What are your views on tail docking?

lucky111

Hey guys, i have a 5 mth old rottweiler with a tail.
Tell me what are your views on docking a pups tail?
I personally think if you do dock a pups tail it's purely for the look of the dog........................
The amount of people who have came up to me and asked ' is that a rottweiler, but it's got a long tail':rolleyes:
All bloody dogs are born with a tail:rolleyes:
Also' are you gonna get his tail docked':eek:
Not a hope;)

Sigma Force

Can stand tail docking, it's pointless esp. as most people don't even show their dogs. There are little jack russel everywhere (very common around this neck of the woods) with their tails docked and they are just house pets not show dogs. I wish more vets would refuse to do it.

lucky111

Thank god over in england you can't dock their tails;)

kazza23

I love Rotties with long tails - they look fabulous.

I don't agree with tail docking, and hope that Ireland will follow the UK's lead and make it illegal.

lucky111

The lady that took the 2 females had them booked into get their tails docked, now at that time they were 8 wks old:eek:
Real nice vet:rolleyes:
We got our man free because he had no papers oh and he had a tail.
As the fella said ' no1 will buy them looking like that':eek:

animalcrazy

It's stupid pointless abuse and dogs with docked tails don't even look nice.

therewillbe

As someone who has had two rotts in the past and am friends with breeders and showers I PERSONALLY PRFER them without tails. Yes some say it is cruel and unnatural to the dog . I am in the process of getting a new dog this time a doberman and I will be getting one with its tail removed.Call me what you like but It is how I believe the dog should be.They are not genetically modified like a lot of dogs that are around and it does not effect them at all. The process of removal should take place at the earliest possible time .As for the appearance of a rottie with a tail, everyone to their own I say.

kazza23

therewillbe wrote: »

Call me what you like but It is how I believe the dog should be.

Surely if it's the way they should be, they would be born that way. Docking for purely aesthetic reasons is as cruel as the "genetic modification" you talk about.

it does not effect them at all

Have you actually witnessed puppies having their tails docked then? Because I know of several vets and vet nurses that would disagree with your statement.

R.D. aka MR.D

it's nothing but cruel to put a dog under any discomfort for something that is purely for appearence.

would you make your child undergo something painfull if you didn't think they looked right?
it kind of reminds me of the asian girls bound feet in a way.

certain people don't seem to uderstand that animals are a design of nature and a product of evolution, they are made the way they are for a reason.

PurpleBerry

When I read the thread title I immediately thought it would be to do with horses but horse or dog I feel the same way. Animals need their tails - that's why they have them. I disagree with docking especially if the only "reason" for it is that it improves the look of the animal. Whether it does or not, it's no reason to mutilate the poor thing.

therewillbe

Yes , I was present when both dogs tails were removed.Not a lot happened.Freedom of choice I say. Circumcision Right or wrong ? MALE OK FEMALE WRONG !

Lauragoesmad

Dogs need their tails. If you really think about it, you know its wrong to dock them!!
I petsat a weimaraner lastyear in Liverpool and everybody always commented on how handsome Cody was with a long tail. Dogs look less fierce with a tail because you can see when they are happy.
Just look how much more like a dog he looks!!

bigpinkelephant

therewillbe wrote: »

They are not genetically modified like a lot of dogs that are around

ALL domesticated dogs have been "genetically modified" by man.

Lucky111, please post a photo of your dog!

I think Rotts, Dobermanns, Boxers, cockers etc all look much better with a tail.

Top Dog

animalcrazy wrote: »

dogs with docked tails don't even look nice.

So our girl doesn't look nice just because she has a docked tail? I'm sure she'll be gutted to hear you feel that way :rolleyes: Ironic that someone who can call themselves Animal Crazy can be so superficial about the appearance of an animal.



Do I agree with it? If its for a good reason then I can accept and understand it, like hunting dogs and the risk of injury. Purely on aesthetic reasons I cannot understand it, nor would I request it.

We have the above Rottie with docked tail (rescue dog came as she is) and a Papillon with a feathery tail. Each looks great with tail wags, though the Rottie is funnier with the stump and (if really happy) most of her rear end wiggling.

