What are your views on tail docking?

Kopite73

my personal view is it is easier to monitor the dogs' state of mind with a tail, some like the look with some like it docked its a personal choice really - shaved head or ponytail ... everyone has a view and entitled to it but purely from a behavioral point of view its easier to assess a dog with a tail IMO. I have a rott rescued from pound docked when we took him and it was much harder figure him out than a staffy we adopted with a tail ! Ok so not scientific just an observation,
Take it cheesey
Martin.

Bluefrog

First Boomerang, I'm not taking a cheap shot at you. From your other posts I know the work you do day to day for animals' welfare. This post is rather to clarify some issues for the general discussion.

As someone approaching the time when I will have to get my pup neutered, I can definitely tell you that it isn't being done for my own convenience but rather for the long-term quality of life of the pup himself, my other dog here and the other dogs we encounter when out.

The benefits of neutering/spaying for a dog are well documented so I won't bother going into them here and while there are undeniable advantages for the owner, the main benefits go to the dog.

To compare an unregulated practice which is mainly done for aesthetic reasons, often in dubious to downright cruel ways to one normally practiced by regulated medical professionals with such benefits to the individual dog and all other dogs in the vicinity is bizarre to me.

How could anyone view castration as 'natural'? Why would anyone try when little is 'natural' about any dog's life given that they have been comprehensively genetically modified from their ancestors and that they live (for better or worse) in human society, mainly in the company of humans rather than other dogs? Does this yearning for a 'natural' existence for dogs extend to not intervening when the dog becomes ill? Some sense of perspective is required.

I view castration as a responsible medical intervention for the longterm well-being of my dogs and others. Only if a docking can be justified in the same fashion could I imagine any animal lover endorsing it.

boomerang wrote: »

We neuter/spay for our own convenience, to avoid unwanted litters, nuisance behaviour in males and female seasons... and there are some people that consider spay/neuter a mutilation. Is it Germany or Sweden that spay/neuter is illegal, unless for a medical reason - e.g. testicular cancer, pyometra, etc. Plenty of us don't consider spay/neuter as mutilation or 'un-natural intervention' yet still think that tail-docking is wrong...

iguana

Bluefrog wrote: »

I view castration as a responsible medical intervention for the longterm well-being of my dogs and others. Only if a docking can be justified in the same fashion could I imagine any animal lover endorsing it.

I don't think you've been reading the thread properly. Boomerang didn't compare them, I did. And I compared it in relation to specific dogs who are prone to serious tail damage if their tail is left at full length.

ecaf

Both our dogs tails are docked, and came like that. Difference is they are working dogs (pointer & cocker), well in truth the cocker won't be but she was done when I got her and I had intended working her if she was any good, but she wasn't bred for that and she isn't much of a hunter.

The pointer has a docked tail but it isn't as stumpy as the cocker, she is very much a working dog and as iguana pointed out their tails can get damaged from briars when out hunting.

Personally I don't mind the look of them either way. For a non hunting dog, given the choice, I wouldn't really bother with getting them docked. Don't think I have seen many boxers, doberman, rotties, etc. with their tails though! It is a pity I suppose because there is no reason for removing it.

Kopite73 said that you cannot tell their mood as well without the tail.
I don't find that. They still wag the stump, and for our cocker with the shorter stump she wiggles her bum. But I understand too that it is easier on them with a long exaggerated wag.

Bluefrog

Er, I'm not sure you read my post properly Iguana - at least, not as it was intended to read - first thing it says is that it's not directed at Boomerang. And I stand by my point that comparing castration to docking is a bizarre comparison.

My boxer wags his full tail with pride and I sincerely hope before too long all boxers and other non-working dogs will.

iguana wrote: »

I don't think you've been reading the thread properly. Boomerang didn't compare them, I did. And I compared it in relation to specific dogs who are prone to serious tail damage if their tail is left at full length.

iguana

Bluefrog wrote: »

Er, I'm not sure you read my post properly Iguana - at least, not as it was intended to read - first thing it says is that it's not directed at Boomerang. And I stand by my point that comparing castration to docking is a bizarre comparison.

My boxer wags his full tail with pride and I sincerely hope before too long all boxers and other non-working dogs will.

You didn't say it wasn't directed at her(?) you said you weren't taking a cheap shot but......... Then you made comments about docking for aesthetic reasons not being comparable to neutering which was not a comparison being made.

