# Chopping off tails



## apricot (Sep 25, 2012)

Mutilating dogs' tails has been illegal in Britain for many years, with some unnecessary exceptions, yet I've never heard of a prosecution and there are still lots of young dogs around with chopped-off- short tails.
Doesn't anyone care? It makes me furious and some owners don't even realise their new pup was not born that way.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

apricot said:


> Mutilating dogs' tails has been illegal in Britain for many years, with some unnecessary exceptions, yet I've never heard of a prosecution and there are still lots of young dogs around with chopped-off- short tails.
> Doesn't anyone care? It makes me furious and some owners don't even realise their new pup was not born that way.


It is not illegal per se apart from Scotland.

Which breeds of dogs have you seen with docked tails?


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

It is permitted in England for working dogs to be docked.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

The fact that you have never heard of a prosecution does not of course mean it does not happen.

Here is just one example.

Vet fined for illegally docking Rotts


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

All UK legislation has now been passed and enacted as follows;

The docking of dogs' tails was banned in England from 6 April 2007 and in Wales from 28 March 2007 but with exemptions from the ban for certain working dogs, and for medical treatment. A total ban in Scotland took effect 30 April 2007


The exemption for working dogs allows a dog that is likely to perform certain specified types of work to have its tail docked by a veterinary surgeon. The dog will have to be less than 5 days old and the veterinary surgeon will have to certify that he or she has seen specified evidence that the dog is likely to work in specified areas. Puppies being docked must be microchipped, either at the time of docking or when the vet considers they are old enough. The types of dog that are allowed to be docked and the types of evidence needed, is detailed below. 

Puppies from certain working dogs may be docked if evidence is provided to the vet that it is likely to be worked in connection with law enforcement, activities of Her Majesty&#8217;s Armed Forces, emergency rescue, lawful pest control, or the lawful shooting of animals. It is accepted that in a litter, not all puppies docked will be found suitable for work.

The owner of the dog, or person representing the owner must make a signed statement that, the dam of the puppies to be docked is of a type which can be certified as set out below, the date on which the puppies were born and that it is intended that they will be used, or sold, for one of the working purposes set out in the regulations.

The vet must sign a declaration that the requirements of the regulations have been satisfied i.e. that he has been given the necessary declaration by the owner or person representing the owner and has seen the evidence required.

The vet must have a completed statement, signed and dated by the owner of the dog (or by another person whom the veterinary surgeon to whom it is presented reasonably believes to be representing the owner), made in the form set out in the regulations. The vet must see the dam of the dog and a further piece of evidence such as:

a current shotgun or firearm certificate issued to the owner of the dog, or to the agent or employee of the owner most likely to be using the dog for work in connection with the lawful shooting of animals OR 

a letter from a gamekeeper, a land occupier (or his agent), a person with shooting rights, a shoot organiser, a club official, a person representing the National Working Terrier Federation, or a person engaged in lawful pest control, stating that the breeder of the dog whose tail is to be docked is known to him and that dogs bred by that breeder have been used (as the case may be) on his land, or in his shoot, or for pest control.

Although the procedure is the same, the list of dogs which can be docked are different between England and Wales. There is a total ban on docking in Scotland.

In England the following can be docked: 

1. Hunt point retrieve breeds of any type or combination of types.

2. Spaniels of any type or combination of types.

3. Terriers of any type or combination of types.

In Wales the following can be docked: 

1. Spaniels of the following breeds: English Springer Spaniel, Welsh Springer Spaniel and Cocker Spaniel, but not combinations of breeds

2. Terriers of the following breeds: Jack Russell Terrier, Cairn Terrier, Lakeland Terrier, Norfolk Terrier, but not combinations of breeds

3. Hunt point retrievers of the following breeds:

Braque Italian, Brittany, German Long Haired Pointer, German Short Haired Pointer, German Wire Haired Pointer, Hungarian Vizsla, Hungarian Wire Haired Vizsla, Italian Spinone, Spanish Water Dog, Weimaraner, Korthals Griffon, Slovakian Rough Haired Pointer, Large Munsterlander, Small Munsterlander.

It remains the prerogative of a veterinary surgeon as to whether he chooses to dock a dog&#8217;s tail or not.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogs can still be docked legally? Also people might be importing dogs, you could still get a docked dog from Northern Ireland until this year and still can from Ireland. People and vets have been prosecuted for illegal docking!

Have you reported the dogs?

What breeds of dogs you are aware some breeds produce &#8221;bobtails"?

Unnecessary exception? What would they be? Have you ever witnessed tail damage? Painful for the dog all the time and very hard to heal!


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

apricot said:


> Mutilating dogs' tails has been illegal in Britain for many years, with some unnecessary exceptions, yet I've never heard of a prosecution and there are still lots of young dogs around with chopped-off- short tails.
> Doesn't anyone care? It makes me furious and some owners don't even realise their new pup was not born that way.


you haven't considered the possibility of imports either...

also, there are many valid reasons for docking working breeds (i'll let those who know more about it clarify) and quite frankly the whole 'chopped off' comment is just a bit rude to those with valid reasoning and paperwork to validate their reasoning...

(eta- whoops, cross post with Meezy!)


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

apricot said:


> Mutilating dogs' tails has been illegal in Britain for many years, with some unnecessary exceptions, yet I've never heard of a prosecution and there are still lots of young dogs around with chopped-off- short tails.
> Doesn't anyone care? *It makes me furious and some owners don't even realise their new pup was not born that way*.


Totally agree with the statement I bolded - I'm shocked by how little people research a breed before getting a puppy.

However there have been prosecutions - they just don't hit the headlines, not exciting enough to sell newspapers 

And there are lots of legal reasons someone may have a docked dog - for work, a potential working dog, an imported dog or a dog that was docked for medical reasons.
But I do think it is sad that people still want to dock purely for looks

Saw the most gorgeous pair of Rotties the other day, one docked which I thought was sad as there is no 'working' reason to dock a Rottie but his friend had his full tail and looked so handsome - however i have no idea if the 1st rottie was older, had it's tail removed for medical reasons or was an imported dog. He appeared to be a healthy and well behaved boy with what appeared to be very caring owners.


----------



## Quinzell (Mar 14, 2011)

Bruno has a docked tail. He was imported from America and his tail was docked before my husband even saw him or had a chance to offer an opinion. The attitude towards docking is quite different in some other countries. Old English Sheepdogs are commonly docked in the States, which is where they get their nickname "bobtails".

Personally, I prefer them with big fluffy tails


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

apricot said:


> Mutilating dogs' tails has been illegal in Britain for many years, with some unnecessary exceptions, yet I've never heard of a prosecution and there are still lots of young dogs around with chopped-off- short tails.
> Doesn't anyone care? It makes me furious and some owners don't even realise their new pup was not born that way.


My ffffffffffffffffff fkey fis fcurrentlfy fplafying fup, bfut fevery dfay fthifs fseason, fI'vfe fbeen falfongsidfe fa wforking fbredf sfpaniel wifth af fulflf ftailf, fand fhef falfwfays fblfoodfies hisf ftailf. fHfad fhef fhafd fthe fend fthifrdf removedf, fthifs wofuldfn'tf hafppen. f Af fsplfffffffffffffffffffit fand fblfoodfied ftailf fcan take af fdofg ofut o fthef fpicture for fmonthfs, for allf ftogethefr. f

Lfet fme afsk, fdof yfou spay, fneuter yfou rfdofgs? f f


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My ffffffffffffffffff key is currently playing up, but every day this season, I've been alongside a working bred spaniel with a full tail, and he always bloodies his tail. Had he had the end third removed, this wouldn't happen. A split and bloodied tail can take a dog out of the picture for months, or all together.
> 
> Let me ask, do you spay, neuter your dogs?


fixed it for you SL


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

kodakkuki said:


> fixed it for you SL


Tfa fhefn, fgot fbored fo fremoving fextroneous fffffffffffffffffffffff'fs for fnowf!!f


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Not sure that I'm happy by the use of the terms 'Mutilated' and 'Chopped off either, My springers have always had the last few inches of their tails DOCKED, By a Vet and at a very early age, as Sleeping Lion has said, a Spaniel working cover can do a lot of damage to his tail. I have this done, not to mutilate my dog, but to try and ensure he can do what he loves to do without incurring injury to the tail. It certainly doesn't affect his life in any way, he's a happy and energetic dog as anyone who's looked at his picture will see.,


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

You see I feel the same way about people who MUTILATE themselves by body piercings, tattoos etc.............................................


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

The other thing that pee's me off eternally about working dogs, is that by removing a portion of their tail they are suddenly unable to communicate with other dogs?? WTF??


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

The loss of a few inches from Skyes' tail certainly hasn't impeded his communication skills, he's still more than able to demonstrate his joy of life with his constant tail wagging.


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My ffffffffffffffffff fkey fis fcurrentlfy fplafying fup, bfut fevery dfay fthifs fseason, fI'vfe fbeen falfongsidfe fa wforking fbredf sfpaniel wifth af fulflf ftailf, fand fhef falfwfays fblfoodfies hisf ftailf. fHfad fhef fhafd fthe fend fthifrdf removedf, fthifs wofuldfn'tf hafppen. f Af fsplfffffffffffffffffffit fand fblfoodfied ftailf fcan take af fdofg ofut o fthef fpicture for fmonthfs, for allf ftogethefr. f
> 
> Lfet fme afsk, fdof yfou spay, fneuter yfou rfdofgs? f f


BAHAHAHA oh you and that f key :biggrin:

Max has his tailed docked, not my choice, it was done before we adopted him. He has no problem communicating with other dogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

RockRomantic said:


> BAHAHAHA oh you and that f key :biggrin:
> 
> Max has his tailed docked, not my choice, it was done before we adopted him. He has no problem communicating with other dogs.


That f key will be the death of me!!

That said, it's good to see the positive replies. Out of all the dogs working on the shoot I've been going on, only one has a full tail, spaniel that is, and he has had a bloodied tail every time. My retrievers do not suffer the same type of injury as their tails are more fully covered. The other retrievers have shortened tails and are all fine. And, let me add, they all LOVE their day out working.

So, chopping off their tail, a weeny bit sensationalist, as it's only part of the tail, and if you saw a dog work, you wouldn't doubt they enjoy it.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Why do people start these thread and then bog off? Can't be that furious about it!!!


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Why do people start these thread and then bog off? Can't be that furious about it!!!


Maybe so furious they've passed out in front of their PC?! 

OH's two family cockers were docked when they got them and one of them has the waggiest tail I've ever seen, it's frenzied! Daisy's tail is full as we are in Scotland and I love it the way it is, but if docking a working dog's tail prevents numerous painful injuries over the course of their lives, it seems a necessary evil in those cases.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> You see I feel the same way about people who MUTILATE themselves by body piercings, tattoos etc.............................................


Ah but you can argue that it is our choice to mutilate ourselves that way while our dogs don't get a choice 

Tail injuries are a BITCH to heal and I know several dogs who have had to have theirs docked in later life due to injury when it's a much bigger ordeal than it is as a tiny pup. I'm on the fence with docking tbh, I can see how it helps prevent injury with some breeds when working but others I can't see the point of at all, it's purely cosmetic and I don't agree with that.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2014)

Not gonna lie... on many an occasion I have wished danes were a docked breed. They mutilate ME with their tails! 

Of all the things we do to dogs in general, docking isnt something I get all hopping mad about. Or even cropping for that matter.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Not gonna lie... on many an occasion I have wished danes were a docked breed. They mutilate ME with their tails!
> 
> Of all the things we do to dogs in general, docking isnt something I get all hopping mad about. Or even cropping for that matter.


I have met several danes with docked tails for that reason. 

I only believe in docking for working dogs for a look? nope.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2014)

SpringerHusky said:


> I have met several danes with docked tails for that reason.
> 
> I only believe in docking for working dogs for a look? nope.


Docking danes for the damage they do to humans? Are you sure?

The only reason Ive ever seen a dane docked is for happy tail and other tail injuries.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

I think people often go off half cocked (or should that be half docked) and throw in a hand grenade to see what happens. 

The effect is somewhat marred when you do not really know what you are talking about however..............


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> I think people often go off half cocked (or should that be half docked) and throw in a hand grenade to see what happens.
> 
> The effect is somewhat marred when you do not really know what you are talking about however..............


That's true and as a development of that point we don't actually know a huge amount about how puppies experience pain. Puppies at the age that they are docked have ascending myelination but not descending. This could very well mean that they have the full ability to feel pain but not regulate it fully. So it may actually cause them more pain then if it were done at an older age. Similar to how it used to be believed that babies under 6 months of age couldn't feel pain and now we know they are actually more susceptible to it.

I'm on my tablet on my way to uni for the day but if anyone wants to read more let me know and i'll do my best to post some abstracts when I can.


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

So how are puppies docked? Is it without anaesthetic is that true?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

EmCHammer said:


> So how are puppies docked? Is it without anaesthetic is that true?


Depends on the vet, some do use anaesthetic, but there are very few vets who will perform the procedure these days as they feel *threatened* by a percentage of the public. It has to be done when they're a few days old, and the end third with spaniels (approx) is chopped off and the wound cauterised. The problem is, because it's so hard to find a vet who will do the procedure now, people are having to travel quite a distance with the bitch and pups, so more risky for the litter.


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

See that's the bit I don't agree with call me wrong or ignorant but lopping bits of anything without an anaesthetic just seems wrong to me. I don't agree withdocking esp for cosmetic purposes but listen to what the working dog people say... But surely an anaesthetic should be used ?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Having seen a litter of freshly docked pups, it's not something they seem particularly bothered about. The *argument* is that the nervous system isn't well developed at a few days of age, and that although it will hurt during the actual docking bit, once cauterised, they just forget it and get back to their priorities in life, feeding, sleeping and pooping. There are other procedures carried out on animals that aren't picked up on in the same way, such as removing lambs tails by banding. If it were my choice I'm not sure if I'd insist on anaesthetic for the pups, but if I were ever to own a spaniel, having watched them work, and seen the damage to a full tail, I would only have a pup that had been docked.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

L/C said:


> That's true and as a development of that point we don't actually know a huge amount about how puppies experience pain. Puppies at the age that they are docked have ascending myelination but not descending. This could very well mean that they have the full ability to feel pain but not regulate it fully. So it may actually cause them more pain then if it were done at an older age. Similar to how it used to be believed that babies under 6 months of age couldn't feel pain and now we know they are actually more susceptible to it.
> 
> I'm on my tablet on my way to uni for the day but if anyone wants to read more let me know and i'll do my best to post some abstracts when I can.


