undocked tails.

https://archive.org/stream/dogsofbri...arch/yorkshire

Here you can see Mrs Foster's PRINCE who also seems to have undocked tail
https://archive.org/stream/britishdo.../n541/mode/2up

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Mike1975

Many yorkies in Europe have their tails curved over the back or worse the tail touches the back, giving a shih tzu appearance, upsetting the outline. Personally I don't like it. I prefer a more straight tail. As far as I know this is a trait that many breeders trying to improve.
Genetically, according to a list of traits generally agreed to be either dominant or recessive, (Ann Seranne - The Joy of Breeding Your Own Show Dog) the straight tail is dominant and the kinked or bend tail recessive.

One other thing that I have noticed is that many dogs with undocked tails are prone to a brighter color at the base of their tail. I dont know if this has something to do with the distribution of eumelanin in this particular point, considering the tan which is underside. The tip of the tail is always a darker color in order to prevent the tan from invading to the blue area.
(The color of the skin on the upper side of the tail is blue and on the under side is pink).

I was wondering whether this has something to do with docked or undocked tails. For example when the tail is docked the color particles can be distributed more evenly in a smaller area. When the tail is not docked, the same amount of color particles have to be distributed in a larger area. Could this be the reason that many undocked dogs have a brighter color at the base of their tails?
Just wondering


As far as history is concerned, the first standard as published in the "American Book of the dog" written by P.H. Coombs in 1878, didn't mention the tail at all.
https://archive.org/stream/americanb...rch/yorkshire+

In the Stonehenge book " Dogs of the British Islands" the Yorkie article is written by Hugh Dalziel. He writes:

"Yorkshire terriers. In assessing the value of points, shape, coat, and colour absorb nearly all. I would, however, give ten points for ears, and five for tail, and deduct points for cropped ears and docked tail; also for carriage of the tail over the back. There is no reason for mutilating pet dogs, and perfect tails and ears should be bred, not clipped into shape with scissors. Lady Giffard's Katie, in the engraving, has natural ears, and very good ones."

Katie and Huddersfield Ben seem to have undocked tails.

https://archive.org/stream/dogsofbri...arch/yorkshire

Here you can see Mrs Foster's PRINCE who also seems to have undocked tail
https://archive.org/stream/britishdo.../n541/mode/2up

Interesting thoughts, I've seen the picture of Hutterfield Ben before, those tails looks short to me, not as long as tails where the dogs are truly undocked. Are you sure he really was undocked? Or are you just guessing?

[Mike1975]

I am guessing and ... searching

According to Mr Dalziel's exact words "deduct points for cropped ears and docked tail; also for carriage of the tail over the back." it seems, that at least at the beginning, some dogs were shown undocked, thus the deduction of points for docked tail.
The standard didn't mention the tail that particular time, so it was left in the eyes of the beholder and personal preference.


In the 1878 book "British dogs their varieties, history, characteristics, breeding, management and exhibition by Hugh Dalziel, ("Corsincon")
Mr. Dalziel writes : "tail is usually docked".

https://archive.org/stream/britishdo...e/434/mode/2up

The description of the tail in the standard seems to has been added later, but I don't know exactly when.

In the 1894 book "A history and description of the modern dogs of Great Britain and Ireland - The terriers" written by Rawdon B. Lee there is a standard with the addition of tail.

https://archive.org/stream/moderndog...e/352/mode/2up

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Mike1975

I am guessing and ... searching

According to Mr Dalziel's exact words "deduct points for cropped ears and docked tail; also for carriage of the tail over the back." it seems, that at least at the beginning, some dogs were shown undocked, thus the deduction of points for docked tail.
The standard didn't mention the tail that particular time, so it was left in the eyes of the beholder and personal preference.


In the 1878 book "British dogs their varieties, history, characteristics, breeding, management and exhibition by Hugh Dalziel, ("Corsincon")
Mr. Dalziel writes : "tail is usually docked".

https://archive.org/stream/britishdo...e/434/mode/2up

The description of the tail in the standard seems to has been added later, but I don't know exactly when.

In the 1894 book "A history and description of the modern dogs of Great Britain and Ireland - The terriers" written by Rawdon B. Lee there is a standard with the addition of tail.

https://archive.org/stream/moderndog...e/352/mode/2up

It just seems to me if the natural tail were that short, there would have never been a need to dock. I didn't know that they ever cropped ears in a terrier.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by Mike1975

Many yorkies in Europe have their tails curved over the back or worse the tail touches the back, giving a shih tzu appearance, upsetting the outline. Personally I don't like it. I prefer a more straight tail. As far as I know this is a trait that many breeders trying to improve.
Genetically, according to a list of traits generally agreed to be either dominant or recessive, (Ann Seranne - The Joy of Breeding Your Own Show Dog) the straight tail is dominant and the kinked or bend tail recessive.

One other thing that I have noticed is that many dogs with undocked tails are prone to a brighter color at the base of their tail. I dont know if this has something to do with the distribution of eumelanin in this particular point, considering the tan which is underside. The tip of the tail is always a darker color in order to prevent the tan from invading to the blue area.
(The color of the skin on the upper side of the tail is blue and on the under side is pink).

