tail docking

BryanL · 10-06-2009 3:21pm

Circumcision? is allowed but not tail docking, why is that?

Ruby Soho · 10-06-2009 3:22pm

Ah now come on! That's hardly the same thing! We're discussing dogs here, not Jewish babies, or horses, or lambs.

RaeRae · 10-06-2009 3:38pm

EastTyrone wrote: »

well, take the english springer spaniel for instance, it is a very hard working dog, it will go into thorn bushes etc to flush pheasants, if it has a full tail, the tail gets caught causing the dog pain, the dog then gets it very badly cut causing more pain. As it is in the field it will get dirt into it causing infection YET more pain, then gang green comes into it and MORE pain, if you get me?

I have a 14 year old springer that I got when I was 6, she was 8 weeks old and her tail had been docked. She is by no means a working dog but she loves running around, getting herself into all sorts of dirty, difficult situations, especially down the country. I don't agree with tail docking in general but I'm thankful she had it done. I love her little stub and it's probably saved her from doing more damage to herself! Most of the other pups in the litter had actually been bought by farmers even though I got her somewhere around tallaght, strange!

I actually rarely see Springers with full tails, and whenever I do it looks so strange to me but I don't have a problem.

reality · 11-06-2009 12:08am

cloudy day, you said your problem was vets taking the moral high ground? i am against tail docking for cosmetic reasons, but i know that most vets and vet nurses would rather that we were allowed to do it than have cowboys with scissors running amok. the fact is the vci has prohibited vets from performing tail docks for cosmetic reasons - most vets are not taking the moral high ground, they are protecting their livelihoods. please see: http://www.veterinaryireland.ie/Links/PDFs/Press%20Releases/2009/Press%20Release%20on%20Tail%20Docking%2027.3.2009.pdf

BryanL - erm, circumcision involves the removal of a tiny piece of skin, tail docking involves the removal of coccygeal vertebrae, which are an extension of the spine.

For everyone who thinks tail docking should be done to prevent tail injuries, can i just mention that in my experience we treat far more cases of leg injuries, so i find that reasoning worrying - at this rate, sausage dog will have a whole new meaning :S

reality · 11-06-2009 12:13am

a little more light on tail docking

http://www.veterinaryireland.ie/Links/PDFs/Policies/Tail%20Docking%20in%20Dogs%20and%20other%20Acts%20of%20Mutilation%20in%20Animals%20%20-%2028.2.08.pdf

Dusty87 · 11-06-2009 12:48am

Whats the deal wit showing dogs. Do the likes of boxers, rottie's, have to have tails docked??

cloudy day · 11-06-2009 10:36am

reality wrote: »

cloudy day, you said your problem was vets taking the moral high ground? i am against tail docking for cosmetic reasons, but i know that most vets and vet nurses would rather that we were allowed to do it than have cowboys with scissors running amok. the fact is the vci has prohibited vets from performing tail docks for cosmetic reasons - most vets are not taking the moral high ground, they are protecting their livelihoods. please see: http://www.veterinaryireland.ie/Links/PDFs/Press%20Releases/2009/Press%20Release%20on%20Tail%20Docking%2027.3.2009.pdf

BryanL - erm, circumcision involves the removal of a tiny piece of skin, tail docking involves the removal of coccygeal vertebrae, which are an extension of the spine.

For everyone who thinks tail docking should be done to prevent tail injuries, can i just mention that in my experience we treat far more cases of leg injuries, so i find that reasoning worrying - at this rate, sausage dog will have a whole new meaning :S

I am well aware of your link to vet ireland having read it some time ago. I am neither pro-active in opinion of for or against banning docking. If it is going to be done it should be done properly by vets, not idiots with scissors at 8 wks of age, that's disgusting and cruel. The vets have allowed a situation whereby if they don't do it the layman can as it is not against the law to dock.

However if it is not against the law I believe people should not be lambasted and attacked by others who have a differing opinion on the matter.

The vci have become very proactive against tail docking and use graphic terms such as "mutalation".

The vets themselves had it banned yet they have no problem mutilating mares with a painful cruel procedure such as a "caslick's" year after year after year. Why are they not pro-active in getting that banned. Is it because the equine breeding system is a very powerful high earning industry where the vet's earn lots of money and would make a lot of enemies if they banned it.