Yes there are a lot of studies out there on do puppies feel pain etc etc but that is not what this thread was discussing, the specific subject (or rather rant) was about the (erroneous) claim that docking was illegal in the entire UK and that the OP had not known of any prosecutions.

We pointed out

a) the actual law
b) an example of a prosecution

By posting the FACTS (rather than our own personal opinions on the actual practise) we answered those queries.

Of course, human nature demands that we put a qualitative comment on the subject (and you may wish to put a quantativie one on) on related issues. 

I am neither violently pro nor anti docking per se (for working purposes) but I am re the operation for purely cosmetic purposes.

I try not to get too emotive about such subjects as IME, there are pros and cons to it (as in most things in life)


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Having seen a litter of freshly docked pups, it's not something they seem particularly bothered about. The *argument* is that the nervous system isn't well developed at a few days of age, and that although it will hurt during the actual docking bit, once cauterised, they just forget it and get back to their priorities in life, feeding, sleeping and pooping. There are other procedures carried out on animals that aren't picked up on in the same way, such as removing lambs tails by banding. If it were my choice I'm not sure if I'd insist on anaesthetic for the pups, but if I were ever to own a spaniel, having watched them work, and seen the damage to a full tail, I would only have a pup that had been docked.


I'm going to quote my own post in reply. The science and our understanding of the nervous system actually suggests that ate likely to feel more pain. You often see young animals suckle or sleep as soon as they are able after a painful procedure and this is used as evidence that they aren't in pain. It's actually more likely that they are they are using these as displacement behaviours in an attempt to divert the pain. There are plenty of studies across various species to show that it happens.



L/C said:


> That's true and as a development of that point we don't actually know a huge amount about how puppies experience pain. Puppies at the age that they are docked have ascending myelination but not descending. This could very well mean that they have the full ability to feel pain but not regulate it fully. So it may actually cause them more pain then if it were done at an older age. Similar to how it used to be believed that babies under 6 months of age couldn't feel pain and now we know they are actually more susceptible to it.
> 
> I'm on my tablet on my way to uni for the day but if anyone wants to read more let me know and i'll do my best to post some abstracts when I can.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> Yes there are a lot of studies out there on do puppies feel pain etc etc but that is not what this thread was discussing, the specific subject (or rather rant) was about the (erroneous) claim that docking was illegal in the entire UK and that the OP had not known of any prosecutions.
> 
> We pointed out
> 
> ...


Ah but threads often divert off and it would be dull if we all stuck religiously to the topic. 

I have no objection to the practice of docking but I think it's important to have accurate information and modify practices as necessary. If that means doing it under sedation or local anesthesia then it's something we should consider.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

L/C said:


> I'm going to quote my own post in reply. The science and our understanding of the nervous system actually suggests that ate likely to feel more pain. You often see young animals suckle or sleep as soon as they are able after a painful procedure and this is used as evidence that they aren't in pain. It's actually more likely that they are they are using these as displacement behaviours in an attempt to divert the pain. There are plenty of studies across various species to show that it happens.


You know what, that's really just a *guess* as much as it's *thought* that their nervous system isn't far enough developed to allow for much to be felt at three days old, which is when it's done usually. If you pick up a pup and take it away from it's mum, the first thing it does when it gets back in there is have a look for a teat and then fall asleep. Neither you or I would know if that pup having had the end of its tail snipped off gives a chuff about what it felt a few seconds ago. But the point is, further down the line, that one snip means they will be able to work without as great a risk of injury, or even in some cases, just *live* as not all injuries are to dogs that are worked, many are simply to pets who've incurred an injury in the same way as that's what they were bred to do, and they love diving through deep cover.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

So I have a breed that has been historical docked, docking I guess is still a touchy subject, I could still get a legally docked Rottweiler if I wanted but wouldn't I now much prefer them witj tails, Cian is my first one with a tail! I'd much rather a working dog had their tail docked young (I'd prefer it done with a local ) than risk them damaging their tail that's not just while out working that's if they are kenneled too, Tis not pleasant to treat how do you stop an adult dog wagging it tail


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

Amber (Golden Retriever) has had her tail amputated. We did not take this decision lightly, but amputating it was better than having a big lump on it that wasn't healing. Its now completely healed and she has no issues communicating with other dogs. She still has enough of a tail to wag but she can show other signs in her body language that she's friendly.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Who has actually seen puppies docked. I have and I was surprised that they squeaked when picked up, as puppies do, but did not squeak any harder when the tail was removed and settled as soon as they were put back with their mother.

When lambs are rubber ringed they will often hurl themselves around for a few minutes till they lose the sensation. some breeders rubber ring puppies and it used to be legal.


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

Still don't like the idea of any animals having bits removed without anaesthetic. Just because we don't know it hurts or not should we err on the side of caution or just do it without anaesthetic until proven otherwise? 

Just my opinion


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I'm not against docking, in fact i'm pro docking, but i'd rather it be done with anaesthetic too.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You know what, that's really just a *guess* as much as it's *thought* that their nervous system isn't far enough developed to allow for much to be felt at three days old, which is when it's done usually. If you pick up a pup and take it away from it's mum, the first thing it does when it gets back in there is have a look for a teat and then fall asleep. Neither you or I would know if that pup having had the end of its tail snipped off gives a chuff about what it felt a few seconds ago. But the point is, further down the line, that one snip means they will be able to work without as great a risk of injury, or even in some cases, just *live* as not all injuries are to dogs that are worked, many are simply to pets who've incurred an injury in the same way as that's what they were bred to do, and they love diving through deep cover.


It isn't a guess - it's building on the current science and cross species studies. Mammalian nervous systems and basic neurobiology is very similar. So extrapolating from one to another is perfectly valid.

As I said in my previous post I am not against docking for working reasons - I have a dog who suffers from happy tail and I'm well aware of how bad it can. Evaluating current procedures and changing them based on new information is not a bad thing. If applying pain relief or anaesthesia negates pain and improves welfare why wouldn't you?


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

i understand why some working breeds are better off with a docked tail, i've even seen the damage spaniels can do to a full tail. I have a breed that can be docked and if i'm honest i can't see why. Dans fur is so wiry and thick, even on his tail so i don't know why anyone would bother docking them (other than the super strong wags lol) but they are often docked. We almost went to the breeder that owns Dans dad as she had a litter a month older than Dan but i don't like docked spinones so chose to visit Dans lovely breeder.

I'm on a spinone page on fb and i get a lot of comments about how lovely Dan looks with a full tail, the majority of them are docked (this is a worldwide page) and i've even had a few people around the world say they want their next spins to have full tails 

Dan with his lovely tail



I don't feel docking is mutilation if it has a purpose, but purely for looks i don't agree with


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

L/C said:


> I'm going to quote my own post in reply. The science and our understanding of the nervous system actually suggests that ate likely to feel more pain. You often see young animals suckle or sleep as soon as they are able after a painful procedure and this is used as evidence that they aren't in pain. It's actually more likely that they are they are using these as displacement behaviours in an attempt to divert the pain. There are plenty of studies across various species to show that it happens.





L/C said:


> It isn't a guess - it's building on the current science and cross species studies. Mammalian nervous systems and basic neurobiology is very similar. So extrapolating from one to another is perfectly valid.
> 
> As I said in my previous post I am not against docking for working reasons - I have a dog who suffers from happy tail and I'm well aware of how bad it can. Evaluating current procedures and changing them based on new information is not a bad thing. If applying pain relief or anaesthesia negates pain and improves welfare why wouldn't you?


But you clearly state, that science *suggests* that they feel pain, not confirms, so it's an educated guess. That's like saying a product is up to 99% effective, it could just be 1% effective but it has still been correctly described.


----------



## mummyschnauzer (Sep 30, 2008)

*I think the docking of tails and the cropping of ears, for cosmetic purposes SHOULD BE BANNED.. *

I have never owned a working breed and to argue the rights and wrongs of this I will leave to you guys who have Hunting/working breeds.

In my opinion, in relation to hunting and working breeds, if the tail is left natural, more injuries can occur, and having the tail amputated as an adult dog, if far more painful, than having it done whilst a puppy.

At the correct age of 3 days old, and so long as the procedure is undertaken by a Vet, then I wouldnt have a problem with docking, in working/hunting breeds.


----------



## MariaB (Aug 28, 2013)

I have to say, I love Jacques tail. Its completely autonomous, so much so that he often mistakes it for an alien!!. Its does though, appear to be attached to his emotions, an expression of his happiness, his guilt and his curiosity. 

Here in France people often ask me why he wasn't docked and I answer, 'why would I take away any part of him unless it was absolutely necessary?'


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

mummyschnauzer said:


> *I think the docking of tails and the cropping of ears, for cosmetic purposes SHOULD BE BANNED.. *
> 
> .


It is banned in the UK. Cropping of ears has been for decades and docking for a few years.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

mummyschnauzer said:


> *I think the docking of tails and the cropping of ears, for cosmetic purposes SHOULD BE BANNED.. *
> 
> .


It is banned for cosmetic purposes and ear cropping has been banned for over a century ago? You can't even show a cropped breed?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Cropping ears has been banned for about a century or at least unofficially and docking for cosmetic reasons for a few years now. I can understand the need in working gundogs and terriers though and I think the issues with communication only come in with the really short show docks not the working ones. 

It's better than having them constantly injuring their tail as a dalmatian we knew did, he ended up having to be docked because he whacked it off things so hard it got badly damaged. Looked very odd but it was the kindest thing to do.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Docking danes for the damage they do to humans? Are you sure?
> 
> The only reason Ive ever seen a dane docked is for happy tail and other tail injuries.


That's what I was told by the people i've met, basically told it's to stop them also getting happy tail because they apparently break them on things or because their tails can cause damage so easier to dock 'em before they become a problem :bored: :mad2:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Cropping ears has been banned for about a century or at least unofficially and docking for cosmetic reasons for a few years now. I can understand the need in working gundogs and terriers though and I think the issues with communication only come in with the really short show docks not the working ones.
> 
> It's better than having them constantly injuring their tail as a dalmatian we knew did, he ended up having to be docked because he whacked it off things so hard it got badly damaged. Looked very odd but it was the kindest thing to do.


No idea where people think this lack of communication comes from? Might be harder for people to read but other dogs have no issues reading docked breeds. Also what is a show dock?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Meezey said:


> No idea where people think this lack of communication comes from? Might be harder for people to read but other dogs have no issues reading docked breeds. Also what is a show dock?


Efxcuse tfhef fextra fffffffff'fs, but fi yfou flfook fat fa fshow fspaniel fthfat'sf fbeen fdofckedf, fin fcomparison fto fa wofrking fdfock, thef fshofw fdofck fis jfust fa fstump.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Meezey said:


> No idea where people think this lack of communication comes from? Might be harder for people to read but other dogs have no issues reading docked breeds. Also what is a show dock?


Spaniels just docked for looks the show ring are docked much shorter than the working ones are.










Compared to only the tip taken off dogs docked for working


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But you clearly state, that science *suggests* that they feel pain, not confirms, so it's an educated guess. That's like saying a product is up to 99% effective, it could just be 1% effective but it has still been correctly described.


There is a massive difference between a scientific hypothesis that needs more testing and an advertising slogan. While we might not be able to say something for definite we can certainly say what _the data we have points towards_.

And again if the data suggests it and by following it we improve welfare then what is the harm?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Shorter but still not the boxer, Rott, Dobe stumps or Corgi nub.


----------



## BarkMark (Jan 14, 2014)

apricot said:


> Mutilating dogs' tails has been illegal in Britain for many years, with some unnecessary exceptions, yet I've never heard of a prosecution and there are still lots of young dogs around with chopped-off- short tails.
> Doesn't anyone care? It makes me furious and some owners don't even realise their new pup was not born that way.


I have a boston terrier and they have a short tail that kinda looks like it's been chopped off. I always get this sinking feeling when somebody asks me if we have chopped it off. Chopping off tails is a practice that makes me truly angry so it's always a challenge not to take the question personally.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

L/C said:


> There is a massive difference between a scientific hypothesis that needs more testing and an advertising slogan. While we might not be able to say something for definite we can certainly say what _the data we have points towards_.
> 
> And again if the data suggests it and by following it we improve welfare then what is the harm?


Efxcuse fthe fextra fffffff'fs, fbut wherfe is fany fevidfence for fyour fscientific fhfypothfesis? Tfhefre'fs fabsolfutelfy fnothifng fthfat yfou'fve pfosted fthfat fis scientific, it'sf fjfust fa f*suggestion*. Tfhefre fhafs fonlfy fbeen ofne fperson ofn tfhisf fthfread fso far fthaft fhfas seen fa fliftter fdofckedf first fhfandf, and fthfeir fview fis fthfat fthef pfups dfidnf'tf feven fnotice. f

Afnd of fcourse improving fweflfare fis fa pfriority, whifch fis fwhfy my fpreference is to fsee wofrking spanielfs, fand some ofthefr fbreedfs dfockedf, to fensure fthfey fdofn'tf fsuffer injfuries flfater ifn flfie.


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Efxcuse fthe fextra fffffff'fs, fbut wherfe is fany fevidfence for fyour fscientific fhfypothfesis? Tfhefre'fs fabsolfutelfy fnothifng fthfat yfou'fve pfosted fthfat fis scientific, it'sf fjfust fa f*suggestion*. Tfhefre fhafs fonlfy fbeen ofne fperson ofn tfhisf fthfread fso far fthaft fhfas seen fa fliftter fdofckedf first fhfandf, and fthfeir fview fis fthfat fthef pfups dfidnf'tf feven fnotice. f
> 
> Afnd of fcourse improving fweflfare fis fa pfriority, whifch fis fwhfy my fpreference is to fsee wofrking spanielfs, fand some ofthefr fbreedfs dfockedf, to fensure fthfey fdofn'tf fsuffer injfuries flfater ifn flfie.


I think it might be from this:
Behavioural observations of puppies undergoing tail docking



> Although it is difficult to objectively quantify the stress experienced by puppies undergoing tail docking, observations recorded during this study suggest that the animals do experience pain. The pain appears to be short-lived (with all puppies quiescent by a maximum of 15 min). Further research into the issue of pain in pups undergoing tail docking is recommended to determine whether the procedure should continue.


ETA - This isn't me being 'anti-docking' just thought you'd want to know what the study was. I think it must be this one I don't know of any others. I haven't looked at it much myself just a breeze over the abstract. I agree with docking for working reasons or if significant injury is being caused to the dog, just not for cosmetic reasons. I do think anaesthesia should be used though if there is any question about pain and welfare.


