Tail docking

[Hoppinggreen]

I was in my local farm shop today and there was a sign advertising Working springer puppies with the line “tails legally docked “
I thought all tail docking was illegal unless for medical purposes (such as tail damage) am I wrong or is there a loophole for working dogs?

I have a working cocker who is a pampered reprobate with us and wouldn’t have managed to work as he is daft and blind. We got him at 4 months old and he was already docked.
I got a snarky comment about his interesting docking when he was little but just said it was done when we rescued him. Gets on my nerves when people assume you have mutilated your special little prince when you have just rescued him to a life of roast dinners, swimming in mud and rolling in foul smelling items.

Vet it's not comparable to circumcision at all. Docking serves a purpose - to prevent repeated trauma to the tail which can result in infection and cause long term pain. I've seen dogs completely change personalities as a result of constant injury.
It really is the lesser evil.

The wrong in the OP here is that the pups are advertised at all surely? The legislation allows docking if the pups are destined for working homes. I do not believe that the seller would only sell to working homes in this instance.
I have had a front row seat at many dockings both at two days of age
(including dew claws) and in adult animals including cats. I can imagine that as mentioned by a PP, docking does slow the growth and thriftiness of a litter compared to undocked. They do seem to pick up very quickly afterwards which is amazing when you consider the injury. We have no way of knowing if there is ongoing pain of course and dogs and working dogs in particular are very stoic.
In adult dogs, having their tails docked (after being shut in a car door for example) seems to bother them no more than any other surgery. Cats even less so. I am not advocating adult docking. It's just an observation.
There are rules about the length of the dock in pups. In males the tail must cover the anus and in bitches the anus and vulva. There are breed variations too.
Tail injuries are the very devil to get to heal.

I’d love to know what sort of area you work in veterinari

Do you really think gamekeepers and the like are removing the tails for fun?
It’s done because it the dogs are at high risk of injury...

If we were talking about rotty breeders for example who used to dock for aesthetics I’d be in complete agreement with you but working spaniels are highly likely to damage their tails.
Just watch one working!

Really, the sensible thing to do imo would be to outcross with a natural Bob tail breed so docking becomes unnecessary but there is a good reason why the overwhelming majority of working spaniel owners and people who know them are pro docking and the antis are more often than not pet owners and urban vets.

Yes, should also have said that the advert stated that the dew claws had been removed as well.
It’s quite a rural area but more farming than shooting so I would guess that these puppies will be mostly going as pets

So reading through what we have here...

• clearly some breeders are docking even when there is a chance/likelihood the dog will not work
• looking at some dogs, when docked as puppies there is a reasonable chance of getting the length wrong as many docked dogs tail stump does not cover anus and vulva
• working dogs have a chance of serious injury
• adult surgery is no more painful or risky than other types of surgery

Does that mean the fact that they are docked as puppies is to do with human convenience and cost? That actually one way would be to dock later on when it is clear the dog IS going to work and it is easier to judge the correct docking length. Or even to wait until an injury does occur and dock as a response to that rather than try to heal a tail injury?

I don't know the answer as I have never shot with dogs but for me, when buying a dog I knew would not work, having his tail was important. As was having all his bits still on him rather than removed 'just in case'. Humans are far, far to keen to chop bits off animals as a first resort, rather than as a last, imo.

adult surgery is no more painful or risky than other types of surgery

Might have no more risks than any other surgery, but adult amputation carries more risks than a dock at a few days old as the nerves and blood supply are more developed. It's part of the reason it's harder to heal an adult tail amputation.

“It really is the lesser evil.“

For a dog that ends up with tail injuries it is... but that’s nowhere near all working dogs (or even most, whichever study you look at) so the vast majority of working dogs have been docked for no reason and rarely does a whole litter end up working, but they can’t tell which will at that age, so they’re all done.

And other breeds who don’t work and have never been docked also are prone to tail injuries as well... yet we wait for them to actually have injuries before doing anything about it.

So it’s really not as cut and dried as being the lesser of two evils tbh.

And other breeds who don’t work and have never been docked also are prone to tail injuries as well...

Thing is though, breeds behave differently.

My collie is what you would expect for a collie, let her off leash and she will run far ahead, racing with abandon.

But compared to the working cockers I have seen she is very different, although she is probably just as active she shows it differently.

They (the cockers) quite literally race at break neck speed through absolutely everything, bouncing up and down, crashing through undergrowth in a way that collies just don’t.

Same for working Labradors, I have seen lots of active working Labradors but they don’t move in the same way.

A long tail isn’t at all practical for a working spaniel, as I said earlier, I don’t understand why they are not outcrossed with a natural bob tail like a Brittany or something and have the long tail bred out, it’s an absolute hinderance.

Do you really think gamekeepers and the like are removing the tails for fun?
It’s done because it the dogs are at high risk of injury...

Nope. It’s done because it’s traditional. And significantly cheaper and less hassle than dealing with an adult dog tail injury.

