Is it legal in other countries?
Cosmetic tail docking has also been banned in a number of countries including Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Germany and Denmark. Several other European countries including Cyprus, Greece, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Austria have also ratified a European Convention that prohibits the cosmetic docking of tails. In the United Kingdom tail docking can only be carried out by a registered veterinary surgeon. The practice is opposed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which describes it as an ‘unacceptable mutilation’.
Removal of a dog’s tail for medical reasons is not referred to as “docking.” The most common reason for amputation or partial amputation of a dog’s tail is traumatic injury where repair of the entire tail is not possible or advisable. Amputation may also occur in the case of tail deformities that negatively impact a dog’s function or increase risk of injury. An argument might be made for removal of the tail of a dog on the basis of repeated prior injury.
A: Tail docking of some breeds may be based on a belief that their non-working members experience risks similar to working dogs; more commonly, however, it is to conform to a distinctive breed appearance or standard. Survey data indicate that preventive tail docking of pet dogs is unnecessary.18,21 Therefore tail docking of non-working dogs, even if their breed was originally developed for working purposes, is considered a cosmetic procedure unless evidence exists to the contrary. In countries such as the United Kingdom where tail docking is legally prohibited (with a few exemptions) the breed standards of traditionally docked breeds have been amended.22
A: The essential question is not “How harmful is the procedure?”, but rather “Is there sufficient justification for performing it?” Performing a surgical procedure for cosmetic purposes (i.e., for the sake of appearance) implies the procedure is not medically indicated. Because dogs have not been shown to derive self-esteem or pride in appearance from having their tails docked (common reasons for performing cosmetic procedures on people), there is no obvious benefit to our patients in performing this procedure. The only benefit that appears to be derived from cosmetic tail docking of dogs is the owner’s impression of a pleasing appearance. In the opinion of the AVMA, this is insufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure.
A: Tail docking of dogs is believed to have arisen for three reasons at different points in history. In ancient times Romans believed that amputation of the tail tip and/or parts of the dog’s tongue could prevent a dog from contracting rabies.1.2 Because the tail was believed to help a dog in the chase, dogs were historically docked if they were owned by a poor person not permitted to hunt game.2 (Ironically, it is sometimes argued that docking increases a dog’s strength or speed.3) There is a continuing tradition of docking working dogs’ tails with the goal of preventing tail injury during activities such as hunting (see related question below). Early references, however, tended to suggest docking only in cases where the tail was overly long for the size of the animal and, therefore, might be prone to injury.4
These justifications for docking working dogs’ tails lack substantial scientific support. In the largest study to date on tail injuries in dogs the incidence was 0.23% and it was calculated that approximately 500 dogs need to be docked to prevent one tail injury.18 It has been suggested that certain breeds of dogs, or dogs used for specific purposes, have a greater incidence of tail injury. An uncontrolled study of German Shorthaired Pointers in Sweden suggested there might be a high level of tail injury subsequent to a ban on docking.19 Diesel et al18 reported that working dogs (predominantly gundogs) were not at significantly greater risk of tail injury than non-working dogs, but dogs that were kenneled were at increased risk. Differences between breeds that are docked and those that are not are often minor. For example among the very similar Pointer, German Longhaired Pointer and German Shorthaired Pointer, only the German Shorthaired Pointer is traditionally docked.20
In the U.S., the American Kennel club (AKC) continues to encourage tail docking by claiming the procedure is “integral to defining and preserving breed character and/or enhancing good health.” Although the AKC has no rules specifically requiring docking, the message is clear: an undocked show dog is not likely to score highly for conformation since several breed standards recommend that an undocked tail be “severely penalized.” Dog owners who want to show their dogs often feel tremendous pressure to have their dog’s tails docked in order to compete.
This taxation law was eventually repealed, but tail docking continued – not for practical reasons, but for aesthetic ones. In the 19th century, tail docking (along with ear cropping, which is the removal of part of a dog’s ear to make it stand upright) became associated with the “proper” look of certain breeds. This look became heavily favored by judges in dog shows, a practice that continues today.
Fortunately, routine tail docking is now falling out of favor with the majority of veterinarians and the general public. Many people are foregoing the docked tail and cropped ear look for natural long tails and floppy ears (which personally I think are more attractive anyway).
Neonatal puppies are fragile and tiny, with immune systems that are not fully developed. They are susceptible to a host of medical issues (including infections) if they are injured. Exposing them to an unnecessary physical trauma like cutting off most of their tail seems particularly ill-advised.
Since dogs use their tails to counterbalance their weight on land and while swimming, removing part of the tail can affect the dog’s locomotion. Veterinarian Robert Wansborough, a strong opponent of tail docking, published a paper in the Australian Veterinary Journal in 1996 stating that tail docking can not only impair dogs’ movement, but could also contribute to both urinary and fecal incontinence.