I have yet to see a Rottweiler in the flesh with a tail so cannot really give an opinion on which looks better, though I would agree with others that unless necessary a dogs tail should be left well alone.

But as long as there is the option available in this country, some people will choose to have tails docked and the debate shall continue.

Honey-ec

I think we will start to see a gradual move away from tail-docking in this country, and will welcome it. I have 3 Boxers, all with docked tails (which were docked before I got them) and while I do love the "Boxer kidney-bean", the fact of the matter is that the highly exagerrated rear-end wag that we associate with Boxers is a direct result of the fact that they have no tail to wag. Docking has also recently been banned in Germany, which is the ancestral home of the Boxer, and I think this more than anything will lead the march towards allowing Boxers to retain their tail.

I do find it funny that a lot of people who defend tail-docking still find the practice of ear-cropping indefensible. They are directly comparable to my mind.

whitser

when its done for practical reasons like in working dogs spaniels and terriers its fine.

Anti

Its a disgusting, barbaric thing to do to any none working dog. I can however understand it with working dogs where risk of injury to the tail is high. My jack russle has his tail chopped, but its a rescue dog and its how he came, and i dont think i'd change his as his little stump is soo cute when it wags when he is happy:)

DeeColl

Guineapigrescue wrote: »

I wish more vets would refuse to do it.

Unfortuantly you dont need a vet to do this! Farmers dont need a vet when docking lambs tails. I've seen farmers just cutting them off with a knife (a blunt one at that) or putting those tight rubber rings on them, where it cuts off the blood supply and the tail goes dead and eventually drops off. Cutting off their tails no matter how old is almost the equivalant of someone cutting off your finger. I wonder how many of those breeders would actually spend money to get this done?

Vegeta

Wow this topic comes up again and again and again

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055369317&highlight=Tail+docking

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055390523&highlight=Tail+docking

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055361836&highlight=Tail+docking

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055238456&highlight=Tail+docking

ukgalwaymcguire

its barbaric, dont do it . full stop its abuse

lucky111

Alfie and "the tail";)
Sorry about the pic, he wouldn't stay still:rolleyes:

sorella

Amen....Our wee Jack Russell// basset cross has the cutest tail; curls like a pig's tail.

Is not some of this show standard fault?

ukgalwaymcguire wrote: »

its barbaric, dont do it . full stop its abuse

Discodog

Many Irish vets will not dock. I know one vet who will ask where the dog was docked & then he checks. The fact that plenty of cruel idiots will do it themselves is the reason why it needs to be banned.

If those who are buying a puppy reject those that are docked it will rapidly become socially unacceptable.

The breed standards will change in line with UK Kennel Club

boomerang

I don't entirely buy the argument that working dogs (ie dogs that work in the field) are better off without their tails, to avoid the risk of injury. I honestly don't believe that dogs with intact tails working through scrub/forestry/bog/hedges etc really damage their tails that often, or that seriously, that such a drastic prophylactic measure is necessary. Besides, if we are to take that argument, why aren't Foxhounds/Bloodhounds/Basset Hounds/Beagles/Retrievers/Lurchers routinely docked?

If it becomes illegal to dock a dog for aesthetic reasons in this country, yet we make an exception for working dogs, then that will be a very convenient loophole for people who want a sporting dog not to work but as a pet or show dog, and who want the tail docked. How is a vet to know that the Springer Spaniel puppy on the exam table will be a pet, or a working dog?

My own dogs are six and seven now, they run free in bog, forestry, fields and hedges each and every day and neither of them have ever had any kind of tail injury. (BTW they are a collie and a collie x.)

Top Dog, I saw Rotties with intact tails at Crufts last year and I have to say they looked lovely - very much like a Labrador's tail - and really "fitted" with the overall look of the dog.

iguana

boomerang wrote: »

How is a vet to know that the Springer Spaniel puppy on the exam table will be a pet, or a working dog?

Because for one most of the major shows like crufts have a ban on dogs docked since Apr 07. Two, show and working strain springers look completely different. And three a working springer only has the top of the tail removed, it still has somewhere between 3/4's and 2/3rds of it's tail. The traditional look for show springers is to only leave a little stub, so it's a completely different procedure.



