However a fox's tail is very thickly covered with hair, and is naturally carried low. Dogs with less coat and a higher, active tail carriage, will be a totally different situation.

I think you're right about the King Canute position.

so why not breed dogs with a fox brush type of tail to suit those conditions

Yvonne

Foxes work alone, stealthily, dogs are often required to raise up game rather than creep up on it and work with humans so some breeds wag their tails vigorously at work to let their master know where they are, they are multi-taskers :)

No dog is used to work in those conditions ...

so why not breed dogs with a fox brush type of tail to suit those conditions confused


Think it would be a bit impossible on a Boxer Yvonne. :D

> in fact the fox who spends almost all of it's life in thick cover and lives underground has a full thick bushy tail. If it is true that a tail is likely to be a handicap in that kind of environment surely they would have evolved a different type of tail ?

A valid point worth thinking about.  However, foxes have evolved tails that cope very well with their habitat.  Domestic dogs have been designed by humans who perhaps didn't put the tail at the top of the list when it came to selection.  Not the dog's fault.  Answer might be to start some sort of selection process now but how long would that take and would it make any difference?

Personally I have no preference for dogs that have no tails and do not think that undocked dogs look unattractive at all.  I think the looks of dogs' tails are more important to the anti-docking protesters as so far they are the ones who seem to have mentioned "the look"

Well I think if you are correct that is worse - to deliberately hurt a baby, knowing the agony you will cause, but justifying it by thinking it will forget - barbaric!

I think that human babies are born far less developed than puppies in lots of ways - after all a human baby could not find its mother as a puppy can.  Also I know that puppies can feel pain when very young (also many have said how the puppies squeal when having tails and dewclaws done).

Sorry this came up in the wrong place - should be in reply to Isabel

Human babies are far more well-developed at birth than puppies - they can both see and hear, for starters; and respond to sounds they heard before birth, too.

Puppies squeal when they're painlessly lifted from the nest - it's an automatic response to the nest being disturbed, to bring an absent (hunting?) mother back to save them from a predator. It's not a conscious action.

Babies are blood-tested by heel-prick at a few hours old - and yes, they cry too. But they forget it.

Last year I had my first little of puppies and yes I do have boxers.  I think that at the end of the day, people should have the choice to dock or not to dock.  As long as it is carried out by an approved CDB vet who knows the correct way to carry out the proceedure then I personally don't see the problem.  I agree that the dew claw removal was slightly distressing for a few more seconds than the tail removal but then the puppies forgot about it and as soon as we were in the car everything carried on as normal. Pepsi (mum) was with the pups throughout both proceedures and never batted an eyelid. I have to agree that if it's okay for farmers to dock lambs tails then where's the difference (my sisters a farmer)  On Friday, a local farmer was fined £10,000 for cruelty to his animals but not banned from keeping animals in the future.  This man had already been caught for cruelty to animals last year too.  Various animals had been found dead and lying in amongst others starving including a pig that had been left in a cattle trailer for god knows how long without food or water.  I just get annoyed that people like that seem to get away with it while people who try to do things the right way and by the book seem to be easy targets for the government. I may be going off on one but Foxhunting, Tail docking, what's the next easy target, fishing? 

No - fishing is far too popular! It will be game shooting.

Don't know what the next easy target is likely to be but certainly seems to be that puppy farming is far too difficult!  Energies would be far better spent legislating against those than tail docking :rolleyes:

i wouldnt worry too much about the working dog side of it.....hunting goes....next tail docking......then shooting(i wouldnt be suprised).so there will be no work for them!

freedom of choice. personally i dont like docking,but then im not head over heels in love with a docked breed(so i may feel different if i was).
however i dont believe our freedom of choice should be taken away,because if it is i can see dog shows added to the list above before too long.

>freedom of choice. personally i dont like docking,but then im not head over heels in love with a docked breed(so i may feel different if i was).

