# Docked tails



## Tanusha

My dog Bonacy ( Jack Russel) bore 6 puppies yesterday. I hesitate if I should dock their tales. I like more Jack Russels docked but they say that at present docked dogs aren't admitted to European dogs show. Is that true? We live in Russia.


----------



## Guest

Tanusha said:


> My dog Bonacy ( Jack Russel) bore 6 puppies yesterday. I hesitate if I should dock their tales. I like more Jack Russels docked but they say that at present docked dogs aren't admitted to European dogs show. Is that true? We live in Russia.


Thes laws in the UK forbid you to dock tails unless you have documentation to prove that they are working dogs, AND! then you still need to find a vet to do it!


----------



## audrey597

Dont do it!!!


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Tanusha said:


> My dog Bonacy ( Jack Russel) bore 6 puppies yesterday. I hesitate if I should dock their tales. I like more Jack Russels docked but they say that at present docked dogs aren't admitted to European dogs show. Is that true? We live in Russia.


is docking legal in Russia? If you want the puppies to be shown in europe, then they'll have to be undocked. unless they are going to be worked, there's no reason to dock them at all.


----------



## hawksport

Some EU countries wont even allow the import of docked dogs. Some allow docking and the showing of docked dogs
Current tail docking situation in EU Countries


----------



## Guest

I thought JRT's couldn't be shown here anyway. Are they an excepted breed in other European countries?


----------



## inverwire

they are a kc regd breed in uk, as for docking legally docked dogs in uk can be shown so long as thereis no admision fee for public. CRAZY


----------



## Guest

inverwire said:


> they are a kc regd breed in uk, as for docking legally docked dogs in uk can be shown so long as thereis no admision fee for public. CRAZY


I thought it was the parsons that could be registered?
I see that the JRT can be shown in Europe


----------



## Guest

The Terrier Breed Group - Breed Information Centre â¢ The Kennel Club

No JRT here


----------



## Spellweaver

rona said:


> I thought it was the parsons that could be registered?
> I see that the JRT can be shown in Europe


You are right Rona - it is only the Parson Jack Russell (or the Parson Russell Terrier I think they call it) that can be shown in this country. :thumbup:


----------



## Old Shep

inverwire said:


> they are a kc regd breed in uk, as for docking legally docked dogs in uk can be shown so long as thereis no admision fee for public. CRAZY


Not in Scotland, you can't. No docking is allowed for cosmetic reasons (including dogs which are going to work).

Why anyone would want to mutilate their dog is beyond me and it's nonsense to say that a working dog will damage it's tail, so it's best removed. Using that argument, perhaps I should crop my dogs ears after all, they may get torn in the brambles.


----------



## inverwire

I was talking about showing docked dogs not docking itself. However the bva acknowledge that docking of tails saves a more serious op of full amputation later on life if dog gets injured ,emotional terms like mutation???is scare mongering showing you cant look at the issue objectivly alex


----------



## inverwire

Sorry rona i was refering to pjr


----------



## dexter

inverwire said:


> they are a kc regd breed in uk, as for docking legally docked dogs in uk can be shown so long as thereis no admision fee for public. CRAZY


no there not ! Parson Jack Russels are totally different breed.


----------



## Old Shep

> However the bva acknowledge that docking of tails saves a more serious op of full amputation later on life if dog gets injured ,emotional terms like mutation???


Can you please show me where the BVA (not individual vets!) encourage the docking of working dogs, because there was a very large piece of research carried out recently which showed that the majority of tail injuries were to non working breeds and happened in the home?

This myth (that working dogs regularly seriously damage their tails when working) needs to be challanged more often.

Anyway, if you are concerned that your working dog will damage his tail *TAPE IT UP* before he works. 

I shall endouvour to find a link to the research I mentioned


----------



## Old Shep

Cosmetic tail docking of dogs - WANSBROUGH - 2008 - Australian Veterinary Journal - Wiley Online Library

_



A survey in Edinburgh by Darke et al (1985) over a 7 year period showed that there was insufficient evidence of
statistical significance, to suggest that there is a positive association between tail injuries and an undocked tail 
and that tail docking could not be recommended as a measure to prevent tail injuries in any dog population
similar to the predominantly urban population surveyed.

Click to expand...

_If docking is needed to prevent tail injury, then why do real working dogs (ie those which actually earn their living-not sport dogs) such as border collies, kelpies and other herding and livestock gaurding dogs, not have docked tails?

It is not emotive to use the word "mutilate" as this accuratly describes what is being done to these dogs. They are being mutilated purely for cosmetic reasons.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Old Shep said:


> Cosmetic tail docking of dogs - WANSBROUGH - 2008 - Australian Veterinary Journal - Wiley Online Library
> 
> 
> 
> If docking is needed to prevent tail injury, then why do real working dogs (ie those which actually earn their living-not sport dogs) such as border collies, kelpies and other herding and livestock gaurding dogs, not have docked tails?
> 
> It is not emotive to use the word "mutilate" as this accuratly describes what is being done to these dogs. They are being mutilated purely for cosmetic reasons.


I understood that dogs that were working in undergrowth, such as cocker spaniels and springer spaniels were docked because their tails can be ripped in the brambles. Other dogs, such as retrievers didn't go into the undergrowth and therefore didn't need their tails docked. Similarly, herding dogs are usually worked in a field and not in undergrowth and therefore do not need their tails docked.

I don't see an issue with proper docking of working dogs, where 2/3 of the tail is left. What I hate is the complete removal of the tail, usually in show or pet dogs (not done today due to the law), and the dog doesn't have a tail at all, it's docked right at the base. And I don't like docking being done on non-working dogs or breeds, such as rotties, dobes etc (which is against the law, but still happens).


----------



## Guest

Old Shep said:


> Cosmetic tail docking of dogs - WANSBROUGH - 2008 - Australian Veterinary Journal - Wiley Online Library
> 
> 
> 
> If docking is needed to prevent tail injury, then why do real working dogs (ie those which actually earn their living-not sport dogs) such as border collies, kelpies and other herding and livestock gaurding dogs, not have docked tails?
> 
> It is not emotive to use the word "mutilate" as this accuratly describes what is being done to these dogs. They are being mutilated purely for cosmetic reasons.


I have had this discussion many times on here and have come to the conclusion that in certain parts of the country, because of the type of cover (no bramble) that many dogs do not require docking.
However working spaniels in very brambled areas actually benefit from not carrying tails.
Taping a working spaniels tail just isn't feasible, mainly due to the action of the tail, the cover and the fact that they are very often wet, and tape of any sort would not stay on for very long under those circumstances.
The site you have highlighted is based in Scotland, where the cover is not predominantly bramble.

If it's Edinburgh Australia then I can't comment. What kind of cover do they have and what kind of work do the spaniels do?



SEVEN_PETS said:


> I understood that dogs that were working in undergrowth, such as cocker spaniels and springer spaniels were docked because their tails can be ripped in the brambles. Other dogs, such as retrievers didn't go into the undergrowth and therefore didn't need their tails docked. Similarly, herding dogs are usually worked in a field and not in undergrowth and therefore do not need their tails docked.
> .


Not quite right, it's the action of a spaniels tail while working that is the main issue. Some Labs that use their tails a lot also suffer and have to have the tips taken off, but this is much rarer than in spaniels. 
Oh, and retrievers do work in cover


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

rona said:


> Not quite right, it's the action of a spaniels tail while working that is the main issue. Some Labs that use their tails a lot also suffer and have to have the tips taken off, but this is much rarer than in spaniels.
> Oh, and retrievers do work in cover


oh, thanks for improving my knowledge.  I can see why a spaniels' tail would get ripped, Ollie's is on the go all the time. He never stops wagging it. :lol:


----------



## Old Shep

There is absolutly *no evidence* to show that gundogs are more likely to damage their tails if they are undocked. None!

From the BVA's own website


> The BVA and British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) have been campaigning against the non-therapeutic docking of puppies tails since the sixties because they believe that it is not in the animals best interests.


From the BSAVA's own website


> The BSAVA Council is of the opinion that the docking of puppies' tails is an unnecessary mutilation and urges the RCVS to promote legislation leading to the outlawing of the procedure, unless the tail has previously been injured and the injury cannot be managed by any other means."


To try to defend tail docking as a preventative measure is also untenable. We may as well amputate white dogs and cats ears in case they get cancerous tumours (there is actually more of an argument for that than for tail docking as white eared cats have a much higher incidence of skin tumours of the ears)

The practice is abhorrent and is indefensable. I'm very angry that the laws regarding this are not similar north and south of the border as it leaves loopholes. I know of at least 3 people who have gone south to get docked dogs. One PJRT and 2 Weimaraners--none of who would be worked.


----------



## Guest

Old Shep said:


> There is absolutly *no evidence* to show that gundogs are more likely to damage their tails if they are undocked. None!
> 
> From the BVA's own website
> 
> From the BSAVA's own website
> 
> To try to defend tail docking as a preventative measure is also untenable. We may as well amputate white dogs and cats ears in case they get cancerous tumours (there is actually more of an argument for that than for tail docking as white eared cats have a much higher incidence of skin tumours of the ears)
> 
> The practice is abhorrent and is indefensable. I'm very angry that the laws regarding this are not similar north and south of the border as it leaves loopholes. I know of at least 3 people who have gone south to get docked dogs. One PJRT and 2 Weimaraners--none of who would be worked.


I speak from personal experience of working dogs, not some study carried out by people who are against it anyway!!!!
The ground that I have seen worked has been predominantly bramble covered and I have seen some terrible injuries, including to Labs
My evidence is my own eyes


----------



## Old Shep

> I speak from personal experience of working dogs, not some study carried out by people who are against it anyway!!!!


That's not a very rational way to approach an issue, is it?



> The ground that I have seen worked has been predominantly bramble covered and I have seen some terrible injuries, including to Labs
> My evidence is my own eyes


So why are labs not docked?

I know of 3 wgiute cat's who have had their ears amputated because of cancer. Using your own argument, we should then amputate all cats with white ears.
Rediculous!


----------



## Ridgielover

Old Shep - I find it rather odd that you are so anti-docking yet you chose to have a picture of a docked dog as your avatar :


----------



## I love springers

I have 2 springers 1 working and 1 show both with full tails and they have never had a problem when out in the field or woods, I also think long tails are nicer to look at , I think it is just people's own preference to have docked tail's but i can't understand why? .If they where meant to have short tails then they would be born with them ,Back to original post about JRT can't help sorry...


----------



## Guest

Old Shep said:


> That's not a very rational way to approach an issue, is it?
> 
> So why are labs not docked?
> 
> I know of 3 wgiute cat's who have had their ears amputated because of cancer. Using your own argument, we should then amputate all cats with white ears.
> Rediculous!


I'm not rational? :lol:

Labs have a different tail action as I have said in a previous post, they also have a completely different coat.

Ok I'm ridiculous. I'm only talking from 40 years of experience.
How about you?


----------



## Guest

I love springers said:


> I have 2 springers 1 working and 1 show both with full tails and they have never had a problem when out in the field or woods, I also think long tails are nicer to look at , I think it is just people's own preference to have docked tail's but i can't understand why? .If they where meant to have short tails then they would be born with them ,Back to original post about JRT can't help sorry...


Yes I much prefer to see dogs with full tails, and I can see no good reason to dock any other breeds, the damage percentage is very low I believe, however working spaniels working heavy cover, for what can be up to 24 hours a week, cannot be compared to pet dogs running around playing


----------



## haeveymolly

Old Shep said:


> Not in Scotland, you can't. No docking is allowed for cosmetic reasons (including dogs which are going to work).
> 
> Why anyone would want to mutilate their dog is beyond me and it's nonsense to say that a working dog will damage it's tail, so it's best removed. Using that argument, perhaps I should crop my dogs ears after all, they may get torn in the brambles.


Working dogs like spaniels as far as ime concerned should be docked.