A show springer's fur is predominantly brown/black along the back. The ears are longer and the fur is longer and curlier.



A working springer is mainly white with brown/black patches. The ears are shorter as is the fur.



And this is a worker with minor damage to a full tail.

boomerang

Yes, I know the difference between a working springer versus a show springer. Most Springers in this country kept as pets are actually from working strains. I see maybe a dozen or two dozen Springers pass through our rescue each year, and without exception they're all working strain. I've never seen a show-type ES in Ireland outside of the showring in Cloghran! I believe if docking is banned in this country, that much of the dog-buying public will still have a preference for a docked tail in breeds that have been traditionally docked, including Boxers, Rotties, Dobes - and Springers and Pointers. A breeder could easily raise a litter of even working strain springer pups for the pet market and get away with docking them - by simply telling the vet that he intends the pups to be working dogs. This is already proving to be a serious loophole in the UK legislation.

Already, there is a very strong demand in the UK for Irish-registered, docked dogs. (IKC registered, docked Irish dogs can be shown in the UK by applying to the Kennel Club for an "authority to compete" cert.) So needless to say, Irish breeders of traditionally docked breeds are doing very well out of the UK ban. Plus a lot of breeders in the UK are sending their pregnant dams over to Northern Ireland, so that when the pups are born they can be docked and then brought back to the UK to be sold.

iguana

boomerang wrote: »

Yes, I know the difference between a working springer versus a show springer. Most Springers in this country kept as pets are actually from working strains. I've yet to see a Springer from showing stock come into rescue.

But that's not the point. What I am trying to say is that if we were to ban docking in this country but with a clause that excludes working dogs, then a breeder can have a vet dock all the puppies in a litter. There will be an incentive for breeders to do this, because much of the dog-buying public will show a preference for the docked tail even if a ban comes into place in this country.

This is already proving to be a serious loophole in the UK legislation. Docking for cosmetic reasons alone is illegal in the UK (excluding NI) since early 2008. Working dogs can be docked up to five days of age, so long as they are genuinely going on to work. Irish registered, docked dogs can still qualify for and compete at Crufts. Needless to say, Irish breeders of traditionally docked breeds are doing very well out of the UK ban. Plus a lot of breeders in the UK are sending their pregnant dams over to Northern Ireland, so that when the pups are born they can be docked and then brought back to the UK to be sold.

But working springers are docked in a different way. The method of docking working springers is completely different than the "fashionable" way it's done. I've met a few people with docked springers who had no idea that the dog was docked. I've also met people who's dog has had it's tail split while running through brambles. The damage is life-threatening to the dog and the operation to remove the tail after a split is quite serious.

I'm against tail docking in principle, but there are cases were a preventative minor procedure is preferable to a serious injury in the future.

And to be controversial, I find it extremely ironic how many people are completely against tail docking but in favour of removing the dogs sexual organs.

Eta; And Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

boomerang

Yup, appreciate that Iguana but I was using "UK" as shorthand for England, Scotland and Wales.

Playing devil's advocate, should we not also then dock tails of other breeds that are prone to injury? Greyhounds and Dalmatians for example frequently injure their tails quite badly by bashing them against their kennel walls. But then, the Dalmatian's tail is part of its aesthetic appeal - and the breed was developed for its aesthetic appeal.

I thought docked dogs could still qualify and compete at Crufts, so long as they were docked before the ban came into place?

I know there is an argument for amputating a dog's tail on prophylactic grounds, I'm just not convinced that serious tail injuries are all that common amongst working dogs. Is it worth inflicting pain on all neo-natal pups, to avert causing pain to a small few as adults? But then there is huge disagreement on to what extent newborn pups experience pain when being docked...

iguana

boomerang wrote: »

I thought docked dogs could still qualify and compete at Crufts, so long as they were docked before the ban came into place?

Yes, dogs docked before Apr 07 can still enter, as I said in my first post. And the thing is we don't know how high the number of working springers who would injure their tail is, as most are docked so obviously they don't get that injury. From my experience, one of my dogs who is docked, took the tip off his tail on a walk. I can't imagine how bad that injury would have been if he'd still had the top 1/3 of his tail.