That's a good point.  I didn't go out to find a breed that have docked tails.  It was the other characteristics that attracted me to my dog.  Unfortunately it could well be that a total ban on docking will see the demise of some breeds that just won't be suitable for working.  You might be right in the banning of shooting and hunting the way things are going.  It is very sad because we should celebrate our differences rather than going all out to change the things 'we' don't understand.  What happened to live and let live? What happened to trying to understand the other perspective? Instead we have this I know what's best for you because I know it's best for me.

I really don't understand the anti-docking protest.  Is it an easy target? Is it a target that looks like so easy to win so those anti-docking protesters feel power over other people.  It's got nothing to do with cruelty, that's rubbish.  Apart from the fact that it's less painful than removing dewclaws or having an invasive operation to spay or castrate, there are far worthier causes that would be much higher on the agenda.  Breeders of docked dogs do love their dogs, that's why they are docked, it's a preventative measure.Bad breeders are those who breed from dogs that are not health checked whether they dock tails or not. Where are the protesters for that?  Or is that just too difficult to deal with?

Live and let live? - yes why do humans feel the need to alter what is natural just to suit themselves?  It is always the same when some people feel their viewpoint is being challenged - out come the same 'what will be banned next' outcry.  I am all for live and let live but I can't understand why that needs to include inflicting pain on innocent animals - call yourselves animal lovers! 

Please see the link I have posted below as to why some people feel they need to 'target' docking.  The argument of it being a preventative measure is looking a bit weak against the evidence.

I deeply resent the statement that I am not an animal lover because I have my puppies tails docked. If anyone can offer real proof that it causes pain, then I will change my opinion, but please do not make statements that are offensive merely because some of us do not agree with your views. That is the last way you will get anyone to change their mind, and really does your case no favours.

Yes Fillis you are right - I did not mean to get personal and I am sorry.  I just got a bit angry at the post before mine that implied that anyone who is anti-docking is so for some sort of power struggle.

I have no problem with people not agreeing with my views per se, but  do have a problem if people refuse to look at the evidence in an unbiased way.

The argument seems to me (I am open to being corrected)

Puppies' nervous systems are underdeveloped at birth and consequently do not feel pain in the sense we understand pain and certainly anything they do feel is not as significant compared to dewclaw removal.  This is a scientific point of which no one on here has argued against scientifically.  Please post something if there is anything to the contrary.  Puppies go straight back to nursing which does not indicate distress.

Puppies needing attention to poorly removed tails is due to vets not docking in the right place? This would be my understanding of having to correct damaged vertebrae.  Are the calluses causes by cutting or banding method?  Personally I would prefer banding.  Post docking problems appear to be down to method and experience of the vet carrying out the procedure?

There is no data in this country to say that traditionally docked breeds don't suffer more than undocked dogs because obviously most traditionally docked breeds' dogs are docked.  The Swedish study showed that in one particular traditionally docked breed tail damage occurred to 1/3 of the sample once docking was banned.  If there was no difference in prevalence to tail damage between breeds wouldn't we expect to see 1/3 of the whole dog population with tail damage?

Tail damage is very painful, healing process is long and drawn out and infection is always a risk.  Some breeds are more prone to tail damage due to type of works characteristics they exhibit.

IMO there needs to be more studies to conclusively show that some breeds are or are not prone to tail damage.

Perhaps the protest would be more relevant if it was to legislate against the breeds themselves perhaps?

I think that is unbiased ;)

Yes I would be happy for breeds to be looked at individually.  I can see an arguement for stopping it in breeds where the evidence is shown that it is purely cosmetic.  Whether that is likely to be case I could not say I only know my own breed, or group even, but if the evidence points to even fairly low instances of damage, to me, the balance for docking would continue as I know from experience that the procedure, when done properly, is a very minor event in the puppies lives.

My breed is renowned for splitting its tail with its enthusiastic wagging, and it can be extremely difficult to treat. I suppose we're very lucky that they've never been docked, or we could also be facing this problem.

