Jack Russell Puppies - Tail Docking thoughts???

kaiser sauze

funkyjebus wrote: »

I never said silly, back to school for you sir. i mearly exaggerated the procedure you carry out or allow to be carried out on your aniimals despite it havoing no effect except for your or your potention buyer visual enjoyment (unless im wrong, but youve yet to state otherwise)

Given you are only caplable of making vien attempts to be witty in order to discuse your inablility or unwillingness to give me one possible reason for docking a pets tail out side of astestic appeal, i will assume that you do not possess one.

awaits failed attempt at humourous rebuttle in an attempt to avoid fair and honest question.

Sorry, this is not a court, and your question is loaded.

I do not have to justify to you, or anyone else on Boards, why I dock tails.

funkyjebus

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Sorry, this is not a court, and your question is loaded.

I do not have to justify to you, or anyone else on Boards, why I dock tails.

Firstly, dont apologises to me, apologies to the pups please. :rolleyes:

That your are right about (for once), this is in fact an website, in particular a website for discussion, something you seem freluctamt to engage in. So with that I will bid you a good evening sir, assuming that you lop off puppies tails for nothinf but your own sadistic sexual pleasures as you have left me with no possible alternative to fathom.

kaiser sauze

funkyjebus wrote: »

Firstly, dont apologises to me, apologies to the pups please. :rolleyes:

That your are right about (for once), this is in fact an website, in particular a website for discussion, something you seem freluctamt to engage in. So with that I will bid you a good evening sir, assuming that you lop off puppies tails for nothinf but your own sadistic sexual pleasures as you have left me with no possible alternative to fathom.

Once again, someone with no basis in facts gets emotive and puts words in someone's mouth.

funkyjebus

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Once again, someone with no basis in facts gets emotive and puts words in someone's mouth.

You have assumed that I have no basis no facts and am that replying based on emotional responses, not reasoning. I would thank you to not make such assumption before putting these queries to me, therefore affording me the same courtesy i gave you.

I have put no words in your mouth, only made a opinion based on the comrehesive replies you gave me. you are more than welcome to put words in you own mouth and not just smilies.

anyway, i have a home to go to. i look forward to jesting over your reply.

Discodog

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The pain is temporary, I'll bet you have never seen the procedure done this way? There is never any blood or risk of infection and it is a much easier experience on the pup than getting it chopped (which I would never consider doing). You are also failing to acknowledge when it is done, in the first 3-5 days, when nerve endings still haven't reached peak sensitivity. Anyone who does it outside of this timeframe is guilty of cruelty.

I love your talk about securing convictions, if it were so easy it would have been done long ago. There is lots of evidence out there and it would be easy to join the dots and make a case. Why has this not been done?

I bet you love the sound of your voice in real life?

I have never had a word said to me about the puppies I have bred, never a remark, never a comment. My own vet, whom I have an exceptional relationship with, does not, and will not, dock tails or dewclaws, but by the same token he does not refuse to vaccinate and microchip my puppies or threaten me with any kind of action. If he felt I was causing undue suffering to the pups, I also know for a fact he would not treat them and would report me.

Are you trying to tell me that every customer I have dealt with over the year is an 'inhuman monster, like me'?

Get over yourself, seriously.

This wonderful secret method of mutilation sounds amazing. Even more amazing is your telepathic ability to tell if the pups feel pain. Clearly the Irish Veterinary Associations need to listen to your knowledge.

The reason that no one has tried a conviction has been clearly explained. Until the Vets made their ruling docking was not classed as cruelty. Docking is still legal on the old basis that Vets said that it did not cause unnecessary suffering - the Vets have now changed their opinion.

A Court will listen to a Vet. If he says that an animal has suffered cruelty it would very likely be accepted by the Court & the defendant would have to prove otherwise.

I don't talk to myself so the sound of my voice is irrelevant.

Some may class you as "an inhuman monster" - I wouldn't. But I would class you as someone who is willing to inflict unnecessary suffering on puppies just to please some cosmetic whim. There will be "customers" who still want docked dogs. There will also be breeders who are happy to ignore the suffering to receive their money. You could leave your puppies tails alone & sell them to caring, compassionate owners & still make money.

People keep asking you why & you never answer. Yes it is your business but your silence may result in people coming to the conclusion that you mutilate pups just because you can. No doubt you tell your customers that everything is painless. Part of the Vet campaign is to tell people the truth. It is up to them who they believe.

Discodog

angelfire9 wrote: »

Hang on.... if the IKC doesn't want the tails docked for showing purposes then why are people docking them?
I in my naivety (?sp) thought that the tails were being docked so that they conform to breeding "standards"

Oh I suspect that the IKC are happy for docking to continue. The point is that dog showing relies on Veterinary support.

