tail docking

countrygirl · tail docking

there is a vote on GMTV web site on tail docking today please vote it is pretty even at moment
Caz

Mike

http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=24892

BritAnnie

Two thirds for docking at the moment, keep up the pressure, guys!

Should docking be banned
Yes
32.21%
No
67.84%

Marty_j

up to 68% now

Mike

They've moved it

http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=1

countrygirl

propley becasue too many of us are doing it lol

windem bang · tail docking pros and cons

Sorry to have to disagree with so many h.p.r. people, I do not think it is necessary to dock h.p.r. breeds tails because they are likely to damage them while working. The average h.p.r. is not particularly good at penetrating really heavy cover. They certainly do not take a dive into it, with tail lashing just because it is there as many spaniels will do with gusto.

Many labs. and working golden retrs. are in a lot more heavy cover in a shooting season than the great majority of h.p.r.'s. Not too many of them need their tails docked. Before you say "but they don't hunt." They do ! After spaniels , labs. are probably the next most frequent breed in the beating line.

I had labs. for many years and I still help other people train theirs. Not one of them damaged its tail while working.

At present lying near my feet there is my 9 year old undocked (bred by a vet.) g.s.p. bitch . She has been worked all her life , mainly picking up in very heavy cover such as brambles , rhodie. bushes and interlaced piles of pine tree brashings. Not once has she damaged her tail even though she is very keen.

I am in favour of docking the tails of WORKING SPANIEL breeds for many of them especially of F.T. breeding thrash their tails so fast and hard you can hardly see them!

After all this you might think I am some sort of tree hugging, flopsy bunny lover. I am anything but !! I have assisted , in the past in docking the tails of spaniel pups and I do agree that most of the h.p.r. breeds would look a bit odd witha full length tail.

Now of course ,we are onto the subject of what "looks" good. Isn't that the truth of it ? We are more interested in what thedogs look like, perhaps to bolster our own self image, than in what the dogs need for their continued wellbeing.

I'm off now to put on my tin hat and full body armour !!

W.B.

MC

Labradors have completely different tails than pointing type dogs and even spaniels have much more coat cover.

Just because some dogs don't injure their tails does not mean all others won't. In NZ we have Pointers that injure their tails, let alone the HPR breeds. Our HPR's get into the scrub and we use them much like springers.

windem bang · tail docking pros and cons.

You must be breeding a whole new species out there in N.Z. if labradors have a differing basic skeletal structure to the pointing breeds. The hair on a labs. tail or a working spaniels tail will be longer/thicker than that on most of the h.p.r. breeds but you would need a micrometer to measure any real difference in skin thickness between these breeds.

I stand by what I've said regarding the enthusiasm with which h.p.r.'s enter cover, most h.p.r.'s will not enter thick cover unless ,

(A) They have been directly ordered to, in which case they certainly will NOT be wagging their tails hard enough to damage them and therefor they don't need docked.

(B) They can already smell game withiin the cover . If that cover should be for example thick brambles or gorse bushes many h.p.r.'s will run round and round the bushes looking for an easy way in. Good labs and certainly spaniels tend to take a much more direct approach to a definite game scent. The h.p.r.'s approach may be more sensible but they are less likely to incur tail damage while making it.

I am not against docking tails ,I too think some of the h.p.r. breeds look better docked. I just don't fool myself or even worse try to fool others that these breeds need to be docked because of the likelyhood of tail damage.

W.B. --- Your tail end gunner !!

munstyman

I was trying to avoid this one, but when I read this:

BritAnnie

Just saw another post on here that says the secondary legislation for exemptions to the English Act is in disarray. You may find that England and Wales will go the same way as Scotland has - a complete ban on docking. What worries me is that breeds with the natural short/bob tail breeds will be cross bred to introduce the genes to other breeds. Some Boxers breed natural as do Corgis and Bulldogs.
Annie

windem bang · Tail docking and tail damage to h.p.r.'s.

I appreciate your honestly gained and honestly held opinions and hope that reades of this forum will appreciate that I gained gained my opinions in the same way as I gained my opposing ones. Despite having worked labs .,spaniels,h.p.r.'s and even two border collies as gundogs for over forty years , I have never had a single tail injury due to cover.

Maybe our Scottish dogs are too intelligent to wag their tails!

Most of the the injuries I have seen or heard of have occured in the house or kennel (labs. seem to be hot favourite for this) the injured tail ,with hunt crazy dog attached is then taken shooting where the already present injury is undoubtedly made worse by the cover and is perhaps only noticed at that point.

