Tail Docking - Yes or No

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

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.

And how do you know this? Were you a dog in a past life? These are assumptions.

I'm sorry, but unless someone is God here (if there is one, that is) and/or if your dog speaks human language, no one can tell me that a dog "doesn't need or want his tail"!

[yorkietalkjilly]

I see my dog with his docked tail and there never was a dog with a tail any happier, feistier and more functional than he is!

[yorkietalkjilly]

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?

[GrammyNina]

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.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by GrammyNina

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. :
(

Are her dew claws gone, too? If so, don't you hate the look of them missing from her body?

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

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?

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.

[MarkFromSea]

Sounds like a personal choice issue to me.
It would be easier to see Gucci wag his tail if it wasn't so short.
He's so low to the ground that he does pick up a lot more debris than my other dogs ever did while out and about. With a tail, there would be more debris.

I'm neither for or against the docking of a tail. Is it any more painful than the insertion of a microchip? IDK Personal choice.

[gracielove]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

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.

Most of the long established breeds were created for a purpose. Back then keeping a dog as just a pet was a luxury for the rich. When other people had dogs it was because it had a job to do. No docking was done because the people preferred the look. It was done for a purpose.

Some of the hunting breeds had their tails docked at birth in order to keep the burrs from getting caught in the tail as they ran through the deep brush. Fighting dogs had ears cropped to keep them from being chewed off. Yorkie tails were docked to keep them from being bitten when they crawled in close spaces to get rodents. They would come upon nests of rats or mice that would bite and claw while the dog was doing it's job. Some terriers needed long coats for cold conditions and others needed the smoother coat for other conditions.

Today serious breeders keep the traditional look of their breed out of respect for their history. A person that prefers the long tail can certainly find one. Anyone that wants to stop the real suffering of dogs should do what they can to get rid of puppy mills. That would get rid of 90% of the improper docking in this country.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

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

.

The following debunks that theory:

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

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

The following debunks that theory:

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

LOL. Adorable and duly noted!

[Britster]

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.

^This is completely my thought process.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by Cha Cha

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

A lot of humans aren't okay with this, actually. I don't have an opinion either way, really, but I know a lot of moms who leave their infant babies uncircumcised.

The US is really the only country who puts such a big emphasis on it anyway. 90% of US males are circumcised. In the UK, 16% of 16-44 year-olds were circumcise. Canada is 50% overall. Otherwise, it tends to be religious reasons or some countries do circumcisions as a 'ceremony'.

I believe in Germany it's a criminal act...

[Britster]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

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?

Jackson has his.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

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.

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.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

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.

Seriously you mean as human thumbs ? With flexion extension, opposition and full rotary movement? Wow with two dogs with dew claws I have never seen that!


What I have learnt is that dew claws on sharp turns act as an extra balancing aid to tortional twisting movements.


In terms of the appendix :Scientists Finally Discover The Function of the Human Appendix : Political Blind Spot


I am reminded of a quote :"that what we know of the human body and its functions, is far surpassed by what *we don't know*|
"


We also don't do ovariohysterecomy on 6mth old female humans. or castrate male humans at 6mths old. Although for certain groups of humans not too far back maybe 50-60 years ago it was done on young adult humans....


Dogs are a part of the animal kingdom. Their physiology is different to humans in ways, we only partially know and in particular the implications of that difference. Not to mention how their brain works, although research is coming along on that front.


There are a few breeds that are borne with naturally short tails. I kind of wonder if a long tail is so necessary for communication, why did nature evolve a short tail on those breeds?


Our canines today, and the wonderfull diversity of the pure bred dogs, that the public can choose from, are from the selected breedings that humans many years ago decided to do! We mayhap have interfered with Nature. Or maybe Nature intended us to interfere. Who knows? Not I nor you.


My decision as a breeder to dock or not a tail, will be first and foremost done on *all the health factors* involved. Should I be given that choice and not mandated by law to do what-ever the law says. Thankfully I live in a province where it is still breeders choice. And this goes with dew claw removal as well.