Spaniel puppy with docked tail?

[Stitchintimesaves9]

Advice please! We (DH, DS (16), DD (14)) have been wanting a family dog for a while, done lots of research and one the breeds we thought would be best for us is a Cocker Spaniel. We've just found out about a litter of Cockers very close to where we live. The breeder owns a boarding kennels/dog grooming business and is used and very highly rated by friends of mine. My friends also know the Mum, and say she has a lovely temperament etc

Visited the pups a few days ago, all fine. They're currently 2 weeks old. Mum was lovely, pups being raised in a family home - definitely not a puppy farm. But the pups' tails had been docked! They are from a working strain, so maybe this is routine? Just wondered what peoples' thoughts were?

We have a sprocker and she still has her tail. I live in dread that she will injure it having seen other spaniels suffer with split and injured tails. She's a busy dog, she doesn't technically work, but she's in and out of the river every day and chasing through fields and meadows, barrelling into undergrowth and god knows what.

I live in dread that she will injure it having seen other spaniels suffer with split and injured tails.

TBH I think that's the crux of it - working dog owners don't see docking as a severe injury/amputation because they don't usually understand the physiological impacts of the procedure. So it's easy to convince yourselves that you're 'preventing' harm.

The reality for the dogs is that you're inflicting a surgical amputation at a sensitive developmental stage. which is just as, if not more harmful than an adult tail amputation. I'd still love for someone to explain to me how cutting off puppies tails is 'preventing injury',

I suspect its because dog owners don't have to manage the consequences of docking (pain, neuroplasticity changes, chronic sensitisation) or if they do, they occur later in life and therefore are 'removed' from the original docking injury and don't appear to be associated with it.

Its much more about doing something which humans feel better about, than doing something which actually improves dog welfare

It's an interesting discussion. I definitely think as a pet owner rather than a working dog owner it's down to personal preference but also availability. When I looked around for puppies many of them were docked and wanting both undocked and DNA testing on the parents severely limited the number of puppies I was interested in. Whilst I admit if the right puppy had come along with a docked tail I probably would have bought it but if I have the choice I would always pick undocked and take my risk of injury later in life, especially as they can injure their tail in many more ways than running about outside.

"they can injure their tail in many more ways than running about outside."

Dalmatians and Great Danes are supposed to be bad for tail injuries...nothing really there to protect their tails and they have a habit of just whacking them off things while wagging enthusiastically.

There's a lot of personal feeling here and not really any evidence
There's also personal experience, which is not quite the same as mushy 'feeling'. I have not been able to find a study giving the healing times for the tails of docked puppies compared to adult dogs, so I am thrown back on personal observation. If the evidence you're shown is at odds with your own experience and observation, of course you question it.

you're using selected parts of an unpublished thesis to back up some of your inferences and yet happily disbelieving other parts of the same thesis that don't 'chime with your experience'. As I've said, cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

1. Unpublished does not mean wrong. A completed and approved thesis has jumped through several hoops, and its author will have responded to criticisms made of it. Besides, it seems that most of this data has been published (see below - I say seems as I do not have access to the full papers whose abstracts repeat numbers I found in the original work).
2. 'using selected parts that back up your inferences'. Well, so have you. You agree with the conclusions of Lederer's Section 4 (in its form as an academic paper). You're happily disbelieving Section 3.

I have no agenda here except what is best for animal welfare
Ditto. I am not a breeder. I do not belong to the BASC or any similar body. I am not a member of the Countryside Alliance.

you've said yourself that you're not convinced by Lederer's numbers, so its starting to appear as if your experience sides with selected bits of a single unpublished study that you've cherrypicked, whilst remaining unconvinced by the published data.
I'm not convinced by the '320' number, no. That's the number that you have used, whilst ignoring the data earlier in the study, which seems to be the source material for Lederer et al, 'Survey of tail injuries sustained by working gundogs and terriers in Scotland', Veterinary Record 2014). I say 'seems' as I can only access the abstract, which doesn't have the full reference.

I've outlined the impacts of docking quite clearly
Can you tell me what percentage of dogs docked as puppies suffer from chronic pain, perineal hernias and incontinence? Until you can, then the impact of docking is not 'clear'. We need that data to allow us to decide if the negative consequences of docking outweigh the positive consequence of the reduction in tail injuries in adult dogs. (We would also need data on pain levels and healing times for the docking of puppies and amputation of tails in adult dogs.)
what are these other longterm impacts of not docking? (with the exception of tail injury which we've already discussed)
I didn't say there were 'other longterm impacts'. I think the rate of tail injury in adult spaniels and HPRs is quite enough of a impact.