----------



## haeveymolly

SEVEN_PETS said:


> oh, thanks for improving my knowledge.  I can see why a spaniels' tail would get ripped, Ollie's is on the go all the time. He never stops wagging it. :lol:


Yes if you look ata the way a spaniel uses its tail its different to the way lets say a lab does a spaniels tail when working and wether we "officialy" work them or not then in their own right they do "work" their tails go side to side then in a round motion what i describe as a helicopter rudder thats how they are ripped as the brambled etc twist very tight around the tail, a spaniel with a ripped tail which could and often lead to amputation is much more serious and traumatic than docking as a pup.


----------



## rocco33

As has already been said the action of the tail is different to labs.

One thing I would add - if you haven't seen a working gundog actually working in the field doing what it is bred for you haven't seen a dog at it's happiest - and that shows in it's tail action. The sheer enjoyment and adrenaline when working cannot be compared to a walk however much a dog loves it's walk. 
My labs tails wag a lot - they do whole body wags but it is different when hunting - there is an intensity about it - you can feel the pure joy and interestingly looks similar to the tail action of a spaniel.


----------



## haeveymolly

rocco33 said:


> As has already been said the action of the tail is different to labs.
> 
> One thing I would add - if you haven't seen a working gundog actually working in the field doing what it is bred for you haven't seen a dog at it's happiest - and that shows in it's tail action. The sheer enjoyment and adrenaline when working cannot be compared to a walk however much a dog loves it's walk.
> My labs tails wag a lot - they do whole body wags but it is different when hunting - there is an intensity about it - you can feel the pure joy and interestingly looks similar to the tail action of a spaniel.


Have to agree with you there, mine are working spaniels and cocker, we dont work them but give them the right environments and opportunities all the time to work, and as i always say we never take them out and wonder "are they enjoying this" you can tell and as i have said, you and many more the tail action is very different when working and very different in the spaniels, my eldest is the only one i have had/got that has the full tail and there has been times when he has come out of the undergrowth and the brambles etc have woven so tight around his tail because of the circling action they have been very hard to get out without losing some fur so for a spaniel that is working in the undergrowth for the length of time they do i can well imagine how dangerous and the chances are of it getting damaged.


----------



## Old Shep

Ridgielover said:


> Old Shep - I find it rather odd that you are so anti-docking yet you chose to have a picture of a docked dog as your avatar :


Em...no. It's a brittany and they are often born tail-less (though some people do dock if the pups are born with tails. However, I do not condone the docking of these dogs either and anyway, it's illegal here. Thank god!)

I'm not going to continue further with this argument as I feel that I would never be able to change a pro-dockers view (I'm not that clever) and I don't want to be responsible for any ill feeling. Life is too short. I have already made my views clear.


----------



## Ridgielover

My apologies, Old Shep, I didn't realise that Brittanies could have a naturally short tail.

I must admit to personally being rather ambivalent about tail docking. Luckily in my main breed it's not something that I have ever had to worry about but I also have 2 Aussies - the older one is docked but the younger one was born after the docking ban and has a full tail. I prefer the look of the docked tail but I'm not sure that I could have had pups that I had bred docked (not that I'd have any choice now anyway, on the off chance I did decide to breed from my younger one!)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Will stick my two penneth in here, since I don't have a tele to watch (see my other thread). Some people I know in Scotland, where any docking is banned, have either stopped working entirely, and/or stopped breeding working dogs, because of the issue of injury. So, is it good that we loose the working side of a spaniel breed because docking is banned entirely?? 

Done right, docking causes very little pain, and gives a working owner much more of a guarantee against tail injuries, than an undocked working spaniel. If you're out in the middle of nowhere, with a spaniel that has a tail injury and has lost quite a lot of blood, I'm sure I know where the view of most who work their dogs would lie. 

Docking for aesthetic reasons has no place, and leads to ridiculous docking procedures, mostly involving completely over docking of dogs. Docking for working is completely different, and leaves as much of the tail intact as possible, but takes away the portion of the tail most prone to injury according to breed, but should only be done IF the dog is believed to be worked..... that's the hard part


----------



## Old Shep

Ridgielover said:


> My apologies, Old Shep, I didn't realise that Brittanies could have a naturally short tail.
> 
> I must admit to personally being rather ambivalent about tail docking. Luckily in my main breed it's not something that I have ever had to worry about but I also have 2 Aussies - the older one is docked but the younger one was born after the docking ban and has a full tail. I prefer the look of the docked tail but I'm not sure that I could have had pups that I had bred docked (not that I'd have any choice now anyway, on the off chance I did decide to breed from my younger one!)


No worries :thumbup:


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Done right, docking causes very little pain


do u have something to back this up or is it a opinion?


----------



## Old Shep

There's lots of evidenec to show that puppies do experience pain when docked.

From some research published in the Australian Veterinary Journal



> Summary: The anatomy of the canine tail and its relationship to the physiological functions of the tail are described and the effect of tail docking on these is discussed. Current knowledge on the physiology and anatomy of pain is described with particular reference to cosmetic tail docking in the neonatal puppy. Recent advances in knowledge about pain and the changes in approach to pain management, refute the premise that puppies do not feel pain therefore tail docking is not inhumane and also the premise that the pain and the effects of tail docking are insignificant. Six criteria to test the necessity to dock dogs are presented; this article shows that the reasons advanced for tail docking do not satisfy these criteria and so that docking dogs' tails cannot be justified.


(source)

There are lots of studies available and all show that puppies do experience considerable pain.

There are also complications of docking-even when carried out by a vet- including amputation neuroma, which can occur years after the docking.

Interestingly when I did a general google search a while ago, I came accross a site offering information about "cosmetic surgery for your cats and dogs" and docking of puppies was included alongside declawing for cats, ear cropping for dogs and debarking for dogs (obviously!). Interesting list.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> do u have something to back this up or is it a opinion?


It's over and done with in a second Natik, I haven't said it's painless, just that it causes little pain. That's why it's done at a few days old, before the pup has developed further and it would become a more painful and complicated procedure. And obviously, with a fully mature dog, tail amputation is a much more complicated procedure requiring GA.

The problem with a lot of docking that happened before the ban, is complete over docking, as I mentioned previously, and usually for cosmetic reasons only. Working dogs that are docked, must have the correct length of tail, over docking is frowned upon, particularly in competition where tail movement is an important part of judging how the dog works.

I know quite a lot of spaniel owners that work their dogs, some of those breed them as well, so I go by the actual experience of those people. The pups don't dwell on it, they perhaps yelp as they're docked, once they've back with their mother they don't know any different.

Chipping is also painful because of the size of the needle, and can cause an adverse reaction leading to a much more painful condition developing. Should we not chip pups because it hurts?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's over and done with in a second Natik, I haven't said it's painless, just that it causes little pain. That's why it's done at a few days old, before the pup has developed further and it would become a more painful and complicated procedure. And obviously, with a fully mature dog, tail amputation is a much more complicated procedure requiring GA.
> 
> The problem with a lot of docking that happened before the ban, is complete over docking, as I mentioned previously, and usually for cosmetic reasons only. Working dogs that are docked, must have the correct length of tail, over docking is frowned upon, particularly in competition where tail movement is an important part of judging how the dog works.
> 
> I know quite a lot of spaniel owners that work their dogs, some of those breed them as well, so I go by the actual experience of those people. The pups don't dwell on it, they perhaps yelp as they're docked, once they've back with their mother they don't know any different.
> 
> Chipping is also painful because of the size of the needle, and can cause an adverse reaction leading to a much more painful condition developing. Should we not chip pups because it hurts?


I agree with you, especially about overdocking. I find this disgusting and it's good that it is frowned upon in the working dog community.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Here we go, Miggin, working cocker, docked to the correct length, approx two thirds of his tail remaining, which he wags constantly! His tail was docked at a few days old, and he's never had any problems.












SEVEN_PETS said:


> I agree with you, especially about overdocking. I find this disgusting and it's good that it is frowned upon in the working dog community.


Thanks


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's over and done with in a second Natik, I haven't said it's painless, just that it causes little pain. That's why it's done at a few days old, before the pup has developed further and it would become a more painful and complicated procedure. And obviously, with a fully mature dog, tail amputation is a much more complicated procedure requiring GA.
> 
> The problem with a lot of docking that happened before the ban, is complete over docking, as I mentioned previously, and usually for cosmetic reasons only. Working dogs that are docked, must have the correct length of tail, over docking is frowned upon, particularly in competition where tail movement is an important part of judging how the dog works.
> 
> I know quite a lot of spaniel owners that work their dogs, some of those breed them as well, so I go by the actual experience of those people. The pups don't dwell on it, they perhaps yelp as they're docked, once they've back with their mother they don't know any different.
> 
> Chipping is also painful because of the size of the needle, and can cause an adverse reaction leading to a much more painful condition developing. Should we not chip pups because it hurts?


i find it amazing that u can pinpoint the pain treshold of pups when being docked. Have u done some sort of research urself on how much pain the pups feel?

Alot of people are aware these days that animals dont show pain in the way human expects them to. Of course the pups go on with, they have no choice, its survival. So if the pup doesnt scream for hours that proofs they felt only a little bit of pain during the procedure?

I also think ur comparison of mutilating a dog to micro chipping is a bit odd tbh

Im of the belief if a dog is prone to such an injury in high numbers its not fit to work in such conditions, simple.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> i find it amazing that u can pinpoint the pain treshold of pups when being docked. Have u done some sort of research urself on how much pain the pups feel?
> 
> Alot of people are aware these days that animals dont show pain in the way human expects them to. Of course the pups go on with, they have no choice, its survival. So if the pup doesnt scream for hours that proofs they felt only a little bit of pain during the procedure?
> 
> I also think ur comparison of mutilating a dog to micro chipping is a bit odd tbh
> 
> Im of the belief if a dog is prone to such an injury in high numbers its not fit to work in such conditions, simple.


I find it unbelievable that anyone can pick on the practise of docking for working without understanding fully how and why the dog works, and thinks it's ok to risk injury to a dog rather than dock it at a few days of age.

Whilst on the subject, have you done any research into the pain threshold a pup feels when it's being chipped? And as it does not legally serve any purpose as proof of ownership, is it really necessary?


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I find it unbelievable that anyone can pick on the practise of docking for working without understanding fully how and why the dog works, and thinks it's ok to risk injury to a dog rather than dock it at a few days of age.
> 
> Whilst on the subject, have you done any research into the pain threshold a pup feels when it's being chipped? And as it does not legally serve any purpose as proof of ownership, is it really necessary?


why dont u start a thread on micro chipping and ask around? i thought this was about docking??

Well, u risk injury by letting the dog work in an unsuitable enviroment in the first place when its prone to such injury in such high numbers.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> why dont u start a thread on micro chipping and ask around? i thought this was about docking??
> 
> Well, u risk injury by letting the dog work in an unsuitable enviroment in the first place when its prone to such injury in such high numbers.


Because Natik, I'm trying to point out that as owners, with the knowledge we have of our dogs, we make what we believe are the best decisions for their health and well being. Spaniels have been docked for working for pretty much as long as they've been a breed, so you'd lose the functionality of a breed for the want of a dock at a few days old. I would hate to see these working dogs decline for any reason that can be simply dealt with by something that is akin to other simple procedures undertaken, such as microchipping, that cause a moment of pain, but benefit the dog in the long term.

I know several owners of working spaniels, between them their combined knowledge of the dogs and ownership in years would be more than our ages combined, I think I'll stick to their expertise.


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because Natik, I'm trying to point out that as owners, with the knowledge we have of our dogs, we make what we believe are the best decisions for their health and well being. Spaniels have been docked for working for pretty much as long as they've been a breed, so you'd lose the functionality of a breed for the want of a dock at a few days old. I would have to see these working dogs decline for any reason that can be simply dealt with by something that is akin to other simple procedures undertaken, such as microchipping, that cause a moment of pain, but benefit the dog in the long term.
> 
> I know several owners of working spaniels, between them their combined knowledge of the dogs and ownership in years would be more than our ages combined, I think I'll stick to their expertise.


Just because they always have been docked doesnt make it justifyable in my books.

I again dont think micro chipping is compareable to cutting off a body part.