----------



## apricot (Sep 25, 2012)

I'm the op
So it's still legal to chop the tails off working dogs, which must comprise a vanishingly tiny proportion of the dogs in the UK. I see only pet dogs and many have been mutilated for no reason at all.
I was a vet nurse for many years and no anaesthetic was ever used.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Docking is done at a couple of days old, even if the litter has been bred to go to working homes some will end up in pet homes or being not suitable to work but the whole litter will be docked because they were intended as working dogs.

I don't agree with docking just for the look and cropping is even worse I can't imagine having to tape a dog's ears up for potentially months at a time. But docking working gundogs and terriers is better.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Ah, I love how this subject comes up time and time again, the topic that just keeps on giving!!

This picture was originally posted by fffSleeping fffLion:









It is a sight well known to me as I have two full tailed springers. One is forever injuring his tail, always the tip. Would I prefer him to have experienced 15 minutes max of pain rather than frequent pain as an adult, just because he likes to do what springers do? Yes, of course I do. Eventually, I might need to beg the vet to dock him. My working bred springer has never had a tail injury: he has the two thirds of his tail left, legally docked as a working bred dog and years before the ban (he's nearly 11)

For all the chat about it's proven they feel pain etc, I'd like to see some peer assessed studies before I fully agree, not just someone reckons it's like this, so it probably is.

Ooh, shall we knock on the door of religion again and get started about circumcision again?! Where is she.....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

apricot said:


> I'm the op
> So it's still legal to chop the tails off working dogs, which must comprise a vanishingly tiny proportion of the dogs in the UK. I see only pet dogs and many have been mutilated for no reason at all.
> I was a vet nurse for many years and no anaesthetic was ever used.


No it's not illegal to dock working dogs? How do you know they haven't come from a working kennel or been imported? Again it's only just been banned in NI and isn't banned in Ireland.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Working docked dog:









Full tail:









Just for comparison (also, they're very gorgeous! )


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

I'm just wondering, because it bothers me, people say their working dogs bloody their tails... how do you mean? How is it a working dog injures its tail, and how does having a tail impact on being a working dog?

I mean, there's countless dogs with full tails that live a full life without injury to it (though accidents can and do happen) - but if a collie can round up sheep, a lab be a guide dog, and an Alsatian a police dog without the need for lopping off the last third of its tail, why do hunting dogs need it doing?

My personal view - which i'm allowed so please don't shoot me! - is that its a barbaric and outdated practice started for fashion and kept on by groups under the guise of 'because its a working dog' - but i'm willing to accept that there are medical reasons to remove part of a dogs tail, but I can't see why it has to be done in advance of an injury that might never happen.

I mean, wild animals get along just fine with a tail (it evolved for a reason), including other canids, so what is it that's different about dogs (ok, wagging... but house dogs do that too...) and what's different with the working dogs - do they wag more? When they go out do their tails inexplicably end up tangled in things that a non-walking dog that's out does not?

I'm asking because I want to know the reasoning, - please enlighten me!

I must add my brother (whom I must really disown.. lol) goes out shooting things and has both his cockers docked - the mother had most hers removed, her pup that they took only the last third - and I just look at them and think what a shame. My mum has a full tailed yorkie, which when I grew up I'd never seen before (amongst dozens of other dog breeds needlessly docked) and I just love his little tail because it is so expressive. 

A tail is a big part of what a dog uses to communicate, and how do we know - for certain - that being tailless is not in some way impeding their ability to communicate? I've seen plenty of older dogs docked so extremely they have no tail - how can that not affect them when communicating e.g. dominance?

Again, more questions I have.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

A guide dog doesn't go into thick bushes as part of its job, neither do most police dogs. Collies tend not to either, spaniels do they're bred to go into cover and flush out the birds. Hprs can do the same.

They only cut off the tip of the tail they can still use it to communicate and if dogs can learn to read tails as varied as a akita and a bulldog to something like a lab or a gsd then they can learn to read these tails.

There is no need to dock yorkies I doubt many are going down into mines these days.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Efxcuse fthef fextra fffffffffffff'fs, fmy fkeyboard ifs pflafying ufp. 

If you'fve fever fseen fa fspaniel fwofrk, you'flfl fundferstandf whfy, fwifth fa fulfl ftailf, thfey fare pfrone ft finjfuring thfe end fthifrd fo fthfeir ftailf. Tfhfey fare fbred fto wofrk fthifck cover, to flfush fbirdfs andf fgame, ftowfardfs wfaiting fguns. You'fd falfso fsee fhofw fmuchf fthfey fenjfoy fthfeir wofrk, on fthef smalfl fshofot fI fgo fon, thfere are fat lfeast seven fspanielsf, a fmixture fo cockers fand springers, thfere fis fone springer fbitch fwitfh fa fulfl ftailf, and shef fregulfarlfy fshfredfs fthef fend fo fit. 

I flfove training my fdofgs, fand fI flfove fwofrking fthfem, alfthfough fI fdofn'tf ownf fspanielsf, I feel very strong belife fthfat fthfey shfould fbe fablfe fto fdof fwhfat fthfey fwefre fbredf fto fdof. Afndf fthef jfoy fo fhfaving fa fwofrking fpartnershifp fwifth yfour fdofg fis not feasilfy fdfescribed, but fit's incredfiblfy fspecialf. 

Tfhfanks for fthe flifnk fTfashfaMarie, the fabstract fstilfl is fonlfy *suggesting* a flifnk fto pain fbasedf fon pups fsqueaking, fand from fmy fexperience fwitfh jfust fthfe ofne fliftter, ffjfust fpicking fa pufp fup fis fenough ft fmake fit screechf, fvery, fvery flfoudflfy. Sfo it'fs fan fincredifblfy ftenuous lfink, fand to fme hfas fno freal valfue at falflf.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Working docked dog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are both gorgeous - but I'd much rather see the undocked dog than the docked dog.

It never ceases to amaze me at the excuses people come up with to justify their mutilation of their animals:

"we don't kniow if docked pups feel pain or not so it's ok to dock their tails" - no, it merely fits in with your argument to pretend they dont.

"vets no longer want to dock because they feel threatened by a minority" - no, they no longer want to dock because the vet profession recognises it's barbaric and unnecessary.

"my working dog may damage its tail if it's not docked" - yeah, well it may not either so why not wait until it does - if it ever does - instead of putting it through unnecesary surgery? If I proposed to chop off all the legs from my puppy because he just may be hit by a car and damage his leg, you'd think I was loco. So why dock just in case a tail may get injured?

"My working dog needs a docked tail so it can do the work I want it to do" - so breed for bobtails instead of continuing to breed something that is unfit for purpose and then mutilating it.

Docking is unnecessary; it is cruel; and it should be banned totally.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Phoenix24 said:


> I'm just wondering, because it bothers me, people say their working dogs bloody their tails... how do you mean? How is it a working dog injures its tail, and how does having a tail impact on being a working dog?
> 
> I mean, there's countless dogs with full tails that live a full life without injury to it (though accidents can and do happen) - but if a collie can round up sheep, a lab be a guide dog, and an Alsatian a police dog without the need for lopping off the last third of its tail, why do hunting dogs need it doing?
> 
> ...


Hope that answers some of your questions. Unless you have seen dogs working in these environments it is natural that you would not understand the need to dock.


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

Still don't understand why if it's not known 100 % if pups feel pain why we well not me are happy to make the norm NOT using anaesthetic ? Until we are 100% why can't we use anaesthetic? Why are people not asking for this ?

If the OP is a vet nurse what is their opinion on whether it causes pups distress


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

EmCHammer said:


> Still don't understand why if it's not known 100 % if pups feel pain why we well not me are happy to make the norm NOT using anaesthetic ? Until we are 100% why can't we use anaesthetic? Why are people not asking for this ?


*If* thfey fwefre fmy fpups, thfen fI fwofuld probablfy afsk for fanaestheftic, because fI fjfust fwoufldfn'ft flfike fthfe fthfoughft thfat fthef fpups *might* feelf fsomethifng. Bfut fthef fsimplef fact fis fthfat fwfe fsubjfect young pfups fto injfections fand fmicrochifpping, fwfhifch fis pfrobablfy fjfust afs pfainulf, fi not fmore fso, and carries far fmore frisks, fbut fwef fwefighft ufp whfat fwef feel fis fbest for thfem fto fensure fthfey fhafve fa hefalfthfy flife. Afnd yfet make fthef fdfecision fto fensure a fyoungster fcan fenjfoy fa wofrking flife, by fshofrtening fthef ftail, and fyou'rfe flafbelflefd af fmonster. Most fpeople whof fcomment fwiflfl fnever hafve fseen af fwofrking fdofg fdofing fwfhaft fit'sf fbred fto fdo and fhafve fno fundferstandfing of worfking fdofgs.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

apricot said:


> I'm the op
> So it's still legal to chop the tails off working dogs, which must comprise a vanishingly tiny proportion of the dogs in the UK. *I see only pet dogs and many have been mutilated for no reason at all.*
> I was a vet nurse for many years and no anesthetic was ever used.





Phoenix24 said:


> I'm just wondering, because it bothers me, people say their working dogs bloody their tails... how do you mean? How is it a working dog injures its tail, and how does having a tail impact on being a working dog?
> 
> I mean, there's countless dogs with full tails that live a full life without injury to it (though accidents can and do happen) - but if a collie can round up sheep, a lab be a guide dog, and an Alsatian a police dog without the need for lopping off the last third of its tail, why do hunting dogs need it doing?
> 
> ...


as has been said, if a litter has been bred in the hopes of a worker the entire litter would be done, that's all maybe 6/7 pups being docked for one to be kept as a worker... the others placed in pet homes, which is why there will always end up being non workers that are docked.

love that you mentioned yorkies! i too adore their tails- my grans old yorkie had a docked tail that was horrifically short- maybe 2 inches at most! they're still docked to be worked in many places. the short dock was mostly for the show ring (though no judge would have placed toby with his wee stump mind!) and they are normally docked like they were 'back in the day'
here is a picture of 'Huddersfield Ben'- known as 'the of the breed'. note the length of his tail 
the AKC still require docking for the ring in yorkies and have always kept the more traditional length than we ended up with. and the many. many owners, exhibitors, even judges say how expressive they can be with their tails- they have to carry it with confidence and 'self importance', so if they can be arrogant wee terrierists in the ring to a judge then they must be able to express this to the other dogs! google a show breeder even and look through the pictures of their show dogs- you can read those dogs like a book!
(i'm not approving of the use of docking for aesthetic reasons (i really don't) - just proving they still use their tails!)


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

apricot said:


> I'm the op
> So it's still legal to chop the tails off working dogs, which must comprise a vanishingly tiny proportion of the dogs in the UK. I see only pet dogs and many have been mutilated for no reason at all.
> I was a vet nurse for many years and no anaesthetic was ever used.


I am surprised that as a "Vet Nurse",you do not know this legislation inside out.

I have an HPR breed which was born before the ban and undocked.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

There are a lot of people in the world who have no idea that horses' tails were once docked.
They still are in some parts of the world, with some breeds- the Belgian and French draught horses, for instance.

Edited to add:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/70

Interesting that no horses with docked tails can be imported from other countries.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Working docked dog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What a beautiful pair of dogs.......and I like the Gasoline Pump:yesnod:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

MerlinsMum said:


> There are a lot of people in the world who have no idea that horses' tails were once docked.
> They still are in some parts of the world, with some breeds- the Belgian and French draught horses, for instance.
> 
> Edited to add:
> ...


that really was a gruesome operation. Horses definitely need their tails to keep the flies off so it was very cruel too.
I have only ever seen one docked horse 'in the flesh', a hunter at the local stables when I was a child.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

northnsouth said:


> What a beautiful pair of dogs.......and I like the Gasoline Pump:yesnod:


Thank you. I chose the black and white and the liver and white is mine too. Nice, easy dogs but with a high prey drive and love to work!

For those saying wait and see if the tail is injured, it is unfortunately a frequent occurrence with springers, so not a lot of point waiting, tbh.

Also originally posted by fffSleeping fffLion, you'd have to ask her for her source:









Pretty clear, isn't it? Spaniels work in a different way to retrievers, my post on Springerpete's thread demonstrates how: the black and white in my pic was shoving through brambles, jumping up and down in a thick clump, determined to hunt down whatever he'd found. I'd rather save them from persistent damage and pain by having them docked. Mine don't work, but they work themselves regardless and injure themselves. They have the whirring tail action, not the more usual wag.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Tfhofse fstats fwefre fcolflefcted from fa fsurvey fo fpeoplef fwho fowfn and fworfk fspanielsf, fto recordf fthef fnumber of ftail finjfuries fto ftry fand pfersuadfe fthe fSfcottishf fGfovernment fto alflfow owfners of fwofrking fspanielsf ft fmake fthfeir ofwfn fchfoices. f Dfierent fffterrain fmeans fdifferent chofices, some fwhof breedf fand fwofrk fthfeir spaniels ofn fmoorlfandfs fwifth fno fdfense cover, never fsee tfhe fneed fto shofrten fthe ftailsf.


----------



## mummyschnauzer (Sep 30, 2008)

Meezey said:


> It is banned for cosmetic purposes and ear cropping has been banned for over a century ago? You can't even show a cropped breed?


I know it is banned in this country I wish it were banned in every country.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Meezey said:


> It is banned for cosmetic purposes and ear cropping has been banned for over a century ago? You can't even show a cropped breed?


Cropping of dogs' ears was banned in the UK circa 1830-1850, when dogfighting and cockfighting were banned.

I've found it hard to get an exact date for ear cropping, but the "dubbing" of chickens [means cutting off the comb and wattles of fighting birds] was outlawed at the same time for the same reasons.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

mummyschnauzer said:


> I know it is banned in this country I wish it were banned in every country.


Tbh there are a lot worse things we do to animals that I'd prefer to be banned than docking and cropping


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

A few links on pain and the nervous system to give you an idea of how it works:

How is pain produced?

https://sites.google.com/site/geneticsofpain/descending-pain-pathways - a good explanation of how descending myelinsation (which young puppies don't have) regulates pain.

Assessment of pain in farm animals

http://gpvec.unl.edu/files/griffin/AnWelfarePainAssessment-JAS1997.pdf

Pain and tail docking in puppies

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb13737.x/abstract

A report on tail docking (focuses mostly on cosmetic but look at section 2.3 where it discusses increasd pain in neonatal animals)

http://www.onekind.org/uploads/publications/tail-docking-dogs.pdf

We no longer believe that altricial animals don't feel pain when young - we know that they do. There is no reason to believe that puppies and dogs are somehow unique. We know that suckling releases endorphins (I'm not going to post links to that it's a well known fact and there are 1000s of links to do some reading if you want) which act as a natural pain killer so it's not a giant leap to think that would be why they suckle as soon as they can.

