Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly (Post 4502257)

The dog doesn't need his tail to be happy, healthy, run, work, play, live his life - he needs his legs.

tails are not vital to the health or well-being of a dog's life as a leg is.

Originally Posted by GrammyNina (Post 4502286)

My yorkie is docked but if I had known before hand I would have requested for them not to do that. I hate that her tail is docked, it doesnt look right to me. Looks even worse when the hair is short. :
(

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly (Post 4502278)

I wonder if those who are so against the pain of tail docking in 3-day old dogs feel just as strongly about dew claw removal? If your dogs have their tails, do they have their dew claws?

Should that procedure be banned also? Pups cry just as much from that procedure, if not more.

If not, why not?

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly (Post 4502257)

The dog doesn't need his tail to be happy, healthy, run, work, play, live his life - he needs his legs.

Your argument of keeping statistics on missing parts vs. present parts is a non-starter, as tails are not vital to the health or well-being of a dog's life as a leg is. Since legs are actually used as part of daily life when arising, lying down, walking, running, jumping, sitting, etc., their injuries would by far surpass that of tail injury. Besides, in the real world - the whole world over, statistics of tail injury only work if the injuries are actually reported by owners and reported by the vets - and likely rural, farm and deep urban and third world country areas where dogs get little care have very few tail injuries cared for by anybody, let alone vets and very little vet reporting to any oversight or fact-gathering agency. Broken legs even get left to self-heal, so imagine how little a tail injury gets tended to professionally and pain medication given.

Dogs are changing in the natural selection process of breeders, not actual natural selection/evolution, except maybe the few wild packs in deepest Africa and South America and even there game wardens govern some aspects of their lives, which nature would normally govern, usually removing them from the gene pool. In the past, as hunters, dogs used tails as rudders when going into water after prey or during migration of the pack across water or to communicate from afar but very few toy Yorkies today need to hunt through water to live, migrate or to communicate to another field as part of their daily lives.

In 100,000 - 200,000 more years, if left to pure natural selection, dogs might very well lose their tails as they are now living lives of domestication and don't need them to function in their current incarnation. But as breeders are taking over the role of natural selection in dog traits, actual evolution has nothing to do with their appearance and structure now as Mother Nature has been replaced by breeders choosing which features they want in dogs. One day, Yorkie breeders may decide they want shorter muzzles, larger eyes, tinier frames and curly tails - as dogs today nor Mother Nature govern their physical attributes. It's entirely up to us what our dogs look like and the qualities of their lives.

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly (Post 4502257)

The dog doesn't need his tail to be happy, healthy, run, work, play, live his life - he needs his legs.

.

Originally Posted by ladyjane (Post 4502329)

The following debunks that theory:

Jiff The Pomeranian Is Fastest Dog On Two Legs, According To Guinness World Records (VIDEO)

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4502188)

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.

Originally Posted by Cha Cha (Post 4502217)

A human is ok having a body part cut off their infant, newborn child, but not a puppy. To say it sounds awful.

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly (Post 4502278)

I wonder if those who are so against the pain of tail docking in 3-day old dogs feel just as strongly about dew claw removal? If your dogs have their tails, do they have their dew claws?

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4502314)

Our Pfeiffer has both her tail and her dew claws and we have no problems whatsoever with either. At spay time, I asked my vet her opinion of removing dew claws, and she stated it's really not necessary in the vast majority of dogs, if ever really.

I would be fine if my other 2 had their tails and dews too, honestly.

I wouldn't have a problem if dew removal was banned too if it's cruel to the animal and unnecessary. I understand that some think it's necessary for hunting dogs, and I can't say that it is really true or isn't as I don't have any adequate statistics one way or another. My sister has a hunting dog and his dew claws are intact -- as a physician, she couldn't ethically support the removal of them based upon the purported "benefits" usually given in support of removal.

I see any human preferences or conveniences as secondary when it comes to interventions like this. That's just the way my soul works and what my heart dictates.

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins (Post 4502484)

:thumbup:


Removal of dew claws


Contrary to some opinion, the removal of dogs' dew claws is not currently illegal under the Animal Welfare Act.
While it is illegal under the mutilations clause of the Act to carry out a prohibited procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of a protected animal otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment, permitted procedures are listed in the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007.
Schedule 1 of the regulations lists the removal of the dew claws of dogs as a permitted procedure. Schedule 9 goes on to clarify that anaesthetic must be administered except where the dog is a puppy whose eyes have not yet opened as per the Veterinary Surgeons Act. Therefore legislation in relation to dewclaws remains unchanged and a layperson or veterinary surgeon may continue to remove the dewclaws of puppies whose eyes have not yet opened.
The Kennel Club's position is that it does not support the cosmetic removal of dew claws. It does recognise however that in certain individual circumstances the removal of dew claws is in the best interests of a dog's welfare.
It should also be noted that there is no requirement within any of the Kennel Club Breed Standards that dew claws must be removed.
Last updated - July 2014

- See more at: Removal of dew claws ? The Kennel Club


Allowed FOR NOW in certain circumstances. Further reading, elsewhere, will show that MOST dogs have no problems at all EVER with their dewclaws and that they are actually used as thumbs.


There is a chance that our appendix may burst at some point in our lives. Appendicitis is often FATAL in children. The appendix has NO KNOWN function. Yet, we do not remove the appendix from our 2 day old infant children.


Just saying.