Tail docking- what do you think of it?

cowzerp · 19-02-2008 8:32pm

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 · 19-02-2008 8:38pm

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 · 19-02-2008 10:13pm

Well said iguana..obvious really..

cowzerp · 19-02-2008 10:31pm

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 · 19-02-2008 10:49pm

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 · 20-02-2008 12:31am

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 · 20-02-2008 12:32am

cowzerp wrote: »

Ignorance at its best.

You REALLY aren't one to talk...

LuckyStar · 20-02-2008 12:34am

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 · 20-02-2008 1:10pm

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 · 20-02-2008 1:14pm

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.

peasant · 20-02-2008 1:16pm

No offence, cowzerp ...but you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Some dogs carry their tail in a curl on the back most of the time (Nordic breeds), others just sometimes, but by no means is a curl a deformity.

Look at the one in the middle

The tail is curled upwards and waved about (hard to see in the pic). Normally she carries it down and close to her body.

The fella on the right also had his tail in a curl. On the pic it's just at the end of the swing and looks straight.

The poor little one on the left has got nothing to wag with.

These three dogs are watching two others going past and they're displaying exactly what the Rottie is displaying. Excitment, curiosity and a certain amount of "attitude" (especially the big fella)

How do I know?
I'm the one holding the leads in the picture

cowzerp · 20-02-2008 2:32pm

Boxer

Rottweiler

Dobermann

No peasant, you dont know what your talking about, any dog behaviourist will tell you that a dogs tail sticking up means aggression, my point is that the 3 dogs in these pics that are normally docked have deformed tails that give off false signals.

that pic you showed is nothing to do with them and the tails are all moving about and not just curled up in a deformed way like these 3 dogs.

Link to dog body language
http://home.howstuffworks.com/how-to-train-a-dog1.htm

liljenny · 20-02-2008 2:37pm

i totally agree, docking should not be done for cosmetic reasons, people who dont know the first thing about breeding dogs are having pups and doing the docking themselves, where's the need for it? if for wat ever reason it must be done then it should be done properly be a vet not by someone who knows nothing about it. the breeds that have had their tails docked do look much better with the tail, it softens the body and people might be willing to give these dogs another cahnce if they didnt look like the type of dog they have been made out to be.

peasant · 20-02-2008 2:51pm

cowzerp wrote: »

No peasant, you dont know what your talking about, any dog behaviourist will tell you that a dogs tail sticking up means aggression, my point is that the 3 dogs in these pics that are normally docked have deformed tails that give off false signals.

that pic you showed is nothing to do with them and the tails are all moving about and not just curled up in a deformed way like these 3 dogs.

How to take a good picture of a dog, one where it stands still and looks impressive?

Get the dog's attention ...either by calling it or by pointing something interesting out to it.

There you've got it, a dog standing to attention, with good posture, an interested look on its face and displaying alertness, curiosity, excitment... with its tail in the air (curled or straight):D:D:D

as for body language ...note remarks on tail in this:
http://www.pawsacrossamerica.com/interpret.html

Mellor · 20-02-2008 3:20pm

peasant wrote: »

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

Working in heavy growth, heather, brambles etc.

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.

You never see or hear because they are not pets

In all seriousness, it doesn't affect all breeds. Breeds with very active tails are prone to it. Foxes and wolfs do not have particularly active tails, nor to Setters for example, to clarify I mean tails that move side to side alot and with force. Setters for example use their tail when hunting but it is locked straight out. Its the side to side wagging that causes the tail to catch

See below
This is a spaniel that suffered from getting its tail caught often. The tail had to be removed at this stage, that is a tricky job under full anaesthetic. The blood on the dog reaf legs is all from the tail, most likely spread from forcefull wagging. I really hate to ses this. THe dog in question worked alotside many other dogs who were fine, this highlights how it affects some breeds and even paticular dogs more.

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

No it couldn't, the "work" is that which they do naturally. And having seen such dogs working, they love it.

Vegeta · 20-02-2008 3:41pm

Just to answer the few people who asked about labs and goldern retrievers.

These dogs do not hunt through thick brambles. They are used mainly as retrieving animals. They walk to heel, sit, fetch and follow hand/whistle signals, all of which they do very very well.

The bigger and stronger their tail the better as it is helpful for swimming.

Spaniels on the other hand benefit from docking for the exact reason posted by Mellor.

peasant · 20-02-2008 3:49pm

out of interest (as I wouldn't know)

What is the injury rate on other body parts with actively hunting spaniels ?

If they are rushing through brambles in such a way to do damage to their tails, surely they must be cut and torn on other parts of their body as well?