My breed is renowned for splitting its tail with its enthusiastic wagging, and it can be extremely difficult to treat. I suppose we're very lucky that they've never been docked, or we could also be facing this problem.

To me this indicates that docking is not done for the benefit of the dog otherwise surely your breed would be one of those that is docked?

Why is it that the RCVS does not support docking then and they must know the numbers of dogs who suffer tail injuries?  Why do we need to look to other countries (some of whom still ear crop) when the evidence in our own does not support the docking argument?

Arguments can be bandied back and forth all day, but I have yet to see any hard evidence that supports docking.

>Arguments can be bandied back and forth all day, but I have yet to see any hard evidence that supports docking.

What would you consider hard evidence?

Surely looking at traditionally docked breeds abroad where docking has been banned would be hard evidence.  One way or another if there are enough unbiased studies the evidence will fall one way or another.  If hard evidence (I am assuming you mean rigourously controlled unbiased studies) showed that certain breeds were not more susceptible to tail damage than the rest of the general dog population, (bearing in mind you would have to control for conditions) there would be no argument.

>surely your breed would be one of those that is docked?

The belief is that the tail was used in the breeds traditional role of carriage guard.

Tippytoes said:

>Tail damage at home.....well 25 years ago I owned a dally who constantly hurt his tail on the radiators in the house but I have never seen a dally docked to ensure this damage did not occur

I agree - and I have had one who regualrly split her tail going through doorways. The vet suggested docking, but we avoided that when she broke her tail through enthusiasm and she never wagged again. :(

>I have yet to see any hard evidence that supports docking.

Have another read of the Swedish studies. The reason that vets in this country don't see many cases of damaged tails in traditionally docked breeds is because the tails aren't there to be damaged. :D It's only when the status quo changes - the dogs living the same lifestyle, but now with their tails intact - that you see the full effect. When (and I'm sure it is when, and not if) there is an outright ban on tail docking no doubt the same effect will be seen here too.

If we are using proventative measures to stop dogs harming themselves, my newfi is in for a bad time. :) Due to his lack of intelligence (bless!) he is constantly hurting himself. At the moment he is recovering for a damaged ligament in his shoulder because his front paw went down a rabbit hole :D :D

Evidence to me would be figures showing how many dogs of each breed had damaged their tails, working or otherwise.

I don't really see the Swedish study as very reliable.  Also, there are many dogs in this country (maybe many are crossbreeds) that have tails similar to those that are docked and also some pedigrees that are not docked (although that breed is traditionally) - do these dogs go to the vet with damaged tails?  Surely there must be some figures showing how many damage their tails. 

I also read about spaniels who have docked tails in their working lines, but even shorter docked tails in their showing lines - any logic in that?

If the argument that docking is for the benefit of the dog, then surely JG your breed should be docked?

This is a scientific point of which no one on here has argued against scientifically.

Could you please let me know where the report is that shows puppies do not feel pain? A puppy going back to nursing does not indicate an absence of pain - we had a puppy stood on by its mother and its leg damaged, but she nursed as if nothing was wrong.

Also, if docking is in the best interests of the dog, why are the RCVS against it?

>personally i dont like docking,but then im not head over heels in love with a docked breed(so i may feel different if i was).

Likewise.

I agree that this seems to be a case of 'I don't like it so I think it ought to be banned'; an attitude very common in today's increasingly intolerant society. I personally don't like football, and the argument for banning it (because some football followers cause fights and damage and riots, and bring the entire nation into disrepute) is just as valid as the ones suggesting banning docking. But that would never happen because there's far too much money involved. An impossible target. I'm afraid it's the bully's 'let's pick on a minority' attitude that is predominant here.

I disagree it is not a case of 'I don't like it so I think it outght to be banned', but the evidence shows there is no case for it in todays society.  Things have to change as we progress and some people seem to want to carry on with things that really have no place in todays society.

Things are being done to stop football hooligans - but remember, it is not the footballers themselves (generally) that cause the trouble, so really they should not be the target.   I am against anything that unnecessarily causes pain to another living creature, for no good reason.

