Comments on: Controversial Tail Docking – Whats Your Views?

By: Calgary

Calgary — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:31:04 +0000

Tail docking and ear cropping are mutilations and it is right that they should be banned. The more we learn about how dogs express themselves through body language to people and to other animals the more we realise the harm caused to them by these mutilations.

By: Tina

Tina — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:51:31 +0000

I think to have a dog’s tail docked or ears cropped for aesthetic reasons is absurd. On the other hand, we had to have our springer spaniel’s tail amputated after she was a year old because she kept hurting it. She would bloody the end of it, sling blood all over the furniture, carpet and people, and then lay on the floor and chew the end of it until it was worse. In her case it became a necessary surgical procedure. We have another springer spaniel that is 5 years older than her, and we’ve never had a problem with her tail.

By: jeanette fossum

jeanette fossum — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:39:50 +0000

hello,
done by a vet when the pups are 2/3 days old. it is just minor surgery.
i’ve seen Dobes, Boxers, Rotts with long tails. ugh!
give over for heaven’s sake.
i have a number of surgeries in the past, and the first week is not so great, after that, it gets better, same with docked breeds.
so, there you have it!

By: Trasna Palmer

Trasna Palmer — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:46:06 +0000

I think common sense should prevail. Those pups born with long whippy tails should be partially docked, ie leave enough thick tail so they can wag them. The same with working spaniels. Leave enough to show other dogs they are friendly but not enough to get caught up in brambles etc. I have seen undocked pet corgis with lovely tails and I rescued one which had no tail at all – very sad. I have looked after a labrador which kept damaging his tail because it was very long and he wagged it too much.

By: Peter Squires

Peter Squires — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:57:53 +0000

What I should have pointed out in my original post is that the 281 dogs with damaged tails were from just 52 veterinary surgeries. There are circa 1000 surgeries in the UK (TBC) so if these 52 were representative of them all, then circa 6000 dogs suffered tail injuries in the UK for that 12 month period and circa 2000 had to undergo adult amputation!

That is a lot of unnecessary suffering

By: diane payne

diane payne — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:26:46 +0000

i tend to keep an open mind, but to say a dog forgets in a couple of days is a bit silly. If you cut a new born babys finger off, it would forget in a couple of days, does this make it right. of course not, dogs were given tails for a reason, and that is to show other dogs and people if they are friendly or not, it is all in the dogs behaviour which shows other dogs if they are submissive or aggressive and to cut ears is just bloody stupid, totally unnecessary.

By: Lell

Lell — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:17:01 +0000

I really don’t know why docking was banned. I see so many spaniels in my local paper or on the Internet, being sold as pets and yet they are docked. Just because their parents are classed as the working type. The pups are not going to working homes so they shouldn’t have been docked surely. And yet, because I like the “show” type I can’t buy one with a docked tail!

My docked spaniels show me how happy they are all the time with their little stumpy tails. I think that the ban on docking was just another stupid law brought in.

Docking should only be done by vets, but all breeds that were traditionally docked should still be docked!!!

By: jeanette fossum

jeanette fossum — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:10:07 +0000

there is nothing wrong with tail docking. all those ar idiots, such a pain in the neck.
done correctly, the pup doesn’t even know after a couple of days.
in a year or so, i will get another Doberman, and yes, she will have her tail docked and ears cropped.
so, there you have it!

By: Peter Squires

Peter Squires — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:12:17 +0000

The Council Of Docked Breeds would like to congratulate the team on undertaking what appears to be an excellent study. We ourselves appreciate that collating worthwhile data from dog owners who are experiencing tail damage is not a simple task, due to their minds being concentrated on getting the dog well again and not on filling out paperwork. The data available to the research team is impressive.

Having said that, the timing of the research seems to be too early to establish the true effect of the tail docking ban which came into force early 2007. The research was carried out during March 2008 and March 2009 and tail damage cases were defined as any dog presented to veterinary practices within the previous 12 months (just as the ban had begun). The mean age of the controls was 4.2 years old and of the tail damage cases 3.8 years old, so the majority of dogs recorded were born before the ban came into force, when tail damage cases are expected to be far lower than since the ban.

It is our experience that damage is less likely to occur in undocked dogs before they have reached the age of twelve to eighteen months. Traditionally docked breeds ceased being docked early 2007 and the number of undocked examples being born slowly increased initially. At the time of the research, the new influx of previously docked breeds were still too young to add to the number of tail damage cases to get a true picture. The study accepts that it does not reflect differences in the risk due to the legislation.

We also note that there were 281 tail injuries recorded from a population of 138,212 dogs attending the 52 participating practises. From this it was deduced that the risk of tail damage was just 0.2% or that 500 docked dogs would only prevent 1 tail damage case. Unfortunately, this simply shows the risk as a percentage of the total dog population and does not represent the risk to undocked dogs in previously docked breeds. Conversely, a number of breeds shown to damage their tails were breeds which have NOT historically been docked.

We read with interest that undocked dogs were most likely to damage their tail in the home and that dogs which were NOT worked would be just as likely to damage their tails, both points have been put forward by the CDB for many years.

To gauge the full effect of the legislation, a repeat study would be required comparing only dogs in those breeds which were traditionally docked before the ban, were born AFTER the ban and the percentage of those that required veterinary attention to their new long tails.

This study was a giant leap forward but unfortunately, not breed specific and too early to evaluate the extent to which tail docking reduces the risk of tail damage in Great Britain, one of its primary aims.