Tail docking- what do you think of it?

Lauragoesmad

peasant wrote: »

btw ...the reason why working dogs traditionally were docked has nothing to do with preventing injury and everything with taxes.

Throughout the ages, hunting was the priviledge of the landed aristocracy and nobody else was allowed to have (hunting))dogs ...and if they were, they had to pay heavy taxes.

But working dogs (drovers, cattle herders, sheepdogs etc) were tax exempt.

In order to recognise a tax exempt working dog, its tail was cut off.

You learn something new everyday!

peasant

NoNameRanger wrote: »

Somebody can only legally be called a cruel person if they are convicted in court for cruelty. I consider this to be a serious insult. It's not true. Tail docking is not illegal in this country.
I'm not cruel and i assure you you would not speak to me like that if we were face to face. Its very easy to be a bully on boards where you can hide behind a fake persona. I have looked at alot of your posts and you are a bully and have little to add other than sarcasm and inflammatory comments. Pretty poor show for a moderator.

I have no doubt that you're a decent sort of fella and I also have no doubt that the two of us would probably get on fairly well over a pint or two (as long as we don't talk about docking).

Saying that tail docking is not illegal in Ireland is a very weak argument, because let's face it, animal welfare legislation in Ireland is very much outdated.

It is legal, for example, to keep a dog in desperate conditions, as long as it has food and water and shelter. This is one of the reasons why puppy farms are still in existance ...no laws to close them with.

There are many other examples of animal cruelty being semi-legal because of weak Irish legislation ...and docking is one of them.

Other European countries (Italy, Germany Sweden) have long since legislated against docking and it's only a matter of time until more will follow.

There is a distinction to be made between what is legal and what is moral.
It maybe legal in Ireland to dock a dogs' tail, that doesn't make it moral or "uncruel" though.

By cutting the tail off a dog you're robbing it of an important means of communication, as well as a tool for balancing when it comes to making sharp turns at speed etc.

To my mind (and to that of some European legislators) that is mutilation and therefore cruel.

So, one might as well call the act by its name...

Lauragoesmad

My Granddad took a pup from a guy outside a shopping center who had docked the tail himself. He did it between the wrong tail bones and the dog had to be put to sleep after lots of vet bills and probably a lot of pain.
People should just learn to stop messing with things and leave well alone. Anyway, its not anyones but the dogs tail to dock! Its like someone coming up to you and just cutting all your hair off without your permission.

lightening

NoNameRanger, I don't think anyone is bullying you, they are just getting their points across.

I would have been one to agree with you at one stage, in fact, I think some dogs look better with their tails docked, however, they need the tails for everyday communication and its not really a nice thing to do. My dogs have it done, if I had a choice now, I would have left them with a full tail.

Is it illegal to chop up dogs ears? I had a plumber out to the house the other day, he was telling me about his doberman, and how no Dublin vet would crop his ears. He had to go to Mayo to get it done. He is moving in to a new house, the dog has to stay in his folks house because the dog is too vicious for the girlfriend and kid! Thanks son! Great dog owner. I nearly got in a row with him and he genuinely couldn't see what he had done wrong.

NoNameRanger

Hunting terriers and certain breeds of hunting dogs still have their tails docked in Germany, not sure of the guidelines for having the procedure done. But it's deemed nesscessary and is still done to this day. So i guess there is something in the legislation that provides for it. Germans don't break the law:D. Many other countries that have also banned tail docking still allow it for hunting dogs.
I'm not a fan of dog showing, i don't believe in breeding dogs for appearence or whats fashionable at the time. Most show dogs originate from dogs that were bred to do certain tasks and were bred for intelligence and as working animals (yes i am aware of lap dogs). These qualities are being bred out now because people are more concerned about appearance, the poodle used to be a hunting dog for example. Now it is rarely used for hunting and is bred for showing. So docking a tail for appearance sake is not something i approve of. But i believe banning it on the breeds that have been tradionally docked such as boxers as JJ1310 said could damage the breeding of them in the future.

peasant

NoNameRanger wrote: »

Hunting terriers and certain breeds of hunting dogs still have their tails docked in Germany, not sure of the guidelines for having the procedure done. But it's deemed nesscessary and is still done to this day. So i guess there is something in the legislation that provides for it. Germans don't break the law:D. Many other countries that have also banned tail docking still allow it for hunting dogs.

