|
Q: Why did we start docking dogs' tails?
A: Tail docking of dogs is believed to have arisen for three reasons at different points in history. In ancient times Romans believed that amputation of the tail tip and/or parts of the dog's tongue could prevent a dog from contracting rabies.1,2 Because the tail was believed to help a dog in the chase, dogs were historically cropped if they were owned by a poor person not permitted to hunt game.2 (Ironically, it is sometimes argued that docking increases a dog's strength or speed.3) There is a continuing tradition of docking working dogs' tails with the goal of preventing tail injury during activities such as hunting (see related question below). Early references, however, tended to suggest docking only in cases where the tail was overly long for the size of the animal and, therefore, might be prone to injury. 4
Q: When did tail docking for cosmetic purposes begin?
A: Tail docking seems to have emerged for a variety of reasons, but for some breeds it was proposed primarily to improve appearance. Books from different periods openly refer to docking of some breeds as a matter of pleasing appearance (e.g., The American Book of the Dog, 1891, p. 619, 6695; also6). The most consistent anecdotal argument for preventive docking relates to hunting with pointers; even in this case, however, the purpose of increasing 'beauty' is mentioned.15 Rules for pedigreed dog shows in the United States established during the mid-1950s formalized the docking tradition within some breed fancies regardless of the origin of the practice.
The history of veterinary opposition to cosmetic tail docking is long. One example from the United States being characterization of cosmetic tail docking as "indefensible" in The Dog by Youatt & Lewis (1854).7 Most veterinarians worldwide tend not to support routine, cosmetic tail docking as part of a breed standard;8,9,10 however, there is a lack of data relating specifically to the attitudes of veterinarians in the United States and there are dissenting opinions (just as some breeders have opposed docking in breeds where this is traditional11).
The AVMA first suggested breed clubs remove cosmetic alterations from breed standards in 1976, although the presence and phrasing of this recommendation within the Association's policy has varied over the years. Opposition to tail docking is also the stated policy of other veterinary associations (e.g., Canada,12 Australia,13 United Kingdom14).
Q: What is the current basis for carrying out preventive tail amputation/partial amputation on working dogs?
A: Some commentators consider a long tail to be a potential hazard for some breeds of working dogs. For example, it has been suggested that:
- A guard dog could be seized by the tail to thwart its attack.15
- Hunting dogs, such as pointers, may damage their tail tip in underbrush.7,4,16
- Long-haired dogs may become more soiled if they have a hanging tail.17
These justifications for docking working dogs' tails lack substantial scientific support, with the exception of some suggestive, but inconclusive, data relating to German Shorthaired Pointers before and after a docking ban in Sweden.18 Differences between breeds that are docked and those that are not are often minor. For example among the very similar Pointer, German Longhaired Pointer and German Shorthaired Pointer, only the German Shorthaired Pointer is traditionally docked.19 Some argue that subtle differences in the morphologic types of their tails justify this distinction. Docking of toy spaniels' tails, such as those of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, is now allowed, but was not typically performed in the ancestral breeds.20
Q: Why is tail docking currently carried out on non-working dogs?
A: Tail docking of some breeds may be based on a belief that their non-working members experience risks similar to working dogs; more commonly, however, it is to conform to a distinctive breed appearance or standard. Survey data indicate that preventive tail docking of pet dogs is unnecessary.21 Therefore tail docking of non-working dogs, even if their breed was originally developed for working purposes, is considered a cosmetic procedure unless evidence exists to the contrary.
Q: Do dogs need to have tails?
A: It is natural for most dogs to have tails based upon their descent from a tailed species. However there is no strong evidence that naturally bobbed or surgically docked dogs are physically or psychologically disadvantaged. There is some early, but inconclusive, data that raises questions as to whether docking impairs communication with other dogs22 or may increase the risk of developing incontinence.23
Q: Is tail docking painful?
A: Tailing docking is painful.24 The intensity or duration of the pain under ideal or typical circumstances is difficult to quantify.
Q: Why does AVMA policy oppose cosmetic tail docking?
A: The essential question is not "How harmful is the procedure?", but rather "Is there sufficient justification for performing it?" Performing a surgical procedure for cosmetic purposes (i.e., for the sake of appearance) implies the procedure is not medically indicated. Because dogs have not been shown to derive self-esteem or pride in appearance from having their tails docked (common reasons for performing cosmetic procedures on people), there is no obvious benefit to our patients in performing this procedure. The only benefit that appears to be derived from cosmetic tail docking of dogs is the owner's impression of a pleasing appearance. In the opinion of the AVMA, this is insufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure.
Q: What forms of tail removal would not be considered cosmetic?
A: The naturally bobbed animal is not considered "docked." Bobbed genetics exist in many pedigreed breeds (e.g., Old English Sheepdog, Australian Shepherd17) and have been introduced into others (e.g., Boxer25). Some breeders, both historically and currently, would prefer problematic conformation to be corrected via breeding alone.
