Tail Docking - Yes or No

[gracielove]

There are about 19 recognized breeds that are naturally born without a tail or with a very short tail. They are just as happy and healthy as any dog with a tail.

As previously stated a tail docking done properly is far less painful and stressful than many optional medical procedures done on pets by veterinarians.

In the past and even today there have been abuses of the procedure preformed by incompetent breeders.

When the breeds that are docked today were first developed there were good reasons for the docking that had to do with the job the breed was created to preform. Long ago dogs were pets only to the wealthy. Most other owners of dogs kept them for a purpose such as hunting and ratting. Docking was first developed as a necessary procedure.

Breeders today continue to dock in order to preserve the historical distinctions of the breed. Many of the docked breeds are still used by many for their original purpose. Basically good breeders respect the original conformation of their breed.

I agree with Gemy in that there are far worse abuses of the breed than docking or dew claw removal. Such practices done at an early age under proper sanitary conditions by trained hands are very minor practically painless procedures. The things purebreds are suffering at the hands of puppy mills and other uninformed and careless breeders is shameful and should be against the law in civilized society. Ridding the country of such abuses should be the first priority if you are really interested in relieving the suffering of any purebred breed.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by gracielove

There are about 19 recognized breeds that are naturally born without a tail or with a very short tail. They are just as happy and healthy as any dog with a tail.

As previously stated a tail docking done properly is far less painful and stressful than many optional medical procedures done on pets by veterinarians.

In the past and even today there have been abuses of the procedure preformed by incompetent breeders.

When the breeds that are docked today were first developed there were good reasons for the docking that had to do with the job the breed was created to preform. Long ago dogs were pets only to the wealthy. Most other owners of dogs kept them for a purpose such as hunting and ratting. Docking was first developed as a necessary procedure.

Breeders today continue to dock in order to preserve the historical distinctions of the breed. Many of the docked breeds are still used by many for their original purpose. Basically good breeders respect the original conformation of their breed.

I agree with Gemy in that there are far worse abuses of the breed than docking or dew claw removal. Such practices done at an early age under proper sanitary conditions by trained hands are very minor practically painless procedures. The things purebreds are suffering at the hands of puppy mills and other uninformed and careless breeders is shameful and should be against the law in civilized society. Ridding the country of such abuses should be the first priority if you are really interested in relieving the suffering of any purebred breed.

Fair enough.


However, how would you respond to the following:


Opposition to this practice began very early in the history of the breed; Hugh Dalziel, writing about Yorkshire Terriers in 1878, declared that "There is no reason for mutilating pet dogs, and perfect ears and tails should be bred, not clipped into shape with scissors."


source:PETS: Yorkshire Terrier




I ask because, I wonder, if the practice was frowned upon even at the beginning of the standard, why have breeders not bred to conformity as an alternative to docking? Is it incompetence, challenges associated with natural conformity, no requirement; so no need? or some other reason I have not mentioned?


Keep in mind - this question is not an indictment or judgment (although I admit biased in my opinion as I do not agree with the practice) but genuine curiosity. If the breeder wants to conform to standard, why not breed for it as is done with color, size, teeth, coat etc?


For clarification, Hugh Dalziel was an expert in exhibition, breeding etc of British dogs and wrote many books, some of which can be found here:


http://www.amazon.com/Hugh-Dalziel/e/B00IRHRFP6


Obviously, I have great respect for breeders and the breed. Without breeders, I would not have my Teddy! So, please educate me! If there is no answer, fair enough. If you want to pm me and answer, fine. But, if I don't understand, I will question and I hope that is ok!

[magicgenie]

Re-reading this thread this morning I'm finding myself feeling somewhat ashamed to have caved in so many times to the requirements of a "standard" that calls for cutting off part of a puppy's tail for cosmetic reasons. I do not believe that cutting off dew claws is called for in the standard for the Yorkshire Terrier, but it is expected, so I've been taking those off as well though I see no significant reason to.
Though I don't find the cutting cruel to the level of torture, I dislike doing it. The puppies are upset to be taken away from their mom. The mom is upset to see me take her baby away. The puppies always vocalize when the tail is clamped. I always tell the babies that I'm sorry to hurt them with this barbaric little American custom.
Ideally, the standard and expectations will be changed to allow some flexibility for personal preference and this, over time, will lead to a phasing out of an unnecessary practice. More than likely the matter will be taken up legislatively, and I am sorry it will come to that.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