ISDW

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The pain is temporary, I'll bet you have never seen the procedure done this way? There is never any blood or risk of infection and it is a much easier experience on the pup than getting it chopped (which I would never consider doing). You are also failing to acknowledge when it is done, in the first 3-5 days, when nerve endings still haven't reached peak sensitivity. Anyone who does it outside of this timeframe is guilty of cruelty.

Then surely, by your own words, they do have some sensitivity there, so it must cause pain. Maybe not quite as much as if you did a week or so later, but pain nevertheless.

kaiser sauze

Discodog wrote: »

This wonderful secret method of mutilation sounds amazing. Even more amazing is your telepathic ability to tell if the pups feel pain. Clearly the Irish Veterinary Associations need to listen to your knowledge.

The reason that no one has tried a conviction has been clearly explained. Until the Vets made their ruling docking was not classed as cruelty. Docking is still legal on the old basis that Vets said that it did not cause unnecessary suffering - the Vets have now changed their opinion.

A Court will listen to a Vet. If he says that an animal has suffered cruelty it would very likely be accepted by the Court & the defendant would have to prove otherwise.

I don't talk to myself so the sound of my voice is irrelevant.

Some may class you as "an inhuman monster" - I wouldn't. But I would class you as someone who is willing to inflict unnecessary suffering on puppies just to please some cosmetic whim. There will be "customers" who still want docked dogs. There will also be breeders who are happy to ignore the suffering to receive their money. You could leave your puppies tails alone & sell them to caring, compassionate owners & still make money.

People keep asking you why & you never answer. Yes it is your business but your silence may result in people coming to the conclusion that you mutilate pups just because you can. No doubt you tell your customers that everything is painless. Part of the Vet campaign is to tell people the truth. It is up to them who they believe.

The method I use is well known, there is no secret or mysticism involved. The fact that you are up on your soapbox over those who use knives, and other sharp implements, and projecting your vitriol over them onto me is amusing.

Your court scenario is just hyperbole, you need to get real. The Vets do not set law in this country, the government, elected by the people, do. Unless there has been a vet led mini-coup I am unaware of where the hold sittings in a kangaroo court of some kind? I'd better watch out for those!

People can ask "why" all they like, I am not here to justify it, but I am here as a counterbalance to a one-sided argument that uses knife wielding crazies as their target.

I "mutilate pups because I can", wow, in one side of your mouth you claim to not call me a monster and then out of the other side you say this. You clearly are a confused person. I don't make money from my breeding activities, anyone who does run puppy-farms.

kaiser sauze

ISDW wrote: »

Then surely, by your own words, they do have some sensitivity there, so it must cause pain. Maybe not quite as much as if you did a week or so later, but pain nevertheless.

...never said there was no pain.

TooManyDogs

kaiser sauze wrote: »

...never said there was no pain.

So you're happy hurting your pups? So do you give them a kick if they get out of order too? Why do you voluntarily hurt your animals?

kaiser sauze

TooManyDogs wrote: »

So you're happy hurting your pups? So do you give them a kick if they get out of order too? Why do you voluntarily hurt your animals?

:rolleyes:

TooManyDogs

kaiser sauze wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That's a well informed, educated response. I wonder what you'd manage to say if there were no emoticons

kaiser sauze

TooManyDogs wrote: »

That's a well informed, educated response. I wonder what you'd manage to say if there were no emoticons

:rolleyes:

Bullseye1

Do the vets not give the pups a local?

kaiser sauze

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Do the vets not give the pups a local?

I dock them myself.

kaiser sauze

Discodog wrote: »

Oh I suspect that the IKC are happy for docking to continue. The point is that dog showing relies on Veterinary support.

How do you riddle this one out?

angelfire9

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I have always docked my breeds tail, simple.

I do not notice any change in customer attitudes, no change in demand and no comments being passed.

Sorry KS not trying to being a pain but I still don't get it

Why put the pup through any pain (even if you do say it's minimal) if its not for health reasons, not for showing reasons, why bother, why not leave the tails intact?
Do you think your customers would complain???

thebullkf

TooManyDogs wrote: »

That's a well informed, educated response. I wonder what you'd manage to say if there were no emoticons

in fairness, you asked for it.

kaiser sauze

angelfire9 wrote: »

Sorry KS not trying to being a pain but I still don't get it

Why put the pup through any pain (even if you do say it's minimal) if its not for health reasons, not for showing reasons, why bother, why not leave the tails intact?
Do you think your customers would complain???

I have not stated the reasons I do it, likewise I have not stated the reasons why I could not do it.

As stated before, I have no intention of doing so as I am not here to justify what I do to anyone here; I do not have to.

angelfire9

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I have not stated the reasons I do it, likewise I have not stated the reasons why I could not do it.

