View Full Version : Tail docking ban?
buggyracer
17-Mar-06, 13:33
I for one feel this proposed ban on docking dogs tails is ridiculous, working dogs with un-docked tails can suffer horrific damage whilst working in heavy cover, and how the Government will police this law remains to be seen, what are other peoples opinions on this issue??
i think people that dock puppys at home should be jailed - if its a working dog - yes i think a vet and only a vet should do it!
i agree if it is for health and saftey reasons by all means ... but just for the way it looks never and should be preformed by the vet
buggyracer
17-Mar-06, 13:56
I agree it should be performed by a vet or a trained specialist, but i think the vets up here stopped doing it a few years ago now? can anyone confirm this??
crashbandicoot1979
17-Mar-06, 14:15
Completely agree with brandy - as long as it is for health and safety reasons, not cosmetic reasons, and as long as it is done by a vet, then fine, Not sure if the vets up here still do it but I have heard of vets that refuse to do it. I can't imagine how the government will enforce this. I can understand banning docking for cosmetic reasons but then it will be hard to distinguish between those that are docked for this reason and those that are docked for safety reasons.
This is a highly emotive issue.
The Royal Cllege of Veterinary Surgeons has clear guidelines on tail docking -
Leading Counsel has advised:
1.Docking, which may be defined as the amputation of the whole or part of a dog's tail has, since July 1993, been illegal under UK law, if performed by a lay person.
2.The Royal College has for many years been firmly opposed to the docking of dogs' tails, whatever the age of the dog, by anyone, unless it can be shown truly to be required for therapeutic or truly prophylactic reasons.
3.Docking cannot be defined as prophylactic unless it is undertaken for the necessary protection of the given dog from risks to that dog of disease or of injury which is likely to arise in the future from the retention of an entire tail. The test of likelihood is whether or not such outcome will probably arise in the case of that dog if it is not docked. Faecal soiling in the dog is not for this purpose a disease or injury, and its purported prevention by surgical means cannot be justified.
4.Similarly, docking cannot be described as prophylactic if it is undertaken merely on request, or just because the dog is of a particular breed, type or conformation. Council considers that such docking is unethical.
5.Docking a dog's tail for reasons which are other than truly therapeutic or prophylactic is capable of amounting to conduct disgraceful in a professional respect. In the event of disciplinary proceedings being brought in respect of tail docking, it shall be open to the RCVS by evidence to prove, and to the Disciplinary Committee on such evidence to find, that any therapeutic or prophylactic justification advanced for the docking in question is without substance. If such a finding is made, the Disciplinary Committee may proceed to consider and to decide whether in the circumstances the veterinary surgeon who undertook that docking knew, or ought to have known, that such purported justification is without substance.
6.For the avoidance of any doubt, any instance of tail docking which is found to have been undertaken for reasons which were not truly therapeutic or prophylactic will necessarily constitute an unacceptable mutilation of the dog, which, if carried out by a veterinary surgeon who knew or ought to have known of the lack of true justification, would almost certainly be considered to be conduct disgraceful in a professional respect.
The RSPCA is quite clear about tail docking -
Docking is a surgical amputation, which involves cutting or crushing a puppy's skin, muscles, up to seven pairs of nerves, and bone and cartilage - and is performed without anaesthetic when pups are just three to five days old. At this age they can feel pain, and research indicates they do so at a greater intensity than adult dogs because the ability to suppress pain develops with age and experience.
Why dock?
Those in favour of docking often suggest the procedure is done to prevent tail damage in gundogs and working dogs, yet no one can predict that a dog will ever injure its tail severely enough to warrant an amputation. There can also never be a guarantee that a puppy will become a gundog, so an exemption would be unenforceable and would make no sense from an animal welfare point of view.
Docking has become standard in certain dog breeds regardless of whether the individual puppy becomes a pet or ever actually works. Springer spaniels and English setters, for example, have similar long coats and tails and both are used as gundogs; yet only spaniels are docked. The tails of German shepherds, widely used by the police, and Labradors, used for retrieval and as guide dogs for the blind, are not docked.