At this moment in time I have a twelve week old g.s.p. puppy, docked at the approved time by a vet. This pup has a rather sore tail end due to the docking,(it can't be cover that did it, he's not quite got to that stage in his training yet!) How ironic that none of my undocked dogs have ever had tail damage while my properly docked one has!

Any advice on ointments etc. likely to help that he will not at once lick or chew off woulld be very welcome --- Thank you.

I know I'm in the minority with my tail docking opinions, the other ten to twenty people at the training classes have all told me so --- they're ALL WRONG !!!

W.B. - The tailend gunner !

windem bang · tail injuries to h.p.r.'s

Hi Peter,

I appreciate that your experiences and opinions are just as honestly come by as mine are, that is , I think observation over many years of dogs working in the field with all kinds of cover to deal with, I cannot argue with that.

Maybe your right, our Scottish dogs are just too intelligent to wag their tails under adverse conditions! Or maybe our brambles and gorse bushes aren't made of the same stern stuff as those south of the border!

Nae wunner I choose tae bide in gods ain country !!

I know I am in the minority with my views on docking, the other ten to twenty follk at the training classes have all told me so - they're ALL WRONG !!

It is ironic that I have at the moment a 12 week old g.s.p. pup properly docked by a proper vet. at the proper time who has a rather sore tail end. Honest it wasn't caused by cover! So I've now had no bother with undocked dogs but have got damage to my docked one.

Any recommendations for ointments etc. that he will not lick or chew off would be greatly appreciated. Surely among all you tail injury experienced people there must be some known cures?

W.B. - The tail end gunner !

BritAnnie · tails or no tails

I am now going to be totally honest and open here - I have always owned docked breeds, admittedly show cockers before my Brittanys, but I can't accept the logic behind docking a puppy because it is of a particular working breed and is likely to be worked and not docking it's litter brother or sister who may not be worked. They both feel the same 'pain' (if there is any pain, and that has not been proved one way or another to my satisfaction) If one of them should be docked then so should the other and not for the simple reason that it may or may not work. I am not against docking but then again I am quite glad that I don't have to dock any more. I honestly never really liked doing it. What annoys me more than anything else about all of this is that choice is being removed from the general public yet again. I am very glad that I have brought into my own breeding lines a natural bobtail dog and a natural bobtail bitch. I can now thumb my nose at the Nanny State and make my own choices.
Annie

windem bang · tail docking repeat

OOOPS !!!

I thought I,d accidentally wiped out my previous post so I had to try to remember what I'd said repeat it and send it again. My pup could work this computer better than me !

Sorry again, - W.B. - The tail end gunner !

wirehawker

I must admit to now being somewhat confused as to the "true" reason for docking tails in cannines.

I had always believed it was to minimize the risk of damage to the tail - having ben told this as a very young child by my father who was then breeding boxers.

With the recent posts "reporting" the section of the AWB to do with the "excemption of working breeds/dogs" having to be re-debated I notice something that *I* was not aware of before; Quote from a post I recieved which differs in the way of reading than a couple of others I've seen:

... "However, the RSPCA remains committed to the view that any exemption to a ban on the cruel and painful act of tail docking, except for medical reasons, is totally unnecessary. This has been demonstrated in countries such as Sweden, where a full ban has been successfully implemented since 1989."

So... IF there are no "horrible disasters" in those dog breeds no longer docked in Sweden since 1989 [18 years ago!] to use to show that docking should remain a legal practise in England, what is the truth of the matter?

I have always believed it to be for "welfare" reasons to lessen more painful damage occuring at a later age... but I'm now not so "sure"!

josie

The problem is that there are lies, damned lies and statistics...

IE - the RSPCA might be referring to Sweden and saying that it proves there is no damage, but I'm sure I read on the CDB website that they are referring to Sweden and pointing out all the cases of tail damage and using that as evidence that there IS damage!

The true case of the matter is:

1. No one knows FOR SURE that docking causes pain. (or that it doesn't cause pain). There are just theories about neo-natal puppies and what they are able to feel (or not). Until further research has been done, there are no conclusions about this.

2. There are lots of "reports" floating around, some of which indicate that there IS tail damage in these countries which banned it, some of which state that there isn't. Again, there has been no water-tight, scientific investigation into this.

Yet we are making laws without knowing the answers to these issues for sure. I'd hope that there could be some sort of unbiassed, conclusive and complete scientific investigation into this whole subject BEFORE these decisions are made. If someone showed me absolute scientific proof that 1. puppies DO feel pain when docked and 2. that working dogs in countries where docking has been banned are not getting tail damage, then the anti-dockers would have a real case to make.

