In the US, the AKC standard is that the Vizsla tail is to be docked at 2/3 it's length. This is typically done between day one and day three as the Pups nerve system is not yet fully developed. There are some factions that feel this is a cruel and un-necessary procedure. It has been banned in some European countries by legislators listening to the Animal Rights crowds rather than the Sporting breed owners and Veterinarians.
Some excerpts from a well done article by Steve Peacocke and re-produced on Vizsladogs, Ltd.
So why don't we ban tail docking if it's such a barbaric practice? The answer is plain and simple, it is detrimental to the health and welfare of some breeds of dogs not to dock their tails - i.e. it is cruel not to dock. Let's examine the reasons behind why docking is done today. Let's examine each argument that I have heard to date…
The tail bone of a pup at less than 3 days old is still soft and the nervous system undeveloped. Consider that a young lamb or calf is so developed at birth that they can stand and walk besides their mothers within minutes of being born; a human, although not able to stand for many months, is still fully formed at birth; a pup though is essentially still developing after birth, the eyes, for example, do not open for many days. The pup is still developing hearing, sight, and the nervous system for many days after birth. As a hunter and scavanger, the dog has developed the ability to carry pups for only 63 days before giving birth to allow to mother to venture from the den to obtain food. The pups are still forming after birth, docking at this age causes only a momentary discomfort that is almost instantly forgotten.
Argument: There is no reason to dock dogs’ tails.
Response: The Hungarian Vizsla is a hunter, pointer and retriever with 1 third docked from the tail. Although the remainder of the tail is strong, the third docked is thin and whip-like and is open to damage in the field. The Vizsla holds it's tail horizontal to the ground and wags it forcefully while charging through rough scrub and undergrowth. The unprotected tip is docked to keep it from splitting and bleeding. Once damaged, the tail is extremely difficult to heal, sometimes requiring amputation later in life when the dog must be placed under general anaesthetic causing undue stress and pain.
Argument: Tail docking is completed only to win shows.
Response: There is no rule made by the New Zealand Kennel Club that requires any breed to be docked to allow it to show. The Hungarian Vizsla has been around since the 10th century and earlier and even early records show a docked tail yet, other than a brief test at showing early this century in Hungary, the first Vizsla to show anywhere in the world was in the mid 1960's. Docking is performed to save the dog pain and hardship.
Argument: Tails are required to aid in swimming.
Response: Many docked breeds including the Vizsla, and even fully docked breeds, are excellent swimmers.
Argument: Tails are required for balance.
Response: Despite this seemingly plausible argument, no dogs to my knowledge, have ever fallen over due to the lack of a tail. Wobbly dogs are almost non-existent.
Argument: Tails are required for expression.
Response: The tail is immediately seen by humans but the full body language is used by other dogs. Even a fully docked dog can easily give the full range of emotions to both other dogs and to humans. Arguments to the contrary usually go along the lines of "why then are most aggressive dogs the ones with the docked tails?" When the word "aggressive" is used people usually conjure up images of the American Pit Bull Terrier (which is not docked), the Rottweiller and the Doberman. These latter dogs are bred to be guard dogs and have their tails docked to prevent intruders gripping the tails making the dog ineffective. Docking their tails didn't make them aggressive, they were docked because they were trained to be aggressive.
Argument: Docking tails is "Cosmetic Mutilation".
Respons: This is the "catch-phrase" of the SPCA. It means nothing and is specifically designed to bring emotion into the argument. It is hard to argue against as it contains no facts to argue. It's like saying "I think you're ugly", it's designed to get an emotional response.
Argument: Other hunting dogs don't have their tails docked.
Response: The practice of docking some hunting dog's tails was done for practical reasons, if there is no practical reason, why dock at all? The Labrador has a thick, powerful and well padded tail throughout the full length, the Irish Setter and the Golden Retriever have long course hair for protection the Vizsla, GSP and Weimeraner have no such protection. There is also the question of the type of hunting done, the Labrador is the traditional retriever with the likes of lowland ducks where tail damage is unlikely. The Vizsla on the other hand hunts ducks on rivers and ponds; pheasants and quail through the rough; and even deer in dense bush.
Argument: Other countries are banning tail docking.
Response: While this is true for some countries, this experiment has proven disastrous for working dogs such as the Hungarian Vizsla, the Weimaraner and the German Short Haired Pointer. Most countries that have banned tail docking are currently considering, if not totally reversing the law, allowing docking of hunting breeds for humanitarian reasons. In Denmark, the Anti-docking law specifically excludes five hunting breeds, the Hungarian Vizsla is one of those five. Even there, the law is being reconsidered due to the number of reported tail damages in all traditionally docked breeds.