I agree, i think tail docking shouldn't be banned. I think it should be done by a certified vet though, as they put a tight elastic band around the pups tail at about 2/3 days old, before they even open their eyes. Its is also a painless experience for the pups.

I have boxers and know for a fact that if they had a tail, they would constantly be hitting it and hurting it. We now have bobtail boxers (that are born with a naturally short tail). I wouldn't be against buying a boxer because of a tail but i feel having a short tail would save a lot of pain (and breakages!) in the future x

My 2 Boxers both have tails and we haven't had one tail injury in 2.5 years. In fact, a friends labrador has injured her tail more in the same timeframe, and they haven't ever been docked.

P.S. This thread is 4 years old...

Personally I am against docking, although I can see reasons for docking certain breeds due to working in the past. But I have also seen these breeds working with their tail, so I don't think it is needed in these modern times. My Boxer was docked before my parents got him, about 12 years ago. My Jack Russell isn't docked, and we wouldn't have gone for him if he was. Dogs were born with tails, mother nature made them that way, leave nature alone is my opinion

I've had 2 yorkies that were docked,and
I don't agree with it at all,it's a mutilation.

I have show type cocker spaniels and for the life of me can't see a reason why they should be docked, so stopped docking my litters nearly 6 years ago.

I'm afraid it's one of those arguements that people who are pro-docking will give you a list as long as your arm as to why they should be docked, and those who are anti-docking will give their reasons for not docking.

IMO i think docking in working dogs is ok as there can be so much more damage with tail then without.
In dogs that are not working i like to see them wagging )

I have 2 docked rescue dogs - one done recently therefore illegally - and badly. He is extremely sensitive about people going round his rear end. I wish they both had their tails - they try to balance with them - you can see them compensating. So if I had a choice I wouldn`t have it done. If a dog needed it docked because it was injured, I wouldn`t have a problem with it - but whipping it off just in case seems a bit daft to me. Especially as the majority of gundog breeds are now kept as pets.
I know this is an old thread but I think it`s still relevant as it is still going on.

I think tail docking for show or cosmetic reasons is wrong but for working gun dogs there is a very vaild reason for doing it.

A mate of my brother in law had an undocked working springer and he stripped most of the skin off it while they were beating. He eneded up with a docked tail anyway but it was a lot more painful

I don't have docked breeds and probably never will, but as long as it is done by a vet at a few days old then I don't have a problem with it, especially when it is done to prevent tail damage to a working gundog.

I don't agree with it whether it is for working or not. I have seen a litter of pups have their tails docked and the site was pitiful. I don't agree that they cannot feel pain, they may just not be able to communicate it in the same way as they can as they get older. The litter i saw docked definately showed signs of pain even though they were only a week or so old, they moved round suddenly when their tail was docked, yelped and cried for some time after they had been put back in the box......I am sure it hurts and do not believe it when people say it doesn't hurt them......how are they sure!!

I also disagree with removing working dogs tails. If they injure them regularly then yes, remove them later under general anesthetic, but don't take them off in case they hurt them......like i've said before, to me, this seems like removing everyones appendix just because they might develop appendicitis!