Then you said I view castration as a responsible medical intervention for the longterm well-being of my dogs and others. Only if a docking can be justified in the same fashion could I imagine any animal lover endorsing it. Which was exactly the point which was being made as certain types of dogs have a history of serious tail damage which is preventable by partial docking. And many animal lovers would prefer for their dogs to have had a minor surgical procedure at a young age than a serious operation following a painful injury.

And tbh, I don't see how castration/spaying improves the long-term well being of dogs, it doesn't. It's main purpose is to prevent unwanted litters. Neutering is done for the convenience of human beings. And that's fine, it's a good enough reason but it is a mutilation of the dog for our benefit and denying that is like being a leather wearing vegan.

Bluefrog wrote: »

My boxer wags his full tail with pride and I sincerely hope before too long all boxers and other non-working dogs will.

So do I. If the breed doesn't have a history of tail damage the is no reason to consider docking. Or if you have a springer/cocker that will never be near thorn bushes there is no need to either.

Bluefrog

Ok, read into my post what you want and ignore my cliarifcation - fine.

iguana

Bluefrog wrote: »

Ok, read into my post what you want and ignore my cliarifcation - fine.

I'm not try to argue or criticise you. It's just that you were taking issue with a point that was my point rather than Boomerang's and it seemed unfair to her.

Bluefrog

Yes and I clarified that but you then went on to dispute my intention, selectively quote and mis-interpret other parts of my original post and finally name call - 'leather wearing vegan' - nice. Others can judge the quality of your 'moderation'. I was happy to debate the points I raised and to clarify any points but I have enough of a life not to sit here and have my intent in a post disputed. I'm done with this thread.

lorna100

just to play devils advocate - what about lambs tails being docked? AFAIK the majority of lambs tails are docked, its common practice and widely accepted. The farmers (that I know of anyway) put rubber bands around the tail, cutting off the blood supply. I assume its done to stop flies laying their eggs in the wool when it becomes soiled.
If its acceptable to do it to sheep, why not dogs?

BTW I dont agree with tail docking of any animal - it is mutilation and is wrong.

mygti

personally i think that the breeds of dogs mentioned look much better with their tails docked, i had a boxer for 10 years who died before xmas.who had his tail cut at 6 wks. i couldnt picture him with a long tail.

iguana

Bluefrog wrote: »

Yes and I clarified that but you then went on to dispute my intention, selectively quote and mis-interpret other parts of my original post and finally name call - 'leather wearing vegan' - nice. Others can judge the quality of your 'moderation'. I was happy to debate the points I raised and to clarify any points but I have enough of a life not to sit here and have my intent in a post disputed. I'm done with this thread.

Why are you being so aggressive? You didn't clarify anything, you did direct your comments at Boomerang, you quoted her and mentioned her at the beginning in a way that did not make your intention clear. Your whole initial post was aggressive in it's tone and you kept referring to how docking for aesthetic reasons wasn't comparable to neutering, when nobody had ever suggested it was. I didn't selectively quote, I quoted the main points of your thread. You however were very selective in your posting when you quoted Boomerang.

And now you are accusing me of name calling when what I did was make an analogy. If you don't like my views that's fair enough, but argue against them properly instead of attacking me.

UrbanSea

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

it's nothing but cruel to put a dog under any discomfort for something that is purely for appearence.

But tail docking isnt done purely for appearance,tail docking is carried out on breeds such as rottweilers and doberman because they are known to be such strong and muscular dogs then their tails are weak,Docking is merely carried out to eliminate the dogs weakest aspect.

boomerang

That's not an argument I've come across before, greetings, could you expand on it? By "weak" do you mean anatomically weak, or aesthetically weak?

Discodog

greetings wrote: »

But tail docking isnt done purely for appearance,tail docking is carried out on breeds such as rottweilers and doberman because they are known to be such strong and muscular dogs then their tails are weak,Docking is merely carried out to eliminate the dogs weakest aspect.

What a load of rubbish. Tail docking is done because it was in the Kennel Club breed standard. Now that it is illegal in UK it will die out here as once a dog is docked it cannot be shown in the UK.

The only weak aspect of Rotties & Dobies is their stupid owners who want to remove their tails !

UrbanSea

boomerang wrote: »

That's not an argument I've come across before, greetings, could you expand on it? By "weak" do you mean anatomically weak, or aesthetically weak?