Or are they really so stupid as to find a gap for their body where they can squeeze through without injury and then go and bash their tails into the "walls" of that gap?

LuckyStar · 20-02-2008 7:23pm

cowzerp wrote: »

No peasant, you dont know what your talking about

Peasant has a huge knowledge of dogs and a lot of experience too.
Cowzerp, the domestic dog is the most diverse species on the planet. The range in size, shape, and form is not seen in any other. Your argument that "The tail is curved so it must be deformed" is rubbish. Just because you don't seem to like a curved tail does not mean they are deformed. What is your expert opinion on ears? Maybe you only like ears that stand straight up and the rest are deformed? I hope you like my Cavalier King Charles' long floppy ears. I'd have to cut them off her if you didn't!!!

Mellor · 20-02-2008 9:11pm

peasant wrote: »

out of interest (as I wouldn't know)

What is the injury rate on other body parts with actively hunting spaniels ?

If they are rushing through brambles in such a way to do damage to their tails, surely they must be cut and torn on other parts of their body as well?

Or are they really so stupid as to find a gap for their body where they can squeeze through without injury and then go and bash their tails into the "walls" of that gap?

They get injuried over their whole body, legs, hips, noses and oftene cut and scraped. The reason a tail gets hurt more is the fact that it a hip gets cut there is enough mass to function, the tail is quite light and the same cut on the tail could severely damage it. It isn't strong enough to withstand the same damage, just like our extremities.

The other reason is also down to the way their tail moves. Banging off the walls, as you said.
There was a dog in a dogs home that was known for being very friendly, he was always wagging his tail as hard as he could, banging off of things at the same time and hurting the tail. He did it so much that his tail practically fell off.

cowzerp · 20-02-2008 9:27pm

LuckyStar wrote: »

Peasant has a huge knowledge of dogs and a lot of experience too.
Cowzerp, the domestic dog is the most diverse species on the planet. The range in size, shape, and form is not seen in any other. Your argument that "The tail is curved so it must be deformed" is rubbish. Just because you don't seem to like a curved tail does not mean they are deformed. What is your expert opinion on ears? Maybe you only like ears that stand straight up and the rest are deformed? I hope you like my Cavalier King Charles' long floppy ears. I'd have to cut them off her if you didn't!!!

Your tongue looks very brown, i know that dogs are diverse, go patronise someone else.

did you not notice or are all the people on here thick or something that the 3 commonly docked dogs have deformed tails! there not meant to be like that, its not that i dont like curls in the tail, there spines have adjusted to not having tails and this has passed on down the line for generations-these tails are not in proper working condition, in my opinion they give off confusing signals to other dogs, if you dont understand what im saying then tough.

and dont put words in my mouth about your commonly deformed king charles either-with there unnaturally small eyes, but i wont remove the eyes because they still function properly.

peasant · 20-02-2008 9:29pm

Mellor

I can see now why you think that it would be better for those dogs to have their tail docked.

Me on the other hand, I think it would be far healthier for these hyper (and accident prone) types to be nowhere near brambles in the first place

.

Springers (and some other spaniels) are slightly ga-ga IMO anyway ...but then they'd need to be ...no perfectly sane dog would go charging through thick brambles at full whack to chase up the birds ...not twice, anyway

fits · 20-02-2008 9:39pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Your tongue looks very brown, i know that dogs are diverse, go patronise someone else.

did you not notice or are all the people on here thick or something that the 3 commonly docked dogs have deformed tails! there not meant to be like that, its not that i dont like curls in the tail, there spines have adjusted to not having tails and this has passed on down the line for generations-these tails are not in proper working condition, in my opinion they give off confusing signals to other dogs, if you dont understand what im saying then tough.

.

.....

peasant · 20-02-2008 9:42pm

cowzerp wrote: »

did you not notice or are all the people on here thick or something that the 3 commonly docked dogs have deformed tails! there not meant to be like that, its not that i dont like curls in the tail, there spines have adjusted to not having tails and this has passed on down the line for generations-these tails are not in proper working condition, in my opinion they give off confusing signals to other dogs, if you dont understand what im saying then tough.

and dont put words in my mouth about your commonly deformed king charles either-with there unnaturally small eyes, but i wont remove the eyes because they still function properly.

ach, cowzerp ...you're loosing the run of yourself ...

Has it ever occured to you that it is pure coincidence that these three dogs display a curled tail in those pictures and that a second earlier or later the tail would have looked completely different and been in a different place ?

Any X-rays of those "adjusted" spines ?

