Also wanted to point out that Setters and English Pointers are entirely different from Weims, GSPs and all the other HPR breeds in that they were bred purely to Set and Point game on moorland. They aren't docked as there's no risk of tail damage. HPR breeds and Springers, however, were bred to be used for a variety of different functions, which initially primarily involved rough shooting, which is what causes tail damage. This is why certain gundog breeds are docked, while others aren't.

One other reason why traditionally docked breeds are docked is also the thickness of the tail. Many of the pointer/HPR breeds have thin whip like tails that are therefore more prone to damage. If you compare the tail thickness of, say, a German Shorthaired Pointer to the tail of a Golden Retriever or Labrador, the difference is significant.

Thank you for your replies Ripsnorter and Labradork - I think I can see what you mean. I am glad that flatcoats have always kept their tails - I think it is often one of the most attractive features of a dog (certainly with a flatcoat).

Tell me about it, being whipped in the eye by Oscar's tail as I try to tie my showlaces has to be one of the most painful things on this Earth.

It's a common question tbh, a lot of people don't realise that certain working gundogs are docked because of what they've been bred to do.

I certainly like breeds to keep their tails where possible, I've never really been against the ban, more pro choice really. What I've always been against is the discrimination of dual purpose breeders who aren't allowed to work and show their dogs equally. That part is very unfair, imo, and just shows how little the people that formed the legislation actually know about working gundogs.

At 3 days old , its not a problem to remove them at all.

As for stabilizing the foot, all the dogs I know of and that includes working as well as gun dogs , none have ever had a problem of stabilisation due to having front dew claws removed.



And mine do, it has never hindered them in the slightest

Its also a point to remember many of the breeds that have dew claws removed (front ones) are short coated and have no hair to protect the dew claw from being damaged

You can always find a study to support an argument from either side of the fence..personally I go with hard evidence of the dogs I have known,

Its also a point to remember is that the author of the study is talking about performance dogs, so one would assume she means agility and such, and it could be a factor of "hard pounding" on joints , that have more to do with any form of arthritis than having dew claws removed.

One will always see what one wants to , when making an argument to suit your study?

Not sure of your point Chaz, in the pics of your dogs running, and turning, I could post some of mine (with no dew claws) doing the same, Turing the same and having no difficulty in any movement at all!!

I have to agree, getting gunk out of eyes is no less difficult for a dog with no front dew clews to one that has them, infact to be honest the fact the dog has a sharp nail pocking in his eye, I would assume would do more damage than not having them.

It seems to be suggested by some that dogs without dew claws are somewhat hindered in many ways from their cousins that do have them.

Yet as it is already been established that many breeds do not "naturally" have rear dew claws, the argument may be a little flawed, because if you put two dogs together and one has rear dew claws and one does not, then by the argument given the one without will be crippled and unable to move and use his hind legs which is in fact not true at all.

Carpal arthritis may be down to many factors, wear and tear being a prime one.

Same goes for docking, as others have pointed out, different breeds do different jobs along with construction and fur coverage of tail, will play a big part in its protection in the field.

I think that little snippet was more to do with the "upset" it causes the "public" who see "docked" dogs in the show ring.

That's why you cant show a docked dog now if the "public" pay to gain access to the show


Extremely silly in my opinion.

Dogs are still beign docked, legally and illegally some under the guise of "working" and some not.

I Disagree with amputating bits of dogs for no good reason
If you are happy with it then fair nuff
The point of the fotos wasnt that dogs without dew claws are crippled - that is just you being dramatic when noone said anything about that
The point is that dog DO use them. When turning when running the dew claws come into contact with the ground
If the dog are bred with properly formed dew claws then they dont have problems with them
If you had read the links properly you would have seen the lady does not mean stability of the dog moving, but the actual stability of the bones in the joint
and yes she is talking about agility dogs, and her point was FAR MORE dogs with the arthritis were seen in dogs with removed dew claws

Of course dogs are going to be able to adapt to the removal
I went to school with a guy who only had 3 fingers on 1 hand, 2 on the other and no thumbs - he coped just fine - should we all chop our thumbs off cos we will cope??

Fair enough if a dog has a good chance of injuring itself if it dosent have its tail docked or dew claws removed - then I can see a point in that (although I think you should look at the breeding, is a dog fit for function if we need to chop bits off??)
But to just do it because it has always been done, because the breed standard says it and because the dogs cope just fine is not a good reason to mutilate puppies

Clearly you feel different - thats your oppinion

So can you provide a study to show otherwise if its so easy? The pictures are to show where the dew claw would be hitting the ground, so therefore where the dogs who have thenm would be using them. I do wish though that I had a slow mo video of a dog with and without dew claws turning, as that would be the thing that really show the point.

A body, of anything though is like a machine, each part relies on something else, by taking one thing it will have a effect elsewhere. No matter how small, the body isn't the way it is for no reason.

Also how much extra excercise do you think sporting dogs get then normal dogs? I give you working dogs, but many pets have about two or three off lead excercise a day, some sporting dogs are their just for fun, but even if their owners are in it because they live it they wouldn't over do it for the dogs, as such things have to be fun, and I'm betting that any training ring isn't anything like the places that many dogs get walked, long grass, objects, uneven ground, which may be slippy, the list is endless, yes they have jumps etc, but they are man made, not like the great outdoors.

Also if dogs don't regulary use their dew claws then why don't they need cutting as regulary as the normal nails?

Fit for function, is just that, fit to do a job and having a tail docked or a dew claw removed is not going to stop said dog doing what he is bred for, all it will do is eliminate certain injuries.

If your argument is to be followed then I guess we would breed dogs with no dew claws and short tails to be able to work without having bits chopped of, but then again if your argument is correct, breeding out said digits of the dog will hinder his ability to work .

Or maybe it does not make any difference to a dogs work ability at all having dew claws and tails removed.

Well I think it does make a difference
I know of cattle farmers in America who dog border collies tails purpously to make them less agille so they turn in larger circles
Dog DO use their tails, to comunicate and for balance
Dogs DO use their dew claws

Just because they can manage without them dosent mean they should get them cut off

As you fine well know my point about the guy with the missing fingers was to show that you can adapt to things
He dosent run on his hands so less strains on them so less chance of long term damage

I have no idea what you think agility dogs do but mine spend far more time bombing tru undergrowth and taking leaps on uneaven ground while on walks, agiity is only a very small part of their lives
I guess their life might be a little more stressful on their joints than some of the dogs who are never offlead in their lives - but the agility bit of it is very little