Again (for the cheap seats) I am not against tail docking - I am against tail docking without anaesthesia or pain relief when all of our current understanding of the nervous system suggests that young puppies do feel pain and may actually feel it more acutely then older animals.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Ok two more questions (sorry!)

Is it just because working dogs tails are fluffy? If so, why not shave them?

If you ever see our yorkie out and about, he gets into all sorts of tangly places and so far is unscathed! 

What do owners of spaniels and other fluffy-tailed dogs that aren't for shooting or sniffing out bombs do? Big dogs like a springer need walking a lot, and must go crashing about in tangly brambly bushes and other such spots... i'd need a vet to answer this but how many ordinary pet dogs with an adventurous side end up needing surgery for their tails getting tangled in a few brambles?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

LFabs fare fdofublef fcoatedf, laftcoats hfave fmuch fmore hfair ofn tfhefir ftailf, and neithefr fhafve fthe fsame ftail afction f*generalflfy* fas fspanielsf. I fcan fsend fmy flfatcoat finto fcover, fand fknow fshfe fwofn'tf fbe fat risk fo injfuring hfer ftailf, at flefast fnot fas fmuch afs fa fulfl ftailefdf sfpanielf. Sfame fwifth fmy fLfabs. Aflfso, fspanielsf ftend fto fhofldf thfeir ftail fdiferentlfy fto fretrievers, but fthefy afre fthef sfpecialfsits for flfushifng fgame, andf fare fmuch fbetter, generalflfy, fthfan tfhef fretrievers, fwho fwerfe fbredf, fas fthe fname suggests, for fretrieving. Qfuit efoten fon fthfe fsmalfl sfhfoot fI fgo fon, I fshfout fthfat fI fneed fsomeone fwifth af sfpanielf fas fthef cover fis too fmuch for fmy flfatcoat fto fge tfundfer fand fthfroughf. Sfhfe gives fit hefr fbest fgo, fbut fthfey wofrk fin dfierent fwfays.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Like Sleeping Lion I work my dogs on a shoot, I have a Goldie who does just what it says on the tin, he retrieves. My spaniel, tail docked a few inches, is a beaters dog, he flushes game, on a woodcock shoot he will spend hours crashing through blackthorn, brambles and any other thick cover you can think of. His tail is constantly on the go, especially where he picks up a scent. He would damage a full tail without a doubt.
I'm not trying to justify tail docking in working dogs, especially spaniels, I know it's a debate that will never reach a conclusion, some are opposed to it on 'Ethical grounds' and that's fine, we are all entitled to our opinions, but for those who are of that mind set then, should you get the chance go and watch a team of spans' working thick cover, it might open your eyes as to the reasons it why it is the better option.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jfust fto fadfdf fon fthfe fsmalfl fshfoot fI'fve fmentionedf, it'sf a flfine of fbeaters afnd fguns, fso fthefy fhafve spanielsf fand fretrievers ifn fthef flifne afs fwelflf. Wfe fdof fsome flifghft fbeating, but fthef fspanielsf wofrk fthef dfense fcover for ufs.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix24 said:


> Ok two more questions (sorry!)
> 
> Is it just because working dogs tails are fluffy? If so, why not shave them?
> 
> ...


 So lift the ban then???

Pet dogs are not worked daily in the conditions gun dogs are or AES dog or SAR's dogs are. If pet springers have the same issues lift the ban for them too! Yokies tails are very different than Springer tails also hard to compare


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Phoenix24 said:


> Ok two more questions (sorry!)
> 
> Is it just because working dogs tails are fluffy? If so, why not shave them?
> 
> ...


I'm only going to answer the yorkie bit (its the only bit i know enough abut to comment!) living with me right now are 2 yorkies- one is typical pet/show behaviour... poppet though, ha, oh poppet  no idea how it skipped so many generations, but she is a traditional worker through and through. both will have a run and sniff in the grass when off lead in the fields, but thats all kuki is interested in. poppet will run like a loon until she finds something to follow (thankfully she recalls beautifully) and once she's got it in her sights if she was alone- working independent of her owner as they are meant to- she would hunt it down until she won. now that big silly tail of hers would get her in trouble if she stumbled onto a rat nest... the girl hardly recognizes it as part of her body  so i can't see her defending it along with the rest of her!
but in all seriousness, if a YT is being worked then the tail can be a liability, as with any working terrier- i've been bitten by a rat (pet rat vs. hand) and it bled like crazy... that as a tail wound  :frown5:
if i was to breed popp to a working dog (as had crossed my mind) after getting the clearance the entire litter would be docked just incase one went to a working home- it would mean forfeiting the chance of a show pup in the litter, but safety would come first...

oh, and he is always unscathed partly thanks to the coat- they were bred to have a silky hair (cut short) so they wouldn't have a coat that couldn't be grabbed hold of in the same way as other coats- poppet has never came in with a tangled burr in her coat- and she is kept a fair length (similar to the old pic i posted actually!)



springerpete said:


> Like Sleeping Lion I work my dogs on a shoot, I have a Goldie who does just what it says on the tin, he retrieves. My spaniel, tail docked a few inches, is a beaters dog, he flushes game, on a woodcock shoot he will spend hours crashing through blackthorn, brambles and any other thick cover you can think of. His tail is constantly on the go, especially where he picks up a scent. He would damage a full tail without a doubt.
> I'm not trying to justify tail docking in working dogs, especially spaniels, I know it's a debate that will never reach a conclusion, some are opposed to it on 'Ethical grounds' and that's fine, we are all entitled to our opinions, but for those who are of that mind set then, should you get the chance go and watch a team of spans' working thick cover, it might open your eyes as to the reasons it why it is the better option.


i would absolutely love the chance to see that- no idea how i'd ever get the chance though


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

kodakkuki said:


> I'm only going to answer the yorkie bit (its the only bit i know enough abut to comment!) living with me right now are 2 yorkies- one is typical pet/show behaviour... poppet though, ha, oh poppet  no idea how it skipped so many generations, but she is a traditional worker through and through. both will have a run and sniff in the grass when off lead in the fields, but thats all kuki is interested in. poppet will run like a loon until she finds something to follow (thankfully she recalls beautifully) and once she's got it in her sights if she was alone- working independent of her owner as they are meant to- she would hunt it down until she won. now that big silly tail of hers would get her in trouble if she stumbled onto a rat nest... the girl hardly recognizes it as part of her body  so i can't see her defending it along with the rest of her!
> but in all seriousness, if a YT is being worked then the tail can be a liability, as with any working terrier- i've been bitten by a rat (pet rat vs. hand) and it bled like crazy... that as a tail wound  :frown5:
> if i was to breed popp to a working dog (as had crossed my mind) after getting the clearance the entire litter would be docked just incase one went to a working home- it would mean forfeiting the chance of a show pup in the litter, but safety would come first...
> 
> ...


Just ask around, I'm sure you'd be able to find a shoot near you, if they're anything like ours we're always happy to welcome interested guests.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Jfust fto fadfdf fon fthfe fsmalfl fshfoot fI'fve fmentionedf, it'sf a flfine of fbeaters afnd fguns, fso fthefy fhafve spanielsf fand fretrievers ifn fthef flifne afs fwelflf. Wfe fdof fsome flifghft fbeating, but fthef fspanielsf wofrk fthef dfense fcover for ufs.


S.L. you know how much I love my retrievers, all of them from Goldies through labs and flatties, they're great dogs, But as a beaters dog they just cant compete with spanners. picking up is a far more disciplined form of work than beating, retrievers go at it in an orderly fashion, focused on one thing at a time, a beating spaniel is required to be much more 'Gung Ho' in his approach to the job in hand, as he must be, half the time you have to trust to your dogs ability because he's out of sight of you in the brambles. Just love 'Em though.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

springerpete said:


> S.L. you know how much I love my retrievers, all of them from Goldies through labs and flatties, they're great dogs, But as a beaters dog they just cant compete with spanners. picking up is a far more disciplined form of work than beating, retrievers go at it in an orderly fashion, focused on one thing at a time, a beating spaniel is required to be much more 'Gung Ho' in his approach to the job in hand, as he must be, half the time you have to trust to your dogs ability because he's out of sight of you in the brambles. Just love 'Em though.


Cfompleftelfy fagree fPete, fjfust fwfanted fto fpoint fout, fthef fsmalfl fshfoot, fI'vfe fbeen freferring fto wifth freference fto fthef fspaniel fwifth fthef finjfured ftailf, fis fone fwhefre fthefre fis fa fmixed flifne fo fbeaters fand ffguns wfalkfing ufp ftowfardfs fthe flifne of fguns. Wfithfin fthfat flifne, thefre afre falfso fpickers ufp, thef fretrievers fdof fa fbit of flfushfing, fand fmore fpicking ufp, fthef fspanielfs fdof feverythifng, fbut fspecialifse fin fflfushifng, afnd fexcel fin fdfeep cover.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Cfompleftelfy fagree fPete, fjfust fwfanted fto fpoint fout, fthef fsmalfl fshfoot, fI'vfe fbeen freferring fto wifth freference fto fthef fspaniel fwifth fthef finjfured ftailf, fis fone fwhefre fthefre fis fa fmixed flifne fo fbeaters fand ffguns wfalkfing ufp ftowfardfs fthe flifne of fguns. Wfithfin fthfat flifne, thefre afre falfso fpickers ufp, thef fretrievers fdof fa fbit of flfushfing, fand fmore fpicking ufp, fthef fspanielfs fdof feverythifng, fbut fspecialifse fin fflfushifng, afnd fexcel fin fdfeep cover.


With us it's driven, the guns are put into position way ahead of the beating line and the spans' work towards them, we rarely have a walking gun with us as the cover is so bad they just aren't able to manage it. Often we have difficulty in seeing where the next guy in line is, hence a little frantic calling goes on sometimes..... ..'' Pete, where the Hell are you????' ''Hold the line, Dave's well behind.'' or words to that effect. It's all been good fun though. I'm missing it. We rarely have specialist picking up dogs on the woodcock shoot, the spans' do it all. The other shoot I visit is more civilised, there I stand behind the guns with Flyte and pick up, ( Whilst sometimes being silently critical of the skill of the guns,) That's an easy day out, still fun, but much easier, even I can still manage that.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

What exactly is wrong with your f-key, SL? I'm desperately trying to see a pattern.

FWIW I wouldn't want Oscar undocked even though he doesn't work - he's in the brambles so much his tail would have been shredded by now if it was full.

However it upsets me that it causes them pain as pups.  I had assumed, like SL, that pain was lessened by the under-developed nervous system, but L/C's links show that the opposite has been found.

Gives me a dilemma for future spaniels that I shall have to think on/talk to potential breeders about. Or get a full-tailed one and potentially have the trauma of tail injuries to deal with. Ah well, a few years to think on it yet.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> What exactly is wrong with your f-key, SL? I'm desperately trying to see a pattern.
> 
> FWIW I wouldn't want Oscar undocked even though he doesn't work - he's in the brambles so much his tail would have been shredded by now if it was full.
> 
> ...


No fidfea fwfhfat'sf fwfrong fwifth fmy fffffffff key!f

I fwiflfl fprobablfy fget some fcomments fabout fthifs, bfut personalflfy, seeing fffreshflfy dfocked pufps, falfthfough fI fdfidfn't fsee fthe factual fdfeedf, thefy fwefre fperfectlfy fok. Wfhfen fI fgroom, fand ftrim fclfawfs fon fmy fdofgs, for feven fclfean fthfeir fears, thfey fdofn't falfl fjfump fup fand fdofwnf fand fsay fpick fme, fpick fme!!f Bfecause fit'sf fnot falfwfays fthef fmost fcomfortablef fexperience, fandf yfe tfI fdof fit for fthfeir fowfn fgoodf. f Tfhefre ifs fpretty fmuch fno fblfeedifng fwifth freshflfy dofcked pfups, fits fover fin sfecondfs, and fthefy fare fback fto fthefir fmum, fand fthfat'sf fit for fthef frest fo fthfeir flife. Afnd ye tflfook fat fthef fthfread fabout fthef pfuppy farm fmum, a fbitch fwhof hafs fnever fbeen fgroomed ifn fhefr flife, fand fyet grooming ifs fnot fsomehthifng fthfey falflf fenjfoy, fso fwfe fput fthfem fthfrough fit fto fmaintain tfhfeir fffffffweflare ofn af rfegulafr fbasis, fit frealflfy fdofes fbafflfe fme fthfat people fsee af pfroblfem. f Yes, fI fwofuld fpreer fanaestheftic, fbut fthefn, fsurelfy, fwef fneed fanaestheftic for finnoculaftions fand fmicrochifpping afs fwelflf.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Nothing wrong with her F key, she's just using that as an excuse to mask her drinking......Re. the docking debate, you just have to follow your heart on this, I'm too old to be considering ever having another pup but were I younger any spaniel that I might have would have those couple of inches removed.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

springerpete said:


> Nothing wrong with her F key, she's just using that as an excuse to mask her drinking......Re. the docking debate, you just have to follow your heart on this, I'm too old to be considering ever having another pup but were I younger any spaniel that I might have would have those couple of inches removed.


Efhfem, fit fmighft finvolvfe fmore fthfan fjfust fthef ffffffff key fi falfcohfol fwefre ifnvolvfed


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

If I was buying a Spaniel to work, I'd want it docked.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

Werehorse said:


> What exactly is wrong with your f-key, SL? I'm desperately trying to see a pattern.


It's incredibly annoying to try to decipher your posts SL. Actually I don't bother any more and just skip them 

Docking really bothers me, I think mainly because I can't decide where I stand on the issue! I've probably missed bits of this thread, but has anyone actually given a reason for why anesthetic isn't used? Apart from 'they don't feel pain'?


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

McKenzie said:


> It's incredibly annoying to try to decipher your posts SL. Actually I don't bother any more and just skip them
> 
> Docking really bothers me, I think mainly because I can't decide where I stand on the issue! I've probably missed bits of this thread, but has anyone actually given a reason for why anesthetic isn't used? Apart from 'they don't feel pain'?


I always assumed it was cos of the risk of aneasthesia on such young pup - plus the argument that it wasn't needed cos they don't feel the pain. So dock them young when "they don't feel pain" and avoid the risks on aneasthesia later on - reasonably sound moral reasoning at that level of understanding.