Re-reading this thread this morning I'm finding myself feeling somewhat ashamed to have caved in so many times to the requirements of a "standard" that calls for cutting off part of a puppy's tail for cosmetic reasons. I do not believe that cutting off dew claws is called for in the standard for the Yorkshire Terrier, but it is expected, so I've been taking those off as well though I see no significant reason to.
Though I don't find the cutting cruel to the level of torture, I dislike doing it. The puppies are upset to be taken away from their mom. The mom is upset to see me take her baby away. The puppies always vocalize when the tail is clamped. I always tell the babies that I'm sorry to hurt them with this barbaric little American custom.
Ideally, the standard and expectations will be changed to allow some flexibility for personal preference and this, over time, will lead to a phasing out of an unnecessary practice. More than likely the matter will be taken up legislatively, and I am sorry it will come to that.

Thank you for your honesty. It is valued more than you know.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

Re-reading this thread this morning I'm finding myself feeling somewhat ashamed to have caved in so many times to the requirements of a "standard" that calls for cutting off part of a puppy's tail for cosmetic reasons. I do not believe that cutting off dew claws is called for in the standard for the Yorkshire Terrier, but it is expected, so I've been taking those off as well though I see no significant reason to.
Though I don't find the cutting cruel to the level of torture, I dislike doing it. The puppies are upset to be taken away from their mom. The mom is upset to see me take her baby away. The puppies always vocalize when the tail is clamped. I always tell the babies that I'm sorry to hurt them with this barbaric little American custom.
Ideally, the standard and expectations will be changed to allow some flexibility for personal preference and this, over time, will lead to a phasing out of an unnecessary practice. More than likely the matter will be taken up legislatively, and I am sorry it will come to that.

I am *so* impressed by your open mindedness in this post, wow ! Not that I ever thought you had a closed mind - but to see a breeder just saying/thinking "maybe there is another way" - speaks volumes about your willingness to look at the issue in a very whole way, and also speaks volumes about how you feel about those precious ones in your care. Thanks for posting this, so honestly .

[Cha Cha]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

Fair enough.


However, how would you respond to the following:


Opposition to this practice began very early in the history of the breed; Hugh Dalziel, writing about Yorkshire Terriers in 1878, declared that "There is no reason for mutilating pet dogs, and perfect ears and tails should be bred, not clipped into shape with scissors."


source:PETS: Yorkshire Terrier




I ask because, I wonder, if the practice was frowned upon even at the beginning of the standard, why have breeders not bred to conformity as an alternative to docking? Is it incompetence, challenges associated with natural conformity, no requirement; so no need? or some other reason I have not mentioned?


Keep in mind - this question is not an indictment or judgment (although I admit biased in my opinion as I do not agree with the practice) but genuine curiosity. If the breeder wants to conform to standard, why not breed for it as is done with color, size, teeth, coat etc?


For clarification, Hugh Dalziel was an expert in exhibition, breeding etc of British dogs and wrote many books, some of which can be found here:


http://www.amazon.com/Hugh-Dalziel/e/B00IRHRFP6


Obviously, I have great respect for breeders and the breed. Without breeders, I would not have my Teddy! So, please educate me! If there is no answer, fair enough. If you want to pm me and answer, fine. But, if I don't understand, I will question and I hope that is ok!

I speculate, and this is pure speculation, that it is incredibly difficult to breed for a specific tail trait, and this is as big a reason as any that the YT has a docked tail to begin with, as it is impossible to tell in a new puppy how they will carry their tail and if it "meets standard" or not. I don't believe it was always about what the dog was bred to do as a reason for the docked tail to begin with. Just speculation on my part, but when creating a standard, and the only variable seen over and over is the differences of the tail and trying to come to terms on a standard, would be to eliminate the problem.

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by Cha Cha

I speculate, and this is pure speculation, that it is incredibly difficult to breed for a specific tail trait, and this is as big a reason as any that the YT has a docked tail to begin with, as it is impossible to tell in a new puppy how they will carry their tail and if it "meets standard" or not. I don't believe it was always about what the dog was bred to do as a reason for the docked tail to begin with. Just speculation on my part, but when creating a standard, and the only variable seen over and over is the differences of the tail and trying to come to terms on a standard, would be to eliminate the problem.

Tail length and carriage vary among Yorkies and I've often thought cutting it down was the easy way to settle how the tail "should" look.

[gracielove]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

Fair enough.