Oh ...and CKC have laaaarge eyes :cool:

myjugsarehuge · 20-02-2008 9:53pm

Although this thread seems fairly pointless to respond to again, as I will never change the mind of the "docking brigade" I must just say my jack russell X has a curved over tail and she is the daftest dog you could imagine, she growls sometimes at other dogs but I'm sure having a tail to wag or not helps with helps with communication. Imagine us having no hands? Dogs don't communicate with their paws so their tails are the equivalent of our hands.

I also have a pedigree English Springer Spaniel bitch without a docked tail, or if they did dock it they did a crap job as its over 12 inches long. She runs through the roughest undergrowth, brambles and the like up the forestry and she has never hurt herself, got her collar caught once or twice but that is all.

Tail docking is barbaric, whether its done with rubber bands or a vets scalpel. Breeds that have "too much fur" have been bred or rather "manufactured" that way by us humans within the last few thousand years, all dogs were wolves originally with fully functioning tails, we have made these sad fluffy dogs what they are today.

Breeds with such long fur that suffer should be phased out by neutering if they cannot be humanely, hygenically kept with a tail as nature intended. My Springer is professionally clipped every 3-4 months and her fur is short and easy to keep clean. I've seen matted Springers and other breeds but that is due to inattention and neglect by the owners.

giddybootz · 20-02-2008 9:59pm

ok so i have read all the messages in this thread and Cowzerp you actually contradict yourself when you give this link (below) to prove that those dogs have deformed tails.

cowzerp wrote: »

Link to dog body language
http://home.howstuffworks.com/how-to-train-a-dog1.htm

here is an extract from your link "Watch out, though, for a dog whose tail is bristling or is held high and stiff, wagging fast. This dog is agitated and probably aggressive -- and boy, does she mean business.

The position of a dog's tail tells a lot about her, too. A dog with her tail erect is confident and in control."

the dogs in the pictures with the curved tails are not held high and stiff so therefore not aggressive. docking should be banned and so should hunting which would limit the occasions for a dog to injure their tail.

iguana · 20-02-2008 10:23pm

peasant wrote: »

Mellor

I can see now why you think that it would be better for those dogs to have their tail docked.

Me on the other hand, I think it would be far healthier for these hyper (and accident prone) types to be nowhere near brambles in the first place .

Springers (and some other spaniels) are slightly ga-ga IMO anyway ...but then they'd need to be ...no perfectly sane dog would go charging through thick brambles at full whack to chase up the birds ...not twice, anyway

They aren't insane, springers test very highly in dog intelligence tests. Officially they are ranked in the top 11th percentile of dogs, but field and show are ranked together and field are generally more intelligent than show as show are bred for looks. Springers are the number one dog chosen by western fire services as search and rescue dogs due to their incredibly heightened sense of smell (third only to beagles and basset hound) their incredible agility and high intelligence. The Greater London S&R dog is my neighbour.

They are no more hyper than a border collie, in fact springers are part of the original ingredient for border collies. They can just appear insanely hyper as they are often not exercised and mentally stimulated as much as they need to be. Unfortunately many assume that springers are like KCs or cavs because they are stupid people and just hear spaniel and see the floppy ears. So the dogs don't get enough exercise and go a bit nuts.

Once they get enough exercise, and maybe a few puzzle games a couple of times a week. They are a docile happy go lucky dog. They are chosen for game hunting for the same reason as they are chosen for the fire dept. They have an amazing nose and incredible agility. They have been bred to flush and have a soft mouth for not damaging the game they retrieve.

LuckyStar wrote:

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.

You said evolution takes millions of years to make even a tiny change. It doesn't. Evolution happens quite quickly (by quickly I mean 100s - 10s of 1000s of years) when environmental or societal conditions change. My point has nothing to do with tail docking, just pointing out that evolutionary studies do not back up your assertion about how along evolution takes. I'm not a huge fan of docking, if you'd read my first post you'd know that. In fact I think that selective breeding of working spaniels to encourage shorter tails would have negated the need by now for docking. But that wasn't done in the past, though since the kennel club banned dogs docked after April 07 there are many breeders starting to now.

Up until two years ago I would have been as opposed to it as you are, but I have met springers and cockers who have not been docked and needed to have their tails amputated so I would now be of the belief that it should be at least considered if you have a working springer/cocker. In a similar way that as a number of men in both mine and my husband's families needed circumcisions as teenagers I will consider having any sons I may have circumcised as babies. 1 small, little bit painful, operation in order to prevent a possible worse condition and more painful procedure in the future.

peasant · 20-02-2008 10:33pm

iguana wrote: »

They aren't insane, springers test very highly in dog intelligence tests. Officially they are ranked in the top 11th percentile of dogs, but field and show are ranked together and field are generally more intelligent than show as show are bred for looks. .

slightly OT

But most human designed "intelligence" tests for dogs don't test intelligence but bidability and willingness to submit to, comprehend and follow commands.