As stated before, I have no intention of doing so as I am not here to justify what I do to anyone here; I do not have to.

Do you not think that is a bit of a cop out though?
Considering you are defending a breeder's right to dock tails but giving no logical reason as to why they could/would/should do it??

I will freely admit I know feck all about dogs I prefer the smaller sneakier variety of pet (cats)
But i can appreciate a dog's aesthetic beauty which I personally feel is ruined by docking and I don't understand why anyone would bother??

kaiser sauze

angelfire9 wrote: »

Do you not think that is a bit of a cop out though?
Considering you are defending a breeder's right to dock tails but giving no logical reason as to why they could/would/should do it??

I will freely admit I know feck all about dogs I prefer the smaller sneakier variety of pet (cats)
But i can appreciate a dog's aesthetic beauty which I personally feel is ruined by docking and I don't understand why anyone would bother??

If you view it as a cop out, fine.

EDIT- did you edit?

To answer about the 'defence of a breeder's right', that is not what I am doing either.

thebullkf

if people here get their animals spayed/speyed/neutered etc for non life threatening treatments isn't that a much worse crime than Docking

angelfire9

thebullkf wrote: »

if people here get their animals spayed/speyed/neutered etc for non life threatening treatments isn't that a much worse crime than Docking

I don't think so
my male cat was neutered to reduce the risk of him roaming as i live in a housing estate and our last cat was killed on the road

It wasn't for aesthetic reasons in my view I am improving his lifespan

thebullkf

angelfire9 wrote: »

I don't think so
my male cat was neutered to reduce the risk of him roaming as i live in a housing estate and our last cat was killed on the road

It wasn't for aesthetic reasons in my view I am improving his lifespan

so it calms him down,right?
stops him roaming-as it stops his urges?
extends his life span.


correct so far?

angelfire9

thebullkf wrote: »

so it calms him down,right?
stops him roaming-as it stops his urges?
extends his life span.


correct so far?

If you are going to say that its not natural you are entitled to your opinion
I'd rather have a tame house cat that doesn't roam than a natural semi feral horny (can i say that??) tom cat splat on the road!

Bullseye1

The cropped tail forms part of the dogs standard look. Whether it's right or wrong I have no real view on the matter. As long as it can be done hygienically and under veterinary supervision i don't see any difference than having your dog spayed or neutered.

angelfire9

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The cropped tail forms part of the dogs standard look. Whether it's right or wrong I have no real view on the matter. As long as it can be done hygienically and under veterinary supervision i don't see any difference than having your dog spayed or neutered.

There I have to differ
I can see a REASON for spaying/neutering

I just can't see a reason for docking

Maybe I should just stick to the cat threads on here

Bullseye1

angelfire9 wrote: »

There I have to differ
I can see a REASON for spaying/neutering

I just can't see a reason for docking

Maybe I should just stick to the cat threads on here

There is a significant risk to the dog when going under GA. Dogs are not neutered in nature it's a method of birth control mainly for our convience due to irresponsible owners not keeping their in heat bitches indoors.

thebullkf

angelfire9 wrote: »

If you are going to say that its not natural you are entitled to your opinion
I'd rather have a tame house cat that doesn't roam than a natural semi feral horny (can i say that??) tom cat splat on the road!

i wasn't (good point though )

i was going to say its the removal of an animals internal organs.
in his case- his gonads.

i understand it stops them marking their turf (weeing in the house etc)
but all's your doing is infinitely worse, imo;) than docking.

i've heard of neutering to calm animals down- i think its worse than docking.

BTW- i don't like docking - i had a Boxer with a full tail (have only seen a couple since)

but despite Discodogs protestations its not illegal.
some frown upon it, some don't

IMO- Speying, i.e. the surgical removal of the uterus and ovaries from the abdomen of Female cats is the equivalent of a full hysterectomy.
cats don't want it-never have-never will yet its still done daily.
the added protection from certain diseases is a nice aside,but is oft used as an excuse to get it done.
99 times out of a 100 speying/neutering is done for the owners benefit as well as the animals.


I have rescue dogs- i have to get them done.

i don't want to. i must.:(

they were born with their bits-n-bobs and inners.... they should be left with them.
same for tails.
same for ears.

vanity is an obnoxious excuse ( Plastic surgery in humans also imo)

angelfire9

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There is a significant risk to the dog when going under GA. Dogs are not neutered in nature it's a method of birth control mainly for our convience due to irresponsible owners not keeping their in heat bitches indoors.

I have stated i know feck all about dogs
Female cats will roam just as much as their male counterparts looking for nooky when in heat so having my tom neutered was the right thing for him IMHO

"Nature" does not provide for human contraception either so are we supposed to abstain from sex when we do not wish to procreate?? :eek: