I disagree with tail docking. Leave the tail on!
However I do agree with early removal of the dewclaws. It is much worse for animals that suffer injury later in life to deal with and recover from having them removed.

If they were born free thier tails wouldn't be docked what genius came up with the idea of docking ? I don't think docking is a good idea, some times the tail can be too short and the poor dog suffers with that the rest of their lives...Look at the Westie when his hair is clipped they leave a brush tail, here is a happy little terrier with a tail.

The original reason for docking, way before it being to do with taxes or dog fights or anything else, was researched by Roger Tabor. His findings were that it was started by the Romans who believed that biting off and eating a puppy tail would cure worms in humans :smt078
Thats the actual origin of the `glorious tradition` people today are so desperate to cling to

Max has a tail and dewclaws (traditionally docked breed), but we have had him castrated due to our proximity to three breeding bitches.

I think there should be a choice for people. I know that a lot of people who work their dogs (hunting/shooting etc) prefer docked dogs, as it can lessen injuries.

But as a Boxer owner, I can't see any benefit in a Boxer being docked, as they are generally not used for their original purpose, so haven't the need to be docked.
I'm sure that people who own traditionally docked dogs, but whose dogs aren't "working" dogs might question why they are docked and the answer (I've found with Boxers is) "they just are".

In fact, my trainer said that it was a shame I'd never be able to show Max, because she feels that even is he was the best in the ring, most judges would mark him lower because he still has a tail.

For me, that's the awful bit of it. I'd actually be penalised for not chopping a part of my dog off.

Max's breeders are planning another litter next year and are mating Max's parents again. They have said that they will not dock any of the litter (this was said before the ban came into place). We requested Max not to be docked when we decided to get him, so were quite lucky in that case. Anyway, I digress...

I don't think it should be totally banned. Maybe stricter laws/rules on it, but a complete ban is silly.

I'm against tail docking but having said that, when I wanted a Yorkshire Terrier I found it impossible to find a reputable breeder that had any with tails...I searched for months. In the end I got Max and he had a docked tail, not what I wanted but had no choice and I really wanted a yorkie...Max suffered most of his life with tail problems due to docking....it had interfered with a nerve and use to drive him crazy some days...and before you ask, yes it was checked and confirmed by a vet that this was the cause. As for dew claws, Max had his but they were always being pulled out whenever he played and we were always at the vet having them clipped off when they were left hanging from injury, so maybe having them removed is a good idea but I can't answer that as I don't have a dog with dew claws removed to comment...maybe someone can answer the pros and cons of dew claw removal for me..thanks

Ok, I'll have a go

Firstly, 'dewclaws' should only be used for the appendages on the rear legs when they occur. Some dogs are born with them, but most aren't. These rear dewclaws are non functional and don't occur in the wolf. They're vestigial digits that have reappeared with domestication, probably because there is no selectional pressure to keep them hidden as there is in the wolf.... ie the wolf would be at a disadvantage if he had rear dewclaws. The domesticated dog may also be at disadvantage, but because man has interfered with natural selection, the genes that allow rear dewclaws to appear are no longer suppressed in some dogs.

The front leg 'dewclaws' are the first digits, the same as our thumbs and do occur in all wolves. They have muscle attachment and are functional. Some dogs seem to use them more than others but they are used for gripping, climbing etc and perform an important function in balance during galloping and turning at speed. There is some evidence to suggest that removal of front 'dewclaws' in very active dogs can predispose to premature arthritic changes in the foreleg.

As for pros & cons....

Obviously some dogs will damage their dewclaws in the course of normal activity, especially gundogs working in thick cover but I don't think this justifies the removal of the front ones but possibly it does the rear. The rear ones, unlike the front, don't have muscle attachment so are loose and dangle, and are more prone to damage.

I don't think there is any justification for removal of front ones for pet, or show dogs which have them removed in some breeds, supposedly to make the leg look 'clean' for the showring.

Removal of the front ones on dogs involved in racing, agility or other such activity would be totally unjustified IMO.

Just to add.... removal of rear dewclaws is usually done at age two or three days and certainly does hurt the puppy. Bernese (I used to breed) often have double on each rear leg. I've never had front ones removed so don't know about those.

That's a superbly informative post Pod. If I could give you a reppie I most certainly would!

"Clean" not known that before. Have you seen Dobes dewclaws? They are awful, they grown really thick and twist out, at least all the ones I have seen do, they dont seem like other dogs somehow, dont sit right.
Dawn.

My setter ripper her dew claw out when she was a pup. It now grows 90 degrees from her leg. Just hope she doesn't have any problems when she gets up on the heather as my gwp is always splitting his.

Helen

I knew when I saw this thread there would be heated debate

Aesthetically, I prefer the look of a docked Rottie - however I have seen fully-tailed Rotts at Crufts and thought they looked wonderful once I got used to seeing them with tails.

Ozzy was docked when we bought him, if he had been undocked I would still have bought him, it wouldn't stop me from owning the breed that is for certain.

I am a hypocrite to be honest, whilst I love the look of the docked tail on a Rott, I don't really agree that they should be docked just for cosmetic purposes alone.

I can totally understand working/field dogs having it done to protect their tails getting damaged in the bushes etc, but there simply isn't a need for a showdog to have it done just for 'the look'.

If all showdogs had full tails breed enthusiasts would soon adjust to seeing them like that, I would not understand any breeder or owner not wanting to their chosen breed anymore just because of a docking ban. What difference does a bit of tail make how the dog is?

The tail does not maketh the dog!