"There is no evidence that some dogs have more sensitive tails or are more prone to damaging their tails than others," said the RSPCA's chief veterinary adviser, Tim Miles. "This simple fact demolishes the argument that some 'working' breeds, such as spaniels and pointers, should still have their tails amputated as puppies, when the accepted ethical view is that other breeds' tails should no longer be docked."
The British Veterinary Association states -
The BVA and BSAVA have been campaigning against the non-therapeutic docking of puppies’ tails since the sixties because it believes that it is not in the animal’s best interests. In fact:
there is good evidence to show that the act of docking causes pain;
there is some evidence to show that pain in neonates is enhanced compared to adults;
a dog’s tail is a vital form of canine expression and an important means of communication with other dogs and other species;
the removal of the tail may induce or exacerbate other medical conditions such as incontinence and perineal hernia in bitches.
Under the recently published Animal Welfare Bill (England and Wales) and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill tail docking is considered to be a mutilation. There is however concern that tail docking may be permitted by way of an exemptions clause in secondary legislation. Indeed the Defra Minister Ben Bradshaw has verbally referred to Parliament having a free vote on the subject. This provides an ideal opportunity for veterinary surgeons and concerned members of the public to lobby their MPs urging them to support a complete ban on the non-therapeutic (cosmetic or prophylactic) docking of dogs’ tails.
It is, of course, also important that there is no discrepancy between the Scottish, English and Welsh legislation if we are to avoid neonatal puppies being transported considerable distances to have their tails docked.
The Scottish SPCA's view on the subject -
Scottish SPCA Inspectors have received reports from a number of vets regarding the high percentage of dogs coming through their surgeries with tails that have been docked.
An alarming fact is that many people are unaware that tail docking is now an illegal act in the UK, if carried out by anyone other than a registered veterinary surgeon. Even then, a vet should only remove a dog's tail for therapeutic or prophylactic reasons. In other words, dogs should not have their tails docked for purely cosmetic reasons (such as to comply with any breed standards).
Tail docking involves the shortening of an animal's tail a few days after birth, by amputation or banding, without the use of anaesthetic.
Senior Inspector Mark Lumgair said: "Our concern is that people are apparently unaware that tail docking is prohibited under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment 1993). One of the main problems is that certain breeds continue to be recognised without tails by the Kennel Club, such as Boxers and Jack Russells. Dogs with full tails should be considered the norm.
"Several vets have expressed concern at the number of people who attend their surgeries and own dogs with docked tails. People seem to be unaware that this procedure should not be carried out automatically just because of the breed type."
The subject of tail docking is a contentious issue.
I am totally opposed to docking. All these organisations which are responsible for the welfare of animals are opposed to tail docking. Do you think that a handful of people who use dogs as a tool are more right than the professional?
I am disgusted that tail docking is still carried out to meet breed standards and just watching Crufts this year it was obvious the Kennel Club has not taken on board that docking is illegal now. All docked breeds were there sans tails....
Would you amputate the little finger on each hand of your child when it was hours old? After all, do you need your little finger?........
actually a dog does depend on its tail for balance.. but sometimes they do need them docked.. again for health and saftey reasons..
I have worked with pointers, setters, Jacks and spaniels my entire life, in both the gorse and thorn bushes of Scotland, and the brambles cactus and locust bushes here in the USA. Never had a dog hang up, or cut, or trapped. Bunch of damn silly nonsense, there is absolutely NO need to dock!!!
actually a dog does depend on its tail for balance.. but sometimes they do need them docked.. again for health and saftey reasons..
Yes, a dog also needs it's tail to express emotions. Waggy tail = happy dog. Tail between legs = scared dog. It's tail is one of it's main means of communicating to other dogs as well as us humans - or inhumans if you believe in mutilating puppies barely out of their mothers wombs. What a welcome for "man's best friend. "Lop it's tail off Charlie, this 'un's maybe going to be a workin' dawg..."
The rest of your post is balderdash and piffle. What "health and safety reasons"? Read the post by "Joefitz" - never had a dog injure it's tail.
So you're saying that just in case a dog injures it's tail that is proper grounds to dock ALL "working" dogs tails?