I was wondering whether this has something to do with docked or undocked tails. For example when the tail is docked the color particles can be distributed more evenly in a smaller area. When the tail is not docked, the same amount of color particles have to be distributed in a larger area. Could this be the reason that many undocked dogs have a brighter color at the base of their tails?
Just wondering


As far as history is concerned, the first standard as published in the "American Book of the dog" written by P.H. Coombs in 1878, didn't mention the tail at all.
https://archive.org/stream/americanb...rch/yorkshire+

In the Stonehenge book " Dogs of the British Islands" the Yorkie article is written by Hugh Dalziel. He writes:

"Yorkshire terriers. In assessing the value of points, shape, coat, and colour absorb nearly all. I would, however, give ten points for ears, and five for tail, and deduct points for cropped ears and docked tail; also for carriage of the tail over the back. There is no reason for mutilating pet dogs, and perfect tails and ears should be bred, not clipped into shape with scissors. Lady Giffard's Katie, in the engraving, has natural ears, and very good ones."

Katie and Huddersfield Ben seem to have undocked tails.

https://archive.org/stream/dogsofbri...arch/yorkshire

Here you can see Mrs Foster's PRINCE who also seems to have undocked tail
https://archive.org/stream/britishdo.../n541/mode/2up

Very interesting that breeders are looking to perfect tails too. Makes sense. I am fond of both docked and undocked tails, and like every trait, there are some I prefer over others.

Your comments on the color of skin are interesting too. One of my boys has a darker saddle and his skin was bluish in that area until recently. Looks pink now. Have you observed that happening as a Yorkie ages?

[Mike1975]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I didn't know that they ever cropped ears in a terrier.

Yes they did...
Ear cropping was banned in Great Britain in 1896 - according to Joan Gordon.

In Leslie William's book, written in 1904 "A manual of toy dogs" - after the ban on ear cropping- you can see the change A manual of toy dogs; how to breed, rear, and feed them

Ears - Small V-shaped, and carried semi-erect or erect, covered with short hair, colour to be of a very deep rich tan.


Before :
Ears, Cut or uncut ; if cut, quite erect ; if not cut, to be small V-shaped and carried semi-erect, covered with short hair ; colour to be a deep, dark tan.



I would also like to add an article published on Yorky Club Magazine written by Hugo Ibanez-Hornung

A Tale of Tails

Yorky Club Magazine - United by passion for Yorkies.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Mike1975

Yes they did...
Ear cropping was banned in Great Britain in 1896 - according to Joan Gordon.

In Leslie William's book, written in 1904 "A manual of toy dogs" - after the ban on ear cropping- you can see the change A manual of toy dogs; how to breed, rear, and feed them

Ears - Small V-shaped, and carried semi-erect or erect, covered with short hair, colour to be of a very deep rich tan.


Before :
Ears, Cut or uncut ; if cut, quite erect ; if not cut, to be small V-shaped and carried semi-erect, covered with short hair ; colour to be a deep, dark tan.



I would also like to add an article published on Yorky Club Magazine written by Hugo Ibanez-Hornung

A Tale of Tails

Yorky Club Magazine - United by passion for Yorkies.

Well, I'm glad they banned that.

[SirTeddykins]

This is the tail standard for the YT as per The Kennel Club (similar to AKC but in the UK)...


Tail Previously customarily docked Docked: Medium length with plenty of hair, darker blue in colour than rest of body, especially at end of tail. Carried a little higher than level of back.


Undocked: Plenty of hair, darker blue in colour than rest of body, especially at end of tail. Carried a little higher than level of back. As straight as possible. Length to give a well balanced appearance. -


See more at: The Kennel Club


I wanted to say to Jeanie (yorkietalkjilly) that I was not ignoring your contributions to the thread where you were practically screaming the benefits of tail docking with respect to injury. I am air-headed, sometimes, and I apologize. I did see them but it may have appeared I ignored them but please know this isn't the case. Your points are valid. However, my query is the benefit to the YT specifically and to the tail specifically. But, I do get what you're saying about tail injuries etc so thank you for that!


I am very adverse to a 'one size fits all' approach for anything. I respect that some working dogs, at risk shall we say, may benefit from tail docking and the UK has made that allowance. But, in all honesty, I think we all know that the YT is not a working breed and I cannot see anywhere where the docking of the YT tail has been for the breeds benefit. Agility times? Not the dogs benefit. Working dog? Doesn't apply here. High risk to injury? Let me see evidence of a YT being at any more high risk than a husky, who actually does work but does so with an intact (very long) tail.


If someone thinks the docking of the tail is not of a detriment, I find that odd. That is like me saying, "Let me crush your hand because I think a crushed hand looks better and it may get injured in the future anyway and the pain will only be temporary IN MY OPINION" I can't fathom that logically.