As I said, charging through brambles at full speed at the bidding of your owner is not a sign of intelligence in my book

...but we're not discussing springers here ...fabulous dogs...just not for me.

iguana · 20-02-2008 10:33pm

giddybootz wrote: »

docking should be banned and so should hunting which would limit the occasions for a dog to injure their tail.

Unless you are vegetarian (and have vegetarian dogs) it's pretty hypocritical to suggest banning game hunting. Hunting for food is no different to buying meat, fowl or fish in a shop. In fact it is probably more ethical as at least the animal you are eating has not been cruelly farmed. It's certainly more honest. I've never been hunting as I can't bear the thought of killing a bird, but I'm perfectly happy to eat birds so I'm in no position to criticise those who do.

iguana · 20-02-2008 10:43pm

peasant wrote: »

But most human designed "intelligence" tests for dogs don't test intelligence but bidability and willingness to submit to, comprehend and follow commands.

No they don't dog intelligence tests test problem solving, eg how do you get the piece of chicken out of the cup. Long-term memory, eg let the dog see you put a piece of chicken/toy in a certain spot then take them away and distract them for 10 minutes, how fast will they go to the chicken/toy when you bring them back in the room. Observation; can they tell the difference between your dog walking coat and your going out without them coat. Cause and effect; can an action from them result in an action from you and how quickly can they figure it out.

Like I said one of my neighbours is a dog handler/trainer for the fire-brigade. Their dogs are rigorously tested for their intelligence as peoples lives depend on them.

Peasant wrote:

As I said, charging through brambles at full speed at the bidding of your owner is not a sign of intelligence in my book

And it isn't at the bidding of their owner. They are hunting at the time. I have seen all sorts of dogs do bloody stupid things while hunting/chasing. I grew up on a busy road and almost every day I saw dogs chase cats/people/other dogs out onto the road and then follow, not giving a crap about oncoming traffic. Dogs don't think when they are chasing. It's like the brain switches to one message; chase. And if they injure themselves while their adrenalin is high they won't feel it at the time, (depending on the severity obviously). Anyone who plays sports will tell you the same.

LuckyStar · 21-02-2008 1:10am

cowzerp wrote: »

Your tongue looks very brown, i know that dogs are diverse, go patronise someone else.

did you not notice or are all the people on here thick or something that the 3 commonly docked dogs have deformed tails! there not meant to be like that, its not that i dont like curls in the tail, there spines have adjusted to not having tails and this has passed on down the line for generations-these tails are not in proper working condition, in my opinion they give off confusing signals to other dogs, if you dont understand what im saying then tough.

and dont put words in my mouth about your commonly deformed king charles either-with there unnaturally small eyes, but i wont remove the eyes because they still function properly.

Where is your evidence to show that these dogs are deformed? Have you any research papers to back this up? Or are we still going on your "expert" opinion?

How have the dogs' spines adjusted to not having tails? Even if a dog's spine adjusted during it's life, unless there was a genetic predisposition to do this then it won't be passed down. Similarly, if you dyed your dog pink, it would not pass down the pink to it's puppies unless it already carried a gene for pink colour. Again, some research papers to show how a dog's spine has adjusted due to tail docking would be great.

PS I didn't realise my dog was deformed, she seems happy enough lying on the floor right now. You still haven't told me if you think her ears are deformed, I'm all ready to cut them off if so. Her eyes are pretty big by the way.

Mellor · 21-02-2008 12:13pm

peasant wrote: »

I can see now why you think that it would be better for those dogs to have their tail docked.

Thanks for listening to my reasoning, I honestly feel its best for those dogs.

Me on the other hand, I think it would be far healthier for these hyper (and accident prone) types to be nowhere near brambles in the first place .