So, while we're at it - why not crop it's ears too - most gundogs have long hanging ears, better discard them as well just in case they catch them on brambles.....[mad] [mad] [mad]
no im saying that if a dog breaks its tail or has nerve damage or any other injury like that.. it is for the dogs benifit to have its tail removed. i do not belive in docking just for the sake of it.. but have had dogs with docked tails in the past.. but tail was removed for medical reasons..
im all for banning of all non essential docking..
ive never had a working dog so do not know why they would need their tails docked.. the only kind of working dog i could see needing docking would be rescue dogs that go in to dangerous sits. but then again.. tail makes for better balance and just as likley to get a leg caught as a tail.. so dont know.. i just dont know enough about working dogs to have an oppinion on the ins and outs..
buggyracer
17-Mar-06, 16:23
So when are they going to ban circumcision? after all it causes pain to a new born baby?
From the council of dock breeds site-
There are over fifty breeds of dog, which have had their tails docked, since the inception of the breed. The original reason for docking some breeds is well documented, for some, the reasons have been lost over the fullness of time. The vast majority of breeders and prospective puppy purchasers continue to want these breeds docked for a variety of reasons. Many reasons are given for the different breeds and range from the need to protect certain breeds from tail damage, for hygiene reasons, to protect breed standards, to ensure that puppies can be sold or exported.
Tails are normally docked at 2 to 5 days of age without anaesthetic being used. When carried out correctly, the procedure causes no more than momentary discomfort since the neonate puppy does not have a fully developed nervous system. When the pup is placed back with its littermates, it quickly falls asleep or starts feeding from mum again. This is in contrast to a puppy in pain, who would exhibit continuous crying, restlessness, crawl around in pointless circles and fail to suckle.
The older the animal, the larger the tail, and therefore the more traumatic the procedure becomes. If the puppy is more than 10 days old, the procedure should only be performed under anaesthesia, preferably not before 8 weeks of age. Many undocked adult animals undergo the tail docking procedure out of necessity when their tail has been traumatised.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/buggyracer/spaniel.jpg
Damage as a result of an un-docked tail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, a dog also needs it's tail to express emotions. Waggy tail = happy dog. Tail between legs = scared dog. It's tail is one of it's main means of communicating to other dogs as well as us humans - or inhumans if you believe in mutilating puppies barely out of their mothers wombs. What a welcome for "man's best friend. "Lop it's tail off Charlie, this 'un's maybe going to be a workin' dawg..."
The rest of your post is balderdash and piffle. What "health and safety reasons"? Read the post by "Joefitz" - never had a dog injure it's tail.
So you're saying that just in case a dog injures it's tail that is proper grounds to dock ALL "working" dogs tails?
So, while we're at it - why not crop it's ears too - most gundogs have long hanging ears, better discard them as well just in case they catch them on brambles.....[mad] [mad] [mad]
I agree with madpict on this one
what health and safety reasons i've never heard such rubbish.
So when are they going to ban circumcision? after all it causes pain to a new born baby?
A baby is giving anasthetic and an injection to numb the pain.
Tails are normally docked at 2 to 5 days of age without anaesthetic being used.
This is cruel docking an animals tail without anasthetic.
So when are they going to ban circumcision? after all it causes pain to a new born baby?
If I recall correctly, though NOT from personal experience, during the circumcision as practiced by the Jewish faith, and other religions which carry out this act, the child is not anesthetised and endures a fair amount of pain. I would expect that circumcision carried out for medical reasons in hospital would involve an anesthetic.
From the council of dock breeds site-
There are over fifty breeds of dog, which have had their tails docked, since the inception of the breed. The original reason for docking some breeds is well documented, for some, the reasons have been lost over the fullness of time. The vast majority of breeders and prospective puppy purchasers continue to want these breeds docked for a variety of reasons. Many reasons are given for the different breeds and range from the need to protect certain breeds from tail damage, for hygiene reasons, to protect breed standards, to ensure that puppies can be sold or exported.
