> A serious injury is one that affects an animal's quality of life, whether through pain or infection, or other reasons. Animals (and humans) get injuries to various parts of their bodies every day, but it doesn't mean they're serious injuries.

Yes but as I said a small injury can get worse and become a serious injury!

Posters were pointing out that vets are not seeing any more injuries since the docking ban but my point is that there could be lots of injuries that are being treated at home so in fact there could be far more injuries! That's all I am trying to say.

But that's no different to before, is it? People have always treated minor injuries at home, for themselves and their pets. Any breed, whether traditionally docked or not, can injure its tail. The whole point of that CDB's pro-docking stance was that there would be many more tail injuries in previously-docked breeds - yet there seems to be no evidence that this has happened.

> But that's no different to before, is it? People have always treated minor injuries at home, for themselves and their pets. Any breed, whether traditionally docked or not, can injure its tail. The whole point of that CDB's pro-docking stance was that there would be many more tail injuries in previously-docked breeds - yet there seems to be no evidence that this has happened.

I din't say it was any different did I? I know people have always treated injuries themselves if they can and I know any breed can injure a tail I'm not stupid!! Again you are missing the point that there could be an increase of 100% in tail injuries treated at home as there are no records kept but hey-ho.

>there could be an increase of 100% in tail injuries treated at home as there are no records kept but hey-ho.

Equally there could be none. Without records as evidence the whole debate is pointless. The original poster asked "but I wonder if anyone has got any evidence of injuries." It seems that the answer is no.

I've mentioned 2 that I know of from one litter! I didn't realise there was a debate, I thought it was a friendly exchange of views on tail injuries.

Isn't that what a debate is - a friendly exchange of views?

Surely a few minor injuries that can be treated at home doesn't justify removing the whole tail at birth? If the injuries are so minor that they don't require veterinary intervention then that suggests to me that the pro docking argument is even weaker than it was before. My dog kept pulling his toe nails for a while, but i wouldn't insist on removing them!

Various bodies are collecting tail injury data - I am not part of any of the teams involved therefore I can give no figures here but I know they have recorded evidence from across the country to show tail damage is occuring and one group is aiming to put evidence to the to put to Scotish Parliment to request an exemption for working dogs. I know of breeders in Scotland who will no longer breed due to the ban as they feel the welfare issue of having a tail is far to great a price to pay for keeping the kennel line going. The original poster was pointed in the direction of those who were collecting evidence perhaps she has the answers she wanted?

All anyone can do here is talk of "personal" experince - I have been told about a number of tail injuries, some have required amputation ther have healed slowly with the requirement for the tail to be strapped even on a simple walk to prevent further damage. Other people clearly have seen no evidence of problems post docking ban. Our experinces are different but until the groups that are collecting evidence publish their finding we will all be in the dark about the nationwide incidence and impact of tail injuries.

Until the tail damage issue can be proven to be insignificant I will continue to dock, as I believe it is in the long term best interest of my pups based on my personal experiences and current knowledge. I have no problem with the look of dogs with tails, and I have no problem with owning a dog with a tail if it is subsequently proved that tail injuriies are so rare that docking is not necassary for prevention. 
K
 

My daughters dog is hopefully having his LAST bandage removed next Thursday Its been a long haul, but we think necessary.  My daughter would have prefererred not to have had half his tail removed, but her friend is a vet and she said it was not fair on him that every time he hit it against something it split and bled.  People I no have had their dogs docked, but im sorry  dogs were born with tails ............  My daughtrers dog is not worked, he is a family pet.  Out of the litter of 5 which he came from, he was the biggest puppy. (he looks more show ESS than working) his brother and sisters are almost half the size he is, and never had tail problems as thier tails were only ''skinny'' his is thicker and bigger (proably due to his size) 

£183 to remove half of tail, and another £249 for bandages and consultation fees for the 8 weeks it took from beginning to end! Daughters dogs bandages on his tail finally came off on xmas eve (but he is worth every penny)