Also what about the vet's who are working for the puppy farmer's and know they are puppy farmer's. Why are they not pro-active about these issues where there is abject cruelty on an ongoing basis.

It seems to be a case of picking and choosing.

Whispered · 11-06-2009 11:07am

cloudy day wrote: »

However if it is not against the law I believe people should not be lambasted and attacked by others who have a differing opinion on the matter.

It's also not against the law to hit your dog. While I'm not saying it's the same thing, clearly it's not, I'm making the point that just because the law does not say it's cruel and unnecessary, does not mean that it is not. If people based their morality on what the law says or neglects to say the country would be a terrible place.

To many people, docking is cruel and inhumane, totally unnecessary and usually done for cosmetic reasons. This is why it gets such a strong reaction. It may seem to you to be a difference of opinion and therefore not appropiate for people to react, but if you saw an act of cruelty, or what you think to be an act of cruelty, wouldn't you react?

andreac · 11-06-2009 11:12am

cloudy day wrote: »

I am well aware of your link to vet ireland having read it some time ago. I am neither pro-active in opinion of for or against banning docking. If it is going to be done it should be done properly by vets, not idiots with scissors at 8 wks of age, that's disgusting and cruel. The vets have allowed a situation whereby if they don't do it the layman can as it is not against the law to dock.

However if it is not against the law I believe people should not be lambasted and attacked by others who have a differing opinion on the matter.

The vci have become very proactive against tail docking and use graphic terms such as "mutalation".

The vets themselves had it banned yet they have no problem mutilating mares with a painful cruel procedure such as a "caslick's" year after year after year. Why are they not pro-active in getting that banned. Is it because the equine breeding system is a very powerful high earning industry where the vet's earn lots of money and would make a lot of enemies if they banned it.

Also what about the vet's who are working for the puppy farmer's and know they are puppy farmer's. Why are they not pro-active about these issues where there is abject cruelty on an ongoing basis.

It seems to be a case of picking and choosing.

A caslicks is done with local anaesthetic injected into the area so it wouldnt be that cruel as they wouldnt be able to feel the procedure being done.

Vegeta · 11-06-2009 11:23am

I think docking for cosmetic reasons is, quite frankly, pathetic. You want the dog to look a certain way so you give it surgery to make you happy. Quite sad really

On the other hand any dog who will receive injury after injury throughout their life may be better served by having it docked.

Docking has a place. Its not for pets.

Before anyone tries to shoot me down I have 2 dogs and neither are docked because they don't beat cover.

If I had a dog which I thought may get injured continuously (Springer or Cocker spaniel for example) then I would get it docked to prevent situations similar to the above pictures.

cloudy day · 11-06-2009 11:24am

Hi Andreac.

Caslick's is done with anaesthetic, but I've seen it still upsets the mare and it's very sore afterwards and sometimes mare's end up foaling without the stitches being taken out ?

Plus it's done year after year after year ! so you see the state they end up in.

andreac · 11-06-2009 11:27am

Yes i understand Cloudy, i work on stud farm and see this being done everyday, but like anything, of course its going to be sore afterwards, but the same can be same for us too, with operations etc, same with neutering, they are in some pain after with that as well.
Yes i have heard of stitches not being taken out of mares before they foal and its not nice, but that is down to bad management.

cloudy day · 11-06-2009 11:33am

andreac wrote: »

Yes i understand Cloudy, i work on stud farm and see this being done everyday, but like anything, of course its going to be sore afterwards, but the same can be same for us too, with operations etc, same with neutering, they are in some pain after with that as well.
Yes i have heard of stitches not being taken out of mares before they foal and its not nice, but that is down to bad management.

Not really the same Andreac.

We need an operation out of necessity. The mare doesn't need a Caslick. the owner does purely to put her in foal for breeding = money. Ok, do it once but time and again?

I see that as an act of cruelty, but it's tolerated. The thing with docking is some see it as cruelty some don't. Traditions take time to change. I'm glad ear cropping was banned.

It's like Puppy farming. The same people who are ranting and shouting about tail docking prob don't come out in such force against the PF, if they did, they would be shut down.

Docking is only done once in a dogs life. Caslick's mutalation is repeated time and again.

andreac · 11-06-2009 11:36am

This can go around and around in circles really, if we are going to start talking about horses then im sure theres other animals that go through the same kind of procedures, its never ending really.

cloudy day · 11-06-2009 12:00pm

andreac wrote: »

This can go around and around in circles really, if we are going to start talking about horses then im sure theres other animals that go through the same kind of procedures, its never ending really.