Removal of a dog's tail for medical reasons is not referred to as "docking." The most common reason for amputation or partial amputation of a dog's tail is traumatic injury where repair of the entire tail is not possible or advisable. Amputation may also occur in the case of tail deformities that negatively impact a dog's function or increase risk of injury. An argument might be made for removal of the tail of a dog on the basis of repeated prior injury.
Precautionary removal of the tail of a young puppy needs to be based on compelling evidence that the animal is at high risk of tail trauma due to congenital defect, breed and/or planned working activity. However, such a justification should be supported by evidence such as empirical data or impartial expert opinion based on extensive, directly relevant experience.
REFERENCES
1. Podberscek AL, Paul AS, Serpell J. Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the Relationships Between People and Pets. Cambridge University Press, 2000; 307.
2. Fleming. The wanton mutilation of animals. The Nineteenth Century, a Monthly Report, 1895;37:440.
3. Drury WD. British Dogs, Their Points, Selection, and Show Preparation. L.U. Gill: London. 1903. p. 165
4. Hallock C. The Sportsman's Gazetteer and General Guide. Forest and Stream: New York. 1877. p. 456.
5. Shields G. The American Book of the Dog. Rand, McNally: Chicago. 1891
6. Palmer, RM. All about Airedales: A Book of General Information Valuable to Dog Lovers and Owners, Breeders and Fanciers, Illustrated from Selected Photographs of Noted Dogs and Rare Scenes. The Airedale Terrier Reviewed. 3-A Publishing Co.: Seattle. 1916; 53.
7. Youatt W, Lewis EJ. The Dog. Leavitt and Allen, 1857 Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=wxkPAAAAYAAJ Accessed December 15, 2008.
8. Bennett PC, Perini E. Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved? Aust Vet J 2003;81:277-82.
9. Sonntag, Q. Cosmetic tail docking. Vet News 2004;Feb:4-5.
10. Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK, et al. Tail docking in dogs: a sample of attitudes of veterinarians and dog breeders in Queensland. Aust Vet J 1996;73:86-88.
11. Lytton, N. Toy Dogs and Their Ancestors: Including the History and Management of Toy Spaniels, Pekingese, Japanese and Pomeranians. Duckworth & Co: London. 1911; 91.
12. CVMA Website Cosmetic Surgery: http://canadianveterinarians.net/ShowText.aspx?ResourceID=46 Accessed December 15, 2008
13. AVA Website Surgical alteration to the natural state of animals: http://avacms.eseries.hengesystems.com.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Policies&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2157 Accessed December 15, 2008
14. RCVS Website Your responsibilities to your patients: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=89720&int2ndParentNodeID=89717&int1stParentNodeID=89642 Accessed December 15, 2008
15. Coren, S. How Dogs Think: Understanding the Canine Mind. Simon and Schuster, 2004; 106
16. Lee RB. A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland. H. Cox: London. 1897. p. 220-221.
17. Sasson-Brickson G. The bobtail trait in Australian shepherds — part I: a historical perspective and docking Regulations in various countries. Aussie Times 2005; March-April.
18. Strejffert, G. Tail injuries of shorthaired German pointer dogs born in Sweden 1989. Unpublished 1992.
19. Milne, E. The Truth about Cats and Dogs. Book Guild Publishing, 2007; 118.
20. Leighton R. Dogs and All about Them. Cassell and Company, Ltd: London. 1910, 283.
21. Darke PGG, Thrusfield MV, Aitken CGG. Association between tail injuries and docking in dogs. Veterinary Record 1985;11:409
22. Leaver, SDA, Reimchen TE. Behavioural responses of Canis Familiaris to different tail lengths of a remotely-controlled life-size dog replica. Behaviour 2008;145:377-390.
23. Thrusfield P, Holt M. Association in bitches between breed, size, neutering and docking, and acquired urinary incontinence due to incompetence of the urethral sphincter mechanism. Vet Rec 1993;133:177-180.
24. Noonan G, Rand J, Blackshaw J, et al. Behavioural observations of puppies undergoing tail docking. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1996;4: 335-342.
25. Haworth K, Putt W, Cattanach B et al. Canine homolog of the T-box transcription factor T; failure of the protein to bind to its DNA target leads to a short-tail phenotype. Mammalian Genome 2001;12:212-218.
 Top
Source: Staff research, AVMA Animal Welfare Division
Contact: Dr. Emily G. Patterson-Kane (800.248.2862, ext 6746; ekane@avma.org) with questions or comments.
This information has been prepared as a service by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Redistribution is acceptable, but the document's original content and format must be maintained, and its source must be prominently identified.
|
= AVMA/SAVMA Members Only