Couldnt be certain boomerang,I just remember reading that somewhere. You can see where this may come from(however,I would not be a fan of docking,and if i had a Doberman or whatever I personally wouldnt dock it,unless of course it had already been docked when it was bought etc) as even lookin at the tail of an undocked rotty or doberman they do like as if they would be their weakest part of the body,it bein a slender and sensitive object in comparison with the rest of it's body. I suppose people could say it is for the dog's own good,to prevent it been harmed? Not my opinion,but i suppose the opinion of some others.

cowzerp

My rotty is a rescue and only has a small stump, everyone is saying you cant see the tail moving so cant tell its emotions! his stump still moves and it is obvious when he is excited or happy, you could play with his stump and its not sore so in my opinion if it is not sore when it is docked then its fine, i could not answer that though as i never witnessed it, a vet should know this.

sorella

?? Obviously now it has healed; as your hand would if you lost a finger.

The cutting off is a different matter

wonder if dogs get "phantom tails"?

cowzerp wrote: »

My rotty is a rescue and only has a small stump, everyone is saying you cant see the tail moving so cant tell its emotions! his stump still moves and it is obvious when he is excited or happy, you could play with his stump and its not sore so in my opinion if it is not sore when it is docked then its fine, i could not answer that though as i never witnessed it, a vet should know this.

cloudy day

everyone is entitled to an opinion. not everyone likes the same thimgs in life. what is good for one person is not always good for another. ..but...

just because a chosen few decide something is not acceptable just because they don't like it, there i think is the origions of a problem.

as i believe people started docking dogs tails generations ago, well before the KC were even founded. the original boxers look nothing like their modern counterparts for one thing.

it was a common practice with no ill affects to the dog, ok, it may not be for the squeamish, just like if a lot of these anti docking folk had to kill a chicken for their dinner, or kill a fish, or slaughter a lamb, chances are they wouldn't be able to do it. it can be argued for and against whether or not the pup's find it painful until the cows come home.

i have to laugh at the moral stance the vets have taken.

does anyone know what a caslicks operation on a brood mare is.

the vet will SLICE off a slither of flesh from either side of the vagina, then he stiches the vagina together, so that the flesh fuses, leaving only a small gap for peeing.

it's common practice, but he vet will do it to the same mare every year, EVERY YEAR, for years. and they don't consider that cruel.

the mare is supposed to have the stitches out before foaling, often their not taken out, and it tears when the mare foals.

every year horses are castrated, that's painful. dogs ar ecastrated, that's painful.

calves are de-horned, pigs have their tails cut, lambs have bands put on their tails, which doesn't hurt if they are done early. these things are considered necessary.

in the case of tailing lambs, definitely due to the scourge of fly strike and maggots.

if the vets won't dock the pups all they are doing is preventing the pups from the correct treatment by a professional. the owner will find another means to do it.

castration and nuetering has nothing to do with health, yet the vets are happy to take money to do it. that's a major operation compared with docking. the dogs are sore for days afterwards. and it's done when the dog is older which is far worse than docking.

each to their own but when it becomes a fact when people no longer have choices as they are bullied into a system without any say well...... don't they call that a dictatorship.

and nipping off a new borns tail is nothing like cutting off a humans finger.
there are no knuckle joints or bones in a tail.

plus there is a big difference with a finger and a tail. the long tails in most breeds serve no purpose whatsoever, it's just in some they don't look as nice. and originally that's how these breeds were made to look.

i think boxers, dobermanns, rottweiler's, jack russel's and weirmeramers look awful with long tails.

but there are also a lot of breeds i'd hate to see with short tails.

having an opinion is one thing.... forcing it onto others cos it's what you want is another.

Whispered

cloudy day wrote: »

it was a common practice with no ill affects to the dog, ok, it may not be for the squeamish, just like if a lot of these anti docking folk had to kill a chicken for their dinner, or kill a fish, or slaughter a lamb, chances are they wouldn't be able to do it. it can be argued for and against whether or not the pup's find it painful until the cows come home.

How do you know there are no ill effects, pain is an ill effect. Also there is a huge huge difference between killing an animal for food and docking a dogs tail. As for it being common parctise, many things were common parctise which are no longer acceptable.

cloudy day wrote: »

i have to laugh at the moral stance the vets have taken.

does anyone know what a caslicks operation on a brood mare is.

the vet will SLICE off a slither of flesh from either side of the vagina, then he stiches the vagina together, so that the flesh fuses, leaving only a small gap for peeing.

it's common practice, but he vet will do it to the same mare every year, EVERY YEAR, for years. and they don't consider that cruel..