Until then, on both sides of the argument, it's just a lot of people who already have opinions on the subject, seeking around to find the theories and "reports" which best serve their own agenda.

I have to say that I've been a member of several online forums for working dogs and almost unanimously everyone has been pro-docking. I find it..interesting...that now we are so close to the line we have here a thread where 3 people who work their dogs and are committed to this, have now said (in various words) that they are not totally convinced by docking etc etc...

wirehawker

Hi Josie

I have "always" accepted the given reason for docking a breed - whatever it has been - and given that they have been/are "Working Breeds"... even if no longer worked - ie; bulldog.

I can "accept" that a genuine reason for docking is to lessen "possible" pain and suffering to a tail that may get damaged in an older dog. I do however have "difficulty" NOW in accepting that docking is also used to stop a pointing dog from carrying its tail "too high" when on point and spoiling the "look" of such a working dog breed! Rolling Eyes

All my previous HPRs have been docked - except the Brit that was a "natural" bob-tail - and I have FULLY accepted that they "should" be docked.

*I* have no problems about docking continueing and am of the *personal* opinion that any slight pain a pup "may" feel when being docked - as well as the dew claws being removed! - is less painful and SOON forgotten than it would be in a much older dog that damages a full tail... I'd view this tail docking in the very same way as circumcision for a male baby at birth or if an older male needs to undergo the same operation! Rolling Eyes

As you say... there are lies, damn lies and statistics - NONE of which help with such an emotive subject as this when ALL concerned - I would hope - only have the welfare of dogs uppermost... and not how the "look" in the field or showring Smile

Mike

Wirehawker,
When you are talking about Sweden it pays to be very careful how you interpret the information.

1) The Danish governemnt decided on the basis of the Swedish report, due to the significant differences between vegitation in Sweden and Denmark (i.e. much harsher and dense cover in Denmark) that an exemption for HPR breeds should be passed.

2) I know from talking to the president of the Swedish Weimaraner Club that she has had to paint her walls on the ground floor a deep shade of red to hide the blood splashes that occur after every hunting trip.

3) The fundamental problem with justifying a tail docking exemption on the basis of tail damage is that in comparison to the breed population at large the number of working dogs is tiny and only a tiny number of them will damage their tails to the point of requiring amputation as an adult. So even if working dogs started damaging their tails by the hundreds they would be lost in the statistics if you consider the breed as a whole.

4) People who work there dogs in Sweden now accept tail damage as part and parcel of working a dog, just like I accept barbed wire as a risk. Most damaged tails will never see a vet and so will never be recorded and as such the veterinary profession sees exactly what it wants to see.

5) IIRC there is a report that shows an increase in tail damage in working dogs in Sweden but needless to say the anti's dismiss it as unscientific...

wirehawker

Thanks Mike... I mention Sweden "because" it is mentioned in the post I was forwarded... and I asked for the simple reason of wanting clarification in all areas.

I would hope - nay... expect! - that the CDB has done as much research as it can in respect of this ban if in force in other countries. It is however disheartening if those with HPRs that do suffer tail damage do not report such damage so that they can "prove" the ban should be lifted *For the welfare of the breeds* - whether they are in a minority numbers wise or not.

Being willing to paint a floor red just to hide any blood is a poor way to go about a ban that they have knowledge of NOT being in the welfare interests of hunting breeds that "should" be docked.

Mike

countrygirl

I havent had time to read everything propley but think it odd thet the lord should take out the admendment on docking (which at present is still legal) and say they are going to look into it closer and in the meantime ban it completley you would of thought it fairer that they let it continue in the present form till they make there minds up. There must be alot of upset people already expecting puppies to be born shortly who were expecting to have them docked legaly under the new law who are now going to have puppies on there hands with full tails, what if the people who have booked a docked puppy to work decide they dont want them? Mind you when has the goverment or either house ever been fair to anyone

Caz

munstyman

josie

I've heard several people categorically state that "their" docked puppies have given no signs of any pain when docked, but have experienced pain when dew claws were removed, so I would disagree with your statement that "Docking puppies does cause a pain, you just have to see it and you know by the reaction of the pup" and offer this as yet another example of what I said - different people offering their own _subjective_ evidence of pain/no pain, and not scientific proof one way or the other.