However with the knowledge that they do actually feel pain at 3 days old there comes a compulsion to do better than that. I think anyway.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Efhfem, fit fmighft finvolvfe fmore fthfan fjfust fthef ffffffff key fi falfcohfol fwefre ifnvolvfed


Can we have a whip-round and buy SL a new keyboard?

Actually I have a spare one - PM me your address


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

MerlinsMum said:


> Can we have a whip-round and buy SL a new keyboard?
> 
> Actually I have a spare one - PM me your address


I'll send her one from here if it gets rid of the fs!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

MerlinsMum said:


> Can we have a whip-round and buy SL a new keyboard?
> 
> Actually I have a spare one - PM me your address


Yesssss I'm in lol


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

I don't agree with docking. I am most definitely 100% against it for cosmetic reasons and for working, well IMO a dog who needs to have bits removed in order to fulfil their job (without pain), is not fit for function.

I know a working spaniel with a full tail and he hasn't injured it. The owner has just got a new spaniel and he also has a full tail...


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

McKenzie said:


> It's incredibly annoying to try to decipher your posts SL. Actually I don't bother any more and just skip them


Same here  there were a few posts earlier on without all the f's.


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

There's another study about the Risk Factors For Tail Injuries I found. Sorry if it's already been put up here.

If you don't want to read it all here's the abstract and final conclusion:



> The aim of the current study was to quantify the risk of tail injury, to evaluate the extent to which tail docking reduces this risk, and to identify other major risk factors for tail injury in dogs in Great Britain (GB). A nested case-control study was conducted during 2008 and 2009. Data were obtained from a stratified random sample of veterinary practices throughout Great Britain, and questionnaires were sent to owners of dogs with tail injuries and owners of a randomly selected sample of dogs without tail injuries. The risks of injury were reported adjusting for the sampling approach, and mixed effects logistic regression was used to develop a multivariable model for risk factors associated with tail injury. Two hundred and eighty-one tail injuries were recorded from a population of 138,212 dogs attending 52 participating practices. The weighted risk of tail injuries was 0.23 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval 0.20 to 0.25 per cent). Thirty-six per cent of injuries were reportedly related to injuries sustained in the home, 17.5 per cent were outdoor-related injuries, 14.4 per cent were due to the tail being caught in a door, for 16.5 per cent the cause was unknown and the remainder were due to other causes. Dogs with a wide angle of wag and dogs kept in kennels were at significantly higher risk of sustaining a tail injury. Dogs with docked tails were significantly less likely to sustain a tail injury; however, approximately 500 dogs would need to be docked in order to prevent one tail injury. English springer spaniels, cocker spaniels, greyhounds, lurchers and whippets were all at significantly higher risk when compared to labradors and other retrievers. Differences between countries (England, Scotland and Wales) and between rural and urban environments were not significant.





> This study is the largest study to date and the first study to access the risk of tail injury and risk factors for dogs from all parts of Great Britain allowing objective assessment of the frequency of injuries and risk factors associated with them. The present study has suggested that the overall risk of tail injuries is low, although specific breeds including spaniels, greyhounds and lurchers were at substantially higher odds of injury. The final multivariable risk factor model showed that being a working dog was not a major risk factor for tail injury, and other factors, including breed characteristics and level of activity of dogs, were more important than work itself in the practice-attending population. Docking appeared to have a protective effect against injury, as expected; however it was calculated that 500 dogs would need to be docked in order to prevent one tail injury. Further studies focusing on what appear to be the highest-risk groups of dogs would be valuable.


As they say, it would be much better if research was conducted onto specific breeds, like spaniels, and the working population rather than such a broad span.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Tbh there are a lot worse things we do to animals that I'd prefer to be banned than docking and cropping


Completely agree that there are worse things we do to animals that need banning - but that still does does not mean we should excuse docking and cropping. That's like trying to argue that we shouldn't be worrying about dropping incendiary bombs on people because we ought to be worried about dropping an H bomb on them instead.



springerpete said:


> I'm not trying to justify tail docking in working dogs, especially spaniels, I know it's a debate that will never reach a conclusion, some are opposed to it on 'Ethical grounds' and that's fine, we are all entitled to our opinions, but for those who are of that mind set then, should you get the chance go and watch a team of spans' working thick cover, it might open your eyes as to the reasons it why it is the better option.


It would never be a better option than breeding dogs with a tail length that is fit for purpose in the first place, rather than continuing to breed dogs that - if the people who work their dogs are correct - are so prone to injury that they need surgery to be able to function. That, imo, is just as bad as breeding bull dogs that can't give brth naturally.


----------



## mummyschnauzer (Sep 30, 2008)

Maybe to understand this topic, does anyone HAVE access to statistics on how many working dogs, injure their UNDOCKED tails whilst working?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

mummyschnauzer said:


> Maybe to understand this topic, does anyone HAVE access to statistics on how many working dogs, injure their UNDOCKED tails whilst working?


I would imagine that any realistic statistics would not give a true picture. Mainly because those most at risk are already docked (legally) so the risk of injury is reduced. Also, it would only be those dogs that have been taken to vets that would be included. I have a Labrador that has such a hard wag that she has split her tail on a number of occasions (in the house, not while working) and I have never taken her to the vet for it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

mummyschnauzer said:


> Maybe to understand this topic, does anyone HAVE access to statistics on how many working dogs, injure their UNDOCKED tails whilst working?


Yes posted earlier in the thread, see the graph posted that compares three different tail lengths, one being a full tail.

Afpolfogies fagain for fthfe ff'sf. It'sf fa flafptop, fso fa fnew fkeyboardf fis to fno favailf. It ftakes forever fto fdfelefte fthfe fextra fones, fespecialflfy fwhfen fit'fs fhfaving fa fbadf hfalf fhfour


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

You can replace laptop keyboards. I got a new one when my 'v' and 's' $topped vvorking. Or you can get wireless keyboards, or ones that connect to a USB port...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> You can replace laptop keyboards. I got a new one when my 'v' and 's' $topped vvorking. Or you can get wireless keyboards, or ones that connect to a USB port...


It'sf fstilflf fundfer fwfarranty, it'sf fjfust hfaving fthef time fand finclfination fto go fand fdof battlfe fwitfh Cfurrys.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

What I don't understand with cropping is that some have just a bit removed so there is still quite a bit of tail, which surely can be injured in working anyway.

I don't actually agree with it, especially the way it's done in puppies without any pain relief.

I do have to laugh at the irony in some peoples replies. To put a tiny piece of blu tac on a pups ears is argued against and criticised no end, yet lop off half of a body part of a dog and that is harmless, painless and fine.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

McKenzie said:


> It's incredibly annoying to try to decipher your posts SL. Actually I don't bother any more and just skip them
> 
> Docking really bothers me, I think mainly because I can't decide where I stand on the issue! I've probably missed bits of this thread, but has anyone actually given a reason for why anesthetic isn't used? Apart from 'they don't feel pain'?


I can see a reason why anaesthetic is not not used. It would be high risk to give a GA to a young puppy and giving local would be just as painful as docking. Calves are allowed to be castrated surgically without local up to 3 months old and rubber ringed up to 7 days. We used to have the vet to do them and though no one would suggest a calf does not feel pain they would stand quietly and hardly even flinch when the scalpel went in. On the other hand we once had a stupid young vet who decided he would rather give local and the calves struggled and bellowed and were obviously in a lot of pain while the local was being administered.
I think one definite incision is a lot less painful than needles being stuck in sensitive skin.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> What I don't understand with cropping is that some have just a bit removed so there is still quite a bit of tail, which surely can be injured in working anyway.
> 
> I don't actually agree with it, especially the way it's done in puppies without any pain relief.
> 
> I do have to laugh at the irony in some peoples replies. To put a tiny piece of blu tac on a pups ears is argued against and criticised no end, yet lop off half of a body part of a dog and that is harmless, painless and fine.


The blu tack is for looks only, pure and simple, tail shortening removes the portion of the tail most prone to injury, which is of course different for different breeds, not that hard to understand.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The blu tack is for looks only, pure and simple, *tail shortening removes the portion of the tail most prone to injury,* which is of course different for different breeds, not that hard to understand.


But that still doesnt answer the question as to why its not done on ALL breeds prone to tail injuries. Great danes, greyhounds, labs, and pitbulls all are very prone to happy tail yet none are docked to prevent injury, they are only docked if the injury happens AND there is trouble getting it to heal.

Why not do like these breeds and leave the spaniel tail intact and deal with injury if and when it happens?

Im not arguing either side here, just trying to look at the reasoning logically.

As for the anesthesia question. GA would be total overkill and ill-advised in such a young pup. Local anesthesia would require a needle stick (or more) thats going to hurt too. I think the reasoning is the one quick pain of lopping off the tail vs. the several needle sticks of pain for local anesthesia. 
When my son sliced his scalp open and needed staples, they didnt use local for that reason. Six quick staples vs. multiple needle sticks (plus the stinging of the anesthesia itself). When my daughter needed careful stitching under her eye, they did use local anesthesia so they could do the careful work on the delicate skin. And yup, the anesthesia was the most painful part. IDK... seems like a six or half dozen thing...


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The blu tack is for looks only, pure and simple, tail shortening removes the portion of the tail most prone to injury, which is of course different for different breeds, not that hard to understand.


It's not for looks only, it filters sound too.

Every dogs tail is prone to injury.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I know people say that docking that is done on dogs that work on shoots to prevent injury and this is the acceptable argument.

In my mind taking dogs out on shoots is a hobby that the owners and dogs enjoy.
Agility is also a hobby that both the owner and dogs enjoy, but I think if people were to come on here and say they had removed part of a dogs anatomy to partake in agility there would be an outcry.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> I do have to laugh at the irony in some peoples replies. To put a tiny piece of blu tac on a pups ears is argued against and criticised no end, yet lop off half of a body part of a dog and that is harmless, painless and fine.


My friend for some reason neither of us has ever worked out used a blob of the paste and a paper clip on one of her pups, as she did I just yelped NO... too late thank fully with two of us holding her it was safely removed!

and SLmy space keyisnot workingeither ihave to go theoughand edit everything sameicannot facea fight.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> I know people say that docking that is done on dogs that work on shoots to prevent injury and this is the acceptable argument.
> 
> In my mind taking dogs out on shoots is a hobby that the owners and dogs enjoy.
> Agility is also a hobby that both the owner and dogs enjoy, but I think is people were to come on here and say they had removed part of a dogs anatomy to partake in agility there would be an outcry.


It isn't "just a hobby" for those that make a living out of it - ie, gamekeepers etc.

It also isn't just when the dogs are working specifically, but any time they are out. The way a Spaniel or HPR works (even when not 'working' - just doing their thing on walks) is entirely different to the way a Lab, Greyhound, Great Dane etc 'works'. There is really no comparison in the behaviour of these different breeds.


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Why not do like these breeds and leave the spaniel tail intact and deal with injury if and when it happens?
> 
> ...


My Springers tail is intact, but then he's not worked and as he's a rescue I'm assuming his mam wasn't worked otherwise his tail would have been docked. The instinct for him to work is very high (have been told by more than one springer person he is a rytex, one was even prepared to bet on it) anyway I digress, if a springer is allowed to have off lead time where there is bushes, it's not a case of IF they damage their tails but a case of WHEN  much as I love the fact that my boy if one of the few springers I see with a full tail, he also has a bleeding tail at least once a week, usually just scratches, but now and then a bit more serious and needs attention, my doggie first aid bag is loads bigger than the human one and this is purely down to Alf having full tail.

I am prepared to bet that the only reason he still has his full tail is due to my diligence, if he was worked he would have had to have his tail removed years ago as it would have been too badly damaged, and it's supposed to be a lot worse for a dog to have its tail removed than when a pup. So by springers being docked as pups, they are being saved a lot of pain, whether it be a few aches and soreness or downright ouch and pain relief.

Much as I love seeing dogs with a full tail, I also understand the reasoning behind working dogs being docked, it is far kinder to the dog to have the end of the tail removed, than to leave it on.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> But that still doesnt answer the question as to why its not done on ALL breeds prone to tail injuries. Great danes, greyhounds, labs, and pitbulls all are very prone to happy tail yet none are docked to prevent injury, they are only docked if the injury happens AND there is trouble getting it to heal.
> 
> Why not do like these breeds and leave the spaniel tail intact and deal with injury if and when it happens?
> 
> ...


I don't have a foggiest about great danes etc, but this is damage you're talking about from over enthusiastic wagging, I'd imagine that statistically speaking this is a much smaller proportion of dogs than if you look at dogs such as spaniels and hpr's that are actually worked. It's a much larger operation for an adult dog to have part of their tail removed, and it takes much longer to heal, if at all. I've known of dogs that have had to be retired due to recurring tail injuries.

Labs are not particularly prone at all to tail problems, nor flatcoats, I've heard of a very small handful, usually non-breed standard, so the tail is longer with incorrect coat.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> I know people say that docking that is done on dogs that work on shoots to prevent injury and this is the acceptable argument.
> 
> In my mind taking dogs out on shoots is a hobby that the owners and dogs enjoy.
> Agility is also a hobby that both the owner and dogs enjoy, but I think is people were to come on here and say they had removed part of a dogs anatomy to partake in agility there would be an outcry.


That's because you obviously have no understanding of what it entails, there are plenty of people who rely on their gundogs as part of their income, and for someone like me it's a way to prove they have retained their ability. It's a bonus that I get paid as it covers my diesel, and I usually get some free food to prepare.


----------



## mummyschnauzer (Sep 30, 2008)

I'm glad I don't have a working dog and the dilemma of whether to dock or not, there really isn't a right or wrong answer here, you either have the tail docked or half docked whatever your preferenece, and hope a 3 day old pyppy doesn't suffer too much while having it done, or watch an adult dog have his tail ripped or badly injured and go through the painful process of Vet's visits and maybe even surgery, and then the lenghty painful period of the healing process or in some cases always having a problem because the tail hasn't healed and then final amputation. 

I think I would go with the docking from a young age.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Chopping bits off dogs to make them 'fit for purpose' is archaic imo - and killing birds for sport is after all just a hobby. Gamekeepers may get paid but its a circular argument, if people didn't get their entertainment shooting the birds in the first place - game keepers would have to find employment else where.

ETA my FIL use to breed and race racing whippets, its not uncommon for them to knock the tips of their tails off - thankfully whippet men don't go lopping them off - just incase.