The Lederer numbers that you asked for:
On page 31-32 of [[http://theses.gla.ac.uk/5629/1/2014lederermvm.pdf) the study I refer to]] , Lederer gives statistics for tail injuries reported in docked and undocked working dogs. To simplify it here (since you can't tabulate data on MN), I'll just use her numbers for spaniels and omit the HPRs:
Undocked dogs in sample: 243
Undocked dogs with tail injury: 135 (55.6%)
% tail-injured dogs taken to vet: 36.4%
Number of tail injured dogs taken to vet: 49 (my calculation: 36.4% of 135)
% of undocked spaniels in sample taken to the vet in one year with a tail injury: 20.1% (my calc again: 49 as a % of 243).
Elsewhere in this study, Lederer concludes that 20% of tail injured dogs who are taken the vet end up with amputations; other studies put the figure higher (Diesel et al, which I think I mentioned earlier, puts it at 30%). Now, 20% of 20% who went to the vet is 4% of the total number; 30% of 20% is 6%. So around 5%. In one year. Unfortunately the Lederer study gives no figure for amputations.

I'd still love for someone to explain to me how cutting off puppies tails is 'preventing injury',
You dock the puppy. It has a much reduced likelihood of injuring the docked tail compared to an undocked dog. One injury, maybe one-and-a-bit.
You do not dock a puppy. If the rate of tail injuries is as high as the Lederer study says it is, virtually every working spaniel or HPR will suffer repeated tail injuries. Many injuries.

Its also worth noting that there are significant potential biases in Lederer's study - many of which she acknowledges herself.
Lederer expressed concern in her study that dog owners would have responded because their dogs had suffered tail injuries. So, as part of the study, she obtained responses to her questionnaire from a group of 'non-responders'. They reports levels of tail injury almost equal to that reported by the original respondents (see Table 3.7 on pp. 41-42 - I have given the link in this post already).

As you say, cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. I would hope that I am on the alert for it.

Thanks for the number crunching Lumela

I'm not 'cherry-picking' data - I'm giving more weight to a paper that has undergone peer review than to unpublished parts of a thesis - whereas you seem to prefer to use the information which has not been selected for publication. I agree that there is a level of rigour associated with developing a thesis in the first place. However that is usually accredited by the peer review process, which is why published data is considered more reliable and why I'm focussing primarily on that rather than unpublished work. There are many reasons why work may not be published but it usually remains acedemically suspicious until it is. Is there a logically reason that you've decided to ignore published data in favour of this unpublished?

In terms of chronic long term impacts, you're right I can't give you exact figures as that work hasn't been done in dogs. But if we look at other species it's likely that 100% of puppies experience severe pain at docking, up to 100% will experience neural sensitisation that will impact on their pain experiences throughout their lives, and another 30% or so will experience chronic neuropathic pain (unless you have evidence that the canine nervous system differs significantly from other mammals studied? ) With an unquantified number experiencing other problems.

However I think I've got to the nub of things though - I found your response to my question about how amputation (in itself an 'injury') prevents 'injury' super interesting.
You dock the puppy. It has a much reduced likelihood of injuring the docked tail compared to an undocked dog.

Basically I guess we're talking at cross-purposes as it seems that you don't view the surgical removal of a tail without anaesthetic or pain relief at a critical development period, an 'injury', whilst I do. I'm a vet - I see on a daily basis how injurious surgery is, and I also understand the significant impacts vets that chronic pain and neural sensitisation have.

I totally understand that if all you've seen are 'happy' docked dogs you would be tempted to prioritise that experience. Try a little experiment though. See how many of the docked dogs you know will happily tolerate you giving their dock a bit of a scratch - you'll find that many of them dislike it being touched - that's because of neural hypersensitivity and neuroma formation.

As humans we like to use terminology to minimise the injuries we cause. Dock instead of tail amputation, declaw instead of digit-amputation, de-beak instead of beak amputation. Renaming surgical removal makes things sound much more 'comfortable' (for us at least).

I still find the concept of inflicting significant injury on an entire population to prevent relatively minor injury to a small proportion of that population bizarre.

Can I just ask , my partially docked dog , has no issues with his tail , you can rub it , press it , scratch it etc are the problems you are talking about vet something that will spring on us later in life ( he's 7) .

We have a show cocker with a undocked tail, I think I prefer tails in all dogs, it shows happiness x

Happy to be of help.

I'm giving more weight to a paper that has undergone peer review than to unpublished parts of a thesis - whereas you seem to prefer to use the information which has not been selected for publication.
Actually, as I said, I think it has been published, as Lederer et al, 'Survey of tail injuries sustained by working gundogs and terriers in Scotland', Veterinary Record 2014. I think it's the same data since the numbers here in the abstract:
Undocked spaniels and hunt point retrievers (HPRs) were at greatest risk of tail injury with 56.6 per cent of undocked spaniels and 38.5 per cent of undocked HPRs sustaining at least one tail injury during the season
are the same as those in the thesis, only rounded to one from two significant figures. But as I said, I don't have access - I don't think my Jstor takes me that far.