However, how would you respond to the following:


Opposition to this practice began very early in the history of the breed; Hugh Dalziel, writing about Yorkshire Terriers in 1878, declared that "There is no reason for mutilating pet dogs, and perfect ears and tails should be bred, not clipped into shape with scissors."


source:PETS: Yorkshire Terrier




I ask because, I wonder, if the practice was frowned upon even at the beginning of the standard, why have breeders not bred to conformity as an alternative to docking? Is it incompetence, challenges associated with natural conformity, no requirement; so no need? or some other reason I have not mentioned?


Keep in mind - this question is not an indictment or judgment (although I admit biased in my opinion as I do not agree with the practice) but genuine curiosity. If the breeder wants to conform to standard, why not breed for it as is done with color, size, teeth, coat etc?


For clarification, Hugh Dalziel was an expert in exhibition, breeding etc of British dogs and wrote many books, some of which can be found here:


http://www.amazon.com/Hugh-Dalziel/e/B00IRHRFP6


Obviously, I have great respect for breeders and the breed. Without breeders, I would not have my Teddy! So, please educate me! If there is no answer, fair enough. If you want to pm me and answer, fine. But, if I don't understand, I will question and I hope that is ok!

Each breed has its own history. The people that docked ears and tails when the breed was first developed did it for a reason, not as a matter of preference. Tails were often docked on terriers to prevent them from their tails from being bitten and then infected by the rodents they encountered inside walls and holes in the ground. I suppose they decided it was better to remove the tail early rather than have it infected and amputated later.

Most of these breeds existed many years before the advent of dog shows. Standards were written as the show business progressed. Those first shows were far less opulent than they are today. The original standards were written according to how the dog was used at that time. People who joined the show ranks later on may well have protested having to dock their pet's tails and ears but the standards were already written for the dog as it was originally intended to be used. The terrier was once a working dog unlike today where the Yorkshire, in particular, is made to be a pet rather than the ratter it was intended to be.

Today show/breeders maintain the historical characteristics of their dogs. I'm sure people who did not use their pets for ratting may have protested the docking and certainly did not have to do it back then anymore than a breeder has to do it today.

Would you not give vaccinations to your puppy because it may hurt it or cause it to develop a fever? No. People who choose to have their litter docked are not doing anymore harm than that to the pup. The puppy suffers no more than getting injections at 6 weeks of age, less really.

Certainly docking is not necessary for most terriers today but to say it is doing harm to them is taking it beyond the reality of the situation. Historically it was done to prevent harm to the breed. Today it is done basically to maintain the tradition of the breed. It seems unnecessary but it is not cruel when done properly.

Dew claw removal was done for dogs in the field to prevent them from ripping them as they ran in rugged terrain. I suppose any dog that runs in a field could harm its dew claw. It is also a pain for the owner to try to keep that dew claw trimmed properly. Having them removed a few days after birth is much easier and less painful for the pup than having it done months after birth when the connective tissue has formed and the claw is tightly attached to the paw. If the dew claw is not removed as a neonate it is probably best to leave it and just deal with the keeping it trimmed.

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by gracielove

Each breed has its own history. The people that docked ears and tails when the breed was first developed did it for a reason, not as a matter of preference. Tails were often docked on terriers to prevent them from their tails from being bitten and then infected by the rodents they encountered inside walls and holes in the ground. I suppose they decided it was better to remove the tail early rather than have it infected and amputated later.

Most of these breeds existed many years before the advent of dog shows. Standards were written as the show business progressed. Those first shows were far less opulent than they are today. The original standards were written according to how the dog was used at that time. People who joined the show ranks later on may well have protested having to dock their pet's tails and ears but the standards were already written for the dog as it was originally intended to be used. The terrier was once a working dog unlike today where the Yorkshire, in particular, is made to be a pet rather than the ratter it was intended to be.

Today show/breeders maintain the historical characteristics of their dogs. I'm sure people who did not use their pets for ratting may have protested the docking and certainly did not have to do it back then anymore than a breeder has to do it today.

Would you not give vaccinations to your puppy because it may hurt it or cause it to develop a fever? No. People who choose to have their litter docked are not doing anymore harm than that to the pup. The puppy suffers no more than getting injections at 6 weeks of age, less really.

Certainly docking is not necessary for most terriers today but to say it is doing harm to them is taking it beyond the reality of the situation. Historically it was done to prevent harm to the breed. Today it is done basically to maintain the tradition of the breed. It seems unnecessary but it is not cruel when done properly.