I would suspect that that is for political reasons more than anything else. The tail docking lobby is quite large (hunters, show breeders) and anti-docking laws have met with large resistance. My suspiscion is that this is the politics of small steps rather than the full-on ban, alienating a large group of voters. So you ban docking on non-working dogs first (all the animal lovers jubilate) and a decade or two down the line any docked dog will just look so wrong and out of place that pushing the full ban won't be a problem any more.

Weak, despicable really, but that's politics for you ...

I'm not a fan of dog showing, i don't believe in breeding dogs for appearence or whats fashionable at the time. Most show dogs originate from dogs that were bred to do certain tasks and were bred for intelligence and as working animals (yes i am aware of lap dogs). These qualities are being bred out now because people are more concerned about appearance, the poodle used to be a hunting dog for example. Now it is rarely used for hunting and is bred for showing. So docking a tail for appearance sake is not something i approve of. But i believe banning it on the breeds that have been tradionally docked such as boxers as JJ1310 said could damage the breeding of them in the future.

I fully agree with you. It is terrible what has been done to most breeds in the name of "show". An awful lot of breeds are now illness ridden and unfit for anything but showing off.

On the other hand, if the small matter of the dog now having a tail and floppy ears instead of a stump and pointy ears (like in the case of the Doberman) keeps some eejit from getting a dobie because it doesn't look "fierce" enough anymore ...maybe that's a good thing?

And if breeders that can't see beyond a docked tail stop breeding ...maybe that is a good thing as well.

XJR

Tail Docking is an abhorent practice.

I have a jack russel that was docked before we rescued it. All her off spring have lovely long wagging tails.

Owner vanity, I don't how this parctice can be justified.

LuckyStar

The cleanliness argument is complete rubbish. If it was the case then every dog would be running around with it's backside covered in crap. They don't.

A dog is well able to reach around and wash itself.

If dogs weren't supposed to have tails, or didn't need them, they would have evolved away by now like ours did. All we have now is a coccyx bone.

cowzerp

Has nobody noticed how bandy the Boxer, Dobie and Rotty's tail looks in the pics? there all curled to bits, there not proper working tails, these types of dogs have evolved in a way to function perfect without a tail.

i dont believe owners should be allowed to dock tails but if a vet see's it fit i think its not a big deal-if its a big deal then the law should change and the vets should say no.

I hate animal cruelty..

artieanna

Our last dog was an old english sheepdog and he was certainly not docked and we had no problem with him. Just gave him a haircut now and then. So that argument is well cr@p...

Leave the dogs tails alone for crying out loud!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

peasant

cowzerp wrote: »

Has nobody noticed how bandy the Boxer, Dobie and Rotty's tail looks in the pics? there all curled to bits, there not proper working tails, these types of dogs have evolved in a way to function perfect without a tail.

You do realise that several breeds of dog carry their tails naturally in a curl?
What on earth is a "proper working tail" ??

And as for evolution ...none of the breeds you mention is older than 150 - 200 years max ...they are man made, mutilated tail inclusive.

peasant

Look at the dogs in the picture.

They are watching some other dogs walking by.

The boss on the right, he's got his tail up in the air like a flag, the one in the middle is waving hers like mad and the poor little one on the left has got nothing to show ...so she makes up for it with noise

BryanL

male circumcision???????
and nobody gives a dam about it, sums the whole thing up for me. is it cruel to cut the umbilical cord cruel.
it takes 5-8 days for the nerve endings to develope in the tail.
the nerves in "baby" teeth are not developed for sensitivity and hence can be drilled into dentine without causing pain,ask your dentist.
Bryan

Demonique

jj1310 wrote: »

They are more hurt during the vaccination, so should we stop sticking a pointy sharp object under their skin now.