Tails are normally docked at 2 to 5 days of age without anaesthetic being used. When carried out correctly, the procedure causes no more than momentary discomfort since the neonate puppy does not have a fully developed nervous system. When the pup is placed back with its littermates, it quickly falls asleep or starts feeding from mum again. This is in contrast to a puppy in pain, who would exhibit continuous crying, restlessness, crawl around in pointless circles and fail to suckle.
The older the animal, the larger the tail, and therefore the more traumatic the procedure becomes. If the puppy is more than 10 days old, the procedure should only be performed under anaesthesia, preferably not before 8 weeks of age. Many undocked adult animals undergo the tail docking procedure out of necessity when their tail has been traumatised......
Well of course they are going to say that - their pockets will suffer when people won't want to buy puppies that they have bred with tails.
Many reasons are given for the different breeds and range from the need to protect certain breeds from tail damage, for hygiene reasons, to protect breed standards, to ensure that puppies can be sold or exported.
Tail damage - how many dogs would really suffer damage to their tails during their working life? So what about the ones that never do a days work? How can there be justification for docking their tails?
Hygiene reasons - if you need to cut of their tail to ensure they remain hygenic then that says a lot about the care you lavish on your dog. You should be checking the dog daily for anything which could cause problems. If they get a dirty back end you clean it for them. From the RCVS - "Faecal soiling in the dog is not for this purpose a disease or injury, and its purported prevention by surgical means cannot be justified.".....Or perhaps the owners think that Andrex Toilet paper is meant for dogs....:eyes
Protect Breed Standards - they mean to protect the wad in their pocket. The breed standards are artificial - most modern breeds have been bred to the point of death. They either suffer congenital heart problems, breathing problems, hip problems, sight problems, all in the glorious name of breed standards.
Sale/export of puppies - ££££££££ again. If the KC got off its big fat tail end and actually did something GOOD for breeds instead of encouraging breeders to continue with the mutation of the breed from the origin of the dog then this would not even enter into the equation....
The council of dock breeds have to defend this barbaric practice just as the fox hunting fraternity state that hunting with dogs is the most efficient way of keeping fox numbers down (yet many hunts admit they only catch a fox every now and then). Death from traffic is a far more 'efficient' way of keeping fox numbers down.
Just as farmers claim that the badger population needs culling to get rid of bovine TB, yet the biggest cause of spread of the disease are the farmers themselves transporting BTB infected cattle around the country.
So the people behind the calls to keep tail docking will bleat on how it is necessary.......
Delighted to see all this evidence against docking as I was not sure whether to believe all the propaganda put out about "working" dogs but was not happy about it as could not see how it could not be incredibly cruel. The Kennel Club is a dreadful organisation and needs to be sorted out as so much damage is done by over-breeding. If dogs weren't meant to have tails they would not be born with them.
I for one feel this proposed ban on docking dogs tails is ridiculous, working dogs with un-docked tails can suffer horrific damage whilst working in heavy cover, and how the Government will police this law remains to be seen, what are other peoples opinions on this issue??
How can I put this in a diplomatic and pleasant way??? Working dogs with tails suffering horrific damage is an URBAN MYTH. On the other hand, new born puppies having their tails cut off will guarantee pain and suffering in 100% of cases. And on ocassion worse situations of infection and/or (albeit rarely) death.
no im saying that if a dog breaks its tail or has nerve damage or any other injury like that.. it is for the dogs benifit to have its tail removed. i do not belive in docking just for the sake of it.. but have had dogs with docked tails in the past.. but tail was removed for medical reasons..
..
I think there is confusion between docking (amputation at or near birth for aestetic or prophylatic reasons) and a medical reason for the amputation of a tail,such as fracture or as you say, nerve damage, etc.
Each are done under different circumtances and by a different means. In one there is use of an anestetic and surgical conditions are used. In another you use a scissor, some string as a garrot, a antiseptic and, if the puppy is unlucky, a local anestetic ( I say unlucky, because the local anestetic is very painful to administer in that area).
They are two distinct medical procedures.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/buggyracer/spaniel.jpg
Damage as a result of an un-docked tail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see some blood mixed with water on the coat, on the leg of the dog..... the tail seems whole....please tell me what the damage is?
If you have a white dog with a wet coat and it bleeds onto that coat, you will see something very similair to this picture.