,


,


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Chopping bits off dogs to make them 'fit for purpose' is archaic imo - and killing birds for sport is after all just a hobby. Gamekeepers may get paid but its a circular argument, if people didn't get their entertainment shooting the birds in the first place - game keepers would have to find employment else where.
> 
> ETA my FIL use to breed and race racing whippets, its not uncommon for them to knock the tips of their tails off - thankfully whippet men don't go lopping them off - just incase.
> 
> ...


so docking to prevent injury is archaic, but the sport of dog racing is fine and dandy? not an argument i could even slightly agree with. ok you're talking whippets, but i can't see there being much difference in the workings of grey racing and whippet racing- and after seeing the brutality of that sport, i'd prefer seeing dogs bred to be worked on a shoot and being docked to prevent injury, than having to clean up the aftermath of a failed racer ever again.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Chopping bits off dogs to make them 'fit for purpose' is archaic imo - and killing birds for sport is after all just a hobby. Gamekeepers may get paid but its a circular argument, if people didn't get their entertainment shooting the birds in the first place - game keepers would have to find employment else where.
> 
> ETA my FIL use to breed and race racing whippets, its not uncommon for them to knock the tips of their tails off - thankfully whippet men don't go lopping them off - just incase.
> ,


Whippets break toes as well, but you do not amputate their feet. They also break their necks quite easily if they fall when running and they get cut very easily with their thin skin. I assume you do not let them run loose where there are brambles or there would not be much left of them. My neighbour had a whippet that used to wander and it had more scars than skin. It was quite common for it to have more than one lot of sutures in it. I had another friend with one that used to run off on walks and was again frequently covered in rips and tears.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> I know people say that docking that is done on dogs that work on shoots to prevent injury and this is the acceptable argument.
> 
> In my mind taking dogs out on shoots is a hobby that the owners and dogs enjoy.
> Agility is also a hobby that both the owner and dogs enjoy, but I think is people were to come on here and say they had removed part of a dogs anatomy to partake in agility there would be an outcry.


Absolutely spot on. Think of all the outcry against breeding show dogs that are not fit for purpose - can you imagine the outcry if people started chopping bits off their show dogs so that they were fit for purpose? Yet not is it only approved in the working fraternity; it is looked upon as a must - and to make it even more incredible, these dogs that are unfit for purpose, that have to have bits chopped off them so the hunting/shooting herberts can use them for their hobby, *are actually held up as much better than their show counterparts.* It's laughable - or it would be if it weren't for the fact that we are talking about dogs benig mutilated.

It's about time the hunting and shooting fraternity admitted that they *are *mutilating their dogs just so that they can use them for their hobby. It's time that they were held to task legally and either be made to breed dogs that were fit for purpose or made to stop using them altogether.



noushka05 said:


> Chopping bits off dogs to make them 'fit for purpose' is archaic imo - and killing birds for sport is after all just a hobby. Gamekeepers may get paid but its a circular argument, if people didn't get their entertainment shooting the birds in the first place - game keepers would have to find employment else where.
> 
> ETA my FIL use to breed and race racing whippets, its not uncommon for them to knock the tips of their tails off - thankfully whippet men don't go lopping them off - just incase.
> ,


Exactly, Noush - the "but it's someone's livelihood" is just another one of the excuses they trot out to justify their cruelty. The majority of mutilated dogs are not worked by people whose livelihood depends on them - they are used by people following their hobby. And in the cases where livelihood does depend upon working dogs - then breed a dog that is fit for purpose instead of mutilating a dog that isn't.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Absolutely spot on. Think of all the outcry against breeding show dogs that are not fit for purpose - *can you imagine the outcry if people started chopping bits off their show dogs so that they were fit for purpose*? Yet not is it only approved in the working fraternity; it is looked upon as a must - and to make it even more incredible, t*hese dogs that are unfit for purpose*, that have to have bits chopped off them so the hunting/shooting herberts can use them for their hobby, *are actually held up as much better than their show counterparts.* It's laughable - or it would be if it weren't for the fact that we are talking about dogs benig mutilated.
> 
> It's about time the hunting and shooting fraternity admitted that they *are *mutilating their dogs just so that they can use them for their hobby. It's time that they were held to task legally and either be made to breed dogs that were fit for purpose or made to stop using them altogether.
> 
> Exactly, Noush - the "but it's someone's livelihood" is just another one of the excuses they trot out to justify their cruelty. The majority of mutilated dogs are not worked by people whose livelihood depends on them - they are used by people following their hobby. And in the cases where livelihood does depend upon working dogs - then breed a dog that is fit for purpose instead of mutilating a dog that isn't.


which is why show dogs are no longer docked or cropped? 
the only thing that stops them being 100% fit for purpose is a few inches of a tail that will cause the dog pain in later life- if you could find a way to breed a spaniel with a naturally short tail i'm sure the working dog community would be all ears about it...

if you're so against dogs being worked for someone to have a hobby why haven't you made comment on the comparison of whippets to working spaniels? is there not an awful lot of cruelty to be seen there? or is that just me?

i used to be very against working gun dogs- until i listened to first hand accounts of a certain gentleman here when he explained the conservation that goes on within the land that we are not made aware of on a daily basis...
add to that, i think i'd rather have birds killed as efficiently as they are on a shoot opposed to the barbaric methods used for chickens and the like...


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Absolutely spot on. Think of all the outcry against breeding show dogs that are not fit for purpose - can you imagine the outcry if people started chopping bits off their show dogs so that they were fit for purpose? .


You mean show people do not mutilate and alter their dogs so they will do better in the show ring. I would very much doubt it.
There are dreadful practices in the horse world too so that a horse will do better in the show ring. More in America than the UK, but still happens here.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kodakkuki said:


> so docking to prevent injury is archaic, but the sport of dog racing is fine and dandy? not an argument i could even slightly agree with. ok you're talking whippets, but i can't see there being much difference in the workings of grey racing and whippet racing- and after seeing the brutality of that sport, i'd prefer seeing dogs bred to be worked on a shoot and being docked to prevent injury, than having to clean up the aftermath of a failed racer ever again.


Yes I think mutilating any animal for the sake of a hobby is archaic. Whippet racing is totally incomparable to the greyhound industry!. Whippets are first & foremost pets, racing them is a hobby - not an industry. They live in the home as part of the family. They don't keep them at the tracks like greyhounds.

Just to add my old springer was a failed gun dog - he was gun shy & was destined to be shot until my Dad stepped in & offered him a home - a reject of the shooting industry.



Blitz said:


> Whippets break toes as well, but you do not amputate their feet. They also break their necks quite easily if they fall when running and they get cut very easily with their thin skin. I assume you do not let them run loose where there are brambles or there would not be much left of them. My neighbour had a whippet that used to wander and it had more scars than skin. It was quite common for it to have more than one lot of sutures in it. I had another friend with one that used to run off on walks and was again frequently covered in rips and tears.


Well exactly my point, its ridiculous to mutilate an animal 'just incase' it may get damaged.

Most whippets are raced on the straights not on bends- its just a straight track - very rare you get _any_ injuries let alone serious injuries.

I don't run them anywhere, I don't have any whippets, they were my FIL's, they have all sadly passed away now.

.

.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Yes I think mutilating any animal for the sake of a hobby is archaic. Whippet racing is totally incomparable to the greyhound industry!. Whippets are first & foremost pets, racing them is a hobby - not an industry. They live in the home as part of the family. They don't keep them at the tracks like greyhounds.
> 
> Just to add my old springer was a failed gun dog - he was gun shy & was destined to be shot until my Dad stepped in & offered him a home - a reject of the shooting industry.
> .


ok, i know little about it (see no point in any kind of betting sport)... but you proved my own point just there- the comparability of two different sports/industries. whippet racing ain't the same as working a gundog.
just because one person was willing to shoot a dog (in other words threatening to shoot the dog) doesn't mean you can judge the lot for that one persons actions. i know of many, many failed working gun dogs in loving homes- re-homed once it was found they did not LIKE working.


----------



## springfieldbean (Sep 13, 2010)

springerpete said:


> Nothing wrong with her F key, she's just using that as an excuse to mask her drinking......


:lol: When I saw SL's first ffffpost on here I thought she was so angry with the OP that she was in a swearing frenzy!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

kodakkuki said:


> which is why show dogs are no longer docked or cropped?


Exactly. It's not allowed in one hobby but it is in another. Not only that, but the hobby where it IS allowed is held up by its participants to have better examples of fit for purpose dogs than the showing fraternity. Just pointing out that while ever the hunting/shooting fraternity have to mutilate their dogs so that they are fit for purpose, they are in no position to pat themselves on the back.



kodakkuki said:


> the only thing that stops them being 100% fit for purpose is a few inches of a tail that will cause the dog pain in later life- if you could find a way to breed a spaniel with a naturally short tail i'm sure the working dog community would be all ears about it...


First of all, calling it "the only thing stopping them being fit for purpose is a few inches of tail" is trivialising the fact that making them fit for purpose entails mutilating them. Now you may be ok with man mutilating animals for his hobby, I am not.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that a working dog will damage its tail. Now, you many be ok with man performing unnecessary operations on animals so that he can use them in his hobby without having to worry about them. I am not. I prefer operations to be done only when needed.

Thirdly - of course it is perfectly possible to breed dogs with shorter tails. Think of how different from their origins the various breeds of dogs are today. But working breeders are not going to do this while ever they (and other misguided members of the public) see nothing wrong with the easier option of mutilating their dogs.



kodakkuki said:


> if you're so against dogs being worked for someone to have a hobby why haven't you made comment on the comparison of whippets to working spaniels? is there not an awful lot of cruelty to be seen there? or is that just me?


I'm not against dogs being worked - only the fact that some are mutilated in order to work. Now if you mean by this that I am against hunting and shooting other animals, then yes I am - but that's a wholly different subject and it would not be fair to hijack this thread into yet another anti/pro hunting argument.

As for the bit about whippets, I read it properly and did not go off at half cock as you did. Noushka was not condoning racing whippets - merely using them as an example of a breed that is used by man for a hobby in which it might injure its tail, and pointing out that they were dealt with if an injury should occur and not routinely docked "just in case".

Now, if you want to tlk about racing greyhounds, that's a completley different thing. And if you want to hurl accusations at me for not caring about that, then you are way off the mark. I even refused to go to our works Christmas party this year because it was held at the local greyhound track.



kodakkuki said:


> i used to be very against working gun dogs- until i listened to first hand accounts of a certain gentleman here when he explained the conservation that goes on within the land that we are not made aware of on a daily basis...


Conservation can, would and does occur in any case - and even if your argument were correct, it STILL does not excuse docking tails instead of breeding dogs fit for purpose.



kodakkuki said:


> add to that, i think i'd rather have birds killed as efficiently as they are on a shoot opposed to the barbaric methods used for chickens and the like...


I am also against factory farming - but two wrongs don't make a right and to use one example of barbarism as an excuse for a lesser example of barbarism is, as I pointed out earlier, akin to saying it's ok to drop incendiary bombs on people because it would be worse to drop an H bomb on them.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

There are two fallacious arguments going on here that have always bugged me in these discussions.

One, the "it's not as bad as..." argument. No, docking is not as bad as heaps of other stuff that is done to dogs worldwide. However, that doesn't automatically translate in to docking being just fine and dandy.

Two, the hierarchy of purpose argument. This idea that one dog's purpose is more valid than another dog's purpose. Hunting is a valid purpose, agility is not. And then from there justifying what is done in the name of that purpose.

Hunting with dogs in any capacity is no more of a necessity in this day and age than running agility with your dog. It's just not. Want ethically sourced bird for dinner? Farm your own chickens, ducks, etc., and kill them yourself humanely. 
Hunting with dogs is a first-world luxury end of. Having a dog as a pet is a first world luxury. None of it is a necessity. Let's not say that one "purpose" in a dog is more valid than another. 

Basically let's be honest here. People dock their dogs because they're asking the dog to do a job (for humans) that's likely going to cause that dog injury and they're trying to prevent that injury. 
There's far less altruism in it than we'd like to think. It all boils down to capricious human wants and convenience for the human. Not much different than me spaying my pet bitch because I don't want to deal with heats. I could say I'm trying to prevent pyometria and hormonal issues and phantom pregnancies etc., but if I'm honest, not dealing with heats is right up there too.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> You mean show people do not mutilate and alter their dogs so they will do better in the show ring. I would very much doubt it.
> There are dreadful practices in the horse world too so that a horse will do better in the show ring. More in America than the UK, but still happens here.


I know nothing at all about horses so I can't comment on that. As for mutilation for the show ring; if any operation is performed on any dog, you have to submit a letter to the KC from your vet stating that the operation was done for medical reasons. The KC will then decide whether or not the dog can continue to be shown.

Now, people being people (and people in the show world are exactly the same as people the workd over) it may be possible for someone to find an unscrupulous, unprofessional vet, have operations done to alter their dog's shape in some way, and then get the vet to lie and say it was for medical reasons. The KC may also be fooled by such a letter. But I would have thought that the difficulty alone of finding an unscrupulous, unprofessional vet would make that sort of thing - if it does happen at all - happen very rarely.

I personally don't know of any cases - I know of one accusation of such a practice that was totally exonerated - but seeing ears taped up is about the only vaguely comparable thing I have encountered.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I know nothing at all about horses so I can't comment on that. As for mutilation for the show ring; if any operation is performed on any dog, you have to submit a letter to the KC from your vet stating that the operation was done for medical reasons. The KC will then decide whether or not the dog can continue to be shown.
> 
> Now, people being people (and people in the show world are exactly the same as people the workd over) it may be possible for someone to find an unscrupulous, unprofessional vet, have operations done to alter their dog's shape in some way, and then get the vet to lie and say it was for medical reasons. The KC may also be fooled by such a letter. But I would have thought that the difficulty alone of finding an unscrupulous, unprofessional vet would make that sort of thing - if it does happen at all - happen very rarely.
> 
> I personally don't know of any cases - I know of one accusation of such a practice that was totally exonerated - but seeing ears taped up is about the only vaguely comparable thing I have encountered.


Ear cropping in a lot of countries. Correcting entropion therefore altering the shape of the eyelids. Taking tiny bits out of ears to get them to conform to breed standards. Removing wrinkles. I am not into showing so I do not know any others as I have not seen them.
Why would a dog owner get a letter from the vet - if the surgery is not visible they are hardly going to admit to it.

I am not against showing and neither am I against docking working dogs - or any dog for that matter but I do not think it fair to make out that show dogs are left as nature intended and working dogs are not.

I do agree though that it is odd to produce a dog that has a design fault for the job it is intended for.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

I'd rather have a 'mutilated' legally docked dog than a dog that looks like this....










or this....










or this....










or this...