And I'm pretty sure that tail docking is no more painful than castration. But yet that is widely advocated to the dog from breeding. So if you can be in favour of castration in order to prevent breeding, it's not dissimilar to remove a small part of the tail from certain dogs in order to prevent the possibility of a serious injury. I'd argue that tail docking for that purpose (and that purpose only) is less cruel than castration/spaying to prevent breeding.

boomerang

AFAIK Iguana, docking is done without anaesthetic as the pups are too young?

Whereas castration is done under g.a. with pain relief given afterwards...

I take your point though. We neuter/spay for our own convenience, to avoid unwanted litters, nuisance behaviour in males and female seasons... and there are some people that consider spay/neuter a mutilation. Is it Germany or Sweden that spay/neuter is illegal, unless for a medical reason - e.g. testicular cancer, pyometra, etc. Plenty of us don't consider spay/neuter as mutilation or 'un-natural intervention' yet still think that tail-docking is wrong...

iguana

boomerang wrote: »

AFAIK Iguana, docking is done without anaesthetic as the pups are too young?

Whereas castration is done under g.a. with pain relief given afterwards...

I take your point though. We neuter/spay for our own convenience, to avoid unwanted litters, nuisance behaviour in males and female seasons... and there are some people that consider spay/neuter a mutilation. Is it Germany or Sweden that spay/neuter is illegal, unless for a medical reason - e.g. testicular cancer, pyometra, etc. Plenty of us don't consider spay/neuter as mutilation or 'un-natural intervention' yet still think that tail-docking is wrong...

I think tail docking is wrong if it is purely for aesthetic reasons. But like I mentioned in my last post one of my dogs took the tip off his tail running through brambles. If he had a full tail that would have been a far more serious injury. As it was he barely even noticed, but he looked a lot like that dog in the last pic I posted. Ever since I've been of the opinion that tail docking should be at least seriously considered by working springer and cocker owners.

Kopite73

my personal view is it is easier to monitor the dogs' state of mind with a tail, some like the look with some like it docked its a personal choice really - shaved head or ponytail ... everyone has a view and entitled to it but purely from a behavioral point of view its easier to assess a dog with a tail IMO. I have a rott rescued from pound docked when we took him and it was much harder figure him out than a staffy we adopted with a tail ! Ok so not scientific just an observation,
Take it cheesey
Martin.

Bluefrog

First Boomerang, I'm not taking a cheap shot at you. From your other posts I know the work you do day to day for animals' welfare. This post is rather to clarify some issues for the general discussion.

As someone approaching the time when I will have to get my pup neutered, I can definitely tell you that it isn't being done for my own convenience but rather for the long-term quality of life of the pup himself, my other dog here and the other dogs we encounter when out.

The benefits of neutering/spaying for a dog are well documented so I won't bother going into them here and while there are undeniable advantages for the owner, the main benefits go to the dog.

To compare an unregulated practice which is mainly done for aesthetic reasons, often in dubious to downright cruel ways to one normally practiced by regulated medical professionals with such benefits to the individual dog and all other dogs in the vicinity is bizarre to me.

How could anyone view castration as 'natural'? Why would anyone try when little is 'natural' about any dog's life given that they have been comprehensively genetically modified from their ancestors and that they live (for better or worse) in human society, mainly in the company of humans rather than other dogs? Does this yearning for a 'natural' existence for dogs extend to not intervening when the dog becomes ill? Some sense of perspective is required.

I view castration as a responsible medical intervention for the longterm well-being of my dogs and others. Only if a docking can be justified in the same fashion could I imagine any animal lover endorsing it.

boomerang wrote: »

We neuter/spay for our own convenience, to avoid unwanted litters, nuisance behaviour in males and female seasons... and there are some people that consider spay/neuter a mutilation. Is it Germany or Sweden that spay/neuter is illegal, unless for a medical reason - e.g. testicular cancer, pyometra, etc. Plenty of us don't consider spay/neuter as mutilation or 'un-natural intervention' yet still think that tail-docking is wrong...

iguana

Bluefrog wrote: »

I view castration as a responsible medical intervention for the longterm well-being of my dogs and others. Only if a docking can be justified in the same fashion could I imagine any animal lover endorsing it.

