The arguments for and against docking tails

[ycbm]

There aren’t any spaniels with short fat tails.

Not yet, no, because it's too easy to cut puppies' tails off. If that was magically removed as a possibility, it would surely be as quick to breed spaniels with shorter stronger tails as it has been to breed spaniels whose eyes pop out of their heads?
.

 

[Clodagh]

Not yet, no, because it's too easy to cut puppies' tails off. If that was magically removed as a possibility, it would surely be as quick to breed spaniels with shorter stronger tails as it has been to breed spaniels whose eyes pop out of their heads?
.

I think that took many, many generations.

 

[ycbm]

In general breeding for just one specific thing (ie shorter tail) can be disastrous for a breed as some people will focus on the one thing and ignore other important points. Anyone breeding should look at the overall dog not just one or two particular virtues.

It is possible to do more than just breed for the tail.
.

 

[ycbm]

And the amount of 'wastage'/extra dogs would be shocking, in the intervening generations.

Most spaniels are sold as pets aren't they?
.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Why ask people who actually own and breed dogs, then dismiss their lived experience?

 

[ycbm]

Why ask people who actually own and breed dogs, then dismiss their lived experience?

I'm asking questions, not dismissing anything.

As things stand, I'll take the BVA position over the anecdotal evidence presented so far on this thread, but that could always change.
.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Well by way of reply, you're suggesting that breeding for one physical trait is somehow 'quick' and that all the 'spare' dogs will end up in pet homes. Which I'm sorry, is just nonsense.

In terms of their 'recommendations', the BVA and KC in my experience, will always keep their options open, as they need income and registrations/entries.

 

[ycbm]

you're suggesting that breeding for one physical trait is somehow 'quick

I specifically asked people who breed how long it would take.

 

[blackcob]

I don't breed but am put in mind of the attempts to breed a bobtailed boxer - makes for interesting reading if anyone's bored on a bank holiday - Genetics Can Be Fun, Dr Bruce Cattanach. And no I'm not claiming this is the solution, far from it, there were many issues with the experiment, lots of 'wastage' and no selection for working ability involved, and I don't think he actually achieved his goal after all that. There would be zero appetite for doing this in cocker spaniels, I'm sure. I'm just fascinated at how quickly a 'boxer' appeared after the outcross.

 

[CorvusCorax]

It has been discovered that some top Boxer studs were dyed or tattooed to hide genetic faults ('but he was perfect otherwise'), so I'll reserve judgement....

(Not slagging, the two boxers I see twice a week with full tails are from health tested parents, win in the showring and work well...there are good people, and chancers, in every breed).

 

[stangs]

Most spaniels are sold as pets aren't they?

It's working lines that would need short tails bred in the most, and imo there's not many 'pet' homes that can meet the needs of those lines.

 

[suebou]

I'm asking questions, not dismissing anything.

As things stand, I'll take the BVA position over the anecdotal evidence presented so far on this thread, but that could always change.
.

Ycbm, I fully respect your opinion, but the data presented to the Scottish government and the multi party animal welfare committee was a very long way from anecdotal. It was collected over eight years, data led, peer reviewed and accepted by members Of a committee predisposed to a docking ban. It demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that shortening tails at under three days, by a vet, using local anesthetic and pain relief if needed, is far less painful, invasive or traumatic than docking an adult dog. The operation and aftercare is disliked by those involved (who were indeed, prepared to stand up and say so) and frequently causes dogs who are terrified of any one touching their quarters. This includes police and military dogs who have been put down, rather than allowing them to undergo major spinal surgery with a long recovery. None of this is anecdotal. I am ONLY talking about working spaniels who suffer incredibly when injuries happen as an adult. We were unable to find ONE working spaniel with a shortened tail who suffered the injuries I have witnessed (not much in themselves) and the horrible pain fill recovery from amputation as as adult. Not just aimed at ycbm, but pleas, please do not allow emotion based ‘feelings’ to allow the FACTS to be subsumed in a genuine welfare issue. I accept that working dogs/ shooting may not bring joy to your lives but please do not tar, me and 000’s of dog owners of barbarism when working spaniels and their welfare drove everything we did in Scotland to overturn an ill thought through piece of legislation which caused untold suffering over its ten year life.