You say Basically I guess we're talking at cross-purposes as it seems that you don't view the surgical removal of a tail without anaesthetic or pain relief at a critical development period, an 'injury', whilst I do, having quoted me as saying You dock the puppy. It has a much reduced likelihood of injuring the docked tail compared to an undocked dog. Did you read the rest of that line? Where I say, One injury, maybe one-and-a-bit. I am including the initial dock as an injury.

Try a little experiment though. See how many of the docked dogs you know will happily tolerate you giving their dock a bit of a scratch - you'll find that many of them dislike it being touched
I just went and tried with two dogs - I had tried previously, but thought I should double-check. They couldn't have cared less: one barely stirred from his slumbers; the other carried on standing there, hoping I'd play. However, I'll go on trying with other dogs (and hoping not to get bitten...)

I still find the concept of inflicting significant injury on an entire population to prevent relatively minor injury to a small proportion of that population bizarre.
Well, we're basing our views on different sets of stats, so we're bound to disagree.

Did you read the rest of that line? Where I say, One injury, maybe one-and-a-bit. I am including the initial dock as an injury

Sorry yes I did maybe I'm just confused - am I right in understanding that your point is that by amputating the tail as a puppy you avoid then need to amputate the tail in future? I.e.by causing one injury you prevent one (or occasionally more) future injuries? Surely that cost-benefit only stacks up if we could show that 100% of docked dogs would definitely experience future tail injuries requiring amputation? Otherwise you're still injuring 100% of the puppies to prevent potential injury in a much smaller proportion of adults. Or have I misunderstood?

Out of interest -would you prophylactically dock a 6 week old puppy? Or a 6 month one?

Floral great to hear that your dog has no issues neuropathic pain is estimated to. develop in approx 30% of surgical populations (which is why Lumelas's sample of 2 is unlikely to demonstrate much) Also neuropathic 'pain' encompasses a range of sensations as I mentioned further up - it can be anything from numbness to tingling, burning or active pain. It's incredibly difficult to evaluate in humans (never mind other species) -I certainly wouldn't want to suggest my scratch-test is definitive

Good post Veterinari , completely agree.

Lumela

I think if we just look at the working spaniel group, and we agree as you said previously that 1/3 of the population will require tail amputation as adults due to injury, then how do we justify subjecting 100% of them to amputation with no pain relief/anaesthesia as puppies (plus all the potential longer term effects) versus subjecting 33% of them to the same procedure with pain relief/ anaesthesia and at a time when neuroplasticity is not an issue.

I guess I'm still struggling to see the welfare benefits at the population level.

Leaving the numbers aside, on an individual level, if I was offered orthopaedic surgery with or without anaesthesia/analgesia, I know which I'd choose.

Please don't buy a docked puppy.
For all the reasons vet said

I've been working dogs since I was a child and am definitely seeing more working spaniels with proper tails in the field.

And I just don't see any of these dogs getting tail injuries. And we work over some rough country.

So I'm taking the anecdotes with a huge pinch of salt, partly because I haven't ever seen these injuries in all my years in the field, and partly because I come from a family of farmers and vets and none of them either see or treat these supposed injuries.

Tails are used for more than just wagging in dog communication. A half tail dock inhibits a lot of dog talk - things like tail gait is really important

The sooner people say 'I would have bought one of your pups, but I won't because they are docked', the sooner this totally needless mutilation might stop

Crikey, lots of science. I just came to say that our spaniel's tail was docked at a few days old as her dad is a proper working dog and it was highly likely some of the litter would be too. We were given paperwork from the vet who did it. She still has more than sufficiently long a tail, in fact I was quite surprised. Definitely no lack of expression. Her mum had to have her tail docked at age 3 as it kept splitting, was gruesome. Took ages to recover from that op too.

Interestingly Sparechange
It doesn't appear that your perspective is common in the gundog demographic though. What convinced you?

I'm interested in how peopl develop or change their opinions on issues like this. I wonder if the 'normality' of docked working dogs is like the 'normality' of snoring brachycephalics. Because it's 'normal' it must be okay...

vet
I grew up in a spaniel breeding house and my dad had stories of his dad docking the tails of their litters by lining puppies up and taking a meat cleaver to their tails, which turned my stomach from an early age, so I've never been a fan.

20 years ago, you wouldn't see undocked spaniels or HPRs working unless it was a beater bring their wife's pet along, or a city person who had recently moved to the country.

