Docking (dog) - History

History

Historically, tail docking was thought to prevent rabies, strengthen the back, increase the animal's speed, and prevent injuries when ratting, fighting, and baiting. In early Georgian times in the United Kingdom a tax was levied upon working dogs with tails and so many types of dogs were docked to avoid this tax. The tax was repealed in 1796 but that did not stop the practice from persisting.

Tail docking is done in modern times either for prophylactic, therapeutic, or cosmetic purposes. For dogs that worked in the field, such as some hunting dogs and herding dogs, tails could collect burrs and foxtails, causing pain and infection and, due to the tail's wagging, may be subject to abrasion or other injury while moving through dense brush or thickets. Tails with long fur could collect feces and become a cleanliness problem.

Docking to puppies fewer than 10 to 14 days old is routinely carried out by both breeders and veterinarians without anesthesia. Opponents of these procedures state that most tail dockings are done for aesthetic reasons rather than health concerns and are unnecessarily painful for the dog. They point out that even non-working show or pet dogs are routinely docked. They say that in breeds whose tails have been traditionally and routinely docked over centuries, such as Australian Shepherds, little attention is paid to selectively breeding for strong and healthy tails. As a result, tail defects that docking proponents claim makes docking necessary in the first place are perpetuated in the breeds. They point to the many breeds of working dogs with long tails that are not traditionally docked, including English Pointers, Setters, Herding dogs, and Foxhounds.

Robert Wansborough argued in a 1996 paper that docking tails puts dogs at a disadvantage in several ways. First, dogs use their tails to communicate with other dogs (and with people); a dog without a tail might be significantly handicapped in conveying fear, caution, aggression, playfulness, and so on. Certain breeds use their tails as rudders when swimming, and possibly for balance when running, so active dogs with docked tails might be at a disadvantage compared to their tailed peers. In 2007, Stephen Leaver, a graduate student at the University of Victoria, published a paper on tail docking which found that tail length was important in the transmission of social cues. The study found that dogs with shorter tails (docked tails) would be approached with caution, as if the approaching dog was unsure of the emotional state of the docked dog. The study goes on to suggest that dogs with docked tails may grow up to be more aggressive. The reasoning postulated by Tom Reimchen, UVic Biologist and supervisor of the study, was that dogs who grew up without being able to efficiently transmit social cues would grow up to be more anti-social and thus more aggressive.

Wansborough also investigates seven years of records from an urban veterinary practice to demonstrate that undocked tails result in less harm than docked tails.

Critics point out that kennel clubs with breed standards that do not make allowance for uncropped or undocked dogs put pressure on owners and breeders to continue the practice. Although the American Kennel Club (AKC) says that it has no rules that require docking or that make undocked animals ineligible for the show ring, standards for many breeds put undocked animals at a disadvantage for the conformation show ring. The American breed standard for boxers, for example, recommends that an undocked tail be "severely penalized." The AKC position is that ear cropping and tail docking are "acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character and/or enhancing good health," even though the practice is currently opposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association.