But never mind, i dont think docking is justifiable. 
There are plenty of spaniels working with a full tail without problems.

And not all dogs end up being good workers, not all dogs end up with a tail injury, so for those the mutilating is then done for nothing.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> Just because they always have been docked doesnt make it justifyable in my books.
> 
> I again dont think micro chipping is compareable to cutting off a body part.
> 
> But never mind, i dont think docking is justifiable.
> There are plenty of spaniels working with a full tail without problems.
> 
> And not all dogs end up being good workers, not all dogs end up with a tail injury, so for those the mutilating is then done for nothing.


No, it's done to prevent them from injuring their tails and you don't cut off the whole tail, the max is two thirds I believe, for working HPR's.

Tail injuries in Scotland have increased, since the ban, with working spaniels; and as I've said before, some people are stopping working their dogs because they would rather not risk injury to them. Sad when they've been happily going about working their dogs for longer than you or I have probably owned dogs, in some cases, probably in combined years! And yet during that time, tail injuries were much lower as the correct preventative mesure was taken.

There are certainly a couple of people I know who keep a full tail on their spaniel, because it's never worked in the type of cover that causes injury. I haven't got a problem with that at all, kudos to them, if it isn't necessary for their dogs to work then there is no reason, I'd agree.

How isn't microchipping comparable, it's done to satisfy our own need to keep our pets safe, it isn't necessary (except for identification purposes for some health tests), but we do it for peace of mind, a preventative measure. Nor does it prove legal ownership of a pet, which many owners believe it does and is possibly one of the factors they consider before chipping their pet. We take a large metal needle and insert a foreign object that may well cause an adverse reaction, fall out or shift to another place in their body. Doesn't sound like a very nice process at all to me, and I know my two both yelped in pain when it was done, and were tender around the area for a day or so afterwards.


----------



## GoldenShadow

At the end of the day Rona/Rocco/Sleeping Lion have experience of working dogs/know a lot of others who do so I don't think their opinions are really ones to be 'sniffed at' so to speak.

I'm curious as to exactly what the different tail action between a cocker and a lab is now 

Miggin is very cute by the way, I love the way he's just a big snowball


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, it's done to prevent them from injuring their tails and you don't cut off the whole tail, the max is two thirds I believe, for working HPR's.
> 
> Tail injuries in Scotland have increased, since the ban, with working spaniels; and as I've said before, some people are stopping working their dogs because they would rather not risk injury to them. Sad when they've been happily going about working their dogs for longer than you or I have probably owned dogs, in some cases, probably in combined years! And yet during that time, tail injuries were much lower as the correct preventative mesure was taken.
> 
> There are certainly a couple of people I know who keep a full tail on their spaniel, because it's never worked in the type of cover that causes injury. I haven't got a problem with that at all, kudos to them, if it isn't necessary for their dogs to work then there is no reason, I'd agree.
> 
> How isn't microchipping comparable, it's done to satisfy our own need to keep our pets safe, it isn't necessary (except for identification purposes for some health tests), but we do it for peace of mind, a preventative measure. Nor does it prove legal ownership of a pet, which many owners believe it does and is possibly one of the factors they consider before chipping their pet. We take a large metal needle and insert a foreign object that may well cause an adverse reaction, fall out or shift to another place in their body. Doesn't sound like a very nice process at all to me, and I know my two both yelped in pain when it was done, and were tender around the area for a day or so afterwards.


can u link to some statistics to back it up when u make statements such as tail injuries have increased in scotland?

u cant compare a minor procedure with a surgical removal of a bodypart.

There is also risk of infection and things going wrong resulting in the death of a pup, that risk is ok to take even though the dog might never even work? But a tail injury is a unacceptable risk?

U know we will have to agree to disagree, u find docking acceptable, i find docking wrong, especially if its done for sport purposes.

A dog can get the same stimulation in a safe enviremont, without having to send the dog into areas where it can injury itself really badly.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> can u link to some statistics to back it up when u make statements such as tail injuries have increased in scotland?
> 
> u cant compare a minor procedure with a surgical removal of a bodypart.
> 
> There is also risk of infection and things going wrong resulting in the death of a pup, that risk is ok to take even though the dog might never even work? But a tail injury is a unacceptable risk?
> 
> U know we will have to agree to disagree, u find docking acceptable, i find docking wrong, especially if its done for sport purposes.
> 
> A dog can get the same stimulation in a safe enviremont, without having to send the dog into areas where it can injury itself really badly.


There is a chap I know in Scotland who works his dogs, he's been compiling statistics, if I can't dig out the link, I'm sure it's easily googleable, or you can just take my word for it.

I'll also try and dig out a couple of photos of the horrific injuries to tails, and the horrific adverse reactions that can occur with chipping.

Right now, I'm off to light the log burner as it's chuffin' freezing!

Goldenshadow, I can only pass on what I've seen and been told, as I don't work spaniels at all, I don't work Labs for that matter either, yet  This is from someone who knows an awful lot about working them, his dogs have been out working for over 70 days this season, so he should know the difference.....

"This is just my view, and given in very general terms.

All the Spaniel breeds are meant to be finders of game, therefore strong hunting instincts are taken as read.

It should be remembered that the division between Cockers and Springers was originally based on weight. Above 23lb and it was a Springing Spaniel, and below 23lb, it was a Cocking Spaniel, so it was possible to have both from the same litter.

Selective breeding has given us the two distinct breeds we have today.

Cockers should be much smaller, and far more busy in their hunting action, they should hunt a very tight pattern , which I've heard described as like a blanket stitch, it has also been said that the best ones hunt like stoats, which for those who've never seen a stoat in action, is a very short, sharp, angular hunting pattern.

Springers on the other hand, tend to have a much more open and flowing hunting style, often with their heads slightly up, and a very pronounced swagger on the back end. Their is more a a variation in size in Springers, FT springers are generally smaller, whereas on an normal shoot, you get a much greater size range.

In terms of temperament, I find Cockers are very demanding. They want to be with you, all the time, and up close and personal, they love human contact.

Springers, in my experience, tend to be a little more laid back.

I have no personal experience of other types of Spaniel, though I have seen Clumbers, and Sussex Spaniels working, and they are a world away from Cockers and Springers, but still very good for those who prefer a more sedate Spaniel."

From what I understand, the tail action shows as they're hunting, whether they're onto something, so having too short a tail, is frowned upon.

Miggin is a little b*gga, but he gets away with it, one look from those deep eyes with huge eyelashes..... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> There is a chap I know in Scotland who works his dogs, he's been compiling statistics, if I can't dig out the link, I'm sure it's easily googleable, or you can just take my word for it.
> 
> I'll also try and dig out a couple of photos of the horrific injuries to tails, and the horrific adverse reactions that can occur with chipping.
> :


if u could dig out the link would be great 

i can also try and dig out some horrific docking pictures which went wrong and then we can compare whats worse :eek6:

anyway, didnt read the rest of ur post, cause im off shopping. And just wanted to quick reply to this


----------



## Old Shep

I agree, Natik. As I have said before (and provided alink to the whole piece of research) the pain is not insignificant and I have provided a source for that opinion. Can you provide some evidence to back up your belief that it causes "little pain" sleeping-lion?

Also you cannot just state


> Tail injuries in Scotland have increased, since the ban


without some evidence.

Sheesh! I was going to butt out of this!


----------



## Guest

Natik said:


> u cant compare a minor procedure with a surgical removal of a bodypart.
> 
> There is also risk of infection and things going wrong resulting in the death of a pup, that risk is ok to take even though the dog might never even work? But a tail injury is a unacceptable risk?
> 
> .


Can you then tell me why neutering is quite and expectable removal of body parts, with the bitch it is a major operation and docking of working spaniels is not?
Both are for the future benefit of the dog involved.
May I add that I kept all my bitches entire because I took full responsibility for looking after them properly through heats and I don't agree with putting dogs through unnecessary operations


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Old Shep said:


> I agree, Natik. As I have said before (and provided alink to the whole piece of research) the pain is not insignificant and I have provided a source for that opinion. Can you provide some evidence to back up your belief that it causes "little pain" sleeping-lion?
> 
> Also you cannot just state
> 
> without some evidence.
> 
> Sheesh! I was going to butt out of this!


I've already said, I will try and dig out the stats I read from someone I know when I have a minute, nice to be taken at face value 

I'm sure the pain of a tail injury while out working is not insignificant, and once injured, it is often split open time after time, causing much more pain than docking at a few days old. Just because you believe docking is cruel, on the basis of a few googled facts, does not make it so. Can I ask how many spaniels you've worked, and over how many years, what type of cover, work, and how many injuries they've sustained and what type? If you can't give me the same type of factual evidence from those who do actually work their dogs, then I'm afraid your statistics just won't mean a thing.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

rona said:


> Can you then tell me why neutering is quite and expectable removal of body parts, with the bitch it is a major operation and docking of working spaniels is not?
> Both are for the future benefit of the dog involved.
> May I add that I kept all my bitches entire because I took full responsibility for looking after them properly through heats and I don't agree with putting dogs through unnecessary operations


Something else I was going to bring up when I had chance, you beat me to it Rona


----------



## Natik

rona said:


> Can you then tell me why neutering is quite and expectable removal of body parts, with the bitch it is a major operation and docking of working spaniels is not?
> Both are for the future benefit of the dog involved.
> May I add that I kept all my bitches entire because I took full responsibility for looking after them properly through heats and I don't agree with putting dogs through unnecessary operations


my dogs are entire too, i wouldnt put them through a operation which is not necessary in my situation.

So u dont agree in a unnecessary operation so u say, yet u agree with removal of a bodypart when u could work a dog in a safe enviroment instead


----------



## Guest

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Something else I was going to bring up when I had chance, you beat me to it Rona


There's also the fact that the statistics will be way off mark because working dog people would probably not need to see a vet until the tail was either dreadfully damaged or infected, as most would stop working their dogs before this happened.
I just wonder how many good working dogs have been retired because they get repeated tail injuries and their owners won't risk them getting worse.


----------



## Guest

natik said:


> my dogs are entire too, i wouldnt put them through a operation which is not necessary in my situation.
> 
> So u dont agree in a unnecessary operation so u say, yet u agree with removal of a bodypart when u could work a dog in a safe enviroment instead


how???????


----------



## Natik

rona said:


> how???????


just like u would in areas where the dog is more prone to injuries


----------



## Guest

Natik said:


> just like u would in areas where the dog is more prone to injuries


But the whole idea of working a dog is to flush game of some sort or another, where do you think these are, in the middle of a field?


----------



## Natik

rona said:


> But the whole idea of working a dog is to flush game of some sort or another, where do you think these are, in the middle of a field?


plenty here in the fields or in light covers... pheasants and rabbits everywhere.


----------



## Old Shep

> Just because you believe docking is cruel, on the basis of a few googled facts, does not make it so. Can I ask how many spaniels you've worked, and over how many years, what type of cover, work, and how many injuries they've sustained and what type? If you can't give me the same type of factual evidence from those who do actually work their dogs, then I'm afraid your statistics just won't mean a thing.


So, let me get this straight, you are asking me for anecdotes? Are you _really _saying that you place anecdotal evidence over scientific research, because if that is what you are saying, there is no point in discussing this further with you.

A lot of assumptions are being made about me here. I do NOT base my views on "a few googled facts". I base my views on good unbiased research which has been carried out (and I gave a link to one piece. There's lots more out there if you care to look). 
It is not necessary to experience something to have a considered view on it. My GP has no experience of rhumatoid arthritis, but he has views on it (influenced by research) and is pretty good at treating it!


----------



## Guest

Natik said:


> plenty here in the fields or in light covers... pheasants and rabbits everywhere.


You have very different ground to around here, I believe the majority of your game cover may be cover crops. We have woods with a ground cover of bramble


----------



## Guest

I dont want to die....

But heres my opinion anyway.....

I believe docking tails should only be done if a dog is going to be worked. I dont agree with docking tails of pups that will be for pet homes and so on. However if a dog is going to be worked then I believe the safe option is to dock. Granted its not very nice but it saves potential infection and suffering in the long term.