Really, why is that? I never heard of that before. Is it for health reasons? (you've given me yet another reason to hate farming and all it stands for)

cloudy day wrote: »

every year horses are castrated, that's painful. dogs ar ecastrated, that's painful.

calves are de-horned, pigs have their tails cut, lambs have bands put on their tails, which doesn't hurt if they are done early. these things are considered necessary.

in the case of tailing lambs, definitely due to the scourge of fly strike and maggots..

Why are calves dehorned? and pigs have their tails cut? I didn't know about that either. Is there an hygiene or health reason? I'm sure it's not for aesthetics like puppy docking?

cloudy day wrote: »

if the vets won't dock the pups all they are doing is preventing the pups from the correct treatment by a professional. the owner will find another means to do it.

Yes I agree with you here. No dogs should be docked without proper reason. Such as working dogs who can split their tail. If you have a docked dog, you should be questioned about it by the warden (although the wardens can't do the job they currently have very well so this might not be at all feasible) I mean in an ideal world of course, if docking was made illegal.

cloudy day wrote: »

castration and nuetering has nothing to do with health, yet the vets are happy to take money to do it. that's a major operation compared with docking. the dogs are sore for days afterwards. and it's done when the dog is older which is far worse than docking..

It has a lot to do with health.

cloudy day wrote: »

i think boxers, dobermanns, rottweiler's, jack russel's and weirmeramers look awful with long tails..

I think they all look better with tails.

The physical mutliation of an animal for aesthetic purposes only seems wrong to me.

bigpinkelephant

I don't mean to sound overly sensitive but maybe it would be a good idea for people to use spoiler tags on the most gorey posts- the bit about the mares made me feel quite ill!

soulstaf

Tails docked WITHOUT any anaesthetic causes the animal a GREAT DEAL OF PAIN. FACT

Puppies are seen to fall asleep or suckle within a few minutes of tail-docking, which indicates that they ARE in pain. Others have pointed out that there may be evolutionary reasons for puppies sleeping and suckling, as a way of conserving strength at a time of injury. Puppies suckle to reduce the pain, as it is known that the act of suckling stimulates the release of endogenous opioids (endorphins) that produce analgesia.

Docking in itself is a risk-there are anecdotal accounts of puppies dying from shock or blood loss as a result of docking.


Long-term pain from tail-docking
As with many humans, dogs may live with long-term pain without it being very obvious. There is evidence that dogs may suffer from some types of ‘pathological’ long-term pain as a result of the tissue damage caused by
docking. Pathological pain can be characterised by one or more of the following:
• Spontaneous pain (in the absence of an obvious cause);
• Flare reaction (widening of the painful area);
• Exaggerated response to a painful stimulus (hyperalgesia);
• Referred pain (pain spreads from site of injury to other tissues);
• ‘Sympathetic dystrophy’ (a pathological interaction between the sensory and the sympathetic nervous system, that controls many of the body’s organs and glands).

Tail-docking is an amputation involving cutting or crushing skin, muscle, nerves, tendons and bone and cartilage connections.
• Tail-docking definitely causes acute pain to puppies and is thought to also cause long-term pain due to pathological nerve activity as a result of tissue damage and the development of neuromas.
• Neonatal dogs, as with other young mammals, are likely to feel pain just as intensely, if not more so, than more mature dogs.
• Important muscles of the pelvic and perineal region of the dog continue onto the dog’s tail and attach to the tail vertebrae. There is evidence that docking weakens the muscles involved in defecation and in maintaining the strength of the pelvic diaphragm, leading to increased risk of faecal incontinence, perineal hernia and urinary incontinence in bitches.
• The removal of the tail deprives the dog of an important means of expression of its intentions and emotions and can lead to misunderstandings with both people and other dogs. The pain and distress caused by docking may also compromise the socialisation process in puppies.
• The removal of the dog’s tail may reduce the strength of the dog’s back and compromise its balance and agility.
• Tail injuries are relatively rare (for example, 4 per 10,000 dogs treated in clinics) and the evidence does not indicate that undocked dogs have an increased risk of tail injury. It is not acceptable to dock the tails of huge numbers of puppies simply to avoid a small number of possible tail injuries in adult dogs, particularly as most of those injuries can be treated by basic first aid.
• The overwhelming majority of dogs of traditionally ‘working breeds’ are now kept as companion animals or show dogs, often in an urban setting, and do not engage in work or high-risk activities.
• Within the varieties of working dogs (spaniels, terriers, guard or sheep dogs) there are striking inconsistencies between those breeds that are docked and those that are not docked. The fact that many working breeds are not docked even though they work in similarly rough
environments to those breeds that are docked suggests that docking is in fact being done for reasons of cosmetics, breed standards and tradition rather than out of any real risk of tail injury in working dogs.