So true. I'm actually changing my own views on docking. Which is the issue.

kildara · 11-06-2009 12:04pm

Dusty87 wrote: »

Whats the deal wit showing dogs. Do the likes of boxers, rottie's, have to have tails docked??

(This applies to UK only, I don't know the stance in Ireland)
Depending on the breed standard, the dog was always able to be shown with their tails intact - it was just more usual for the dog to be docked.

UK introduced the Tail Docking Legislation in 2007, effectively banning the docking of dogs tails (with an exception for certain working dogs and for medical reasons). Tail docking for these exceptions must be carried out by a vet and the dog must be less than 5 days old.

With regard to showing your dog; if the dog was docked before the date the ban came into force (28 March 2007 in Wales and 6 April 2007 in England) then the dog can be shown anywhere in UK for the rest of its life.
A dog docked after thesee dates cannot be shown at any show in England or Wales where the public are charged entry, regardless of where the dog was docked - this means that any Irish dogs cannot be shown in England or Wales if they were docked after these dates.
Any dog legally docked (regardless of where) can be shown in Northern Ireland and Scotland for the rest of its life.

The introduction of this law in UK will have an effect of Ireland due to being unablet o show your dog at Welsh and English shows (Crufts being the most famous), so Irish breeders wishing to show their dogs will have to leave their dogs with their tails.

maslan007 · 26-06-2009 9:53pm

ples do not dock the puppys tail its not write leave well well alone

:(:eek:

suraheg · 27-06-2009 3:05pm

Anyone who says you should do it when theyre a day or two old is lying! They do feel it. I am a vet nurse, who used to work for a vet who did it (rubber band method) and even though they were a day or two they sqealed.. Its like saying oh a baby a day old wont feel it. I mean of course they probably wont remember it, but its not really the point is it? Its purely for cosmetic reasons, and its ridiculous!

Ruby Soho · 27-06-2009 3:18pm

I don't like the way the Caslicks is constantly used as a comparison here. This procedure is not a cosmetic one, it is usually used to treat the primary cause of pneumovagina which can lead to persistent endometritis, vaginitis and consequent infertility of broodmares.
It is usually performed either using a local anaesthetic or an epidural anaesthetic. I'm sure that in practice, it may be done by some unscrupulous individuals without pain relief, but in general its done properly and not unnecessarily. Sure its not pleasant, but its not the same as tail-docking.

cloudy day · 28-06-2009 9:03pm

Ruby Soho wrote: »

I don't like the way the Caslicks is constantly used as a comparison here. This procedure is not a cosmetic one, it is usually used to treat the primary cause of pneumovagina which can lead to persistent endometritis, vaginitis and consequent infertility of broodmares.
It is usually performed either using a local anaesthetic or an epidural anaesthetic. I'm sure that in practice, it may be done by some unscrupulous individuals without pain relief, but in general its done properly and not unnecessarily. Sure its not pleasant, but its not the same as tail-docking.

The reference to caslicks was made due to vet's not possibly having a "cross the board" attitude with cruelty, mutilation, etc, for whatever reason.

Also we know why caslicks is done, to get mares into foal to make money. Breeding. why not stop breeding from the mare instead of performing a cruel act of mutilation on her, even if it's done with anaesthetic. so it's not pleasant but it's seen as ok as someone is going to make money from it. Funny how peeps have different attitudes from horses to dogs.

katiemaloe · 28-06-2009 9:11pm

I understand that many breeds are traditionally docked and often for either working purposes or showing. But I feel it is a terrible thing to do. Tail wagging and position is a major way for dogs to communicate with each other. It is also so lovely to see a dog wagging his tail happily. The tail is an extension of the spine, surely this must be horrifically painful to be removed and for no reason. Please don't remove thier tails and be proud of your happy healthy beautiful pups.