I see some blood mixed with water on the coat, on the leg of the dog..... the tail seems whole....please tell me what the damage is?
If you have a white dog with a wet coat and it bleeds onto that coat, you will see something very similair to this picture.
I think I see a slight granuloma on the tip of the tail..... granulomas take time to evolve and often have to do with the dog worrying the tail. That is a behavioral problem, individual to the dog. Not a "tail" problem. If there is a granuloma, this dog did not run through a gorse bush and rip his tail open on that day
I think it sad docking tales they came into this world with so why dock it unless it health and saftey reason even then iam not happy but some things have to be done but people that dock dogs tail should be jailed grrrrrrrrr
Have to get involved in this one. I don't like the idea of docking tails and never have done, even the Kennel Club have now become enlightened and have stated they will judge dogs tradionally docked alongside the same breed with tails. I have seen Boxers with tails and it takes some time to get used to seeing them, but I have noticed that at speed the docked Boxer cannot turn anywhere near as fast as the docked one. Boxers were originally cattle dogs so if it performs better with a tail surely that applies to all working breeds. Accidents can and do happen but that is life.
Having seen first hand just how much a dogs tail can bleed if the tip is damaged, the photo so kindly supplied by the "pro-dockers" amongst us, of a breed well renowned for the wagginess of their tails, (in fact everything aft of the front legs wags) is a bit of a red herring.
Without turning this into an episode of Caithness.Org CSI, it certainly appears that all the blood on its rear legs will have come from the tip of the tail as it worked. A bit like dipping a paint brush in a pot of paint then whirling it around your head....
A handler with any sense will have stopped the dog working as soon as they spotted the first sign of blood.
This dog looks like it has been worked hard while bleeding - but of course that is all supposition. The dog could have become that splattered just returning to its handler.
So a good picture to use in a pro dock argument.
But then I have seen working dogs with severe injuries to the legs caused by barbed wire. Hmmm, lets cut off their legs, just in case they catch them on a strand of wire....
Now lets find some pictures of the puppies getting their tails cut off....
Everyone eaten?
Tail Docking for non-medical reasons is done purely as a fashion.
The working dog argument does not hold water because I have yet to see a pack of fox-hounds with their tails docked.
Neither have I seen many farm dogs with their tails docked.
More dogs are at risk from getting their tails injured by doors being shut on them than are likely to damage them working rough ground.
If tail damage were such a great problem for dogs working in gorse or thorn bushes etc. then wolves, foxes and wild hunting dogs would have become tail-less long ago out of necessity. The fact that they haven't tells it's own story.
The only excuse I have ever given considertion to for docking the tails of some breeds is that their very waggy tails tend to sting your legs from time to time.
Personally, that is something I can put up with, because I rather enjoy the p... (Oh, never mind. I'm saying no more on that!) ;)
porshiepoo
18-Mar-06, 11:47
So, while we're at it - why not crop it's ears too - most gundogs have long hanging ears, better discard them as well just in case they catch them on brambles.....[mad] [mad] [mad]
[/QUOTE]
Well actually, Great danes ears do tend to be cropped, but not in this country thankfully.
They crop them and then set them so that they stand up, supposedly so that working danes can't get them snagged or pulled by the prey (wild boars in this breed)
While I have to admit that I do like the look of danes with cropped ears I'd never ever do it or want it 'the norm' in this country. Danes ears are smooth and hair free on the inside (same as most breeds with flat ears), if they were supposed to be erect like the GSD's they'd have hair inside to protect them.
As for the tail docking, it's an unecessary cruel thing to do (IMO). Dogs have tails for a reason - balance, emotions, rudders in water - to remove them in the name of 'safety' is just beyond ridiculous.
End of the day its only dogs your talking about, whats the big deal?
Ear cropping in this day and age is cosmetic surgery, pure and simple. The surgery has to be done before the puppy is 12 weeks old and involves months of taping and "posting" to achieve the desired "look".
The days when dogs had to fight each other, guard against bears and wolves and undertake activities where their ears could become torn and infected are well in the past. Yes, some breeds still do these guarding tasks in parts of the world but medicines are available to prevent infection (one of the main reasons cropping and docking first started).
