I totally agree with this as well...if someone wants to also show a dog as well as work it for what it was bred to do then a docked tail should not matter...that's just punishing people who use their dogs for what they were created for!

But I do disagree with docking an entire litter just out of the random idea that a couple might go to pet homes. The breeder should really be aware of whether the majority of pups are going to a pet or working home and then make a decision accordingly.

But if you leave tails on a whole litter then the chances are the gundog folk wont touch them with a bargepole. You generally find that BYB's, show kennels etc leave tails on and maybe dewclaws on too. Those who work their dog will have the whole litter docked on the assumption they are going to working homes. You cant dock half the litter and leave half the litter neither in an attempt to attract both markets because you simply cant tell what potential (if any) the pups have at such a young age.

But doesnt that mean they will never see the Crufts showring? I realise that where there is no entry fee they can be legally shown but TBH, when i'm thinking of dog shows, I always think of Crufts and this is one show you deffo have to pay for! It's very unfair that working dogs born after the ban cannot get as far as Crufts.

The top GWP kennel in this country produces top working and show quality dogs. She's having reports back that many of her dogs are suffering tail damage in the field. She obviously leaves them undocked as she is the top show kennel (and her lines tend to win BOB each year) so dual purpose breeders are stuck between a rock and a hard place, especially if they have hopes of a Crufts qualification.

I knew rear dew claws were removed.. None of mine have them. But I didn't know front dew claws were removed too! Mine seem to use theirs a lot. Kismet more than pharaoh to be fair, she almost uses them like thumbs to grapple with her toys and hold bones so she can more easily chew them!

Not all dogs are born with rear dew claws! but I think most have front ones! I think personally they are best removed!

Not entirely true. The majority of HWV are left undocked now, regardless of whether they are for work or show (or both as they should be, but that's another thread entirely! ). Oscar was bred by one of the most well known working HWV breeders in England, yet they leave their litters undocked. The dogs are used for a variety of functions, deer stalking, grouse shooting, falconry etc. I've had two problems with Oscar's full tail so far - one instance where I worked him for too long which resulted in him straining the muscles in his tail which, for 24 hours, was extremely painful for him. The worst problem, however, is his extremley happy demeanor. That sounds a bit harsh doesn't it "Damn you dog for being so happy!" He wags his tail so hard and at almost every available piece of eye contact I give him, which has resulted in him spliting the end of his tail open more than once. Doesn't seem to bother him, but I am mindful of the things I've read re full tailed Boxers etc having to have their tails amputated as it won't heal.

It would be a shame for him to undergo an operation and risk anaesthesia when he could've been docked originally anyway, however as I'm meeting more HWV I'm beginning to realise it's more of an "Oscar" trait than a HWV one.

Do I wish he was docked originally, no way! Do I think working gundog breeds should be docked as a matter of course, definitely not. I do, however, think that people should be allowed a choice and not have a law enforced upon them by people who clearly have no understanding of working gundogs (the evidence of which is the law itself).


I think if I was a dual purpose breeder, Crufts would be just another Championship Show to me (and that's all it is!). A dog can still become a show champion via all the other Champ Shows in the year and a dog can still qualify for Crufts via these shows.

I'm going to be honest here (and probably not very popular! ), if I was wanting a working gundog I would most certainly steer well clear of a breeder that put wins at Crufts over the welfare of their dogs. If tail injuries are apparent, then surely it would be more beneficial for the dogs to be docked and miss Crufts, than to be left with full tails, so they could attend Crufts and then have to risk tail injury and possibly an anaesthetic to have the tail amputated?

It smacks to me of breeding for ego than breeding for the breed tbh.

I don't disagree that it's an unfair rule though. I've always been pro choice rather than one rule for all.

why? if they are properly developed then it is a big job to remove them. dogs do use them not only for holding things and scratching but also when running they use them. they stabalise the foot and removal of them increases the chance of arthritis(sp)
if they are not properly attached they can cause problems, so why not breed for better foot development?

its not a big job to remove them when they are just days old, but I do believe if taken off later in life its a bit of a hassle.

Fair nuff, I havent seen days old pups
I still question the need to remove them at all when the dogs do use them

I guess its the chance you take, eg many dogs will live happily with them, some will injure them, some will be twisted or need removed later on, thus a GA will be needed,
I have to say hand on heart, my lot cope just fine without them,

do you have a link to the thing about dogs developing arthritis if they are removed?