I have seen more tails hurt in working dogs than I care to remember. At one point we had a dog come in it had been working in some undergrowth and we never did find out what happened but it arrived with a quater of its tail missing and we battled infection for a month before it was safe to operate and remove the whole thing. Poor dog.  A month later it was like it never happened. 

Its not nice and I dont agree with changing a dogs looks for pointless reasons but I do think in some cases docking is a fair option.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Old Shep said:


> So, let me get this straight, you are asking me for anecdotes? Are you _really _saying that you place anecdotal evidence over scientific research, because if that is what you are saying, there is no point in discussing this further with you.
> 
> A lot of assumptions are being made about me here. I do NOT base my views on "a few googled facts". I base my views on good unbiased research which has been carried out (and I gave a link to one piece. There's lots more out there if you care to look).
> It is not necessary to experience something to have a considered view on it. My GP has no experience of rhumatoid arthritis, but he has views on it (influenced by research) and is pretty good at treating it!


Those anecdotal people are the same ones who gave you valuable information on the Brittany only a few weeks back. So their anecdotal evidence is only factual when it applies to something you agree with?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Just to answer a point by Natik, spaniels don't work open fields, when they are taken on a shoot, they are usually taken out with beaters, some with pickers up, rarely as peg dogs. Beaters work their dogs through the undergrowth to flush out game, that undergrowth can be very rough indeed, and is where injuries can and often occur. Dogs end up with scratches over their eyes, nose and muzzle, and at the end of a season can look like they've been through a right battle. Does it stop them diving into thick cover the next time? NO, because it's what they were bred to do, and they love it, anyone who has watched them working will attest to that.

Shetlandlover, the only problem with JUST working dogs being docked, is that you can only dock at between 3-5 days of age, at that point, you can't tell which is going to be the dog you keep to work, possibly. But if you intend your dog(s) to work, then I think it's only right you have the decision of whether to dock, to prevent injury, as long as you dock legally, and to the appropriate length that will prevent most injuries occurring. But a good post, nonetheless


----------



## Natik

they were bred to do it, but the tail obviously was forgotten about in that process  but as long it can be cut off, ey


----------



## Guest

Natik said:


> they were bred to do it, but the tail obviously was forgotten about in that process  but as long it can be cut off, ey


Yep, we all enjoy cutting bits of our dogs off for no reason


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> they were bred to do it, but the tail obviously was forgotten about in that process  but as long it can be cut off, ey


No, they were bred for ability and general conformation, but obviously they found that frequent tail injury could be prevented by docking to a shorter length. Breeding for an exaggeration, such as a bob-tail, can lead to serious health defects. Much better then, to simply dock a healthy dog, than breed an unhealthy one


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, they were bred for ability and general conformation, but obviously they found that frequent tail injury could be prevented by docking to a shorter length. Breeding for an exaggeration, such as a bob-tail, can lead to serious health defects. Much better then, to simply dock a healthy dog, than breed an unhealthy one


ANY INJURY can be prevented by cutting of the bodypart prone to be injured lol


----------



## Old Shep

> Those anecdotal people are the same ones who gave you valuable information on the Brittany only a few weeks back. So their anecdotal evidence is only factual when it applies to something you agree with


You completely misunderstand me.
Regarding my questions about brittanys (which you were helpful with and I thank you for) I was asking for people's *opinion* about the breed-by that time I had already researched the *facts.*

Anecdote
Evidence


----------



## rocco33

I am against docking generally, and am in favour of the law as it stands - only for dogs that have been bred for working. 

I have no problem with people who completely disagree with ALL docking, even working dogs, but it does tend to come from people who don't know how a dog works so comes from a standpoint lacking in knowledge.

Of course, it could be that those who disagree with docking also disagree with dogs being worked - which would make much more sense.


----------



## Old Shep

> comes from a standpoint lacking in knowledge.


but the problem here is that people who are pro-docking can't provide any evidence that it is either humane or necessary. 
Another piece of research.

So far I have provided at least 3 different pieces of peer-reviewed, published research which does not support the argument for docking dogs tails. Those people arguing for docking, unless I am mistaken, have not produced any.

I want to add that I am not being personal about this. I firmly believe that it's possible to argue your corner without degenerating to personal insults. For example I am very much anti-fox hunting and have taken part in the past in anti-hunt activity. However, as a (past) horse owner many of my friends are pro-hunting and active members of the local hunt -many of the past Masters of my local hunt have been friends (which led to some akward moments, when friends rode past and called out "Hi!" to me. I'm sure they just did it to embarrass me!)


----------



## rocco33

> I firmly believe that it's possible to argue your corner without degenerating to personal insults.


I apologise, it wasn't meant as a personal insult so am sorry you took it as such.

I can't speak for others, but I am talking from personal experiences and what I have observed. I am not in favour of docking either - I was glad the ban came in, but as I work my dogs and know many working spaniels and was simply saying that I understand the problems. Of course, from choice I would prefer that no one should ever dock a dog (I don't have to my breed are not docked), but it is a 'lesser evil' than a dog constantly injuring it's tail and requiring amputation. I've know quite a few labs that have required this too (thankfully none on mine, although I do have one that does split it freqently - just fortunate that it hasn't yet got bad enough to require amputation). It is difficult to understand the problems, unless you actually know how a dog works and what work it does and maybe even seen the results. Problem is that tail injuries in working dogs often require amputation or retirement of dog (and if you think docking is cruel - try telling a dog it can't work anymore  ). Tail splits do not heal easily - they develop scar tissue that is weak and even more easily injured and so one injury usually leads to a constant problem.


----------



## Guest

This is taken from a BASC PDF (which I don't know how to link to)

QUOTE
The Scottish Government banned tail docking for all dogs in 2007 and consequently, the remit of this
Scottish based (BioSS) survey was to discover what tail injuries, if any, may have occurred to &#8220;working
gundogs&#8221; from August 2008 to July 2009, when dogs born after the docking ban started to work with full
tails.
The BioSS study concluded:
&#8220;The study has identified strong statistically significant evidence that working dogs belonging to the
Springer and cocker breeds have a higher risk of injury associated with longer tails. A similar effect was
observed for hunt-point-retrieve (HPR) animals, but that effect was not formally statistically significant&#8221;.
&#8220;No other risk factors were found to be statistically significant in explaining injury, though of course this
does not mean that other, unrecorded, factors were not operational. The results do suggest, however,
that longer tails are an important predisposition risk, either alone or in interaction with other risk factors&#8221;.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Ok, I've dug out the stats my acquaintance collated from working dogs in Scotland, following the docking ban. These numbers were submitted from working folk during the 2008/2009 game season, so even more injuries could be recorded over a full year. And just a warning, there are some gory photos below......










Typical tail injuries, and remember, once the tail has been split open, it is easily injured again, and again, not just when out working, but day to day walks/exercise etc .....




























And this is what can happen if your dog has an adverse reaction to a chip, which, of course, you can't know for sure won't happen, and yet we all do it as a matter of course without thinking anything of it, it's a 'preventative' right?




























Finally, this is the opinion of an expert, in response to a group pushing for a similar docking ban to dogs in the US. Whilst I don't agree with docking for cosmetic reasons, I think his response is a worthwhile addition from an expert point of view:

Dear Group:

I just read the "Justification" (see below) on why the New York Anti-Docking Bill was proposed. The proponents of this bill want you to believe that docking a dog's tail will cause "lasting chronic tension in the back and hindquarter muscles" if the tail is docked.

Tail docking is performed on dogs between 3-5 days of age, before they have fully evolved their pain responses and before the blood supply to the tail has fully developed. The tail muscles arise from the loin area of the back, both on the dorsal and ventral sides. Having a long tail could place tension in this area, but removing the tail would totally eliminate this tension.

Furthermore, many dogs with long tails that don't carry much fur for protection are continually subjected to injuries of the tail. The tail muscles are also another region of the body that can be harmed. Several pointing dog breeds with long tails are encountering "limber tail syndrome" due to muscle damaged from overworking the tail muscles and then having excess build up of lactic acid.

The tail muscles have no attachments (origin or insertion) to the hindquarter muscles, so it is inconceivable that docking a tail would have any relationship to tension in this group of muscles.

How do I know this information regarding the anatomy of the dog's tail? I taught veterinary anatomy to veterinary students (at 3 different veterinary colleges) for over 35 years.

By the way, the same groups of Animal Rights people are major proponents of early spay/neutering. This is much more invasive and risky regarding blood loss and infection that removing a pup's tail at 3-5 days of age.

H. N. Engel, DVM, PhD
Professor Emeritus, Veterinary Anatomy

JUSTIFICATION: The enactment of this bill would ensure that dogs are not caused unnecessary risk and pain by cosmetic tail docking. Performed under anesthetic, the procedure carries within it inherent risks of blood loss and infection, as well as causing lasting chronic tension in the back and hindquarter muscles of dogs after the procedure. While illegal in many countries, docking procedures are so prevalent today that dogs of some breeds are not recognizable when they are in fact intact. This legislation would ensure that dogs are no longer subjected to lasting pain as a result of docking, and also that shows and exhibitions will no favor dogs whose tails have been docked.

------------------

Old Shep, I think it's a bit harsh to label actual experience as a mere opinion, these were factual experiences passed on from owning the breed, not just an opinion. I'm not trying to have a go and this is not directed at you, but it does seem that a lot of people cherry pick knowledge and experience, and disregard what they don't like without any real working or in depth knowledge of subjects, just what they've read on the internet.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Old Shep said:


> *but the problem here is that people who are pro-docking can't provide any evidence that it is either humane or necessary. *
> Another piece of research.
> 
> So far I have provided at least 3 different pieces of peer-reviewed, published research which does not support the argument for docking dogs tails. Those people arguing for docking, unless I am mistaken, have not produced any.
> 
> I want to add that I am not being personal about this. I firmly believe that it's possible to argue your corner without degenerating to personal insults. For example I am very much anti-fox hunting and have taken part in the past in anti-hunt activity. However, as a (past) horse owner many of my friends are pro-hunting and active members of the local hunt -many of the past Masters of my local hunt have been friends (which led to some akward moments, when friends rode past and called out "Hi!" to me. I'm sure they just did it to embarrass me!)


See above


----------



## Guest

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I have read things, well under 500 dogs were in the Scottish study from all breeds of gundog, not specifically spaniels, and from all over the uk. I'm not even sure that it was based on working dogs alone
The working terrain was not factored into the equation at all and these were only dogs that had needed veterinary intervention.
It was a very small study as in my lifetime I have probably seen about 250 true working dogs.
As I said before, many working dogs never ever have the need to go to a vet for treatment to their tails as they are retired or worked lightly to prevent further damage

The figure 138,212 on the vet site was from all dogs attending the participating surgeries, That's all breeds of dog not just working breeds


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

rona said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I have read things, well under 500 dogs were in this study from all breeds of gundog, not specifically spaniels, and from all over the uk. I'm not even sure that it was based on working dogs alone
> The working terrain was not factored into the equation at all and these were only dogs that had needed veterinary intervention.
> It was a very small study as in my lifetime I have probably seen about 250 true working dogs.
> As I said before, many working dogs never ever have the need to go to a vet for treatment to their tails as they are retired or worked lightly to prevent further damage


No, these are all spaniels Rona, he did also collate figures for HPR's and Retrievers, but there were insufficient numbers to really draw any conclusions. He had hoped to receive over 600 responses to really try and get as broad a response as possible, but unfortunately, he got between 400 and 500 from memory, I'll go dig the other numbers out.....

Here ya go, the spaniel info is as above, which I converted into a chart, so hope I got all the numbers right......