Dew claw removal was done for dogs in the field to prevent them from ripping them as they ran in rugged terrain. I suppose any dog that runs in a field could harm its dew claw. It is also a pain for the owner to try to keep that dew claw trimmed properly. Having them removed a few days after birth is much easier and less painful for the pup than having it done months after birth when the connective tissue has formed and the claw is tightly attached to the paw. If the dew claw is not removed as a neonate it is probably best to leave it and just deal with the keeping it trimmed.

Fine, your go right ahead and cut off tails and dew claws for whatever reasons you think are valid, and we'll leave them on for our own reasons.
I'm not terribly inconvenienced to trim my Yorkies' dew claws as part of regular grooming, and since I don't allow them to run in rugged terrain, that's a moot point in my situation. I also would never dream of selling a puppy to someone who was too busy to trim dew claws or who would consider letting their little Yorkie run around in rugged terrain.

Are you a breeder?

[ladyjane]

I am quite frankly stunned that anyone would say docking a tail hurts less than an injection. No way do I buy that. Since none of us have tails that have been chopped off, I don't see how we can assume it doesn't hurt. There are people who think that spaying a pup does not hurt and/or require pain meds because they often run around after surgery...that does not mean they are not in pain! I don't see how it is different from a human having a hysterectomy and anyone who has had one can attest to the fact it hurts like hell.

As for dew claws, I have pups with them and trimming them is no different than their regular nails. Never had any issues with dew claws.

To each his own, but if I did breed which I never ever will, you can rest assured my puppies would have tails and dew claws.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

I am quite frankly stunned that anyone would say docking a tail hurts less than an injection. No way do I buy that. Since none of us have tails that have been chopped off, I don't see how we can assume it doesn't hurt. There are people who think that spaying a pup does not hurt and/or require pain meds because they often run around after surgery...that does not mean they are not in pain! I don't see how it is different from a human having a hysterectomy and anyone who has had one can attest to the fact it hurts like hell.

As for dew claws, I have pups with them and trimming them is no different than their regular nails. Never had any issues with dew claws.

To each his own, but if I did breed which I never ever will, you can rest assured my puppies would have tails and dew claws.

Jackson's dew claw is trimmed like any other nail - all of our dogs still have their dew claws and same thing.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

I am quite frankly stunned that anyone would say docking a tail hurts less than an injection. No way do I buy that. Since none of us have tails that have been chopped off, I don't see how we can assume it doesn't hurt. There are people who think that spaying a pup does not hurt and/or require pain meds because they often run around after surgery...that does not mean they are not in pain! I don't see how it is different from a human having a hysterectomy and anyone who has had one can attest to the fact it hurts like hell.

As for dew claws, I have pups with them and trimming them is no different than their regular nails. Never had any issues with dew claws.

To each his own, but if I did breed which I never ever will, you can rest assured my puppies would have tails and dew claws.

Pfeiffer has her dew claws and we just trim them like we do all her other claws - it doesn't cause any more hassle than any other claw, lol!

And I agree, I could never be convinced that chopping off an appendage is no more painful than a subQ or IM injection - no way!

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by gracielove

There are about 19 recognized breeds that are naturally born without a tail or with a very short tail. They are just as happy and healthy as any dog with a tail.

As previously stated a tail docking done properly is far less painful and stressful than many optional medical procedures done on pets by veterinarians.

In the past and even today there have been abuses of the procedure preformed by incompetent breeders.

When the breeds that are docked today were first developed there were good reasons for the docking that had to do with the job the breed was created to preform. Long ago dogs were pets only to the wealthy. Most other owners of dogs kept them for a purpose such as hunting and ratting. Docking was first developed as a necessary procedure.

Breeders today continue to dock in order to preserve the historical distinctions of the breed. Many of the docked breeds are still used by many for their original purpose. Basically good breeders respect the original conformation of their breed.

I agree with Gemy in that there are far worse abuses of the breed than docking or dew claw removal. Such practices done at an early age under proper sanitary conditions by trained hands are very minor practically painless procedures. The things purebreds are suffering at the hands of puppy mills and other uninformed and careless breeders is shameful and should be against the law in civilized society. Ridding the country of such abuses should be the first priority if you are really interested in relieving the suffering of any purebred breed.

[Contance]

I have 10 month old yorkie and he has his tail. I don't think it would make him any more handsome to had had it docked. I vote NO to docking . Its wrong in my opinion

[Contance]

I VOTE No to tail docking