Ruby Soho · 28-06-2009 9:31pm

I didn't say anywhere that I thought the Caslick's was ok to do. I just think that it doesn't have a place in a argument for or against the docking of pet dogs for aesthetic purposes. Horse breeding in Ireland is a major economic industry, it doesn't bare any relationship to whether or not your pet boxer has a long tail.
I think that medical manipulation of any animal for aesthetic purposes is just wrong, but the Caslick's (whether I agree with it or not) is not, and has never been about the mere appearance of a horse.
This argument can, and has gone around in circles, there are so many comparisons that can be made with many other species who are 'doctored with' for various reasons. I think that the docking of tails is the only one with absolutely no purpose other than outward appearance, and not one argument that is presented here for docking is going to change my mind about it.

cloudy day · 28-06-2009 10:08pm

Ruby Soho wrote: »

I didn't say anywhere that I thought the Caslick's was ok to do. I just think that it doesn't have a place in a argument for or against the docking of pet dogs for aesthetic purposes. Horse breeding in Ireland is a major economic industry, it doesn't bare any relationship to whether or not your pet boxer has a long tail.
I think that medical manipulation of any animal for aesthetic purposes is just wrong, but the Caslick's (whether I agree with it or not) is not, and has never been about the mere appearance of a horse.
This argument can, and has gone around in circles, there are so many comparisons that can be made with many other species who are 'doctored with' for various reasons. I think that the docking of tails is the only one with absolutely no purpose other than outward appearance, and not one argument that is presented here for docking is going to change my mind about it.

As was already said, although i will say it again. The reference to caslicks was made in relation to vets, picking and choosing their standards. Nothing to do with what you or anyone else thinks about docking. About vets having DOUBLE STANDARDS. Horse breeding in Ireland is a major economic industry, EXACTLY the reason the vet's won't be getting it banned, too much money to be made.

I'm sure if you re-read the post it explains that point thoroughly.

No, it's not about caslick's, we know that.

turtle21 · 22-07-2009 12:31pm

Lambing rings are brutally cruel AND illegal for the purpose of docking.

To dock or not to dock is a very hot emotive issue on both sides.I personally do not like it and would not do it (my 2 Rotts look MUCH better with their lovely chubby tails than their 'stumpy' brethren IMO)

I can see the point of it with some working dogs however and do not criticise their owners for wishing to spare them pain.

Note of interest : I heard a while ago that Doberman rescue in the UK was overloaded because breeders couldn't sell their undocked pups so were dumping both youngsters and adult breeding stock.

The sooner the public get used to the "new" look of the customarily docked breeds wagging their full tails the better.
And the sooner the breeders learn to listen to the agonised screams of the infant pups as they are mutilated the better.Just because the tail is so tiny it can be cut with scissors doesn't make it any the less an amputation...A vet doesn't give anaesthesia when he does it so it hurts the pup just the same...

Rachel 999 · 19-08-2009 8:49pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

Again CD you're trying to move the goal posts. Do you have an answer to the question I asked you? Do you have a solid reason as to why a rotty or a doberman should have their tail docked other than to achieve a certain look? I'm not trying to get at you, I'm genuinely curious.

Rotties and Dobes are guarding breeds. With docked tails it is hard to tell the temperment of the dog in his working siuation i.e dog can look more menencing . Had a Dalmation 20 years ago , used to split her tail every time she was near any solid objects.

ghost_ie · 19-08-2009 11:18pm

EastTyrone wrote: »

It is not cruel when it is done when the pup is a day old, it is not cruel when it ios actually saving the dog from unnecessarry pain.

I have three rescue dogs. One is a labrador-collie cross whose tail was not docked. The other two are Jack Russells whos tails have been docked. Can you explain why it was necessary to dock the tails of the Jackies and not that of the Lab cross? What pain is suffered by a Jack Russell with an undocked tail that is not suffered by a Labrador or a Collie?

fatmammycat · 20-08-2009 10:56am

Rachel 999 wrote: »

Rotties and Dobes are guarding breeds. With docked tails it is hard to tell the temperment of the dog in his working siuation i.e dog can look more menencing . Had a Dalmation 20 years ago , used to split her tail every time she was near any solid objects.

So are German Shepherd but we don't slice their tails off.

iguana · 20-08-2009 12:17pm

LovelyTom wrote: »

I can sort of understand why a hard working field or hunting dog may have it's tail removed, but surely not ever springer spaniel or jack russel terrier is going to be used for hunting and has to go through the procedure anyway.

In my opinion dogs are naturally made to hunt so why would nature dictate that they have tails if they're a hindrence?

Nature doesn't dictate anything, dogs are selectively bred not naturally occurring through evolution. Humans have made them exactly what they are today.