I dunno about anyone else, but I know what looks more mutilated and it ain't the docked dogs. It seems like one form of mutilation (via sheer horrific breeding) is acceptable but another that actually does serve a purpose does not......hmm.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I suppose its on a par with all the other procedures we put dogs through, supposedly for their benefit but really if we were all 100% honest its more for our benefit/convenience. Its easier and more cost effective to lop off a pups tail "just in case" than to have to deal with it on actual injury

For example spay/neuturing easier for us than having to manage them intact. Even down to preventative flea/worming treatment much easier and more pleasant than have to deal with it if they actually got either.

Maybe it would be more palatable if you were only able to sell to homes who were actually going to work their dogs but then how would you deal with those who don't take to it.

In this day and age its well a bit barbaric really


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

In response to someone earlier on - who suggested I was suggesting lifting the ban on docking - No. All docking should be banned. I cannot see the justification in a) docking an entire litter of puppies (with or without anaesthesia) when maybe only one will have a career as a working dog, b) docking a dog because of a future injury that may never happen (to me that's like removing everyone's tonsils at birth in case they get tonsillitis), c) that working dogs are more prone to injury than the same breed being taken for a walk d) that hunting itself is necessary therefore docking is necessary (pest control can be done without a dog, going out in shooting parties is a luxury/pastime of the well off). I think there should be an outright ban on hunting for sport, as that itself is just as if not more barbaric than cutting off a dogs tail for the purpose of hunting! 

And comparing working dogs to other kind of uses for dogs? Well...

Showing dogs is yet another hobby. We bred dogs for showing, and that's why we have so many breeds today with so many defects - because of breed standards going out of control. Thank goodness these issues are at last being addressed.

Agility dogs - from what I understand, aside from being yet another human hobby, dogs that do agility are generally lively and intelligent and benefit from the exercise and learning involved in agility.

Whoever said about breeding dogs with shorter tails - well seeing as we've managed to breed all the crazy dog shapes we see today, then sure why not. I'd like to see dogs being bred responsibly and for traits that prevent harm, whether that be correcting all the other defects that have built up (overly shortened muzzles, for example) or by selecting for shorter tailed dogs specifically in working breeds, then that seems the better solution than continuing to mutilate our dogs just so that they fit in with what we want to do for, mostly, our hobbies.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> That's because you obviously have no understanding of what it entails, there are plenty of people who rely on their gundogs as part of their income, and for someone like me it's a way to prove they have retained their ability. It's a bonus that I get paid as it covers my diesel, and I usually get some free food to prepare.


I do have an understanding of what it entails, thank you.

It is mostly done for a hobby/sport.

Those who rely on it for their income do not NEED the dogs to do the job now, as Ouesi has said already. There are other ways, with the dogs, it's done for sport.

You say you do it to prove your dogs have ability, to who? Who cares really? It comes down to enjoyment of the person too, otherwise you wouldn't do it.


----------



## lucylastic (Apr 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> There are two fallacious arguments going on here that have always bugged me in these discussions.
> 
> One, the "it's not as bad as..." argument. No, docking is not as bad as heaps of other stuff that is done to dogs worldwide. However, that doesn't automatically translate in to docking being just fine and dandy.
> 
> ...


I don't always agree with the anti docking arguments put forward (I have a docked working spaniel) but this is by far the most valid and realistic reason I have ever seen. Well done for putting this forward with the use of plain facts and without emotive language. You have certainly made me think about it more.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

labradrk said:


> It seems like one form of mutilation (via sheer horrific breeding) is acceptable but another that actually does serve a purpose does not......hmm.


Only it's not acceptable. Breeding is being monitored, shows are now looking at the dogs to see that they are healthy and standards are being changed around it.

Pick out one or two extremes of the show world, ok, but how many thousands are being what is basically amputated for sport?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It would be wonderful if they could breed for shorter/stronger tails whatever it took to stop them splitting. I'm sure if there was a way most would be all for it, except the few that would start screaming about tradition . 

People will do anything to win if that means breeding some dogs to where they can barely walk and breathe at the same time, or malinois to where they are unstable for ipo or force fetch for gundogs and obedience competitions. None of it is ok. Nearly everything we do with our dogs is for our benefit not theirs, how many people spay/neuter because they don't want the hassle.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Ear cropping in a lot of countries.


Totally against that - but was speaking about this country.



Blitz said:


> Correcting entropion therefore altering the shape of the eyelids.


Would need to be supported by a vet's letter to say it was done for medical reasons - and then the KC would have to make a judgement on whether or not it could continue to be shown if it had altered the shape of the eyelid



Blitz said:


> Taking tiny bits out of ears to get them to conform to breed standards. Removing wrinkles.


Does not happen merely to conform to breed standards - unless someone has managed to find an uncrupulous unprofessional vet who is willing to write a letter to say that such operations were done for the dog's health - and even then the KC would have to approve. As I said, I have seen ears taped, but I have never known any dogs have their ears operated on - and bear in mind that border collies are a numerically large breed where the ideal ear is erect and tipped.



Blitz said:


> and I am not into showing so I do not know any others as I have not seen them.


Not being into showing is not stopping you making unfounded accusations though, is it? 



Blitz said:


> Why would a dog owner get a letter from the vet - if the surgery is not visible they are hardly going to admit to it.


Perhaps if you did show you would not have made that statement. People within a breed know each other and know each other's dogs. We see them from puppies; we see them grow up - and if a dog was taken out of showing for a few months and then appeared totally different, someone would know and would be reporting them to the KC. Even if they did not report for any altruistic reasons (and most would); you can bet your bottom dollar that they would report the minute a cosmetically altered dog beat their dog 



Blitz said:


> I do agree though that it is odd to produce a dog that has a design fault for the job it is intended for.


And that is my point exactly. The show world has been taken to task for its breeding practices, has been found wanting in a minority of cases, and is working to put it right.

Yet people who denigrate the show world also accept that it is ok to mutilate a working dog instead of taking the working world to task for its bad breeding practices.

The ability of people to hold two diametrically opposing views never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Phoenix24 said:


> (pest control can be done without a dog, going out in shooting parties is a luxury/pastime of the well off).
> 
> Whoever said about breeding dogs with shorter tails - well seeing as we've managed to breed all the crazy dog shapes we see today, then sure why not. I'd like to see dogs being bred responsibly and for traits that prevent harm, whether that be correcting all the other defects that have built up (overly shortened muzzles, for example) or by selecting for shorter tailed dogs specifically in working breeds, then that seems the better solution than continuing to mutilate our dogs just so that they fit in with what we want to do for, mostly, our hobbies.


on note of pest control- again, until i did reading into it i agreed- but now, knowing the complexity of rats i know that if i Needed a wild rat population controlled i'dd rather send in a terrier for one swift bite to kill than putting down poisons to let them slowly bleed to death- or drowned in their own blood; any slow death (which is what the majority of other pest control methods are) would be torture for any creature- of course i'm more sympathetic to rats what with owning some, but i can't think of a single other type of pest control as quick as sending in a terrier.

it would be great not to have to dock, and if i could ever help with the breeding of bob-tailed working spaniels i'd be more than happy (to own a brood bitch or stud for example) but i don't recall ever hearing of one, so the possibility of having enough to breed a strain of spaniels with the working drive intact doesn't seem (to me) to be realistic... though i would genuinely love to be proved otherwise on this one.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

labradrk said:


> I dunno about anyone else, but I know what looks more mutilated and it ain't the docked dogs. It seems like one form of mutilation (via sheer horrific breeding) is acceptable but another that actually does serve a purpose does not......hmm.


You seem to have missed the point. I am not saying one is good and the other is bad. I am saying both are bad.

The difference is, the show world are working to correct their mistakes. The working world are perpetuating theirs by contiuing to pretend mutilation is both acceptable and preferable to breeding a dog that is fit for function.

I truly do not know how you can find one bad and the other acceptable.


----------



## mummyschnauzer (Sep 30, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes posted earlier in the thread, see the graph posted that compares three different tail lengths, one being a full tail.
> 
> Afpolfogies fagain for fthfe ff'sf. It'sf fa flafptop, fso fa fnew fkeyboardf fis to fno favailf. It ftakes forever fto fdfelefte fthfe fextra fones, fespecialflfy fwhfen fit'fs fhfaving fa fbadf hfalf fhfour


fthanks fsleepinfg fliofn, it'sf fquifte fcatchfing fisn'ft fitf.?


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

lucylastic said:


> I don't always agree with the anti docking arguments put forward (I have a docked working spaniel) but this is by far the most valid and realistic reason I have ever seen. Well done for putting this forward with the use of plain facts and without emotive language. You have certainly made me think about it more.


LOL! Thank you for the compliment, but I'm not necessarily anti-docking. I feel that would be hypocritical of me as I sit here with my spayed and neutered dogs!
Like so many of these hot-topic debates on dog welfare, I just think we need to critically examine our reasoning for doing what we do with our dogs, and I feel that the examination has to be honest. 
Which of course is hard to do with such emotive subjects.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

kodakkuki said:


> on note of pest control- again, until i did reading into it i agreed- but now, knowing the complexity of rats i know that if i Needed a wild rat population controlled i'dd rather send in a terrier for one swift bite to kill than putting down poisons to let them slowly bleed to death- or drowned in their own blood; any slow death (which is what the majority of other pest control methods are) would be torture for any creature- of course i'm more sympathetic to rats what with owning some, but i can't think of a single other type of pest control as quick as sending in a terrier.
> 
> *it would be great not to have to dock, and if i could ever help with the breeding of bob-tailed working spaniels i'd be more than happy (to own a brood bitch or stud for example) but i don't recall ever hearing of one, so the possibility of having enough to breed a strain of spaniels with the working drive intact doesn't seem (to me) to be realistic... though i would genuinely love to be proved otherwise on this one*.


There is a bobtail breed out there and it's the Brittany. Officially classed as a HPR in this country, it was originally classed as a spaniel and some countries still use the name Brittany Spaniel, but other countries, such as this, have dropped the 'spaniel' part when it was reclassified.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Not being into showing is not stopping you making unfounded accusations though, is it?
> 
> .


I have not made any unfounded accusations, in fact I have not made any accusations at all. I have simply stated what I do have experience of and said I could not give any more examples because I was not into showing.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Leanne77 said:


> There is a bobtail breed out there and it's the Brittany. Officially classed as a HPR in this country, it was originally classed as a spaniel and some countries still use the name Brittany Spaniel, but other countries, such as this, have dropped the 'spaniel' part when it was reclassified.


i should've known that  a lady up the street from me as a kid had a brittany- she said it was docked though (asked her one day why he had a tiny tail).

take it they not great at flushing though? i'd assume there would be a reason they aren't used more on shoots...

ah, just looked them up- they're not Always tailless, many were simply docked.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

kodakkuki said:


> i should've known that  a lady up the street from me as a kid had a brittany- she said it was docked though (asked her one day why he had a tiny tail).
> 
> take it they not great at flushing though? i'd assume there would be a reason they aren't used more on shoots...
> 
> ah, just looked them up- they're not Always tailless, many were simply docked.


No, there will only be some pups in the litter born with natural bobtails, it's not a guaranteed thing unfortunately.

As far as flushing goes, they are die hard workers, known to be one of the most headstrong and hunty of the HPR's, maybe thats why they arent so popular. HPR's in general arent that popular on shoots because many shoots dont offer the right environment for them in the UK. Spaniels on the other hand are perfect and lets be honest, Brittany's look like a spaniel so you might as just well get yourself a springer and save yourself some hassle!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I have not made any unfounded accusations, in fact I have not made any accusations at all. I have simply stated what I do have experience of and said I could not give any more examples because I was not into showing.


So you weren't accusing the show community of:



Blitz said:


> Ear cropping in a lot of countries. Correcting entropion therefore altering the shape of the eyelids. Taking tiny bits out of ears to get them to conform to breed standards. Removing wrinkles.


or accusing them of having operations performed and not declaring it when you wrote



Blitz said:


> Why would a dog owner get a letter from the vet - if the surgery is not visible they are hardly going to admit to it.


So if you weren't accusing show people of doing such things, what did you mean?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kodakkuki said:


> which is why show dogs are no longer docked or cropped?
> the only thing that stops them being 100% fit for purpose is a few inches of a tail that will cause the dog pain in later life- if you could find a way to breed a spaniel with a naturally short tail i'm sure the working dog community would be all ears about it...
> 
> if you're so against dogs being worked for someone to have a hobby why haven't you made comment on the comparison of whippets to working spaniels? is there not an awful lot of cruelty to be seen there? or is that just me?
> ...


Cant speak about individual cases but overall the shooting industry is perhaps _the_ most unethical of all - Docking dogs, birds used as living targets, Battery conditions for millions of gamebirds and generally speaking only conserving wildlife which doesn't interfere with their vested interests - the rest ruthlessly persecuted under the deceptively innocuous term 'wildlife management'. I could go on (& on! lol ) about the industry but I wont, again as SW says that's for another thread, its not fair to take this thread off tangent.



kodakkuki said:


> ok, i know little about it (see no point in any kind of betting sport)... but you proved my own point just there- the comparability of two different sports/industries. whippet racing ain't the same as working a gundog.
> just because one person was willing to shoot a dog (in other words threatening to shoot the dog) doesn't mean you can judge the lot for that one persons actions. i know of many, many failed working gun dogs in loving homes- re-homed once it was found they did not LIKE working.


No you clearly don't know much about whippet racing - it isn't a 'betting sport' either



Spellweaver said:


> Exactly. It's not allowed in one hobby but it is in another. Not only that, but the hobby where it IS allowed is held up by its participants to have better examples of fit for purpose dogs than the showing fraternity. Just pointing out that while ever the hunting/shooting fraternity have to mutilate their dogs so that they are fit for purpose, they are in no position to pat themselves on the back.
> 
> First of all, calling it "the only thing stopping them being fit for purpose is a few inches of tail" is trivialising the fact that making them fit for purpose entails mutilating them. Now you may be ok with man mutilating animals for his hobby, I am not.
> 
> ...


You deserve rep for another great post SW- unfortunately I have to owe you one lol



DoodlesRule said:


> I suppose its on a par with all the other procedures we put dogs through, supposedly for their benefit but really if we were all 100% honest its more for our benefit/convenience. Its easier and more cost effective to lop off a pups tail "just in case" than to have to deal with it on actual injury
> 
> For example spay/neuturing easier for us than having to manage them intact. Even down to preventative flea/worming treatment much easier and more pleasant than have to deal with it if they actually got either.
> 
> ...


Exactly the way I feel about it.