http://www.advocatesforanimals.org/images/documents/Why%20the%20tail-docking%20of%20dogs%20should%20be%20prohibited.pdf

fiona stephanie

i get the same reaction when i am out walking with my boxer! people stop me, especially men, and are like OMG is that a boxer, WITH A TAIL???:eek:. i think he looks much better with his tail but my other half has an awful problem with walking him, i actually think he is embarrased to walk him cause he has a tail! :rolleyes:

Ruby Soho

I don't see how the caslick in mares fits into this argument at all, it is done to prevent the medical condition 'pneumovagina' which can lead to discomfort and chronic inflammation of the vestibule, causing problems relating to performance and fertility, its not a cosmetic or a prophylactic procedure.

Dyr

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

certain people don't seem to uderstand that animals are a design of nature and a product of evolution, they are made the way they are for a reason.

Dogs are not a product of evolution they're a product of selective breeding by humans, which is also why certain breeds had their tails docked originally.

cloudy day

Helena
Really, why is that? I never heard of that before. Is it for health reasons? (you've given me yet another reason to hate farming and all it stands for)

it's nothing to do with farming but horse breeding.

why would you hate farming and all it stands for

do you not eat meat products, bacon, sausages, beef, lamb, chicken, milk, butter cheese, eggs ?

these foods are brought to the table by someone caring for and minding and feeding these animals 7 days a week. in one of the most demanding jobs out there.

can you please explain to me what the health reasons for habitually operating on male and females dogs are for castration and spaying ? other than medical emergencies.

Soulstaf

i'm presuming you are a qualified vet with years of hands on experience of breeding dogs etc and your not quoting the text out of a reference book.

have witnessed 3 day old pups get docked and none of them have appeared to be in GREAT PAIN afterwards.

Puppies are seen to fall asleep or suckle within a few minutes of tail-docking, which indicates that they ARE in pain. Others have pointed out that there may be evolutionary reasons for puppies sleeping and suckling, as a way of conserving strength at a time of injury. Puppies suckle to reduce the pain, as it is known that the act of suckling stimulates the release of endogenous opioids (endorphins) that produce analgesia.

all puppies at that age will immediately suckle the bitch when disturbed. it's instinctive. all newborns pups do from the minute they are born is sleep and suckle. endorphins not only active in pain control but also the 'feel good' endorphins. these are also manually activated in other animals.

never personallyl heard, from anyone,of a 3 day old pup dying after having a tail docked.

As with many humans, dogs may live with long-term pain without it being very obvious. There is evidence that dogs may suffer from some types of ‘pathological’ long-term pain as a result of the tissue damage caused by

many years of animal husbandry and caring for and rearing animals has always shown that PAIN in an animal, when an animal is not right, it is very noticeable, and i think if you asked a trained stockman be it dogs,horses, sheep, cattle, pigs, poultry or anything else, with many years experience they will say the same, they can tell by looking at an animal from a distance that something is not right, it may take a bit of work to diagnose exactly what the problem is, which is why we have trained veterinarians for each field.

the importance of a good stockman is that unlike a human, animals can't talk. but generally you can tell by a person's appearance that they are not right.

There is evidence that dogs may suffer from some types of ‘pathological’ long-term pain as a result of the tissue damage caused by

i'd like to see this report as there are thousands of docked dogs out there that are very happy and healthy.

• Important muscles of the pelvic and perineal region of the dog continue onto the dog’s tail and attach to the tail vertebrae. There is evidence that docking weakens the muscles involved in defecation and in maintaining the strength of the pelvic diaphragm, leading to increased risk of faecal incontinence, perineal hernia and urinary incontinence in bitches.

again there are thousands of docked dogs out there that show none of these.


• The removal of the tail deprives the dog of an important means of expression of its intentions and emotions and can lead to misunderstandings with both people and other dogs. The pain and distress caused by docking may also compromise the socialisation process in puppies.

again there are thousands of docked dogs out there that show none of this.