I have pet springers, working strain, and they both have partially docked tails. Initially I was quite sad that this was done to them, but having seen first hand the damage they do to themselves I'm extremely relieved about it. Toby took the tip off his tail a year ago, it was a simple injury to treat with dettol and a cotton swab, but if he had not been docked he would have needed an amputation which is a serious, potentially fatal, operation. Dougal has often cut the tip of his tail too, I suspect both of them would have needed their tail operated on if they had never been docked. They might not work, but their instincts still tell them that charging through bramble bushes, along with swimming, is the most fun activity on earth.

They still have quite a lot of their tail, about 1/3 is gone, so they can use their tails for communication. And a lot of people are surprised to learn they are docked.

Toby and Dougal.

There is a really interesting story of a springer who damaged her full tail here: http://springthing.3.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=14861&hl=

I compare it to preventative circumcision. Close male relatives in both my husband's and my families have needed adult/teen circumcision due to extremely tight foreskin causing pain and possible injury. So if I ever have a son I will be asking the doctor to examine him as an infant to see if circumcision is recommended for medical reasons. If it is I'd prefer to circumcise the infant, as a minor procedure in infancy is preferable to a more serious, extremely painful and excruciatingly embarrassing operation as a teenager/young man.

Rachel 999 · 20-08-2009 1:59pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

So are German Shepherd but we don't slice their tails off.

GSD's are also a herding breeding and needed their tail for balance. The dobe was purpose bred for guarding work by Louis Dobermann. The rottie was a drovers dog and used as a draft dog.

Lauragoesmad · 21-08-2009 7:32am

I have always had issues with tail docking due to pain but over the last few years I have been finding other issues with it.
I have petsat and walked many dogs with docked and undocked tails. I find that far more dogs with docked tails are either frightened or aggressive towards other dogs than the undocked ones. I have seen two dogs in particular who get very confused about body language around other dogs. They back off late in play where an undocked dog knows what position to put their tail when they are threatened and are saying "Right thats enough!".
I have seen docked dogs get very frightened of playing dogs as a wagging high tail means nothing to them.
A tail is more than a tool for balancing, it is a means of communication for lots of dogs and taking it away when they are so young, DOES affect their relationships with other dogs.

fatmammycat · 21-08-2009 9:12am

Exactly, dogs communicate with their tails as well as other body launguage signs. There is no need for a 'guard' dog to be docked, unless a person is a complete moron, a large barking dog will be a deterrant tail or no tail. Hunting dogs aside, docking and cropping are done on pets to achieve a certain 'look', it is totally ridiculous to cut up perfectly healthy dogs to make them look a certain way. Anyone with a lick of compassion for an animal would not put them through unnecessary pain and/or discomfort and the sooner people stop demanding dogs be docked or cropped the sooner the 'fashion' will die out. Were I to ever get another doberman I would request an undocked dog from my breeder.

kildara · 22-08-2009 11:45am

Rachel 999 wrote: »

GSD's are also a herding breeding and needed their tail for balance. The dobe was purpose bred for guarding work by Louis Dobermann. The rottie was a drovers dog and used as a draft dog.

The rottweiler was also a herding dog. Why do they get their tails sliced off?

Rachel 999 · 22-08-2009 5:30pm

kildara wrote: »

The rottweiler was also a herding dog. Why do they get their tails sliced off?

The rottweiler was known as the butchers dog in the town of rotweil Germany. The butcher need a strong dog to protect him on the way to market with his cash. Then on returning to his butcher house he needed a strong dog to drive (drover) the cattle in to the slaughter house.

hpsheba · 23-08-2009 1:02am

Lauragoesmad wrote: »

I have always had issues with tail docking due to pain but over the last few years I have been finding other issues with it.
I have petsat and walked many dogs with docked and undocked tails. I find that far more dogs with docked tails are either frightened or aggressive towards other dogs than the undocked ones. I have seen two dogs in particular who get very confused about body language around other dogs. They back off late in play where an undocked dog knows what position to put their tail when they are threatened and are saying "Right thats enough!".
I have seen docked dogs get very frightened of playing dogs as a wagging high tail means nothing to them.
A tail is more than a tool for balancing, it is a means of communication for lots of dogs and taking it away when they are so young, DOES affect their relationships with other dogs.