_Here are the results of the survey!
In total there were 448 dogs in the survey which breaks down into...
Spaniels 296
HPR's 22
Labs 130
Obviously Labs don't really count in this survey because they do not require their tails to be docked because of the work they are normally employed to do and also the way they do it (although I'm sure Labs get injured at times too).
there weren't enough replies from HPR owners to conclude anything substantial but for spaniels, the statistics break down as follows..._


----------



## Nicky10

I agree with docking working spaniels/HPR dogs where barely any of the tail is taken off right? Just the bit most likely to be damaged. I don't agree with any other breeds or show dogs being docked for example the american cockers


----------



## Guest

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, these are all spaniels Rona, he did also collate figures for HPR's and Retrievers, but there were insufficient numbers to really draw any conclusions. He had hoped to receive over 600 responses to really try and get as broad a response as possible, but unfortunately, he got between 400 and 500 from memory, I'll go dig the other numbers out.....
> 
> Here ya go, the spaniel info is as above, which I converted into a chart, so hope I got all the numbers right......
> 
> _Here are the results of the survey!
> In total there were 448 dogs in the survey which breaks down into...
> Spaniels 296
> HPR's 22
> Labs 130
> Obviously Labs don't really count in this survey because they do not require their tails to be docked because of the work they are normally employed to do and also the way they do it (although I'm sure Labs get injured at times too).
> there weren't enough replies from HPR owners to conclude anything substantial but for spaniels, the statistics break down as follows..._


No No I didn't mean yours  
So this study was as big as the Scottish Government one?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

rona said:


> No No I didn't mean yours
> So this study was as big as the Scottish Government one?


This is from a guy who works his dogs, and collected info on injuries to working dogs in Scotland, not sure if it's one and the same or a different survey, but I think the results pretty much speak for themselves, out of 296 spaniels, out of 61 undocked dogs, 49 suffered tail injuries. Out of the docked dogs, 235 in total, only 13 suffered a tail injury.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Old Shep said:


> but the problem here is that people who are pro-docking can't provide any evidence that it is either humane or necessary.
> Another piece of research.
> 
> So far I have provided at least 3 different pieces of peer-reviewed, published research which does not support the argument for docking dogs tails. Those people arguing for docking, unless I am mistaken, have not produced any.
> 
> I want to add that I am not being personal about this. I firmly believe that it's possible to argue your corner without degenerating to personal insults. For example I am very much anti-fox hunting and have taken part in the past in anti-hunt activity. However, as a (past) horse owner many of my friends are pro-hunting and active members of the local hunt -many of the past Masters of my local hunt have been friends (which led to some akward moments, when friends rode past and called out "Hi!" to me. I'm sure they just did it to embarrass me!)


Just before I get off and get on with work, which I really must do, looking at your link there, the research does say that docking significantly reduces the risk of tail injury for spaniels, and then goes on to state that 500 dogs would have to docked for one dog not to become injured. However, there is no differentiation between pets and working dogs, I wonder how high that percentage would increase, looking against the figures I've posted, possibly many more dogs do benefit from this as a preventative measure when actually worked.


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> This is from a guy who works his dogs, and collected info on injuries to working dogs in Scotland, not sure if it's one and the same or a different survey, but I think the results pretty much speak for themselves, out of 296 spaniels, out of 61 undocked dogs, 49 suffered tail injuries. Out of the docked dogs, 235 in total, only 13 suffered a tail injury.


out of the 49 how many had injuries like the extreme one on the pictures and how many were minor injuries easy treatable without the intervention of a vet?

edited cause already been mentioned lol


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just before I get off and get on with work, which I really must do, looking at your link there, the research does say that docking significantly reduces the risk of tail injury for spaniels, and then goes on to state that 500 dogs would have to docked for one dog not to become injured. However, there is no differentiation between pets and working dogs, I wonder how high that percentage would increase, looking against the figures I've posted, possibly many more dogs do benefit from this as a preventative measure when actually worked.


But u cant just exclude dogs which have been docked but never worked. Those puppies still were subjected to a painfull procedure to prevent one injury of a dog which actually has been worked, so they are part of the statistics.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> out of the 49 how many had injuries like the extreme one on the pictures and how many were minor injuries easy treatable without the intervention of a vet?
> 
> edited cause already been mentioned lol


What's the difference? An injury is an injury, whether or not the owner has the knowledge and skill to treat it, or it needs further treatment by a vet. And the sad fact is, once the tail has split open, it readily splits open again and again. Perhaps you're just trying to 'splilt hairs' now 

Another true story, a lady in Scotland, had a spaniel bitch (undocked tail) that split it's tail open working, and the vet refused after numerous treatments to dock it under GA; this dog suffered for over two years with it's tail splitting open repeatedly (not just out working but knocking it against objects) because of a law that meant the vet was unwilling to operate and dock the dog, which would have solved the problem


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> But u cant just exclude dogs which have been docked but never worked. Those puppies still were subjected to a painfull procedure to prevent one injury of a dog which actually has been worked, so they are part of the statistics.


Why? My question refers to dogs that are actually worked, not those that aren't.


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What's the difference? An injury is an injury, whether or not the owner has the knowledge and skill to treat it, or it needs further treatment by a vet. And the sad fact is, once the tail has split open, it readily splits open again and again. Perhaps you're just trying to 'splilt hairs' now
> 
> :


im sorry, but im not splitting hairs im just being realistic, there is a major differnece between a minor scratch and a injury shown on the pictures.
Im not going to look at the statistic shown by u and scream "oh my how terrible" without questioning the facts.


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why? My question refers to dogs that are actually worked, not those that aren't.


because u cant, they had to undergo a painfull procedure for the benefit of one dog, so are a valid part of a statistic.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> because u cant, they had to undergo a painfull procedure for the benefit of one dog, so are a valid part of a statistic.


No they're not, the docking is done to prevent a dog injuring a tail whilst working as they were bred to do, to include pet dogs in the statistics weighs them in YOUR favour, which is of course what you would want to see.

Read my long post, the expert veterinarian would like to disagree with you about the amount of pain docking causes to a pup at between 3-5 days.

I'm just awaiting a reply from someone with further statistics and evidence to support the case for docking working dogs to prevent injury. But I think what I've posted makes it very clear, if you work an undocked spaniel it is statistically much more likely to suffer tail injury than that of a dog where the tail has been docked. Of course, part of that will be dependent on the actual dog, some are much harder hunting than others, and part of that will be down to the type of cover they are worked in.


----------



## JohnMorris

It is imo mutilation and needless. Would you like someone to cut a slit around your spine, twist and pull you apart? That is what they do with taildocking and unless a dog is a working dog likely to cause themselves more injury with a tail docking shouldn't be done. Barbaric!
Well done on your English btw.


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No they're not, the docking is done to prevent a dog injuring a tail whilst working as they were bred to do, to include pet dogs in the statistics weighs them in YOUR favour, which is of course what you would want to see.
> 
> Read my long post, the expert veterinarian would like to disagree with you about the amount of pain docking causes to a pup at between 3-5 days.
> 
> I'm just awaiting a reply from someone with further statistics and evidence to support the case for docking working dogs to prevent injury. But I think what I've posted makes it very clear, if you work an undocked spaniel it is statistically much more likely to suffer tail injury than that of a dog where the tail has been docked. Of course, part of that will be dependent on the actual dog, some are much harder hunting than others, and part of that will be down to the type of cover they are worked in.


but the unworked pups have to be docked cause u cant foresee if they will be suitable to work.
They were considered working stock when born, to justify docking, but now excluded to suit peoples statistics to higher the numbers???
They are still docked to prevent the one dog which is being worked from injury...fact!

And there is plenty of research done which shows that the puppies do feel considerable pain and distress while being docked.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> but the unworked pups have to be docked cause u cant foresee if they will be suitable to work.
> They were considered working stock when born, to justify docking, but now excluded to suit peoples statistics to higher the numbers???
> They are still docked to prevent the one dog which is being worked from injury...fact!
> 
> And there is plenty of research done which shows that the puppies do feel considerable pain and distress while being docked.


Yes but they are not worked, and that's the key point. You can't produce statistics on working dogs and include figures for those that are just pets, whether they are docked or not. You asked for statistics on injuries to dogs that were worked, and I've given you them, and they clearly show that docking prevents injury, yes or no?

You believe what your evidence says about docking at a few days old, and I'll believe my evidence and the first hand experience of those who have it done to pups. The fact is, that any of those dogs that do go on to work, will be very much less likely to injure their tail, than a full tailed dog, fact!!!!


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes but they are not worked, and that's the key point. You can't produce statistics on working dogs and include figures for those that are just pets, whether they are docked or not. You asked for statistics on injuries to dogs that were worked, and I've given you them, and they clearly show that docking prevents injury, yes or no?
> 
> You believe what your evidence says about docking at a few days old, and I'll believe my evidence and the first hand experience of those who have it done to pups. The fact is, that any of those dogs that do go on to work, will be very much less likely to injure their tail, than a full tailed dog, fact!!!!


of course it prevents or minimizes injury, Cutting of my dogs leg will prevent him from ever breaking it as well or injuring it by stepping on a sharp object etc etc etc 

They are not worked, but they had to undergo an painfull procedure for the benefit of those who did work. But their pain dont count, cause they didnt make the mark.

Ur stastic is also not clear as to the type of injury, and so a minor scratch is considered as tail injury and so influences the numbers. 
And with it my conclusion that this statistic is not valid to prove the necessarity of docking.


----------



## JohnMorris

Oh dear can I call "Time out" ladies/gentlemen? I appreciate this is a very emotive subject and am getting very cynical that a new member comes on with no introduction and the first post is so contraversial that it is deliberate to wind members up so why give them the satisfaction? I may be wrong, but their English is very good and I sense a set-up..... could I be learning female intuition?


----------



## Old Shep

OMG! I thought you were meaning me, there, untill I looked to see who started this thread. Phew!

I don't think that it's disputed that a dog without a tail will not injure it when working. It's the ethics of docking that is the issue. Is it ethical to dock all the litter on the (sometimes slim) chance that they will go to working homes? In my book that's an unacceptable price to pay and provides unscrupulous breeders with a loophole allowing them to dock all their pups. In my view it's no different to cutting off the ears of white cats to prevent later cancerous lesions.

HOWEVER, I have to be honest and admit that I always neuter my dogs both to prevent unwanted behaviour, but (and I am being very truthful here) to also prevent prostatic cancer (my beloved dog died an awful death from this) 

It will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next few years with Scotalnd and England having different rules.


----------



## Nicky10

Old Shep said:


> OMG! I thought you were meaning me, there, untill I looked to see who started this thread. Phew!
> 
> I don't think that it's disputed that a dog without a tail will not injure it when working. It's the ethics of docking that is the issue. Is it ethical to dock all the litter on the (sometimes slim) chance that they will go to working homes? In my book that's an unacceptable price to pay and provides unscrupulous breeders with a loophole allowing them to dock all their pups. In my view it's no different to cutting off the ears of white cats to prevent later cancerous lesions.
> 
> HOWEVER, I have to be honest and admit that I always neuter my dogs both to prevent unwanted behaviour, but (and I am being very truthful here) to also prevent prostatic cancer (my beloved dog died an awful death from this)
> 
> It will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next few years with Scotalnd and England having different rules.


But the thing is that docking older than a few days old is far more cruel than at the age they're docked now. Obviously you can't tell if a puppy is going to be a working dog or just a spoiled pet at that age. I don't agree with cosmetic docking in show dogs or pet dogs but I think it should be done in working spaniels


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> of course it prevents or minimizes injury, Cutting of my dogs leg will prevent him from ever breaking it as well or injuring it by stepping on a sharp object etc etc etc
> 
> They are not worked, but they had to undergo an painfull procedure for the benefit of those who did work. But their pain dont count, cause they didnt make the mark.
> 
> Ur stastic is also not clear as to the type of injury, and so a minor scratch is considered as tail injury and so influences the numbers.
> And with it my conclusion that this statistic is not valid to prove the necessarity of docking.


Why not just drown them at birth? What a ridiculous argument!

The injuries are typical injuries that spaniels sustain while working, and I've posted a few examples and will post more. What more do you want, the name and address of ever person with an injured spaniel so you can go and see it for yourself?