Last season, I would guess that around 1/3rd of spaniels were docked?
I would guess it is because there are more women involved now, and women are more compassionate towards animals? And because we are less tolerant of mindless cruelty as a society, and possibly because there is a lot of new money/city money getting into shooting who aren't as wedding to tradition for the sake of tradition
The same reason a lot more working dogs now life in the house rather than outside kennels?

My anecdote would be that years ago, people would work one breed, where are it's now more common to have a mix of breeds.
Everyone I know who has had labs and then moved to spaniels has had undocked dogs. Maybe they are just more used to seeing tails on dogs? Maybe they take the idea of tail injuries with a big pinch of salt?

Fascinating discussion.

I'm a (very old) nurse and can certainly remember back in the day that, as Veterinari says, analgesia was not usually given to human infants undergoing surgery. It was thought that they did not feel pain as acutely as older children. Or, as a surgeon once said to me, "Even if they do feel pain, they won't remember it".

Also corollaries with circumcision of male infants: usually performed without anaesthesia, justification that early circumcision of the many avoids possibility of future problems, eg phimosis/paraphimosis of the few.

Such an interesting discussion and I agree 100% with vetinari. We have had a docked dog in the past (Miniature Schnauzer) but I couldn't bring myself to buy one now.

We went to see a litter of English Springer Spaniels recently. They were beautiful but I just couldn't get past the docking and had to walk away.

Many years ago I bred one lot of springer puppies and I had them docked (in France) and just to be clear it was grim. They cried for 12 hours afterwards despite anesthetic. There's no doubt that it hurt. I'd never do it again. Happily it's less expected now. Progress in the right direction.

But we did have a working lab growing up whose tail was a mess. Very difficult area to heal and bloody messy literally.

I live in an area with lots of gamekeepers, and working bred spaniels. You rarely see an undocked working spaniel, but from what I can gather it's nothing to do with risk, it's all about the look. A spaniel with a tail is seen as an embarrassment.

We have a springer X cocker, he has a tail, when walking in gamekeeper territory, if we see one, we get derogatory comments about our dog's tail, even though he's not working.

Someone near the start of the thread mentioned testing of parents for health problems. Working litters round here are never tested, this is viewed by owners as a money making scheme and a by product of crap breeding and therefore not necessary amongst well bred working dogs (no idea if there is any fact in this, but from talking to local gamekeepers and owners of working dogs, this seems to be the general consensus)

UserLotsOfNumbers yes when we looked for puppies the breeders for pure working stock actually said they do not DNA test the parents because there is no need due to breeding lines. I bought from someone breeding pets (hence having his full tail) so I was more cautious of getting the health tests done.

Vet
I think if we just look at the working spaniel group, and we agree as you said previously that 1/3 of the population will require tail amputation as adults due to injury, then how do we justify subjecting 100% of them to amputation with no pain relief/anaesthesia as puppies (plus all the potential longer term effects) versus subjecting 33% of them to the same procedure with pain relief/ anaesthesia and at a time when neuroplasticity is not an issue.
I've already said I'm in favour of analgesia at docking. A docked puppy heals faster than an adult dog with a tail amputation. And there are plenty of other extremely painful injuries that do not result in amputation. I am trying to weigh up how much pain a dog is likely to go through: a few days at docking, or weeks of it later? Clearly I need to read up on neuroplasticity. As I have also said, I'm not closed-minded on this issue.

Out of interest -would you prophylactically dock a 6 week old puppy? Or a 6 month one?
You've seen how active they are at that age, right? How the hell would you keep the dog still enough to give the tail a fair chance to heal?

sparechange
So I'm taking the anecdotes with a huge pinch of salt, partly because I haven't ever seen these injuries in all my years in the field, and partly because I come from a family of farmers and vets and none of them either see or treat these supposed injuries.
It's nice to be accused of dishonesty. Thank you. I'll let my friend know that she's imagining what her young dog is going through - it's obviously not happening at all!

I'll let my friend know that she's imagining what her young dog is going through - it's obviously not happening at all!

Your friend? It was 4 friends in your earlier post...

I would be really interested to hear more about how all these dogs picked up their terrible tail injuries.
Irresponsible handling or just the most extraordinary run of bad luck?

spare , ad hominem attacks say more about the person making them than anything else. I''m not sure why I should oblige someone with such poor manners but...

Your friend? It was 4 friends in your earlier post...
This friend's dog:
one was seeing the vet today to see if her infected tail would require amputation
It's up thread, if you look for it.

I would be really interested to hear more about how all these dogs picked up their terrible tail injuries.
The amputation? In the woods on a walk. The friend's dog above? She seems to have done it in the garden, as the tail wasn't bloody after her morning walk. Obviously 'irresponsible handling'