I work with dogs as well and sometimes I really wonder what is going on with the docked tails???? I don't agree with it at all BUT I can understand why the owners of some working dogs would have opted to have it done or have bought their dog with a docked tail. Having said that, the majority of the dogs I see every day are household pets who aside from their twice daily walk, spend ( thankfully ) most of their day chilling out with the occasional trip to the beach for a swim! Yet most of the Golden Cockers, Yorkies, Springers, some of the Westies and even some of the cross breeds are coming in with docked tails. Yesterday I had a Westie x Pom in and he had a docked tail???? Why????? He was 10 weeks old and bought from a BYB for €150 three weeks ago. I asked the new owner why and she said thats the way he came..........

To get back to the original question here, don't get your dogs tails docked unless medically necessary. Thats my 2 cents anyway.

fatmammycat · 23-08-2009 1:02am

Right, so now, as they are not used as guard dogs by many people why are they still docked?

kildara · 24-08-2009 11:16am

Rachel 999 wrote: »

The rottweiler was known as the butchers dog in the town of rotweil Germany. The butcher need a strong dog to protect him on the way to market with his cash. Then on returning to his butcher house he needed a strong dog to drive (drover) the cattle in to the slaughter house.

Whilst what you have said regarding the Rottweiler (also used for protection droving etc [whats the difference between droving and herding??]) is correct, it remains that the Rottweiler originated as a herding dog – in fact its origins in herding lie further back in history than that of the GSD.
What you seem to be suggesting (and I apologise if I am wrong) is that because the GSD is a herding dog (it has also incidentally, been used as police dogs, guide-dogs, tracking, rescue, agility, obedience etc) it needs its tail for balance, but that because the Rottweiler is used for those other reasons, that it doesn't need its tail.

These two breeds are used for a lot of the same reasons – I actually can’t bring to mind a job one does that the other doesn’t – so again I ask you, why should the Rottweiler be docked and the GSD remain undocked, if not for aesthetic reasons?

justhedog · 24-08-2009 6:07pm

kildara wrote: »

Whilst what you have said regarding the Rottweiler (also used for protection droving etc [whats the difference between droving and herding??]) is correct, it remains that the Rottweiler originated as a herding dog – in fact its origins in herding lie further back in history than that of the GSD.
What you seem to be suggesting (and I apologise if I am wrong) is that because the GSD is a herding dog (it has also incidentally, been used as police dogs, guide-dogs, tracking, rescue, agility, obedience etc) it needs its tail for balance, but that because the Rottweiler is used for those other reasons, that it doesn't need its tail.

These two breeds are used for a lot of the same reasons – I actually can’t bring to mind a job one does that the other doesn’t – so again I ask you, why should the Rottweiler be docked and the GSD remain undocked, if not for aesthetic reasons?

We as a modern generation seemed to be obsest with downing what the older generations have been doing for hundreds of years. Who is to say they are wrong or right, They have been around for a lot longer than some of the people on this board.

Rachel 999 · 24-08-2009 6:15pm

kildara wrote: »

Whilst what you have said regarding the Rottweiler (also used for protection droving etc [whats the difference between droving and herding??]) is correct, it remains that the Rottweiler originated as a herding dog – in fact its origins in herding lie further back in history than that of the GSD.
What you seem to be suggesting (and I apologise if I am wrong) is that because the GSD is a herding dog (it has also incidentally, been used as police dogs, guide-dogs, tracking, rescue, agility, obedience etc) it needs its tail for balance, but that because the Rottweiler is used for those other reasons, that it doesn't need its tail.

These two breeds are used for a lot of the same reasons – I actually can’t bring to mind a job one does that the other doesn’t – so again I ask you, why should the Rottweiler be docked and the GSD remain undocked, if not for aesthetic reasons?

Having worked sucessfully with over 5 herding breeds, dogs that herd work out around the animals away from the handler,whilst droving breeds stay with the handler and prefer to be behind the stock.

kildara · 24-08-2009 10:41pm

justhedog wrote: »

We as a modern generation seemed to be obsest with downing what the older generations have been doing for hundreds of years. Who is to say they are wrong or right, They have been around for a lot longer than some of the people on this board.

Not being smart but I have no idea what you mean.

kildara · 24-08-2009 10:49pm

Rachel 999 wrote: »

Having worked sucessfully with over 5 herding breeds, dogs that herd work out around the animals away from the handler,whilst droving breeds stay with the handler and prefer to be behind the stock.