The question of people who breed working spaniels and have pups docked, only to sell the majority of any pups they breed to pet homes, is a completely different issue, and I agree with you that it happens too frequently. But people who genuinely work their dogs, where few end up in pet homes because they are in demand from working/competition folk as they have proven ability, are lumped in with everyone else, when all they want to do is choose, as we all want, to prevent an injury to their dogs, and any pups they breed in the future.



JohnMorris said:


> Oh dear can I call "Time out" ladies/gentlemen? I appreciate this is a very emotive subject and am getting very cynical that a new member comes on with no introduction and the first post is so contraversial that it is deliberate to wind members up so why give them the satisfaction? I may be wrong, but their English is very good and I sense a set-up..... could I be learning female intuition?


Set up or not John, it's always worth putting factual evidence across to support docking of working dogs imo 



Old Shep said:


> OMG! I thought you were meaning me, there, untill I looked to see who started this thread. Phew!
> 
> I don't think that it's disputed that a dog without a tail will not injure it when working. It's the ethics of docking that is the issue. Is it ethical to dock all the litter on the (sometimes slim) chance that they will go to working homes? In my book that's an unacceptable price to pay and provides unscrupulous breeders with a loophole allowing them to dock all their pups. In my view it's no different to cutting off the ears of white cats to prevent later cancerous lesions.
> 
> HOWEVER, I have to be honest and admit that I always neuter my dogs both to prevent unwanted behaviour, but (and I am being very truthful here) to also prevent prostatic cancer (my beloved dog died an awful death from this)
> 
> It will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next few years with Scotalnd and England having different rules.


I'm sorry to hear about your old boy, it's horrible whatever happens to them in old age.

From memory the risk of developing prostate cancer is less than 1% for an entire dog, a quick glance at those statistics for working spaniels shows the risk of tail injury for an undocked dog is significantly higher than this. I do get what people are saying about unecessary docking, and agree, as I've said above. It happens too frequently, but that's down to educating the public, as many of those who don't prefer their pups to go to working homes ime, are also those who cut corners in other ways.



Nicky10 said:


> But the thing is that docking older than a few days old is far more cruel than at the age they're docked now. Obviously you can't tell if a puppy is going to be a working dog or just a spoiled pet at that age. I don't agree with cosmetic docking in show dogs or pet dogs but I think it should be done in working spaniels


I haven't really got anything to say to you Nicky, but didn't want to leave you out :lol:


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why not just drown them at birth? What a ridiculous argument!
> 
> The injuries are typical injuries that spaniels sustain while working, and I've posted a few examples and will post more. What more do you want, the name and address of ever person with an injured spaniel so you can go and see it for yourself?


u know what, comments like this about drowning pups are not worth it to continue the debate with u anymore.

Obviously u have a problem with people challenging and questioning the information ur posting from a photobucket account.  
But i for one will not take something posted by someone as the "be it all" information and much rather question it and draw my on conclusions from the answers i recieve.

And a minor scratch is a typical injury btw which occurs not only on the tail but also ears, head, legs and body after working in thick cover.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> u know what, comments like this about drowning pups are not worth it to continue the debate with u anymore.
> 
> Obviously u have a problem with people challenging and questioning the information ur posting from a photobucket account.
> But i for one will not take something posted by someone as the "be it all" information and much rather question it and draw my on conclusions from the answers i recieve.
> 
> And a minor scratch is a typical injury as well btw which occurs not only on the tail but also ears, head, legs and body after working in thick cover.


No matter how much evidence I post it wouldn't be enough for you, even though it's from the horses mouth, people who actually work their dogs, and have on the ground knowledge about it, instead of something googled off the internet. Since I posted the statistics you've asked for, all you've done is try to deflect from the fact that docking prevents injury to the tail of a working spaniel. You've tried to argue the point to include pets in there that don't work, which would obviously negate any statistical conclusions about actually working your dog and the possibility of injury. And you've also argued the point about extent of injury, surely any amount of injuries should try to be prevented? I'm well aware that scratches from the cover occur all over the body, that doesn't constitute the type of injury most working folk would state as a tail injury, it's where they split the tail, sometimes severely.

The photobucket account is mine, I'm not sure why I shouldn't load pics up onto there to post? It's what I do with most other photos, so I'm not sure what your point is


----------



## Nicky10

Are working irish water spaniels docked? I'd like to get one to work eventually and I'd rather not have it docked


----------



## Natik

Never mind SL, i have made my points clear, and have challenged and questioned ur information and came to the conclusion that in fact ur statistics are no proof whatsoever that docking is necessary. 
It only highlights that the tail is prone to injury just like any other part of the dogs body.
I could have told u that without having to carry out any sort of statistics lol its plain logic 

Everthing in life involves risks.
But to allow 500 pups to go through a painfull and for alot of them unnecessary procedure as alot of them end up as pets to prevent one dog from major injury is very questionable and imo wrong.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> Never mind SL, i have made my points clear, and have challenged and questioned ur information and came to the conclusion that in fact ur statistics are no proof whatsoever that docking is necessary.
> It only highlights that the tail is prone to injury just like any other part of the dogs body.
> I could have told u that without having to carry out any sort of statistics lol its plain logic
> 
> Everthing in life involves risks.
> But to allow 500 pups to go through a painfull and for alot of them unnecessary procedure as alot of them end up as pets to prevent one dog from major injury is very questionable and imo wrong.


Missing the point entirely yet again, how many of those 500 pups will work? 

See, I can provide you with real statistics from those who work their dogs, and you disregard it because it suits you. After all, it doesn't affect your life if the docking of working breeds is banned completely, but it has affected many people who do work their dogs, and their dogs 

We put our dogs/pets through a lot of painful and unecessary procedures, all to make our lives easier, and as a possible preventative to *something*. And yet the docking of working dogs is singled out as the only one unecessary procedure, even when the figures show differently :confused1:

Nicky, Irish Water Spaniels aren't docked I don't think, because there's no need from it, and from memory, they're not a spaniel either, a bit of an oddity. I think they're classed as a retriever from memory??


----------



## Nicky10

I know they're water retrievers rather than spaniels when working and in field trials just not in the show ring . Glad to hear they're not docked


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Missing the point entirely yet again, how many of those 500 pups will work?
> 
> See, I can provide you with real statistics from those who work their dogs, and you disregard it because it suits you. After all, it doesn't affect your life if the docking of working breeds is banned completely, but it has affected many people who do work their dogs, and their dogs
> 
> We put our dogs/pets through a lot of painful and unecessary procedures, all to make our lives easier, and as a possible preventative to *something*. And yet the docking of working dogs is singled out as the only one unecessary procedure, even when the figures show differently :confused1:
> 
> Nicky, Irish Water Spaniels aren't docked I don't think, because there's no need from it, and from memory, they're not a spaniel either, a bit of an oddity. I think they're classed as a retriever from memory??


im not missing the point at all SL but u seem to be missing the point that pet dogs go through unnescessary pain for the sake of the working ones, with no proof that docking is necessary.

I dont disregard the information cause it suits me, i question it cause the statistics are questionable, regardless of who they come from.

Im sorry i have a mind of my own and much rather question things which are posted on a forum. Im not a sheep, i ask questions and draw my own conclusion.

U think because u post a few pics of horrific injuries alongside with a statistic which includes unknown numbers of minor injuries such as a basic scratch, thats convincing enough that docking is justifyable???
I somehow dont think so


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Natik said:


> im not missing the point at all SL but u seem to be missing the point that pet dogs go through unnescessary pain for the sake of the working ones, with no proof that docking is necessary.
> 
> I dont disregard the information cause it suits me, i question it cause the statistics are questionable, regardless of who they come from.
> 
> Im sorry i have a mind of my own and much rather question things which are posted on a forum. Im not a sheep, i ask questions and draw my own conclusion.
> 
> U think because u post a few pics of horrific injuries alongside with a statistic which includes unknown numbers of minor injuries such as a basic scratch, thats convincing enough that docking is justifyable???
> I somehow dont think so


Ok, did you miss the post where I agreed with you that in general that too many people who breed 'working' spaniels or dogs, have them docked with little or no intention of them going to working/competition homes? Too many are being bred full stop to be honest!

Why are the statistics I posted questionable? If you trust the other sources, why not these figures?

I'm not saying you have to agree with me or have no opinion of your own, what I'm saying is you can't ignore the statistical evidence that docking prevents injuries to working spaniels. I will, for your sake, ask about the type of injury that was included in the survey. No one I know that works their dog would bother to report a scratch as an injury, and I shake my head that you really have got to nit pick the evidence to that extent.


----------



## Natik

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, did you miss the post where I agreed with you that in general that too many people who breed 'working' spaniels or dogs, have them docked with little or no intention of them going to working/competition homes? Too many are being bred full stop to be honest!
> 
> Why are the statistics I posted questionable? If you trust the other sources, why not these figures?
> 
> I'm not saying you have to agree with me or have no opinion of your own, what I'm saying is you can't ignore the statistical evidence that docking prevents injuries to working spaniels. I will, for your sake, ask about the type of injury that was included in the survey. No one I know that works their dog would bother to report a scratch as an injury, and I shake my head that you really have got to nit pick the evidence to that extent.


Becase they are questinable, cause they dont make it clear what type of injuries have been reported. 
Im not going to assume that people wouldnt report certain injuries, thats not how it works. 
And is there some sort of research written and documentet online for me to read and have a look at or do u have only the information from ur friend?
There are on the contrary alot of information out there that the horrific split tails are rare injuries.

And tbh im kind off tired of this subject. I stick to my opinion that docking is wrong and unnecessary and u stick to ur opinion that docking is ok and maybe we should leave it at that


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Can I just ask, would it be possible to give a local anaesthetic to the tail area when docking? Or would this be too dangerous for the pup at such a young age?


----------



## haeveymolly

shetlandlover said:


> I dont want to die....
> 
> But heres my opinion anyway.....
> 
> I believe docking tails should only be done if a dog is going to be worked. I dont agree with docking tails of pups that will be for pet homes and so on. However if a dog is going to be worked then I believe the safe option is to dock. Granted its not very nice but it saves potential infection and suffering in the long term.
> 
> I have seen more tails hurt in working dogs than I care to remember. At one point we had a dog come in it had been working in some undergrowth and we never did find out what happened but it arrived with a quater of its tail missing and we battled infection for a month before it was safe to operate and remove the whole thing. Poor dog.  A month later it was like it never happened.
> 
> Its not nice and I dont agree with changing a dogs looks for pointless reasons but I do think in some cases docking is a fair option.


I have to agee to a point only 1 of my spaniels has a full tail the rest are docked and they are pets, the problem is many pups that are docked the breeders dont know at 3 days ols wether they will go to working homes and it can never be guaranteed that even the onles going to working homes will eventually be able to work or not.
I certainly dont agree with removing any body parts just for the sake but in my case i agree with the removal of part of the tail and neutering as i feel the dog is better for it or potentialy better for it.


----------



## haeveymolly

Can i just ask a question to all those who are against docking in working spaniels?. . . . 

If you was to have a spaniel for working knowing that the tails could be ripped,badly damaged or worse end up having to have the tail amputated would you still refuse to have the tail docked, i certainly wouldnt just like with my experience of an intact dog i would never keep a male intact it has to be for the good of the dog not just removal of part tail or male parts for the sake of it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

I've asked for clarification for you Natik, of the type of injury that would have been recorded for this survey. It's easily googleable if you copy some of the text I've used, on an open forum about gundog training. This person collated the survey themselves, they work their dogs and live in Scotland where the docking ban is in force, and wanted to find out for themselves what effect working undocked dogs, as opposed to docked dogs, has on the numbers of tail injuries.

He has given as an example, his own bitch, to give you an idea of the general type of injury, but I've asked him to clarify as well whether a scratch constitutes an injury for the purpose of his survey:

_The one reported from myself. was with one of my young spaniels 'Pip',which was recurring 'tip' damage when worked in light cover , and laterly just wagging tail on the ground.
She eventually had an amputation at age 20 months, costing in excess of £300._

I'm sorry that you don't feel these figures are an honest representation of working dogs. 