Also, like Fillis disliked a comment I made, I am equally unhappy with the implication I am a bully because I disagree with your view.  Ask yourselves why you are in the minority.

Edited to add: The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, at its meeting today, 12th November 1992, resolved:

Prophylactic docking to prevent injury at some unspecified time in the future is not acceptable unless the veterinary surgeon has full knowledge of the breed, the strain, and the anticipated lifestyle of the dog. At ten days of age rarely could the lifestyle of the dog be predicted with any certainty. It follows that the routine docking of many breeds under ten days of age can rarely be acceptable for prophylactic reasons.

The rest of this report can be seen at http://www.cdb.org/guidelines.htm

> there is no case for it in todays society.

I could, perhaps, see that life is different for those dogs bred, reared and living in a urban situation probably only exercised on pathways and neat and tidy parks but for those dogs belonging to people that live in the country todays society has no bearing on their lives which continues to centre around a love for the activities that their breed was developed for whether in gainful employment or as an enthusiatic amateur :)

>I am against anything that unnecessarily causes pain to another living creature, for no good reason.

So am I, infact I'll stick my neck out here and say I don't believe we have any posters on CD who wouldn't agree with that :)

sorry my post below has come out in the wrong place - should be here.

>but the evidence shows there is no case for it in todays society

The Swedish studies suggest that there is a case for it, though.

>Ask yourselves why you are in the minority.

How am I in the minority? I've already said, in this thread, that docking doesn't bother me. I don't have a docked breed, and I don't think docked tails are particularly attractive, but equally I don't think it's cruel. As long as it's done humanely I don't see a problem.

The Swedish studies suggest that there is a case for it, though.

Exactly, and I am vary surprised that nobody else picked up on this. Sweden is a tiny country population wise and especially dog wise compared to the UK, yet I have had access to HUNDREDS of vet reports detailing tail injuries in PET dogs of several breeds that used to be customairly docked. Dogs that have got injured simply by living indoors as pets.

I'm afraid it's the bully's 'let's pick on a minority' attitude that is predominant here

I was simply replying to what you yourself stated.

But I don't include myself in that minority ... ;)

>I think that human babies are born far less developed than puppies in lots of ways - after all a human baby could not find its mother as a puppy can.

There is a big difference to basic instinctual responses such as puppy finding its mother's milk, human baby searching for nipple and well developed brain and nervous systems of which human babies have.  Human babies have very well developed brains and have learnt quite a lot before they are born.  These days brain scans and high tech equipment can tell us a great deal about human and animal development and behaviour.

I know that human babies are far more developed than puppies in that they can see/hear etc BUT what I said was that a puppy can move towards its mother - a human baby cannot so in that way a puppy is far more developed.

If you roughly handle a puppy, yes it will squeal, but I haven't had a puppy squeal when gently picked up - and what does that prove anyway - puppies DO FEEL PAIN when having parts of their body altered/removed simply to comply with human desires.

When my sons had their heels pricked for blood I hated it and if I could have avoided it I would have - NO WAY would I have let that happen, whether they forget it or not, if it simply been done because it has always been done and some people think that it saves possible trouble in the future.  Maybe we should remove every babies appendix in case they get appendicitis later? (maybe without anaesthetic as they forget anyway:rolleyes:).

Human babies have not developed the ability to move towards it's mother because it doesn't need to so nature has not pushed that ability forward as she has had to do with puppies.  However human babies have had plenty of time to develop a nervous system to their very extremities so they can touch and feel their mothers and indeed hang on to her hair (if she still had much on her body :)) so you see the systems that are required are there for each animal.  The nervous system develops in the womb from the brain outwards so after 9 weeks the spinal cord finishes only at the bottom if you pinch a puppies tail it does not react, there is no nerve running into it for a few days yet.

hi
i have 3 rotties 2 are docked 1 is not and she is always hurting her tail she spins it round like a helicopter blade and it is so strong she has broken all breakable orniments in my house so i think its best all round for a rottweilers tail to be docked, not only that, there are a lot of rotties about now if they bring in docking you might get stupid people making a mess off things doing it themselves then the dogs will suffer

An unmyelinated nerve transmits impulses at around 2 metres per second which is why a pups response to stimulus is slow. It may appear that puppies do not feel pain, but this is due to the delay in their response.