Okay, I see the difference now.
But (as you said before about the GSD), Rottweilers are also a herding breed and needed their tail for balance. So why do we dock Rottweilers and not GSD?

fatmammycat · 24-08-2009 11:14pm

justhedog wrote: »

We as a modern generation seemed to be obsest with downing what the older generations have been doing for hundreds of years. Who is to say they are wrong or right, They have been around for a lot longer than some of the people on this board.

Oh my god, yeah yeah, hacking the tails off defenceless animals to make them look a certain way is aok becasue it was 'done' in times past. I'm going to go order up some slaves for the house now, I mean that should be aok too. After all, who is to say what's right or wrong, right?
Kildara, want to over to mine for a spot of badger baiting? Afterwards we can drown a witch, drink some mead and party on down safe in the knowledge we're right to do so cause it's been done in the olden days of yore.
Listen here Justthedog, dogs are living sentient creatures that feel pain and fear and injury- and yes even as puppies. Anyone with an OUNCE of savvy could figure butchering them in the name of aesthetics hardly comes under the mantel of animal welfare. Some practices should be stamped out and stamped out hard and it should be done so without someone playing the 'oh but through ignorance we've always done it this way' card.

fatmammycat · 24-08-2009 11:21pm

Rachel 999 wrote: »

Having worked sucessfully with over 5 herding breeds, dogs that herd work out around the animals away from the handler,whilst droving breeds stay with the handler and prefer to be behind the stock.

I grew up with collies and labs, all working dogs. The labradors had tails like bloody clubs and constantly hit things with them, including delicate shins. Collies worked as both herd and drove animals and- guess what- had tails which did not impact their work one way or the other. The reality is it's not a balance issue at all. Dogs are docked these days because people like the look of a certain dog. That certain people want to over look slicing an animal's tail off as a cruelty won't alter the fact that is is cruel and utterly barbaric in this day and age. 'we've always done it' is no excuse.

iguana · 24-08-2009 11:39pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

I grew up with collies and labs, all working dogs.

It's not the fact that they are working dogs, it's the type of work that they do that is the issue. Just as it's unlikely that a call centre worker will probably not die in a mine shaft collapse, a dog herding sheep is unlikely to rip it's tail on brambles that pheasants nest in.

fatmammycat · 25-08-2009 9:38am

iguana wrote: »

It's not the fact that they are working dogs, it's the type of work that they do that is the issue. Just as it's unlikely that a call centre worker will probably not die in a mine shaft collapse, a dog herding sheep is unlikely to rip it's tail on brambles that pheasants nest in.

Not all hunting dogs are docked either, setters are not docked, retrivers and labs are not docked, fox hounds -who willingly go through the thickest of brambles are not docked, nor beagles. I will absolutely accept that certain springers when used as flushing dogs may be prone to hurting their tail now and then, but so what? If you have a dog used primarily for flushing and you feel through repeat injury it needs its tail removed then so be it. But again I'd argue against it. Springers cut their ears and chests going through thick bramble. Labs used for duck hunting often cut their chests while swimming through surface ice. Fox hounds come back in various states after a long hunt. Our collies often got a right bloody kick from the odd cow for nipping too close. Working animals run the risk of injury all the time, but we don't slice and dice at a whim.
Either way full time hunting and flushing dogs are not the main bone of contention with me. My argument is about wide scale docking on pets and animal that wouldn't know a bramble from an oak tree. There is no need for it and it needs to be iradicated.

iguana · 25-08-2009 11:29am

fatmammycat wrote: »

I will absolutely accept that certain springers when used as flushing dogs may be prone to hurting their tail now and then, but so what? If you have a dog used primarily for flushing and you feel through repeat injury it needs its tail removed then so be it. But again I'd argue against it.

When a springer damages it's tail it can be fatal, but nevermind, you'd recommend against it. How about you accept that things are rarely black and white. Imo, docking for aesthetics is disgusting, but if it is to prevent a worse situation that there is a high possibility of happening it is advisable.

fatmammycat · 25-08-2009 11:58am

I would be VERY surprised to hear of a fatality amongst working springers due to a tail injury. Do you have anything to back that?
And are you chosing to ignore me when I say quite clearly that working springers/flushing dogs are NOT the main bone of contention i have with tail docking?

fatmammycat · 25-08-2009 12:11pm

Also there in an excellent downloadable PDF available from Dogtrainingireland.ie that goes into considerable detail as to why docking should be prohibited and this is one piece that might interest you.