Having never seen a pup being docked I wouldn't know about vaccinations being more painful than tail docking, our old cocker certainly didn't appreciate getting his first jab with us. He was only about 12 weeks old, he whimpered for a good two minutes afterwards. He came to us docked, we lost him last November, PTS due to an oral tumour, poor old dog.

LuckyStar

BryanL wrote: »

is it cruel to cut the umbilical cord

No, considering if it wasn't cut, and if the mother did not bite it herself, which she knows to do, it would fall off anyway? Do you even know what an umbilical cord is for? It's for passing nutrients from mother to baby during pregnancy. After birth it is no longer needed.

See your belly button? That's the heal from where your umbilical cord was.

LuckyStar

cowzerp wrote: »

these types of dogs have evolved in a way to function perfect without a tail.

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever read. Evolved? It takes hundreds of MILLIONS of years to evolve even a tiny amount. How do they function without a tail? Do they wag their nose instead?

Please educate us all!!!


You hate animal cruelty but you don't mind cutting off a dog's limb because it's not a "proper working tail". If a dog's tail can move sufficiently to communicate with others, then yes it does work. And I don't mean if he can move a tiny stump that is only good if he is communicating with the dog behind him (maybe Rottweilers etc have "evolved" to have eyes in the back of their head for this purpose?).

Mellor

LuckyStar wrote: »

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever read. Evolved? It takes hundreds of MILLIONS of years to evolve even a tiny amount.

I found this very funny.
You are callling him ignorant to suggest that the tails have evolved

yet, on the previous page

LuckyStar wrote: »

If dogs weren't supposed to have tails, or didn't need them, they would have evolved away by now like ours did.

I actually laughed at how silly you sound. Yes it takes millions (or 100s of thousands) of years for evolution, so why did you suggest it first?


Many animals have vestigal organs or appendiges, but thats not a reason to remove them.
I agree with it for safety and safety only, only in working breds that are likely to get hurt, where the actualy dog will be working. I rather see 5 working dog be docked when born than a single one hurt in the field when older.


I think its a disgrace for looks alone, or because the breed "gets docked"

peasant

Mellor wrote: »

I agree with it for safety and safety only, only in working breds that are likely to get hurt, where the actualy dog will be working. I rather see 5 working dog be docked when born than a single one hurt in the field when older.

Honest question here (no sarcasm intended) ...what exactly is this "work" that causes a dogs tail to get injured so badly?

And how come that the real "working" canines out there, the fox, the jackal and the wolf all have tails ... rather big ones at that and you never see or hear about tail injury being a problem.

Could it be maybe that sombody is directing the dogs to do unsuitable "work" or not looking after them enough?

LuckyStar

Mellor wrote: »

I actually laughed at how silly you sound. Yes it takes millions (or 100s of thousands) of years for evolution, so why did you suggest it first?

Yeah I said they *would* have evolved by now. As Peasant says, their ancestors we developed the domestic dog from- the wolf, jackal etc- all have tails. It was the whole line of dogs- including their ancestors, I meant, not just the domestic dog, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

iguana

Toots85 wrote: »

My cocker spaniel hasn't got her tail docked and I'm so glad, her tail is the best part of her, and at the end she's got a little ringlet thing, which is cute. I'm pro docking if it's necessary ie if the tail gets damaged, but not if it's just done for cosmetic reasons.

Are you absolutely sure? Cockers and Springers generally have about 1/4 or a 1/3 taken off the tail, leaving the majority of the tail intact. Most people have no idea the dogs are docked unless they are very familiar with the breed. Nobody ever knows my dogs are docked, but they are. In fact I ask, because both of mine have what could be described as ringlets at the end of their tails.