Seven_pets, I believe some vets do use a local anaesthetic gel, or similar, and the tail is dipped in a powder as soon as it's docked, to prevent infection and help the wound heal quickly. I have heard of some bizarre docking practices that sound awful to be honest, and I firmly believe that it should be done as quickly as possible, to prevent as much distress to the pups and mother. It would perhaps be an idea to have registered vets that were licensed to carry out docking and only used ethical practices to do so.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Seven_pets, I believe some vets do use a local anaesthetic gel, or similar, and the tail is dipped in a powder as soon as it's docked, to prevent infection and help the wound heal quickly. I have heard of some bizarre docking practices that sound awful to be honest, and I firmly believe that it should be done as quickly as possible, to prevent as much distress to the pups and mother. It would perhaps be an idea to have registered vets that were licensed to carry out docking and only used ethical practices to do so.


that's good to know that some vets do use local anaesthetic. but I guess with everything, some vets don't do docking correctly or they prolong the procedure, but some vets do it well and prevent as much distress as possible to mother and pup.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

haeveymolly said:


> Can i just ask a question to all those who are against docking in working spaniels?. . . .
> 
> If you was to have a spaniel for working knowing that the tails could be ripped,badly damaged or worse end up having to have the tail amputated would you still refuse to have the tail docked, i certainly wouldnt just like with my experience of an intact dog i would never keep a male intact it has to be for the good of the dog not just removal of part tail or male parts for the sake of it.


You obviously know what I'm going to say, but having looked after Miggin for several months now, even though he isn't mine, I know I'd be gutted if he got injured working and/or competing (fingers crossed he gets that far), especially if I felt it was preventable.


----------



## haeveymolly

I could have guessed your reply, if harvey (mine with the full tail) was worked he would certainly be a high risk, he has many,many times come out of the undergrowth with brambles twisted very tight around his tail so if he was in their for the ammount of time he would be if working "properly" his would be a mess.


----------



## GoldenShadow

That study which says you have to dock 500 dog's tails to prevent injury to one, its obvious why that is. Its because there are so many bent back yard breeders who bend over backwards to get a litter docked because some people do like them that way.

Its not like every single litter docked is bred by a responsible breeder genuinely wanting them to go to working homes. That is why so many who are going to pet homes get docked IMO. If it was only done with the genuine litters who are likely to have workers out of them I expect the figure of 500 would diminish by at least a couple of zeros rather quickly.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

To be honest, I just don't feel it's right that dogs with entire tails are put at risk working some of the sort of cover asked of them, but then what choice have they got in Scotland now, except to buy all their pups from England?


----------



## Old Shep

I don't want to re-hasjh over the arguent, but I would like to point out that there is "good" research and "bad" research (and that has nothing to do with wheather you agree with it or not.

Good research is carried out in an impartial, objective manner and you can't say that stats gathered by people who shoot would qualify as that. There is no information about the hows and the wherefores in that piece of work. I am not saying they are lying, just that it is possible to influence the outcome of a piece of research if you have a position on the argument and that this can be done without being aware of it.

The problem here is you would have to look at the incidence of tail injuries in un docked dogs who work to get an accurate view of the problem. You would have to separate the breeds, separate the types of ground the dogs work on, ensure that there is clarity on what constitutes "tail damage" and ensure you have a large enough sample. I don't think this has actually been done (if it has, can you forward me a link, please as I'd like to read it.)

Must dash. Dinner to put on the table before there is a mutiny!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Old Shep said:


> I don't want to re-hasjh over the arguent, but I would like to point out that there is "good" research and "bad" research (and that has nothing to do with wheather you agree with it or not.
> 
> Good research is carried out in an impartial, objective manner and you can't say that stats gathered by people who shoot would qualify as that. There is no information about the hows and the wherefores in that piece of work. I am not saying they are lying, just that it is possible to influence the outcome of a piece of research if you have a position on the argument and that this can be done without being aware of it.
> 
> The problem here is you would have to look at the incidence of tail injuries in un docked dogs who work to get an accurate view of the problem. You would have to separate the breeds, separate the types of ground the dogs work on, ensure that there is clarity on what constitutes "tail damage" and ensure you have a large enough sample. I don't think this has actually been done (if it has, can you forward me a link, please as I'd like to read it.)
> 
> Must dash. Dinner to put on the table before there is a mutiny!!


Chuckle, no mutiny from me, if they wanted to make it look bad and sway figures, they could have done an awful lot more than what's presented. You can choose to trust someone who has been working their dogs for many years, and chose to try and collate a cross section of information from those with working dogs, that were both docked and undocked, or not, up to you. And surely, if they wanted to make up evidence that docking was beneficial to all breeds, they would have made up a set of figures for HPR's. I find it very sad indeed, that people are suspicious of anyone who is involved with shooting, and working their dogs, the very people who actually are at the brunt of the ban on docking in Scotland.


----------



## rocco33

> I find it very sad indeed, that people are suspicious of anyone who is involved with shooting, and working their dogs,


I don't think it's that anyone is suspicious of people involved in shooting, just trying to pick holes in an attempt to back up their argument and point of view. 

I don't mind if people are against all docking - to a certain extent I understand it, it's just that I know the problems for working dogs and in working dogs it is the lesser of two evils. Remember, this is a pet forum, and most wouldn't understand what a working dog does or even like that dogs are 'worked'.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Re the figures supplied in the survey of dogs with tail injuries....

_All 'injuries', that were reported in the survey, are 'documented', and supported with vet examination,
Injury', would constitute, 'Bleeding', cracking of the skin, discomfort to the dog, breakage, and amputation._

Just how much more evidence do you need, probably more, which is good, because I expect more first hand evidence and photos.

And, after time to really mull on the quite ridiculous analogy of chopping off a leg to prevent breakage. Well yes, it would prevent breakage and injury to that particular leg, but what about the other three, the whole of the dog, the unbalance and possible strain put onto the dog?? Why not chop off all of it's legs in that case??

Docking appropriately does not stop the dog from being a dog, nor working as it was intended, it prevents injury, as the figures prove.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

rocco33 said:


> I don't think it's that anyone is suspicious of people involved in shooting, just trying to pick holes in an attempt to back up their argument and point of view.
> 
> I don't mind if people are against all docking - to a certain extent I understand it, it's just that I know the problems for working dogs and in working dogs it is the lesser of two evils. Remember, this is a pet forum, and most wouldn't understand what a working dog does or even like that dogs are 'worked'.


Oh I completely agree, but an always reluctant to leave a point of view that doesn't take into account those who actually work their dogs with first hand experience etc.


----------



## Old Shep

It doesn't serve an argument very well to assume that people who are arguing against your view don't know anything about "working" dogs. 

I really don't want to decend to ad hominem as it will only reflect badly on me, but you know nothing about me except that I have border collies and like brittanys. I have friends who shoot and have had this discussion with them as well. I could cite friends of mine who work gundogs and don't agree with docking. I could get pictures of their dogs working with full, uninjured tails--but that's NOT EVIDENCE and proves only that there are a few people I know who work undocked dogs. So what?


I do have first hand experience of dogs who work for a living-and that's real work, not sport. 

By "mutiny" I was referring to my family. Not forum members


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Old Shep said:


> It doesn't serve an argument very well to assume that people who are arguing against your view don't know anything about "working" dogs.
> 
> I really don't want to decend to ad hominem as it will only reflect badly on me, but you know nothing about me except that I have border collies and like brittanys. I have friends who shoot and have had this discussion with them as well. I could cite friends of mine who work gundogs and don't agree with docking. I could get pictures of their dogs working with full, uninjured tails--but that's NOT EVIDENCE and proves only that there are a few people I know who work undocked dogs. So what?
> 
> I do have first hand experience of dogs who work for a living-and that's real work, not sport.
> 
> By "mutiny" I was referring to my family. Not forum members


Quid pro quo, you know nothing about me or my life; and I've tried to ensure I haven't accused you personally, or anyone personally, it's something I hate seeing in posts.


----------



## Guest

Old Shep said:


> It doesn't serve an argument very well to assume that people who are arguing against your view don't know anything about "working" dogs.
> 
> I really don't want to decend to ad hominem as it will only reflect badly on me, but you know nothing about me except that I have border collies and like brittanys. I have friends who shoot and have had this discussion with them as well. I could cite friends of mine who work gundogs and don't agree with docking. I could get pictures of their dogs working with full, uninjured tails--but that's NOT EVIDENCE and proves only that there are a few people I know who work undocked dogs. So what?
> 
> I do have first hand experience of dogs who work for a living-and that's real work, not sport.
> 
> By "mutiny" I was referring to my family. Not forum members


But what cover do these dogs work?
I was convinced by a PF member a long time ago that spaniels who work predominantly heather and bracken, do not require docking as the injury rate is quite low in these circumstances. However with my own experience of spaniels working heavy bramble, I believe that docking is for the benefit of the dog concerned


----------



## Old Shep

Sleeping Lion: but you have -although I wouldn't use the word "accuse"-more "assume"



> You can choose to trust someone who has been working their dogs for many years





> those who actually work their dogs with first hand experience etc


. 


> disregard what they don't like without any real working or in depth knowledge of subjects, just what they've read on the internet.


These are comments made by you to me (and there are many more, I just don't have the time just now to fish more out) which clearly imply that I know nothing about working dogs.

but that's a side issue.

As I have already said, I don't think I will change my mind untill I see the results of independant, well constructed research.

*Something we all seem to agree on, though, is that cosmetic docking (something which the KC have tried to justify) is abhorrent :thumbup:*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Old Shep said:


> Sleeping Lion: but you have -although I wouldn't use the word "accuse"-more "assume"
> 
> .
> 
> These are comments made by you to me (and there are many more, I just don't have the time just now to fish more out) which clearly imply that I know nothing about working dogs.
> 
> but that's a side issue.
> 
> As I have already said, I don't think I will change my mind untill I see the results of independant, well constructed research.
> 
> *Something we all seem to agree on, though, is that cosmetic docking (something which the KC have tried to justify) is abhorrent :thumbup:*


Without going back and picking up the whole setences, those are part of a larger general sentence/paragraph and weren't meant to be pointed at any one person, although it was you I quoted in the replies; and I also did point out on at least one occasion where I made a general comment about people making assumptions, that it wasn't directed at you. Perhaps I need to add the words 'as in the royal you/we/they' etc.

You're right, we can agree that docking for cosmetic reasons only is wrong. I too would welcome an impartial survey, showing the results of tail injuries to working dogs.


----------



## JohnMorris

Tanusha said:


> My dog Bonacy ( Jack Russel) bore 6 puppies yesterday. I hesitate if I should dock their tales. I like more Jack Russels docked but they say that at present docked dogs aren't admitted to European dogs show. Is that true? We live in Russia.


Sorry if this has already been asked as I haven't ploughed through the whole thread, but if you live in Russia how likely are you to show your dogs in Europe? I cannot imagaine the trauma the dogs would go through just for a show:frown:


----------



## hawksport

JohnMorris said:


> Sorry if this has already been asked as I haven't ploughed through the whole thread, but if you live in Russia how likely are you to show your dogs in Europe? I cannot imagaine the trauma the dogs would go through just for a show:frown:


That depends on what part of Russia you are coming from and what part of Europe you are going to.


----------



## Old Shep

Am I right in thinking that there are some european countries (the netherlands spring to mind) where you cannot show dogs with docked tails at all?

What is the situation in Scotland re showing? If you come up from England with a docked dog, can you show it?

Someone also said in another thread that it is possible to show dogs (both male and female )which have been neutered. I thought you could not. Does anyone know?

I have never shown dogs before, but a few of my friends do and I have come to recognise that it's a really good way to socialise pups.

Maybe this is off topic. Sorry:confused1:


----------



## happysaz133

hawksport said:


> That depends on what part of Russia you are coming from and what part of Europe you are going to.


This. I know some parts of Russia are classed as EU, but I don't quite understand why.