It is out and out mutilation of the dog to appease the fashion wishes of the owner.
Just look at the trend amongst Dobermann owners in some countries to produce what look like Vulcan extras on a Star Trek set. The dogs look ridiculous.
Thankfully it is illegal in the UK.
End of the day its only dogs your talking about, whats the big deal?
A post obviously designed to inflame this thread....:roll:
You should heed Homer - Tried but failed..........
porshiepoo
18-Mar-06, 16:40
End of the day its only dogs your talking about, whats the big deal?
You're just an idiot but does that give us the right to chop your blinkin arms off??????????[mad]
Madpict - I agree with you totally. Like I said I do like the look of cropped ears on danes but I'd never do it and I wouldn't want it to be the norm in this country. I know exactly what it is that they do to them Madpict and I would ahve thought that the knowledge of that would be enough to put most people off - sadly not though. :mad:
You're just an idiot but does that give us the right to chop your blinkin arms off??????????[mad]
Ignore "lasher" - from checking their post history they like posting one line flames.:rolleyes:
I own a 2 year old labrador, who came from a working gundog estate. None of the litter, or the parents had been docked, and they were champion dogs. My dog, doesn't work for me, but, as most gundogs do, he loves to swim, if his tail was chopped off, he wouldn't be able to use it as a rudder to steer and would swim in a straight line.
I know there are always 2 sides to every story, but I don't think it is right or necessary to dock tails. Surely better only to have something done with the tail, if, the rare chance of damage occurs. And, as someone pointed out further up this thread, there is no way you can tell if a puppy will make a worker or not, so why do it?
I strongly also agree with the comment about docking that was evident at Crufts. Doing that just for looks, and the kennel club etc go along with it? Disgraceful!!
Changing the subject slightly, did anyone see that program the other night about fat dogs? Made me wild, when that woman with all the earings said that never maltreated the dog! Making a dog as heavy as that is nothing short of cruelty, the poor thing could hardly stand up, let alone walk!!
Animal cruelty in any shape or form is not acceptable..
http://www.angelfire.com/anime/taildocking/img5.gif
Two boxers one docked and one undocked. Let's hope in the not too distant future, we think the one without the tail looks unnatural!
This is unnecessary mutilation[mad]
End of the day its only dogs your talking about, whats the big deal?
Let's chop of your fingers one by one![mad] at the end of the day it's only 'lasher' were talking about.
I strongly also agree with the comment about docking that was evident at Crufts. Doing that just for looks, and the kennel club etc go along with it? Disgraceful!!
The KC are now actually allowing breeds which in previous years were entered without tails to be entered. Unfortunately the judges will be biased against these undocked breeds, because they have for so long judged dogs with stumps.
It will take some years IMO before we see dogs in the finalist lineup, which now have their tails, recognised as a breed standard. There is also the 'problem' of dogs now coming from abroad to compete - the Australian Shepherd Dog (docked) which won Crufts was from California. Whilst the practice is allowed overseas, with the old judges still in place, who do you think they will award Show Champion to?
The only way to try to stop it is for the KC to completely ban the entry of docked breeds - then all that will happen is the likes of the Council Of Mutilated Breeds will set up their own "Crufts"...[disgust]
Our canine friends are a very important part of our modern society. They rescue people from mountain sides, collapsed buildings, help blind and deaf people, sniff out drugs and bombs, and they reckon sniff cancer too. These clever little walking noses should be treated with the utmost respect.
End of the day its only dogs your talking about, whats the big deal?
What a sorry pathetic little person you are.
Ear cropping is also more of a "Fashion Statement". It is intended to make the dogs appear more fierce and is prevalent amongst the owners of large dogs in many countries.
The owners have never grown out of the childish reaction of "My dad's bigger than your dad!" They have just substituted "dog" for "dad".
They assume that a dog with bid floppy ears looks more lovable than fierce.
That being so, they just have to get rid of the floppy ears so the dog goes with the "tough macho image" of themselves they wish to present to the world.
The assumption that they will one day grow up is a misconception, they never do!
I am totally opposed to tail docking. It is totally unnecessary and cruel.