As someone said above, dogs use their tails to communicate and we take that away from them when we remove their tails. Can they compensate? POSSIBLY but why should they be forced to? Because we can't see any harm in it?? Well, I bet we could all walk without 2 legs but we don't force each other to accommodate our gait due to someones preference for an amputee....


It's so interesting to me how people validate this practice. I want to reiterate that I am not condemning people who practice or condone tail docking but I do challenge anyone who does to REALLY consider...are you doing this for the dog or you?? Is this for the dogs benefit or for your pocketbook/ego/lack of education/tendency to conform to rules without question? These are the questions I'd ask any breeder who engaged in this practice and I would make my purchase and recommendations accordingly.

[Mike1975]

Originally Posted by Maximo

Your comments on the color of skin are interesting too. One of my boys has a darker saddle and his skin was bluish in that area until recently. Looks pink now. Have you observed that happening as a Yorkie ages?

Are you referring to the base of tail or in the full coat color?

From my observations and assuming the texture is correct, the color of the skin indicates the color of the hair. Both in blue and tan areas.
Dark bluish skin = a wonderful dark steel blue hair color
dark flesh color/pink = deep golden hair color

In senior yorkies (7-8+yo) I have noticed that the blue skin becomes lighter.
The same applies to the pink skin.


Some yorkies also have running tan at the base of their tail, meaning that the tan is invading the blue area. The blue on the base of tail is surrounded by tan. You have tan on the underside of the tail and the breeches, and blue only on the upper side of tail. (a small stripe).
That is why the standard asks for a darker color especially at the tip, where the blue and pink skin eventually join.
This is essential because it is like a guard, keeping the gold from running out of its territory.


A bit off-topic but there is a very interesting article written by Joan Gordon concerning the coat and color.
Color & Texture by Joan Gordon

[gracielove]

Most of the purebred breeds that have docked tails have a history of hunting or ratting that made the docking necessary. Most of the smaller terrier breeds were bred to be placed in small areas such as holes in the ground and inside walls to search for and kill rodents. Docking the tail was done to keep rodents from latching onto the tail with their teeth in the confined space. Although the dogs naturally love doing their assigned task I think perhaps the actual hunting event in itself is more cruel than the docking when preformed properly.

Some hunting breeds had docking done to prevent the furry tail from being entangled in the thick brush that the dogs would run through as they did their job. Breeds used for fighting and security purposes had ears docked closely to the head so that when fighting or attacking a victim the ears were not bitten. Most purebreds were developed for a specific job and not for people who wanted a particular look in their pet.

In Europe and in some parts of the US uninformed and uncaring breeders often docked the tails of the litters they bred in unsanitary and cruel procedures. Many pictures of dockings gone bad were presented in the EU when the debate about docking was going on. Certainly no animal should have to endure such amateurish procedures for any reason.

Everyone has their opinion on this subject but I am against laws that flatly prevent people from docking under proper sanitary conditions by a trained professional. We can't seem to get laws passed to even stop the cruel puppy mill industry that tortures and abuse thousands and even millions of dogs each day in this country. Puppy mills dock the tails of their pups in the filthy conditions that they live in. Getting rid of puppy mills is first on my agenda and that would eliminate most of the bad docking done in the USA. A good breeder that wants their pups to conform to the standard and has the tails docked at their vet's office is not a problem for me. I am concerned about the breeder dogs and cats that sit in cages for years at a time without being bathed or any vet care, without a kind word or a comfortable bed throughout their life time and then are unceremoniously killed by their owners when they cannot produce anymore.

[Wylie's Mom]

Anyone interested in this subject should definitely watch the tail docking videos on youtube, to decide whether this is a painful or not painful procedure...and to simply just educate yourself on the process.

As far as any data regarding tail injury increases in countries where tail docking is banned - I have a problem with this data. Let's say we docked the back left leg as standard practice -- well, okay, then we would not see injury reports on the back left leg...however if we then banned the docking of the back left leg - we would then see, of course (!), a huge increase in injuries to the back left leg bc those injuries didn't previously have a way to exist. Just bc there is a "potential" for injury, it does correlate (for me) to amputating that part of the body. No way.

So, that kind of data doesn't do anything to convince me that there is substantial and increased danger in having a tail. They're MEANT to have this tail, for pete's sake. If they weren't, evolution would certainly step in at some point.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Anyone interested in this subject should definitely watch the tail docking videos on youtube, to decide whether this is a painful or not painful procedure...and to simply just educate yourself on the process.

As far as any data regarding tail injury increases in countries where tail docking is banned - I have a problem with this data. Let's say we docked the back left leg as standard practice -- well, okay, then we would not see injury reports on the back left leg...however if we then banned the docking of the back left leg - we would then see, of course (!), a huge increase in injuries to the back left leg bc those injuries didn't previously have a way to exist. Just bc there is a "potential" for injury, it does correlate (for me) to amputating that part of the body. No way.

So, that kind of data doesn't do anything to convince me that there is substantial and increased danger in having a tail. They're MEANT to have this tail, for pete's sake. If they weren't, evolution would certainly step in at some point.

You always amaze me with your ability to be the voice of reason!!!!