99
4.2 ‘Working dog’ breeds and lifestyle
A common argument of the proponents of tail-docking is that the lifestyle of dogs of ‘working breeds’ puts them
at increased danger of tail injury. This is unconvincing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of dogs
of traditionally working breeds are now kept as companion animals or for showing, rather than for work.
According to Defra’s review of the issue, ‘true working animals constitute only a very small portion of dogs
within the UK... It is also both improper and unsubstantiated to suggest that all puppies in any litter, working
or non-working, will suffer tail injury in later life and thus should all be docked soon after birth as a
precautionary measure’.8
There is considerable inconsistency in the arguments put forward for docking certain breeds and not others.
These relate both to the claim of increased risk of tail injury and to the claim that long-haired breeds become
soiled with faeces around the tail area. According to a 2003 review of the issue in the Australian Veterinary
Journal, for almost all breeds that are docked, there is a corresponding breed that traditionally engages in the
same kind of activities but is not docked, which ‘calls into question the veracity of the argument’.4

The review of tail-docking by Defra’s Animal Welfare Veterinary Team in 2002 pointed out a number of
inconsistencies that strongly suggest that the motivation for docking is cosmetic, more one of breed standards
and tradition than of preventing injury or fouling of the dog:8
• Foxhounds and sheepdogs are the most common working dogs that are undocked, yet have an
extremely active life involving moving in woodland and scrub. The Defra review states that
there appears to be no evidence that they suffer damaged tails.
• A number of breeds of spaniels (Cocker, Springer, etc.) and terriers (Jack Russell, Airedale,
West Highland, etc.) and Old English sheepdogs are still docked, but there are anomalies within
each variety. Thus some spaniels -Cavalier King Charles, Irish Water and others - are undocked.
Although many terriers are docked, others - such as Bedlington, Bull, Skye - are not docked.
Many large breeds, similar to the Old English, that were formerly used as guard dogs for sheep
flocks, such as German Shepherd, Pyrenean, and others, are undocked.
• Border terriers, trained to kill foxes and move underground, may be docked or undocked.
• The fox itself is a canine that has no trouble moving above or underground with a full tail. The
Defra review points out that there is no evidence that foxes suffer tail injuries related to their
physical form or behaviour.

You should- if you have time- have a read of the whole PDF, if the majority of vets are against the proceedure, surely it becomes an animal welfare issue when people still carry it out?

ADAlliance · 26-08-2009 12:04am

It has been mentioned that Old English Sheepdogs are docked but it should be noted that they should not have been since April 2007 in England, Wales and Scotland. Border Terriers and West Highland Terriers are not commonly docked breeds but may be being docked illegally. WHWTs and BTs have for some peculiar reason been included in the Animal Welfare Act truly working dog exemption list in Wales and England. However neither breed has been included in the docked breed lists in the past ?20 years.
Docking in itself is inflicting an injury thus causing 100% injury in all the dogs docked in the docked breeds. Most of these dogs if left undocked would not have a tail injury in their life (if in responsible ownership)and any that do are unlikely to have any higher percentage of tail injury than a non-docked breed. Most injuries to dogs are to cruciate ligaments, ears, teeth and other body parts. Dogs kept in confined spaces are more prone to injury. Breeders should have started taking into account the tail length and carriage of their chosen breeding stock when breeding (as they have been doing for the colour, coat, head, mouth, etc. over the past century)
see http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_14.htm

carmelod · 27-08-2009 5:47pm

dogs use their tails to communicate with each other to remove them hinders this. also research has shown that the risk of a dog injuring its tail are very small not enough for it to be used as an excuse to dock it for example in Australia an animal emergency unit surveyed 2000 dog injuries only 3 were tail injuries and all were result of tail docking.
i understand we are used to seeing some breeds with docked tails but the injuries that come from this are horrific in a lot of cases.

westwicklow · 27-08-2009 9:57pm

I maybe way off topic but what's the thinking on farmers clipping and cutting away cow's tails so they have no defence against the attack of biting flies/insects/ticks etc?

tail docking

Comments