The argument re working dogs doesn't make sense as all wild animals who hunt have long tails! If they weren't supposed to have long tails they wouldn't be born with them!
I hate the 'mutilation' of animals to pander to humans ideas of what certain breeds should look like. The way that poor dogs have been bred to make certain characteristics is heartbreaking. This way we end up with poor dogs with little short legs; flat faces; no hair etc!!!!
My last Shelties ears didn't fold down like they are supposed to but thankfully all the breeder used was blu tac to hold them down.
When we took this off his ears 'twanged' up and stayed that way!:lol:
Leave dog's tails alone!!!!!
PS Dozerboy - Couldn't watch prog re Fat Pets after seeing the trailer! The poor , poor Rottie!
You're just an idiot but does that give us the right to chop your blinkin arms off??????????[mad]
Your just annoying, does that give us the right to punch you in the mouth?????:evil
What a sorry pathetic little person you are. not that little really!
Let's chop of your fingers one by one![mad] at the end of the day it's only 'lasher' were talking about. Like to see you try!![lol]
A post obviously designed to inflame this thread....:roll:
You should heed Homer - Tried but failed..........
No your wrong, it's just my opinion am i not allowed one?
I don't think we need to read your fatuous opinions thanks....
I don't think we need to read your fatuous opinions thanks....
You reckon?:roll:
buggyracer
18-Mar-06, 22:53
The picture i posted was taken from a website, so i do not know the story benhind it other than the tip of the tail was damaged and so the blood splattered over the body.
I agree most dogs do not need there tails docked but for dogs working in very dense cover whilst hunting for game, i beleive it is necessary, like in the case of the spaniel in the picture unlike most other dogs spaniels will enter almost any cover, where labs and other hounds wouldnt dare, i beleive in some cases there is an arguement for docking as there is for not docking, like many things in life one rule doesent cover all bases.
But the reason for me starting the thread in the first place was to gauge public opinion on the subject purely for my own interest.
There is nothing wrong with healthy discussion. You beat me to posting on the topic after I read it on the main page. Of course I would have posted from the anti-docking standpoint ;)
I traced the source of the pic you posted and I have to wonder about the thinking of the person taking the pictures (there were others) getting their dog to sit and pose for a picture while it is bleeding everywhere. Most folk would have taken the dog straight to a vets. Maybe the pic was taken at the vets - a pro docking vet I expect....
I hope that along with "guaging public opinion" you realise that there are always two sides to an 'argument'.
buggyracer
18-Mar-06, 23:28
There is nothing wrong with healthy discussion. You beat me to posting on the topic after I read it on the main page. Of course I would have posted from the anti-docking standpoint ;)
I traced the source of the pic you posted and I have to wonder about the thinking of the person taking the pictures (there were others) getting their dog to sit and pose for a picture while it is bleeding everywhere. Most folk would have taken the dog straight to a vets. Maybe the pic was taken at the vets - a pro docking vet I expect....
I hope that along with "guaging public opinion" you realise that there are always two sides to an 'argument'.
Theres a lot of ifs, buts or maybes but all we can assertain for certain is that the tail is damaged and undocked, commenting on where the picture was taken or why is a bit unfair as no one really knows the story behind it? And of course i am aware, there are always two sides to an argument, my origional post was worded so it would encourage the anti docking side to post. :)
PS this argument is unfair as you seem to be on here 24/7!! lol
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j38/linzy222/100_4968.jpg
I say NO to docking!!!!!
And of course i am aware, there are always two sides to an argument, my origional post was worded so it would encourage the anti docking side to post. :)
You certainly manager to get people to discuss the matter.
Beaten at my own game! That's it, buggyracer! I'm going to sulk now. ;)
If one person walks away from their computer after reading this discussion and their viewpoint has been changed from pro-docking to anti-docking, then this thread has been worthwhile....
my dalmation often has tail damage to tip through wagging it so much and hitting it off doors ect - so does this mean we should have had his tail chopped off -- i dont think so -- as iv said -- ban all docking and JAIL anyone that isnt a vet and doing this to poor pups
jails would be full if we jailed everyone that was inflicting dog cruelty not exercising not feeding being generally bad too them !!!
blondscot
19-Mar-06, 22:46
Say no to docking tails!! How can putting a poor defenseless pup through pain at only days old not be considered as cruelty!! I have a springer who was docked( not my choice!!) when i got him 10years ago and i also have a an old english sheepdog who has not been docked and her tail does not look out of place although it did take some getting used to seeing a dulex dog with a tail!! She uses her one like a whip across your legs!!