Aren't lambs tails banded when they are much older than 2-5 days old, which is when puppies are docked? If so, I could quite understand why lambs might experience pain as their nervous systems are fully developed, unlike those of neo-natal puppies. Which doesn't exactly explain why the first is still legal and the second is soon to be illegal, if the basis for any ban is "pain".

countrygirl

lambs tails and dont forget testicals are dong at one to two days old and an amature banding a lambs testical can cause damage ie by not getting both Balls in scrotum as they pull them up inside there is a knack to it, as has been said a two day old lamb is much more advanced than a 2 day old pup

josie

Thanks, I was wrong they were done much older then, but I guess right in that they are more advanced at that age.

In my childhood days (ahem!) I used to breed guinea pigs for pocket money (sold them to the local pet shop!!). I also had a rabbit which I bred once. I remember I was amazed that guinea pig babies are born fully furred, eyes open and able to run about and follow their mother, while rabbit babies are born with no fur, eyes closed and are basically pink blobs that don't even move from their nest for several weeks. Guinea pigs actually have a very long gestation period for the size/type of animal they are, which explains this.

The reason given is that guinea pigs are "grazing" animals - they don't have a nest and they have their babies on the move in the wild. The babies need to be able to keep up with the adults in order to be able to hide from predators and survive. Rabbits obviously have warrens and make safe nests for their babies.

So, not all animals are born at the same point of development.

There is some useless and largely irrelevant info!!

lou

I think there is a point to my ramblings!

Ive been having a think about tail docking after watching crufts on the telly this week. I was watching the gundog group the other night. I don’t have experience or particular interest in showing but my first thoughts were – how the heck do you judge between a GWP and an American cocker? The GWP had won lots of stuff in the ring and out, and the American cocker looked like it had never seen mud before let alone a pheasant. So then the commentators explained that the judge looks at each dog and judges it against its own breed standard and whether or not it is ‘fit for purpose’. I was looking at the dogs in the ring and thought what a contradiction that is. I could be wrong since I don’t have any working experience but I doubt very much you get a show springer, or a show lab working in the field very often. The springer on the telly would trip over its ears if it had to flush birds, and the lab was so fat and stumpy legged that I’d be surprised if it could retrieve more than one bird without heart failure. I cant see how these dogs can be judged as being ‘fit for purpose’…..and so why are they best of breeds? I don’t understand. So moving on from my observation I was thinking about the hpr breeds and thinking about the various tail docking discussions on this forum.

I suppose im right in thinking that if show dogs keep their tails, and working dogs can get them docked that in a less than a decade we will see both a show strain and a working strain of gwp, gsp, wiem, etc………..this seems such a shame and will undo all the hard work put in so far in breeding ‘dual purpose’ dogs. I understand why people get jumpy about these new tail laws.

BUT, would it not be better for people to worry about how they will keep the breed dual purpose, rather than worry about how to get around the new laws?

Think about your favourite gundog (one that’s not already been ruined and split into 2 strains)

Of xxx puppies born every year, a percentage of those will go into working homes.

Those pups that go to working homes, a large percentage will be used for field trials, working tests etc……, basically recreational hunting, hobby hunting (sorry please don’t be offended!)

A smaller cut will head towards hardcore hunting people, gamekeepers, etc…..and of that smaller hardcore group an even smaller number will actually be worked in very challenging terrain that would give rise to an injury.

Can you tell that these are the ramblings of someone who hasn’t worked their dog?!! Do you get my drift though?

Im just thinking that the actual number of dogs likely to damage their tails might be very small, and will vary from breed to breed.

So, if it is a relatively small number of dogs who are likely to injure their tails it might be better if all dogs keep their tails and then the breeds will not get ruined………and maybe then all the dogs judged in a show ring will still be ‘fit for purpose’ instead of some seemingly poofed up version.

What do you think? Have I missed the point? it makes sense in my head!

Louise

countrygirl

no prob, I also used to breed rabbits to sell for pocket money small world lol, I used to work as a groom and my boss had a small flock of Jaccobs so I got involved with looking after them, I hope everybody gets onto there MP's asap as there isent much time and it looks like our last chance

munstyman

Louise your a star Very Happy

Your point is not only valid it has been very well made Idea

I am sure the hpr group as a whole will move positively forward what ever the out come of a ban (or not) on docking. As all our breed clubs still have a working conscience, constantly nagging to keep the dogs `true'.
If tail `structure' moves up in importance in the breeding criteria then it will probably be good for the dogs long term. After all docking has made it easier for the function of the dogs, but that does not mean breeding can not produce the same end Wink