Personally I would prefer if they weren't because mine are pets not workers, but I found it impossible to find any that weren't docked. I've spoken to a few people who's dogs tails have split and have had to be amputated and it has sounded horrendous, and they weren't all working dogs, they just ran through brambles on a walk. So I'll be giving it a lot of thought if I ever get another puppy.

cowzerp

LuckyStar wrote: »

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever read. Evolved? It takes hundreds of MILLIONS of years to evolve even a tiny amount. How do they function without a tail? Do they wag their nose instead?

Please educate us all!

Glad mellor spotted your stupidity, saying about evolution when it suits you then knocking me for saying it-ha ha ha

Ignorance at its best.

iguana

LuckyStar wrote: »

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever read. Evolved? It takes hundreds of MILLIONS of years to evolve even a tiny amount.

Who taught you about evolution? Based on DNA evidence, the wolf ancestors of modern dogs diverged from other wolves about 100,000 - 135,000 years ago. Dogs themselves only came into existence most likely 15,000 years ago. Since then, those very basic dogs have become as wide and varied from chihuahuas to great danes. That has happened in a very short time period, obviously in those 15,000 years natural evolution has been interfered with because dogs were bred selectively.

cowzerp

Well said iguana..obvious really..

cowzerp

peasant wrote: »

You do realise that several breeds of dog carry their tails naturally in a curl?
What on earth is a "proper working tail" ??

The tails are not formed right, i know what these types of dogs tails are meant to be like, they would give wrong messages to other dogs as they are messed up tails in the pics above, yes this is due to human intervention but thats the way it is now.

personally i'd prefer a rottie docked by a proffessional than looking like the 1 above as it would give off wrong signals, if it had a corrected tail then it would be fine just like my labs tail ..but decades of docking has ruined these breed types natural tail movement and shape. its not a coincidence that all 3 have bandy tails either.

peasant

cowzerp wrote: »

The tails are not formed right, i know what these types of dogs tails are meant to be like, they would give wrong messages to other dogs as they are messed up tails in the pics above, yes this is due to human intervention but thats the way it is now.

personally i'd prefer a rottie docked by a proffessional than looking like the 1 above as it would give off wrong signals,

That Rottie is carrying a perfectly formed tail in a confident but non-threatening manner ...upwards but not upright.

This tail posture expresses confidence, curiosity and a certain amount of "attitude" ..kinda what you would expect from a perfect Rottie.


But you wouldn't know of course ...you prefer your Rotties crippled :rolleyes:

LuckyStar

iguana wrote: »

Who taught you about evolution? Based on DNA evidence, the wolf ancestors of modern dogs diverged from other wolves about 100,000 - 135,000 years ago. Dogs themselves only came into existence most likely 15,000 years ago. Since then, those very basic dogs have become as wide and varied from chihuahuas to great danes. That has happened in a very short time period, obviously in those 15,000 years natural evolution has been interfered with because dogs were bred selectively.

My point is- did any of those wolves or dogs evolve to not have a tail? No.

How does any of what you have posted above prove that if a dog didn't need a tail, it would have evolved- or its ancestors would have evolved- not to have one? All you've done is give a history of their evolution. Those dogs were not "very basic"- in fact their instincts would have been a lot sharper than the dogs of today due to natural selection as opposed to breed standards, and their bodies would have been just as complex.

Where are you getting your information from?

LuckyStar

cowzerp wrote: »

Ignorance at its best.

You REALLY aren't one to talk...

LuckyStar

cowzerp wrote: »

The tails are not formed right, i know what these types of dogs tails are meant to be like, they would give wrong messages to other dogs as they are messed up tails in the pics above, yes this is due to human intervention but thats the way it is now.

How do you know what these types of dogs tails are meant to be like, considering there aren't many with a non-docked tail to go by?

How would they give the wrong message?

cowzerp

These tails are deformed! the message got is random and not 1 that is meant to be given, if you cant see that then your just been ignorant and trying to win an argument rather than giving an alternative, peasant i can tell you a tail in the air like that means aggression and the bend means deformity!

fits

I really really dont understand the need for tail docking in dogs.

Its removing an important communication method for the dog. I think that rottie Peasant posted is a beautiful animal, and I'd much rather see them with their tails intact.