Tail docking is not necessary we have had springer spaniels and jack russells that were not docked and were working dogs and they never had any problems, tail docking is done by certain dog breeders for vanity reasons, mainly for showing.
scrapydoo
19-Mar-06, 23:46
no tail docking is wrong full stop
iv got a boxer and the tail is docked its just my opinion but i think that tail looks better docked but like i say thats my opinion
my parents had an old English sheepdog that needed a home. she was about 7 years i think when they got her and as a bairn i could not understand why they docked tails and i still don't to be honest . i just don't agree with it it is wrong if they were supposed to be tailless they would be born with no tails. it is cruel i don't agree with it
kwbrown111
20-Mar-06, 00:13
Dogs are born with tails so if if a dog is meant for work through natural reasons it wouldn't be born with a tail. it is just pure creulty, and also for selfish champion breeders who are looking for fame. i wonder if these people would like to be docked themselves. maybe they need to be to stop this running through generations.
wickerinca
20-Mar-06, 04:33
Just have to say that I am against tail-docking. I love seeing a waggy tail but it does take a bit of getting used seeing a tail on a breed that has normally been docked in the past.
NO TO DOCKING!....
I have a springer and if I was to dock every part of his body that gets caught in bushes etc., I would be left with nothing!
Ann
iv got a boxer and the tail is docked its just my opinion but i think that tail looks better docked but like i say thats my opinion
It looks better because you are used to seeing boxers with docked tails. I found the first Spaniels without docked tails very odd looking and mentally you tend to think of them as mongrel crosses or something.
I was wondering about crufts. In Portugal docked tails on young dogs are no longer admited to official dog shows. Older dogs can still go to show with a docked tail. I think the kennel should make the same stand, solving the problem.
Whitewater
20-Mar-06, 11:43
I have owned boxers, great, intelligent and fun loving dogs. They have always had a docked tail, which I think has been for cosmetic purposes. I have seen a few now with undocked tails, I have to give them a second look just to check the breed, but I must admit they look good. I don't know why they dock their tales, they are such a happy and friendly breed their tales are always wagging, perhaps it is to stop them knocking things over.
I have been reading this thread with interest, and have come to the conclussion that tails are docked for cosmetic reasons. I have a friend who has a springer spaniels with an undocked tail, I must admit it looks different, didn't recognise it as a springer at first, thought it was some other breed.
We can debate as much as we like on this forum, the law can say what it wants, but until the kennel club changes the standards for dog breeds nothing much will happen, they are the people that hold the key.
After reading this thread, and seeing both boxers and spaniels with tails I am against docking. I must admit I did not have an opinion on it before.
A boxer without tail dock http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e260/spicesices/swedam3.jpg
scrapydoo
20-Mar-06, 12:10
i think it looks far better with its tail cause you can see if its happy or sad
The question is - were you docked ScrappyDoo? - your tail looks a little short ;)
scrapydoo
20-Mar-06, 13:06
The question is - were you docked ScrappyDoo? - your tail looks a little short ;)
lol no chance no one is getting near my tail
my dalmation often has tail damage to tip through wagging it so much and hitting it off doors ect - so does this mean we should have had his tail chopped off -- i dont think so -- as iv said -- ban all docking and JAIL anyone that isnt a vet and doing this to poor pups
A dalmation? How's your furniture feeling? :p
PS Dozerboy - Couldn't watch prog re Fat Pets after seeing the trailer! The poor , poor Rottie!
NO, I found it hard to watch also. I felt so sorry for the dog, and I had hatred for the stupid owner who couldn't see the cruelty she was putting her so called beloved dog through. It needs taken away for a while, put on a strict diet and then it might be able to exercise which in turn would help it lose weight.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.