• The removal of the dog’s tail may reduce the strength of the dog’s back and compromise its balance and agility.

MORE HEARSAY AND MAYBE'S AGAIN as again there are thousands of docked dogs out there that just don't back up what some human researcher has said MAY happen. ther are boxers out there with docked tails that have been champion agility trials dogs and very happy, very healthy and very strong physically and very sound mentally. the facts totally fly in the face against your argument. no matter what you think, the evidence is there in living breathing proof to go against all that you've stated.

Now i don't have a problem with a person's choice to dock or not dock and i'm not politically for or against either. i have through a lifetime seen. owned and been associated with a lot of dogs that have been docked and haven't shown any aspects of ill health or side affects or major distress of any kind whatsoever on any level. and they've grown up to be very happy healthy strong dogs with nothing wrong with them.

what i have a problem with is people forcing their opinions on to the majority and thinking they have the right to verbally bash someone because they want a dog with a docked tail.

and as for the caslick's operation in mare's the reason that was stated was to show the hypocrisy of vets. which i find annoying. they have refused puppies the choice of getting their tails docked by a professional in the proper environment which is where a caring breeder would take their pups, so now those pup's will end up getting done by non-professionals.

the only reason a caslicks is done on a mare is for breeding purposes so that she will go in foal. to stop infection in the uterus from faeces entering and killing the sperm.

now that is cruel, in my opinion, it is mutilation and it's done by vets to the same mares year after year. although vets make a lot more money out of horses than they do out of dogs which is why they made sure they made it law that they are the only one's who can scan mares. there were thousands of pounds in loss of revenue at stake.

Whispered

Apologise, I'm not trying to be horrible, but will you use the quote button (bottom right of posts) it's difficult to read when you just copy and paste.

cloudy day wrote: »

it's nothing to do with farming but horse breeding.

why would you hate farming and all it stands for

do you not eat meat products, bacon, sausages, beef, lamb, chicken, milk, butter cheese, eggs ?

these foods are brought to the table by someone caring for and minding and feeding these animals 7 days a week. in one of the most demanding jobs out there..

Is horse breeding not horse farming? Same thing, and another poster answered my question, luckily as you did not seem to want to, that is done to a horse for medical reasons which is totally different than doing something for aesthetics. And to answer your question, I have not eaten meat or meat products for many years, and am currently exploring the possibility of cutting dairy (I have a thread in the forum looking for advice). As for why I hate farming, I suppose it's a different conversation, but just to quickly answer, it's intensive, often cruel, badly regulated etc. I can honestly say that free range local farming, is a great idea, but mass produced meat & dairy is just a horrible concept to me.

cloudy day wrote: »

can you please explain to me what the health reasons for habitually operating on male and females dogs are for castration and spaying ? other than medical emergencies.
.

A quick google search will bring up all you need to know. Or if not I'll post later - my boss just walked in

Skillie

Docking for aesthetics is 100% wrong. why does a rott need a short tail? a miniature jack russle lapdog has no practical requirement for loosing its tail. The age the docking takes place makes no odds, if you cut a babies ear lobe off (no bones, joints etc) would it not still hurt? sure, when they grow up it will all be forgotten about and they may have no memory of it etc but it still hurt at the time.

Docking in actual working dogs is debateable (i'm not convinced its needed) as people have pointed out should the pros and cons not be weighed and take actual risk of injury into account? Docking would have originated in days when vets were not around every corner either. if a working dog gets injured it can be treated within a few hours at worst. Wolves don't have docked tails, they seem to fare out ok.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who will continue to dock Rottweilers and Doberman tails they'll prob use the justification that in a fight a tail is susceptible to injury or some other silly excuse. its very hard to change engrained ideas and old wives tale type notions like the "you have to let a bitch have one litter before neutering" things like this will live on longer than they should

mossie110

seen a boxer puppy a few days ago with a long tail. looked very good to me, all dogs should have their own tail that they are born with.

Incheerocket

Docking just cos us humans think they will look prettier is out of order, there is just no need for it at all, a rottie with a tail..love it, dobie with a tail..they are all born with tails and its only us lot that take them off, yes it is strictly illeagle in UK but it is still widely practiced..just look at the crufts pictures from this year, with lots of UK breeders with docked tails..weimaraners, springer spaniels, rotties and dobies etc,