Springers (and some other spaniels) are slightly ga-ga IMO anyway ...but then they'd need to be ...no perfectly sane dog would go charging through thick brambles at full whack to chase up the birds ...not twice, anyway

To be honest, Springers aren't my prefered hunting Dog. Nothing against them, but they tend to charge ahead, very head strong. Nothing to do with intelligence, its just their natural style of hunting. Thinks accounts for there tendency to get hurt, but I know some people prefere springers, and I would never suggest that preventing a springer from being allowed to hunt was a good idea, its their natural choice.
I have a hunting dog, its a setter. My next hunting dog will be a setter too, but I will probably scale down. I prefere the way they hunting, slower. They "set" a bird allow for time.

peasant · 21-02-2008 12:35pm

iguana wrote: »

No they don't dog intelligence tests test problem solving, eg how do you get the piece of chicken out of the cup. Long-term memory, eg let the dog see you put a piece of chicken/toy in a certain spot then take them away and distract them for 10 minutes, how fast will they go to the chicken/toy when you bring them back in the room. Observation; can they tell the difference between your dog walking coat and your going out without them coat. Cause and effect; can an action from them result in an action from you and how quickly can they figure it out.

It is still questionable which is more intelligent, the dog that performs all the tests to perfection, or the one that couldn't be bothered with that nonsense and just gives you the finger

Or a real life example: Which dog is more intelligent ...the border collie that can learn a complicated "heel to music" routine in five minutes flat ...or any other dog who'd rather have a nice snooze instead

And it isn't at the bidding of their owner. They are hunting at the time. I have seen all sorts of dogs do bloody stupid things while hunting/chasing. I grew up on a busy road and almost every day I saw dogs chase cats/people/other dogs out onto the road and then follow, not giving a crap about oncoming traffic. Dogs don't think when they are chasing. It's like the brain switches to one message; chase. And if they injure themselves while their adrenalin is high they won't feel it at the time, (depending on the severity obviously). Anyone who plays sports will tell you the same.

Yes, I know about exited/agitated dogs doing all sorts of stupid things
(like not realising that a road is dangerous) ...but brambles?

We have brambles in our "garden" and all of the dogs have charged in there once at full whack in chase of their favourite ball ...but only once !

Now they stay outside and wait for the big eejit (me) to get their ball out.

All a very long winded way to say:

Maybe charging through brambles, injuring their tail, isn't all that "natural" to dogs as some hunters claim and they needed a specially bred over-eager dog for that and found/created it in the springer?

Morganna · 24-02-2008 7:27pm

I have heard of people threatening to dock terriers tails if they havent been done .I saw one terrier sold at a horse fair with a tail and heard the new owner say he was going to chop the tail off this terrier was a year old .That is down right cruelty and i gave the man a peace of my mind he told me to F... off and mind my own business.So i think they are better done at three days rather than when they are older as the suffering doesnt bear thinking about at an older age.

kerrysgold · 24-02-2008 11:00pm

It's a load of rubbish about dog's that are allowed to keep their tails being deformed, if a person has an arm amputated, are their children born with a deformed arm and have to have it cut off so they'll be ''normal''? I don't think so!

And as for cavaliers having small eyes, that's a new one! they are known for having very large eyes which although quite cute is a bit of a man-made deformity since they are prone to injury/infection.

also, my westie has a long haired tail, it's nearly touching the floor now but she has no problem's with having a dirty backside! a) she very rarely has runny muck anyway and most dog's won't if they have a good diet and b) I brush it regularly.
my other dog (a cavalier x bull breed actually) has a curly tail which he usually keeps on his back, so is he deformed? I don't suppose he is seeing as neither of his breeds are meant to be docked!

javaboy · 26-02-2008 2:45am

cowzerp wrote: »

Boxer

Rottweiler

Dobermann

No peasant, you dont know what your talking about, any dog behaviourist will tell you that a dogs tail sticking up means aggression, my point is that the 3 dogs in these pics that are normally docked have deformed tails that give off false signals.

that pic you showed is nothing to do with them and the tails are all moving about and not just curled up in a deformed way like these 3 dogs.

Link to dog body language
http://home.howstuffworks.com/how-to-train-a-dog1.htm

I have one of the most "deformed" dogs going, a Pug. His tail is almost always up so I guess he's incredibly aggressive. I think I'll keep him away from kids since he's so aggressive :rolleyes::rolleyes: Only a matter of time until he explodes and starts savagely attacking all around him.

Here he is ready to pounce, run for your lives:
attachment.php?attachmentid=51791&stc=1&d=1203993993

attachment.php?attachmentid=51791&stc=1&d=1203993993

My point is you can't make broad sweeping statements about what a raised tail means in all breeds or even in all dogs within a breed. Also you can't judge a dog's mood/temperament based solely on their tail in a still picture.

I'd like to know on what basis you judge their tails to be deformed and how you know they are giving off false signals?

Morganna · 26-02-2008 8:43pm

lOVe the pug hes soooooooooooo cute

kerrysgold · 26-02-2008 9:07pm

he's adorable!

Tail docking- what do you think of it?

Comments