----------



## Nicky10

Old Shep said:


> Am I right in thinking that there are some european countries (the netherlands spring to mind) where you cannot show dogs with docked tails at all?
> 
> What is the situation in Scotland re showing? If you come up from England with a docked dog, can you show it?
> 
> Someone also said in another thread that it is possible to show dogs (both male and female )which have been neutered. I thought you could not. Does anyone know?
> 
> I have never shown dogs before, but a few of my friends do and I have come to recognise that it's a really good way to socialise pups.
> 
> Maybe this is off topic. Sorry:confused1:


I could be wrong but I think you can't show dogs that were docked after the ban unless it was for medical reasons badly damaged tail etc at shows that charge an entrance fee. You can show neutered dogs but especially with males it's a big disadvantage because they have to have two fully descended testicles


----------



## Old Shep

Thanks for that.


----------



## hawksport

Old Shep said:


> Am I right in thinking that there are some european countries (the netherlands spring to mind) where you cannot show dogs with docked tails at all?
> 
> What is the situation in Scotland re showing? If you come up from England with a docked dog, can you show it?
> 
> Someone also said in another thread that it is possible to show dogs (both male and female )which have been neutered. I thought you could not. Does anyone know?
> 
> I have never shown dogs before, but a few of my friends do and I have come to recognise that it's a really good way to socialise pups.
> 
> Maybe this is off topic. Sorry:confused1:


There are some European countries that you can't even import docked dogs into never mind show them.

Dogs docked before the ban.
These can be shown at all shows in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Dogs legaly docked after the ban.
These may not be shown at shows in England and Wales where the public is charged a fee for admission. 
If they were docked legally either in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or abroad they may be shown at any show in Scotland or Northern Ireland - but in England and Wales they may only be shown at shows where the public is admitted without the payment of a fee.


----------



## Old Shep

Thank you!


----------



## Guest

hawksport said:


> There are some European countries that you can't even import docked dogs into never mind show them.
> 
> Dogs docked before the ban.
> These can be shown at all shows in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
> 
> Dogs legaly docked after the ban.
> These may not be shown at shows in England and Wales where the public is charged a fee for admission.
> If they were docked legally either in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or abroad they may be shown at any show in Scotland or Northern Ireland - but in England and Wales they may only be shown at shows where the public is admitted without the payment of a fee.


Does that even apply to the game keeper classes at Crufts?


----------



## hawksport

rona said:


> Does that even apply to the game keeper classes at Crufts?


As far as I know the law stands for those classes the same as all the others. I could be wrong I never get to see anything at crufts. I seem to remember they were going to introduce a retrieve into the gamekeeper classes that all the dogs had to complete as a way around the law.


----------



## Guest

hawksport said:


> As far as I know the law stands for those classes the same as all the others. I could be wrong I never get to see anything at crufts. I seem to remember they were going to introduce a retrieve into the gamekeeper classes that all the dogs had to complete as a way around the law.


I'm sure that some of these are docked
Crufts 2010 Gallery


----------



## hawksport

A significant drop has been seen in the Gamekeepers classes this year, where entries have fallen by 17 percent compared to 2009, largely due to the law that even legally docked dogs may not be shown at events where the public pay an entry fee. All of the dogs in these classes are working dogs - for which tail docking is legal  but now face restrictions on entering the show ring.

Copied from here Healthy entries to DFS Crufts 2010 | Crufts presented by the Kennel Club


----------



## hawksport

What if I have a gundog which is legally docked in England or Wales after the law changed, and I want to enter the Gamekeepers classes at a show?
This will still fall under the definition of showing a dog and will therefore be illegal if the show charges the public a fee for admission.

Copied from here Docking Q&A For Competitors - The Kennel Club


----------



## Old Shep

Gosh! That is really really complicated!
Interesting the different rules for showing docked dogs in different parts of the country, though.


----------



## stick

most of you have missed the point here, and gone off on a tangent about an irrelevent breed and why they are docked.

NATIK youve mentioned that spaniels can flush from light cover. but the OP was asking about jack russel docking, jack russels were not bred to bush from light cover, nor heavy, but to work underground where there are roots, stones and all sorts of debris which can and do seriously damage a terriers flailing tail when it is doing its job. a terrier works in an extremely harsh environment which cannot be made safe in any way shape or form.

also regarding the pain, vets dont agree with you. they lop off the required portion of tail while the pup is still awake, and put the pup back to its mother which cleans the tail and the pup carries on as normal a few moments later. much the same as when a piglet is castrated without sedation. and quicker than when lambs' tails are docked with a rubber ring which constricts bloodflow to kill the docked portion so it will drop off after a week or 2. are you shouting down farmers for these practicies? no you are ramming your completely uninformed opinion down people's throats.

DEXTER, the parson is NOT a different breed, but merely a different strain of the same dogs, line bred by 1 man and continued by many nowadays.

OLD SHEP, if you had ever worked a dog, you'd know that tail injuries are NOT a myth, but are simple fact. there are people in this thread telling you they have seen it while working their dogs and youre calling them liars. the reason why tail injuries are not commonplace in working dogs is that they are docked, PREVENTING INJURY.

to the OP, if you want the tails docked, go for it. here are the requirements you must meet to get the tails legally docked by a vet....
Tail Docking - NATIONAL WORKING TERRIER FEDERATION (N.W.T.F.)


----------



## hawksport

STICK you missed the point. The op asked if a docked dog can be shown in Europe, not the reason for docking them. As far as I am aware the legal requirements for docking in the UK don't apply in Russia and if they did the puppies would to to old now to go for it.


----------



## stick

youre right i did miss the russia part. i was just trying to aim it at terrier docking rather than spaniels who work in a completely different environment.


----------



## Natik

stick said:


> also regarding the pain, vets dont agree with you.


depends what vet u ask 

there are plenty who agree and those who dont.


----------



## stick

if it was causing them that much pain the vet would sedate them. they dont. 

i dont dispute that it hurts, but the effects of any pain are noticably gone just seconds after the docking is done. the pup just goes back to its mother and carries on as normal.

dogs' pain thresholds are far higher than our own which might be why they just get on with it. we have no understanding of "omg how can he be fine after that??!?!?" because we experience pain in a different and more pathetic way.


----------



## Natik

stick said:


> if it was causing them that much pain the vet would sedate them. they dont.
> 
> i dont dispute that it hurts, but the effects of any pain are noticably gone just seconds after the docking is done. the pup just goes back to its mother and carries on as normal.
> 
> dogs' pain thresholds are far higher than our own which might be why they just get on with it. we have no understanding of "omg how can he be fine after that??!?!?" because we experience pain in a different and more pathetic way.


vets usually dont sedate such young pups because its alot more risky to their health.

Dogs pain threshold isnt necessarily higher, they dont show pain in the same way as u would expect of a human and its survival not to appear vulnerable.


----------



## noushka05

stick said:


> if it was causing them that much pain the vet would sedate them. they dont.
> 
> i dont dispute that it hurts, but the effects of any pain are noticably gone just seconds after the docking is done. the pup just goes back to its mother and carries on as normal.
> 
> dogs' pain thresholds are far higher than our own which might be why they just get on with it. we have no understanding of "omg how can he be fine after that??!?!?" because we experience pain in a different and more pathetic way.


how on earth would you know that, just because an animal dosent show pain doesnt mean they dont feel it just as much as we do animals are far more instinctive than us even domestic species....its a survival thing.


----------



## Patterdale_lover

We dock our dogs because they work.

If your dogs will not be working, do not dock them simply because you think it looks better. That's selfish.


----------



## Old Shep

> OLD SHEP, if you had ever worked a dog, you'd know that tail injuries are NOT a myth, but are simple fact. there are people in this thread telling you they have seen it while working their dogs and youre calling them liars. the reason why tail injuries are not commonplace in working dogs is that they are docked, PREVENTING INJURY.


Excuse me, but where have I said that working dogs never injure their tails and where have I called anyone a liar? And I think if you had read my posts correctly, you would find that I had mentioned the fact that if working dogs don't have tails, then this would clearly lead those dogs having minimal tail damage. You cannot injure something which is not there!

I have now gone through this entire thread (that's 15 mins of my life I can't get back) and nowhere can I find that I have called anyone a liar, or said that dogs never injure their tails.


----------



## Ridgielover

JohnMorris said:


> Sorry if this has already been asked as I haven't ploughed through the whole thread, but if you live in Russia how likely are you to show your dogs in Europe? I cannot imagaine the trauma the dogs would go through just for a show:frown:


Our Best of Breed winner at Crufts this year had come over from Russia. He didn't look too traumatised.


----------



## ADA

*BUT* docking the dog in the first place injured the dog! As stated above if an injury occurs that requires docking, the skin has been stretched in the repair ( proportionately it is the same in puppies) and is thinner and liable to more injury or long term neuromas.
How does a dog wag its tail if not by muscle attachments which in "short docks" can affect anal control. for muscle detail see Anatomical ConsiderationsThe Anti-Docking Alliance Web Site in the UK = Home Page

Field Spaniels often seem to have longer tails when left undocked than their show undocked counterparts. Therefore it would be sensible to seek suitable mates and ancestry for tail length for breeding purposes.
This is a quote from a working Field Spaniel "expert" '....Both field bred and the formerly show bred Springer Spaniels have had docked tails. The difference is, the field bred dogs tail is docked longer. *The reason for this is that the tail is an important hunting tool It acts as an alert signal for the hunter*...'
Now it could be said that the work they do endangers them as not only is it being claimed that they get tail injuries when working but research has shown that they get many leg and other injuries. However it is only the tail that is considered to be the prophylactic removable part. 
If we talk about "*fit for function*" then the question must be asked if dogs need parts removing to be able to work, are they fit for function? Hounds (fox) seem to be classified as indestructible and undocked!


----------



## JohnMorris

Does no-one else think it funny that a new member comes on with such a contraversial thread and never came back to reply? The OP isn't the average new member on here imo and I am rather suspicious.


----------



## JohnMorris

Ridgielover said:


> Our Best of Breed winner at Crufts this year had come over from Russia. He didn't look too traumatised.


Shows what I know about showing dogs wh? Shows how little interest I have too


----------



## Guest

stick said:


> if it was causing them that much pain the vet would sedate them. they dont.
> 
> i dont dispute that it hurts, but the effects of any pain are noticably gone just seconds after the docking is done. the pup just goes back to its mother and carries on as normal.
> 
> dogs' pain thresholds are far higher than our own which might be why they just get on with it. we have no understanding of "omg how can he be fine after that??!?!?" because we experience pain in a different and more pathetic way.


Puppies scream like hell when docked - even at a couple of days old - It is a sound you would never forget! Yep! I was for the docking when docking where allowed! But now the no docking laws have been introduced I am glad! And wish it were extened to ALL! Besides! I love my dogs tail - and cannot imagine it gone!

And here it is!!!!!


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

DoubleTrouble said:


> Puppies scream like hell when docked - even at a couple of days old - It is a sound you would never forget! Yep! I was for the docking when docking where allowed! But now the no docking laws have been introduced I am glad! And wish it were extened to ALL! Besides! I love my dogs tail - and cannot imagine it gone!
> 
> And here it is!!!!!


your dog has a gorgeous tail.

I love seeing originally docked breeds undocked, they look so beautiful. I love rotties with their tails. And I wouldn't have got a docked cocker spaniel because I do love their tails. Even nearly 5 years after the ban, people can still be shocked when they see a cocker spaniel with a tail.


----------



## Guest

SEVEN_PETS said:


> your dog has a gorgeous tail.
> 
> I love seeing originally docked breeds undocked, they look so beautiful. I love rotties with their tails. And I wouldn't have got a docked cocker spaniel because I do love their tails. Even nearly 5 years after the ban, people can still be shocked when they see a cocker spaniel with a tail.


Thank you! and yes! I adore her tail! I would if I could post a piccy of my older dog - who is docked - but most pictures that show his tail are on my other computer which is broken!

Saying he's docked - there is a possibility he may lose his stump altoghter as he had had an infection at the end! it seems to have settled at the moment but don't think we are out of the woods yet somehow! And that it seems could be a big operation - so docking certainly did him no favours.
DT


----------