I don't think you've been reading the thread properly. Boomerang didn't compare them, I did. And I compared it in relation to specific dogs who are prone to serious tail damage if their tail is left at full length.

ecaf

Both our dogs tails are docked, and came like that. Difference is they are working dogs (pointer & cocker), well in truth the cocker won't be but she was done when I got her and I had intended working her if she was any good, but she wasn't bred for that and she isn't much of a hunter.

The pointer has a docked tail but it isn't as stumpy as the cocker, she is very much a working dog and as iguana pointed out their tails can get damaged from briars when out hunting.

Personally I don't mind the look of them either way. For a non hunting dog, given the choice, I wouldn't really bother with getting them docked. Don't think I have seen many boxers, doberman, rotties, etc. with their tails though! It is a pity I suppose because there is no reason for removing it.

Kopite73 said that you cannot tell their mood as well without the tail.
I don't find that. They still wag the stump, and for our cocker with the shorter stump she wiggles her bum. But I understand too that it is easier on them with a long exaggerated wag.

Bluefrog

Er, I'm not sure you read my post properly Iguana - at least, not as it was intended to read - first thing it says is that it's not directed at Boomerang. And I stand by my point that comparing castration to docking is a bizarre comparison.

My boxer wags his full tail with pride and I sincerely hope before too long all boxers and other non-working dogs will.

iguana wrote: »

I don't think you've been reading the thread properly. Boomerang didn't compare them, I did. And I compared it in relation to specific dogs who are prone to serious tail damage if their tail is left at full length.

iguana

Bluefrog wrote: »

Er, I'm not sure you read my post properly Iguana - at least, not as it was intended to read - first thing it says is that it's not directed at Boomerang. And I stand by my point that comparing castration to docking is a bizarre comparison.

My boxer wags his full tail with pride and I sincerely hope before too long all boxers and other non-working dogs will.

You didn't say it wasn't directed at her(?) you said you weren't taking a cheap shot but......... Then you made comments about docking for aesthetic reasons not being comparable to neutering which was not a comparison being made.

Then you said I view castration as a responsible medical intervention for the longterm well-being of my dogs and others. Only if a docking can be justified in the same fashion could I imagine any animal lover endorsing it. Which was exactly the point which was being made as certain types of dogs have a history of serious tail damage which is preventable by partial docking. And many animal lovers would prefer for their dogs to have had a minor surgical procedure at a young age than a serious operation following a painful injury.

And tbh, I don't see how castration/spaying improves the long-term well being of dogs, it doesn't. It's main purpose is to prevent unwanted litters. Neutering is done for the convenience of human beings. And that's fine, it's a good enough reason but it is a mutilation of the dog for our benefit and denying that is like being a leather wearing vegan.

Bluefrog wrote: »

My boxer wags his full tail with pride and I sincerely hope before too long all boxers and other non-working dogs will.

So do I. If the breed doesn't have a history of tail damage the is no reason to consider docking. Or if you have a springer/cocker that will never be near thorn bushes there is no need to either.

Bluefrog

Ok, read into my post what you want and ignore my cliarifcation - fine.

iguana

Bluefrog wrote: »

Ok, read into my post what you want and ignore my cliarifcation - fine.

I'm not try to argue or criticise you. It's just that you were taking issue with a point that was my point rather than Boomerang's and it seemed unfair to her.

Bluefrog

Yes and I clarified that but you then went on to dispute my intention, selectively quote and mis-interpret other parts of my original post and finally name call - 'leather wearing vegan' - nice. Others can judge the quality of your 'moderation'. I was happy to debate the points I raised and to clarify any points but I have enough of a life not to sit here and have my intent in a post disputed. I'm done with this thread.

lorna100

just to play devils advocate - what about lambs tails being docked? AFAIK the majority of lambs tails are docked, its common practice and widely accepted. The farmers (that I know of anyway) put rubber bands around the tail, cutting off the blood supply. I assume its done to stop flies laying their eggs in the wool when it becomes soiled.
If its acceptable to do it to sheep, why not dogs?