None of my puppies have been anywhere like 2 metres long :)  It is my understanding that the nerve has not even developed as far as the tail let alone developed the myelin.

Isabel have you looked at either of the links I have posted.  There seems to be little evidence or support even from the RCVS that routine docking is for the benefit of the dog.

Yes I did but I also noted the title of the document "The Campaign Against the Docking of Dogs' Tails"  Have you read the information on the CDB site to balance this.  When I bred my first litter I read broadly on the subject before deciding whether to dock or not and the balance, together with what I has already observed in my dogs behaviour, for me, fell firmly in the need to dock to ensure their future safety.  Of course I was still aprehensive about the procedure but this proved to be unfounded when I actually witnessed it.

Yes Isabel - please see my post above, with a link to the cdb site.

Sorry, missed that as I thought it was just a pointer to the full guidelines and didn't clock the CDB bit :)  Doesn't necessarily mean you read the rest of the site though ;)

The heelprick test, although it hurts babies, is vital for detecting serious illnesses in time for them to be treated successfully.

>some people think that it saves possible trouble in the future.

It certainly does. That's the whole point.

The heelprick test detects 'disorders of the body's chemistry (inborn errors of metabolism)' - ie problems that will definitely happen - not that might possibly happen. I obviously agreed with that otherwise I would not have allowed my children to be tested.

How anyone can say that a puppy - even a very young puppy does not feel pain is beyond me :rolleyes:.  Many people on here have said how the puppies have squealed when having these treatments done .  I think the possible trouble in the future it saves for these puppies is that their owners get an animal that conforms to what the owner/breeder feels it should look like.  Ear cropping was also argued for at one time (and still is in some countries) - in my breed it was because long, floppy ears are prone to infection - that was shown not to be the case - but people still crop as they don't like the look of uncropped ears.

I am sorry but I just feel that to deliberately cause an animal unnecessary pain on the off chance that it may possibly one day in the distant future be unlucky enough to damage its tail/dewclaws is not enough of an argument and I find it abhorrent and medieval.  Some breeds have dewclaws as part of their breed standard and they don't have any problems - obviously some breeds are just very lucky.

>Some breeds have dewclaws as part of their breed standard and they don't have any problems

How can you be sure? It could be that they do have problems, but their aficionados consider appearance to override welfare ...

"Many people on here have said how the puppies have squealed when having these treatments done"

Pick any puppy up at this age and it will squeal the house down. That is what puppies do ;)

I don't know how you people have been picking up your puppies but mine have never "squealed the house down"   The most I ever got was a little mumble!

My experience exactly Surannon. 

Jeangenie, I myself have a breed that has dewclaws as breed standard and I have not heard of any problems.

I have found an interesting article about docking: [link]<a class='url' href='http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_24.htm'>http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_24.htm</a>[link].  In part this states:

Tail injuries in dogs are quite uncommon in practice.  Vets certainly see as many tail problems following docking as in dogs whose tails were not docked.  A noticeable number of docked puppies' tails need re-docking to remove an inflamed or infected callus, or one caused by a vertebra being left too long.  Tail injuries do not occur often enough to justify the mass removal of all tails in traditionally docked breeds.  Cat tail injuries, however, are much more common, occurring as a result of fights, and road accidents especially. Yet no-one would suggest the mass removal of cat tails to prevent possible injury at some unspecified time in the future

>Cat tail injuries, however, are much more common, occurring as a result of fights, and road accidents especially. Yet no-one would suggest the mass removal of cat tails to prevent possible injury at some unspecified time in the future

Personally I would remove the cat, but that is a totally different argument