If welfare was a genuine concern then tail docking proponents would actually use the evidence - it contraindicates prophylactic docking. But cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing and humans generally justify behaviours that provide convenient results regardless of the cost to animals, because accepting that we’re inflicting harm on an animal to make our own lives easier is uncomfortable

Yes, it's all fit our convenience 🙄

“A long tail isn’t at all practical for a working spaniel”

A long tail isn’t that practical for dogs like dalmatians or greyhounds either though...

But dalmations and greyhounds don’t crash about like working spaniels..

Originally Dals were bred to run alongside horses and greys are coursing/racing dogs.

Thr point I’m trying to make is when you observe them they move differently to other breeds, watch them working and they way they crash into just about everything, springing up and down and it’s no wonder they are docked!

Yes, it's all for our convenience
@FairfaxAikman i’d Love to understand how administering 16 tail injuries to prevent one tail injury is remotely good ‘maths’ To say nothing of neuroma formation, analgesic provision or behavioural development.

It primarily is for convenience. Cutting the tails off 16 puppies is cheaper and easier than paying for analgesia/surgery/vet time for an adult dog.

Unless you have any good evidence to the contrary?

To say nothing of the situation in the OP - where the puppies who have been mutilated likely won’t even be worked. So what’s the gamekeeper’s justufication for that?

If we’re playing the ‘you dock to save money’ game I can play that game too!

Its more lucrative for a vet to charge more for analgesia/surgery/vet time to dock an adult dog’s tail than to quickly snip a litter of 16 few day old puppies tails...

Not that I think either party is in it for monetary reasons.

And most likely, they will be worked.
Sure some will go for pets but the majority will go as working dogs and for those that don’t, they will still retain the higher energy/drive so are still more likely than a show bred cocker to injure their tail even if not being worked.

“But dalmations and greyhounds don’t crash about like working spaniels..”

No, they whack their tails off walls, fireplaces and coffee tables and injure them that way instead and they’re a nightmare to heal because there’s no spare skin.

I haven’t owned either breed but if that’s commonplace then perhaps it would be sensible to dock them as pups too...

At the end of the day, when it comes to spaniels they aren’t docked for aesthetics, they are docked in the belief that it is better for the dog because they are at high risk for injury.

If a small amount of discomfort prevents much larger harm in the long run then I’m for it.

Yes DoggyDoggyDoggy vets generally oppose tail docking, not because we’re trained animal professionals who prioritise animal welfare, making evidence-based decisions, but because we’re relying on all of those tail-injury surgeries to make us piles of money! You’ve unmasked us Seriously - is that the best justification for mutilations you can come up with?? You might want to recheck the economics of that suggested business plan...

At the end of the day, when it comes to spaniels they aren’t docked for aesthetics, they are docked in the belief that it is better for the dog because they are at high risk for injury.

I mostly agree with this - though there’s still a large amount of ’tradition’ otherwise we wouldn't See docked non-working dogs. Regardless it’s an erroneous belief, and clinging to and propagating this belief is detrimental to animal welfare. Good intentions don’t necessarily result in good outcomes, and clinging stubbornly to traditional practice rather than educating yourself isn’t a great excuse for causing lifelong pain.

If a small amount of discomfort prevents much larger harm in the long run then I’m for it.

But it doesn’t. It in fact causes long term sensitivity to pain and increases the risks of a whole host of other medical and behavioural problems. You’re basing your Opinion on an ignorance of the evidence, and even worse, defending that ignorance rather than educating yourself.

Your attitude is in fact, a classic example of why tail docking persists: use of anecdote/misunderstandings to justify a detrimental practice for the convenience of people.

vets generally oppose tail docking, not because we’re trained animal professionals who prioritise animal welfare, making evidence-based decisions, but because we’re relying on all of those tail-injury surgeries to make us piles of money! You’ve unmasked us confused Seriously - is that the best justification for mutilations you can come up with?? You might want to recheck the economics of that suggested business plan...

I do not personally believe that vets are opposed to tail docking for money.
I was using it as an example.

You said that people in support of docking do it for convenience, because it’s cheaper.

And I was merely making the point that you could use the very same argument for vets.
They make more money docking adult dogs.

You’re basing your Opinion on an ignorance of the evidence, and even worse, defending that ignorance rather than educating yourself.

Yes I’m rather good at that according to you.

Umm I said convenience - that’s not the same as cheaper (though cost may well be part of it for some people) As I said clearly in a previous post, it’s often cognitive dissonance

What I don’t understand is why you’re using an argument that you don’t believe in to make a point that holds no water? It’s just being argumentative for the sake of it. You seem determined to support mutilating puppies using ludicrous analogies and deliberately goady arguments, rather than examining the evidence, or re-evaluating the evidence on an issue that you clearly know very little about. In fact your behaviour is a wonderful example of why people still choose to tail dock in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. After all, you couldn’t possibly Be wrong, could you?

It would be amusing if the result of such deliberate ignorance wasn’t animal suffering

But I guess a winky face is easier than acknowledging that