BTW I dont agree with tail docking of any animal - it is mutilation and is wrong.

mygti

personally i think that the breeds of dogs mentioned look much better with their tails docked, i had a boxer for 10 years who died before xmas.who had his tail cut at 6 wks. i couldnt picture him with a long tail.

iguana

Bluefrog wrote: »

Yes and I clarified that but you then went on to dispute my intention, selectively quote and mis-interpret other parts of my original post and finally name call - 'leather wearing vegan' - nice. Others can judge the quality of your 'moderation'. I was happy to debate the points I raised and to clarify any points but I have enough of a life not to sit here and have my intent in a post disputed. I'm done with this thread.

Why are you being so aggressive? You didn't clarify anything, you did direct your comments at Boomerang, you quoted her and mentioned her at the beginning in a way that did not make your intention clear. Your whole initial post was aggressive in it's tone and you kept referring to how docking for aesthetic reasons wasn't comparable to neutering, when nobody had ever suggested it was. I didn't selectively quote, I quoted the main points of your thread. You however were very selective in your posting when you quoted Boomerang.

And now you are accusing me of name calling when what I did was make an analogy. If you don't like my views that's fair enough, but argue against them properly instead of attacking me.

UrbanSea

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

it's nothing but cruel to put a dog under any discomfort for something that is purely for appearence.

But tail docking isnt done purely for appearance,tail docking is carried out on breeds such as rottweilers and doberman because they are known to be such strong and muscular dogs then their tails are weak,Docking is merely carried out to eliminate the dogs weakest aspect.

boomerang

That's not an argument I've come across before, greetings, could you expand on it? By "weak" do you mean anatomically weak, or aesthetically weak?

Discodog

greetings wrote: »

But tail docking isnt done purely for appearance,tail docking is carried out on breeds such as rottweilers and doberman because they are known to be such strong and muscular dogs then their tails are weak,Docking is merely carried out to eliminate the dogs weakest aspect.

What a load of rubbish. Tail docking is done because it was in the Kennel Club breed standard. Now that it is illegal in UK it will die out here as once a dog is docked it cannot be shown in the UK.

The only weak aspect of Rotties & Dobies is their stupid owners who want to remove their tails !

UrbanSea

boomerang wrote: »

That's not an argument I've come across before, greetings, could you expand on it? By "weak" do you mean anatomically weak, or aesthetically weak?

Couldnt be certain boomerang,I just remember reading that somewhere. You can see where this may come from(however,I would not be a fan of docking,and if i had a Doberman or whatever I personally wouldnt dock it,unless of course it had already been docked when it was bought etc) as even lookin at the tail of an undocked rotty or doberman they do like as if they would be their weakest part of the body,it bein a slender and sensitive object in comparison with the rest of it's body. I suppose people could say it is for the dog's own good,to prevent it been harmed? Not my opinion,but i suppose the opinion of some others.

cowzerp

My rotty is a rescue and only has a small stump, everyone is saying you cant see the tail moving so cant tell its emotions! his stump still moves and it is obvious when he is excited or happy, you could play with his stump and its not sore so in my opinion if it is not sore when it is docked then its fine, i could not answer that though as i never witnessed it, a vet should know this.

sorella

?? Obviously now it has healed; as your hand would if you lost a finger.

The cutting off is a different matter

wonder if dogs get "phantom tails"?

cowzerp wrote: »

My rotty is a rescue and only has a small stump, everyone is saying you cant see the tail moving so cant tell its emotions! his stump still moves and it is obvious when he is excited or happy, you could play with his stump and its not sore so in my opinion if it is not sore when it is docked then its fine, i could not answer that though as i never witnessed it, a vet should know this.

cloudy day

everyone is entitled to an opinion. not everyone likes the same thimgs in life. what is good for one person is not always good for another. ..but...

just because a chosen few decide something is not acceptable just because they don't like it, there i think is the origions of a problem.

as i believe people started docking dogs tails generations ago, well before the KC were even founded. the original boxers look nothing like their modern counterparts for one thing.

it was a common practice with no ill affects to the dog, ok, it may not be for the squeamish, just like if a lot of these anti docking folk had to kill a chicken for their dinner, or kill a fish, or slaughter a lamb, chances are they wouldn't be able to do it. it can be argued for and against whether or not the pup's find it painful until the cows come home.