. However it could also be the wedge that finally does split the group into show and working types. The native gundogs split not on function but on appearance and interpretation of the breed standards, by a numerically strong show contingent. And over the generations has created what louise correctly states that they are no longer fit for purpose.
Why I was reluctant to get involved in this thread was that it was covering `old ground'. I see how things were working out, the government going true to form, so-called consultation, followed by a compromise, followed by the hi-jacking of the political process by individuals with their own agenda, followed by lip service and pass the buck Exclamation

We should fight for what we believe is right, and certainly not lie down and be walked over. But we should also fight `smart', regroup through our breed clubs, strengthen and promote the working abilities (and necessary atributes required for our dogs purpose), work with other gundog groups to get the data to put a fresh and substantial case to redress this legislation, should the situation show the pro-docking argument right. ( and even threaten the RCVS with removing docking back into the hands of breeders Exclamation

) And yes if the legislation provides a loop hole we should exploite it Laughing

Peter

BritAnnie · show v work

I doubt if I am in the minority in my breed since as a Committee we actively promote duality, but I firmly believe that our breed should remain dual purpose as it has done in France since it's inception some 130 years ago(and some say much longer). To this end I will continue to breed intelligent, cobby, short loined, well boned, correctly proportioned and short, brisk moving Epagneuls Breton(French Brittanys), both with AND without tails. The only difference is that my pups without tails will look correct to my eye and most other breed judges in Europe, whereas my others with tails will look correct to our Nannys in Westminster and the do-gooders of this world. Perhaps in time we may become used to them. Confused

Anne Massie.

windem bang · docking tails

Hi Annie,

I hope this post gets through my other ones did not . I think brits. look just fine with a long tail.

Presumably you and most if not all of the other brit. breeders will keep pups in future only with a natural bobtail. These will in their turn be bred to other natural bobtails creating even more of the same.

Eventually this abnormality will become the norm since it will be mainly if not wholly naturally tail less dogs that are being bred from.

I am not any kind of veterinary or genetic disorder expert but bearing in mind that the tail is part of the spine I cannot help but wonder just how far up the spine this abnormality might eventually go and what effect it might have on the dogs health.

I think until I 'm sure about the drawbacks of deliberately having a deliberately bred tail less dog I'll stick to having dogs with tails , docked or undocked. But as I said earlier I am no kind of an expert so I'm probably all wrong !

W.B.

BritAnnie · tails or no tails

Hmm - that is a difficult one, WB. Which pup I keep will still depend on its quality at 8 weeks, regardless of whether it has a tail or not. What I could see happening is two being run on that are similar, one with and one without a tail. Remember the one with a tail has the gene too and if mated to a tail-less one may produce pehaps a higher proportion of tail-less pups than one without the gene. - Just guessing logically here though.
At the moment it is unclear just how many different genes lead to the occurrence of short/bob tails. Dr Bruce Cattenach has done test matings with Boxers and Corgis, cross breeding them, and believes a few separate genes can be involved in one breed. We are told from France that a lethal gene is involved and that it may be linked to Spina Bifida (as it is in Manx cats) but so far there has been no proof since few of the breeders there have kept accurate records of litters. I have been given a comprehensive list of all litters bred from one French breeder who has had no problems breeding tail-less to tail-less (about 20 such litters over a number of years, as well as tailed to tail-less litters), and have verbal assurance from two UK breeders saying the same(although they have only had three such litters each)
I think it will be a case of 'suck it and see' but for the moment I think will probably mate tailed to tail-less and maybe try tail-less to tail-less next ttime. One would obviously have to be mentally prepared for losses.
Annie

Mike

Annie,
Am I right in thinking that the litter size for tailess Brit's is significantly smaller than non-tailess litters?

BritAnnie · litter size

Hi Mike
Well, to be honest, that is certainly rumoured since they tell us it is a lethal gene - statistics say out of a litter of 8 conceived to two tail less dogs, 6 would be born and 2 would be reabsorbed. Out of the 6 born, 4 would be tail-less or short tailed and 2 long tailed. But since it might be difficult to tell how many are actually reabsorbed, I'm not sure about those statistics! In addition, the genes will produce varying lengths of tail and there doesn't seem to be an accurate average litter size (mine have ranged from1 to 11!), so it would appear to be a peice of string job Laughing

Annie

tail docking

tail docking pros and cons

tail docking pros and cons.

Tail docking and tail damage to h.p.r.'s.

tail injuries to h.p.r.'s

tails or no tails

tail docking repeat

show v work

docking tails

tails or no tails

litter size