 

[druid]

Surely no one is doing it without LA in this day and age?

There definitely are.

Do you use an anaesthetic when docking your pups?

Yes, Lidocaine ring block and a bupivicaine and buprenorphine splash block

 

[SilverLinings]

Interestingly the avoidance of injury is only the one reason that has been given over the years for docking; for example, until 1796 tail docking in England was used to identify dogs exempt from tax (working dogs were exempt from the tax that had to be paid by owners for pet dogs). Other reasons have included rabies-avoidance (the reason the Romans docked), so they can turn faster at speed, and to make sure that criminals couldn't grab guard dogs by their tails(!).

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvfru/52/4090809.htm

The current official/commonly given reason may be to avoid injury, but a huge amount of docked dogs appear to be going to pet homes: all my local tack shops/feed merchants/farm supplies places and local papers advertise docked spaniels (cockers and springers) on a regular basis, with no mention of them being intended for a working home (in fact most of them just state that they are good with children etc and would make good family pets). This, combined with the figures stated by the RCVS, make the justification and practice unjustified in my eyes (based on the evidence I have seen, which I accept may be different to the experience of others). I accept that docking may be required (and performed) at any point in the dogs life due to injury, but this includes breeds that aren't traditionally docked. I have seen puppies being docked and older dogs having their tails amputated, and it seemed a much less unpleasant experience for the older dogs (GA, pain relief etc).

I have always had cockers, first was docked and subsequent ones have all had long tails. None of them have ever had any kind of tail injury (I realise one person's experience is a small sample size), and watching how they use their tails to balance (hence the tail-circling when running) and communicate has really opened my eyes up to how docking is removing something of use to the dog, not just a useless appendage.

 

[skinnydipper]

and watching how they use their tails to balance (hence the tail-circling when running)

You've just reminded me of this video, watch how he uses his tail.

 

[ycbm]

Ycbm, I fully respect your opinion, but the data presented to the Scottish government and the multi party animal welfare committee was a very long way from anecdotal. It was collected over eight years, data led, peer reviewed and accepted by members Of a committee predisposed to a docking ban. It demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that shortening tails at under three days, by a vet, using local anesthetic and pain relief if needed, is far less painful, invasive or traumatic than docking an adult dog. The operation and aftercare is disliked by those involved (who were indeed, prepared to stand up and say so) and frequently causes dogs who are terrified of any one touching their quarters. This includes police and military dogs who have been put down, rather than allowing them to undergo major spinal surgery with a long recovery. None of this is anecdotal. I am ONLY talking about working spaniels who suffer incredibly when injuries happen as an adult. We were unable to find ONE working spaniel with a shortened tail who suffered the injuries I have witnessed (not much in themselves) and the horrible pain fill recovery from amputation as as adult. Not just aimed at ycbm, but pleas, please do not allow emotion based ‘feelings’ to allow the FACTS to be subsumed in a genuine welfare issue. I accept that working dogs/ shooting may not bring joy to your lives but please do not tar, me and 000’s of dog owners of barbarism when working spaniels and their welfare drove everything we did in Scotland to overturn an ill thought through piece of legislation which caused untold suffering over its ten year life.

My reference to anecdotal referred to what had previously been stated on the thread. I have accused nobody of barbarism at any time.

 

[GSD Woman]

Leaving tails on traditionally docked breeds is becoming more common in the USA. Many sports people want the tails on for better balance. A friend has the top agility boxer in the country and he is natural. Another friend wanted an undocked Aussie. The breeder normally docks so my friend knew she was taking a crap shoot on a blue merle male at the age of 3 days.

I haven't seen a puppy actually docked in person in over 20 years. It was a snip, a stitch and back with mom. There was one squeak each. I've also been there for tail amputations and they are way nastier. But I've always wondered why breeds such as Great Danes and Labs who have a large incidence of tails injuries don't have their tails docked.

Most of the docking that I know of is done by the breeders. Some band. And some still protest the idea of dogs from Europe being imported and shown with tails. "The Rottweiler standard calls for a docked tail!" No doody, I saw that in a breed magazine some years ago.