i have to laugh at the moral stance the vets have taken.

does anyone know what a caslicks operation on a brood mare is.

the vet will SLICE off a slither of flesh from either side of the vagina, then he stiches the vagina together, so that the flesh fuses, leaving only a small gap for peeing.

it's common practice, but he vet will do it to the same mare every year, EVERY YEAR, for years. and they don't consider that cruel.

the mare is supposed to have the stitches out before foaling, often their not taken out, and it tears when the mare foals.

every year horses are castrated, that's painful. dogs ar ecastrated, that's painful.

calves are de-horned, pigs have their tails cut, lambs have bands put on their tails, which doesn't hurt if they are done early. these things are considered necessary.

in the case of tailing lambs, definitely due to the scourge of fly strike and maggots.

if the vets won't dock the pups all they are doing is preventing the pups from the correct treatment by a professional. the owner will find another means to do it.

castration and nuetering has nothing to do with health, yet the vets are happy to take money to do it. that's a major operation compared with docking. the dogs are sore for days afterwards. and it's done when the dog is older which is far worse than docking.

each to their own but when it becomes a fact when people no longer have choices as they are bullied into a system without any say well...... don't they call that a dictatorship.

and nipping off a new borns tail is nothing like cutting off a humans finger.
there are no knuckle joints or bones in a tail.

plus there is a big difference with a finger and a tail. the long tails in most breeds serve no purpose whatsoever, it's just in some they don't look as nice. and originally that's how these breeds were made to look.

i think boxers, dobermanns, rottweiler's, jack russel's and weirmeramers look awful with long tails.

but there are also a lot of breeds i'd hate to see with short tails.

having an opinion is one thing.... forcing it onto others cos it's what you want is another.

Whispered

cloudy day wrote: »

it was a common practice with no ill affects to the dog, ok, it may not be for the squeamish, just like if a lot of these anti docking folk had to kill a chicken for their dinner, or kill a fish, or slaughter a lamb, chances are they wouldn't be able to do it. it can be argued for and against whether or not the pup's find it painful until the cows come home.

How do you know there are no ill effects, pain is an ill effect. Also there is a huge huge difference between killing an animal for food and docking a dogs tail. As for it being common parctise, many things were common parctise which are no longer acceptable.

cloudy day wrote: »

i have to laugh at the moral stance the vets have taken.

does anyone know what a caslicks operation on a brood mare is.

the vet will SLICE off a slither of flesh from either side of the vagina, then he stiches the vagina together, so that the flesh fuses, leaving only a small gap for peeing.

it's common practice, but he vet will do it to the same mare every year, EVERY YEAR, for years. and they don't consider that cruel..

Really, why is that? I never heard of that before. Is it for health reasons? (you've given me yet another reason to hate farming and all it stands for)

cloudy day wrote: »

every year horses are castrated, that's painful. dogs ar ecastrated, that's painful.

calves are de-horned, pigs have their tails cut, lambs have bands put on their tails, which doesn't hurt if they are done early. these things are considered necessary.

in the case of tailing lambs, definitely due to the scourge of fly strike and maggots..

Why are calves dehorned? and pigs have their tails cut? I didn't know about that either. Is there an hygiene or health reason? I'm sure it's not for aesthetics like puppy docking?

cloudy day wrote: »

if the vets won't dock the pups all they are doing is preventing the pups from the correct treatment by a professional. the owner will find another means to do it.

Yes I agree with you here. No dogs should be docked without proper reason. Such as working dogs who can split their tail. If you have a docked dog, you should be questioned about it by the warden (although the wardens can't do the job they currently have very well so this might not be at all feasible) I mean in an ideal world of course, if docking was made illegal.

cloudy day wrote: »

castration and nuetering has nothing to do with health, yet the vets are happy to take money to do it. that's a major operation compared with docking. the dogs are sore for days afterwards. and it's done when the dog is older which is far worse than docking..

It has a lot to do with health.

cloudy day wrote: »

i think boxers, dobermanns, rottweiler's, jack russel's and weirmeramers look awful with long tails..

I think they all look better with tails.

The physical mutliation of an animal for aesthetic purposes only seems wrong to me.