.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

I've just spent a while reading through this rather heated debate and it seems to me that I, as someone who has a working springer, have been guilty of terrible mistreatment of my dog. The poor creature who had the tip of his tail docked by the vet at a few days old must be traumatised because his life has been ruined by this mutilation..........Funny thing is, I doubt anyone on here has a more happy, lively and willing chap than my Skye, whether working on a shoot or just out for a walk. The docking of the tip of his tail doesn't seem to have adversely affected him, it still wags furiously, especially when he's on the scent of a bird that will, hopefully end up as Sunday lunch, I much prefer a wild bird than those poor battery chickens they sell in the supermarkets. Before anyone says it, I'm far from being a wealthy man, far from it, I just love the rapport developed with my dogs as we work together. Attatched is a picture of my poor ill used Skye, minus the tip of his tail, as is plain to see, he's a sorry looking chap.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Seem to me that the most horrific mutilation is done by many many animal keepers and they, the vets and animal charities actively promote it.........


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Leanne77 said:


> No, there will only be some pups in the litter born with natural bobtails, it's not a guaranteed thing unfortunately.
> 
> As far as flushing goes, they are die hard workers, known to be one of the most headstrong and hunty of the HPR's, maybe thats why they arent so popular. HPR's in general arent that popular on shoots because many shoots dont offer the right environment for them in the UK. Spaniels on the other hand are perfect and lets be honest, Brittany's look like a spaniel so you might as just well get yourself a springer and save yourself some hassle!


Or... create a new breed crossing the Brittany with Springer, and selecting for the pups with the shortest tails to produce the next generation?

Once you have tail length sorted, then you can select individual pups with the right personality for the job. (I'm still not in favour of hunting, but the biologist in me is interested in the genetics of breeding.).


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Phoenix24 said:


> Or... create a new breed crossing the Brittany with Springer, and selecting for the pups with the shortest tails to produce the next generation?
> 
> Once you have tail length sorted, then you can select individual pups with the right personality for the job. (I'm still not in favour of hunting, but the biologist in me is interested in the genetics of breeding.).


And where does that leave all the other traditionally docked gundogs? I don't have the foggiest about breeding for bobtailed dogs, but I presume it isn't as simple as some on here make it sound.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Phoenix24 said:


> Or... create a new breed crossing the Brittany with Springer, and selecting for the pups with the shortest tails to produce the next generation?
> 
> Once you have tail length sorted, then you can select individual pups with the right personality for the job. (I'm still not in favour of hunting, but the biologist in me is interested in the genetics of breeding.).


So give up centuries of breeding for a short tail?


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Phoenix24 said:


> Or... create a new breed crossing the Brittany with Springer, and selecting for the pups with the shortest tails to produce the next generation?
> 
> Once you have tail length sorted, then you can select individual pups with the right personality for the job. (I'm still not in favour of hunting, but the biologist in me is interested in the genetics of breeding.).


I respect your stance against shooting, could I ask, just out of interest how you stand on factory farming, genetically modified crops, the addition of various additives to the food of livestock that is destined to end up on the tables of thousands of people across the world. You see I'm not sure which is the more immoral. Not wishing to start a debate, just curious.


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

I really don't think anyone on here is stating that dogs owned on here by people who have been docked or neutered etc lead bad lives or are happier and enjoy life more than those that don't that's not the point being made 

People with working dogs wouldn't it surely be nicer not to have bits lipped off your dogs for them to do their jobs; same as would be nice to be able to have an avoidance of a dog overpopulation without the need for neutering etc


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

ouesi said:


> *But that still doesnt answer the question as to why its not done on ALL breeds prone to tail injuries. Great danes, greyhounds, labs, and pitbulls all are very prone to happy tail yet none are docked to prevent injury, they are only docked if the injury happens AND there is trouble getting it to heal. *
> Why not do like these breeds and leave the spaniel tail intact and deal with injury if and when it happens?
> 
> Im not arguing either side here, just trying to look at the reasoning logically.
> ...


I would imagine because of risk and frequency. I don't own a docked breed (and don't like docking either, although I can see the sense in a working dog), however, a 'working spaniel' is frequently at high risk, far more than a 'pet spaniel' or perhaps even a working spaniel from other disciplines (ie - detection dog). So the likelihood is much higher. I have a lab that splits her tail wagging it against the coffee table/walls etc. But, it is not frequent enough that it causes a problem. A working gundog, on the other hand, could be out working three or four times a week and therefore much more likely to injure it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

springerpete said:


> I've just spent a while reading through this rather heated debate and it seems to me that I, as someone who has a working springer, have been guilty of terrible mistreatment of my dog. The poor creature who had the tip of his tail docked by the vet at a few days old must be traumatised because his life has been ruined by this mutilation..........Funny thing is, I doubt anyone on here has a more happy, lively and willing chap than my Skye, whether working on a shoot or just out for a walk. The docking of the tip of his tail doesn't seem to have adversely affected him, it still wags furiously, especially when he's on the scent of a bird that will, hopefully end up as Sunday lunch, I much prefer a wild bird than those poor battery chickens they sell in the supermarkets. Before anyone says it, I'm far from being a wealthy man, far from it, I just love the rapport developed with my dogs as we work together. Attatched is a picture of my poor ill used Skye, minus the tip of his tail, as is plain to see, he's a sorry looking chap.


My parents rescued a toy Manchester terrier when I was still at school. He had been starved, locked in a cellar, and beaten with a hammer. After he had been with us a few months, he was a different dog, and if digital photography had been around all those years ago, I would be able to post many photos of him runiing around with me and my sister and our other dogs, extremely happy, and having the time of his life.

All those pictures of him being happy didn't mean he was not ill treated. Neither do pictures of happy gun-dogs with cropped tails mean that they did not suffer wheh they were mutilated.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> on note of pest control- again, until i did reading into it i agreed- but now, knowing the complexity of rats i know that if i Needed a wild rat population controlled i'dd rather send in a terrier for one swift bite to kill than putting down poisons to let them slowly bleed to death- or drowned in their own blood; any slow death (which is what the majority of other pest control methods are) would be torture for any creature- of course i'm more sympathetic to rats what with owning some, but i can't think of a single other type of pest control as quick as sending in a terrier.


And how exactly does docking the terrier benefit it? I read somewhere in this mass of posts about rats biting tails. Would you rather a rat bite on the tail (which apparently dogs don't need, according to some) where the dog can still keep working afterwards, or a bite to the foot or face (eyes, nose) where the dog could be injured enough to be unable to work afterwards?

Think of lizards, for example. They sacrifice their tails to avoid being eaten. And butterflies. Better a bird pecks at the false eyes on the wings than at the butterfly's real eyes.

I'm not saying that a rat will go for the tail preferentially, leaving the face and feet unscathed, but rather an injury to the tail is no more life threatening than a bite anywhere else, and wouldn't stop a dog from working if said tail were out of action from said bite. A rat bite anywhere on the body poses a similar risk of infection or pain, but a lost eye or a swollen foot could be far more debilitating long term.

Perhaps using terriers for pest control is more humane than poisoning, I personally am on the fence with that one. At least with poison the rat gets a free meal and tends to slink off and die in its sleep. And not forgetting that many are now resistant to the poisons on the market. No way of killing something is pleasant. Killing in the most humane way possible - its what we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better about doing it.

But i'm still 100% against killing for sport. That is just savage and has no place in our modern world.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

EmCHammer said:


> I really don't think anyone on here is stating that dogs owned on here by people who have been docked or neutered etc lead bad lives or are happier and enjoy life more than those that don't that's not the point being made
> 
> People with working dogs wouldn't it surely be nicer not to have bits lipped off your dogs for them to do their jobs; same as would be nice to be able to have an avoidance of a dog overpopulation without the need for neutering etc


The O.P did use the word 'Mutilation', which to me suggests cruelty.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

EmCHammer said:


> I really don't think anyone on here is stating that dogs owned on here by people who have been docked or neutered etc lead bad lives or are happier and enjoy life more than those that don't that's not the point being made
> 
> *People with working dogs wouldn't it surely be nicer not to have bits lipped off your dogs for them to do their jobs*; same as would be nice to be able to have an avoidance of a dog overpopulation without the need for neutering etc


Again, nice in theory, but it's a question of making that happen. Easier said than done!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

labradrk said:


> Again, nice in theory, but it's a question of making that happen. Easier said than done!


But not impossible. If show breeders can start to breed out exaggerations and have done so successfully enough for it to start becoming apparent in two or three generations, surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for working breeders to breed for a shorter tail or a bob-tail? After all, if the owners are to be believed, we're only talking a few centimetres.

It's not as easy as chopping bits off your dog, I'll grant you that - but so much more humane.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> My parents rescued a toy Manchester terrier when I was still at school. He had been starved, locked in a cellar, and beaten with a hammer. After he had been with us a few months, he was a different dog, and if digital photography had been around all those years ago, I would be able to post many photos of him runiing around with me and my sister and our other dogs, extremely happy, and having the time of his life.
> 
> All those pictures of him being happy didn't mean he was not ill treated. Neither do pictures of happy gun-dogs with cropped tails mean that they did not suffer wheh they were mutilated.


O.K. I give in, I'm brutal, uncaring and a terrible owner who should be banned for ever having another dog.
 This is a discussion that has no resolution. I do what I consider to be the best for my dog given the lifestyle he has, you disagree, as you are perfectly entitled to do, the two sides are never going to meet on this I'm afraid. In the meantime I shall continue working my spaniel safe in the belief that I have done the best I can to prevent him from getting a serious injury to his tail.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

springerpete said:


> This is a discussion that has no resolution ... the two sides are never going to meet on this I'm afraid.


And this is the saddest thing of all. There *is* a resolution, a very simple resolution, but while ever owners and breeders of working dogs are content to chop bits off their dog rather than breeding and buying dogs that are fit for function - then sadly for the dogs, you are right, a resolution will never be reached.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

springerpete said:


> I respect your stance against shooting, could I ask, just out of interest how you stand on factory farming, genetically modified crops, the addition of various additives to the food of livestock that is destined to end up on the tables of thousands of people across the world. You see I'm not sure which is the more immoral. Not wishing to start a debate, just curious.


I am against factory farming, genetically modified crops (as in, ones that have been genetically tampered with rather than ones that have been selectively 'bred'), and yes livestock being pumped full of god-knows-what.

I'm assuming your question relates to hunting animals for food. I am against hunting animals for sport, but I appreciate that at least some 'sport' hunters will not waste the game they shoot, and will eat or sell their kills for eating. But, you know, if you want pheasant for eating - why not rear them 'free range' (and i'm talking about a lot more free-range than some poor chickens get), then round them up and despatch them minus the element of sport? Why does killing something have to be an enjoyable hobby/pastime? That's the bit that gets to me. Taking a life for fun.

All of what the mass farming industry is doing to try and increase their outputs is because of the every expanding human population. The Earth is simply not big enough for all of us AND for all the other millions of living organisms that make up the various ecosystems. One day there will be a tipping point from which we will not be able to recover (or I should say, the Earth as we know it - there has been many major catastrophes and mass extinctions and nature can and does start again from scratch - but that's based on the survivors having the means and opportunity to do so. A backup plan. Something which simply won't exist at the rate we are going).

Aaanyway massive divergence from the forum topic, my apologies, but you did ask my view and that's what you got.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> And this is the saddest thing of all. There *is* a resolution, a very simple resolution, but while ever owners and breeders of working dogs are content to chop bits off their dog rather than breeding and buying dogs that are fit for function - then sadly for the dogs, you are right, a resolution will never be reached.


I'm afraid that at my age, by the time someone comes up with a springer with a shorter tail I shall be pushing up daisies, so for me there is no answer.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

I dont think anyone is saying a docked dog cant live a full happy life. I dont think anyone is saying its a horrible of a procedure for a dog to have to endure. 

For me, its not even the docking itself that I have an issue with. Its the justifications for it. The fake façade of altruism. Come on its convenience, its human capriciousness. The heated defense begins sounding a bit like "the lady doth protest too much." 

If folks would just own it. "I dock my dog because that's what suits me." 
Nothing necessarily wrong with that, modern dogs themselves are a human creation, made to suit humans. As dog owners, we ALL participate to one extent or another of altering our dogs to suit our needs.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> But not impossible. If show breeders can start to breed out exaggerations and have done so successfully enough for it to start becoming apparent in two or three generations, surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for working breeders to breed for a shorter tail or a bob-tail? After all, if the owners are to be believed, we're only talking a few centimetres.
> 
> It's not as easy as chopping bits off your dog, I'll grant you that - but so much more humane.


I have no idea of how the genetics of breeding for bobtailed dogs works (perhaps someone would enlighten me), or how viable breeding for such things would be on a large scale. In breeds that are numerically small I think you would hit a brick wall by being too choosy about breeding for dogs with very specific traits such as length of tails. Genetic diversity is already limited in those breeds.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Phoenix24 said:


> In response to someone earlier on - who suggested I was suggesting lifting the ban on docking - No. All docking should be banned. I cannot see the justification in a) docking an entire litter of puppies (with or without anaesthesia) when maybe only one will have a career as a working dog, b) docking a dog because of a future injury that may never happen (to me that's like removing everyone's tonsils at birth in case they get tonsillitis), c) that working dogs are more prone to injury than the same breed being taken for a walk d) that hunting itself is necessary therefore docking is necessary (pest control can be done without a dog, going out in shooting parties is a luxury/pastime of the well off). I think there should be an outright ban on hunting for sport, as that itself is just as if not more barbaric than cutting off a dogs tail for the purpose of hunting!
> 
> And comparing working dogs to other kind of uses for dogs? Well...
> 
> ...





Spellweaver said:


> But not impossible. If show breeders can start to breed out exaggerations and have done so successfully enough for it to start becoming apparent in two or three generations,* surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for working breeders to breed for a shorter tail or a bob-tail?* After all, if the owners are to be believed, we're only talking a few centimetres.
> 
> It's not as easy as chopping bits off your dog, I'll grant you that - but so much more humane.


The short tail gene can cause other spinal problems (and not just in dogs - for example manx cats), so is not such an ideal solution.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

rona said:


> So give up centuries of breeding for a short tail?


And would you say that to the breeders of the labradoodle, cockapoo, cavachon, etc, all those 'new' breeds that are coming through, some of which partly to mix dogs with good temperament with dogs with preferable coats?

How is it giving up on centuries of breeding - its still breeding, its still selecting for dogs with desirable characteristics, which is how it was and still is today for the likes of showing, or even just for a companion dog.

In the case of a working dog, you create a new breed with what you need, much in the way that collies were bred for being sheep dogs and grey hounds and whippets were bred for speed (was that for hare coursing... i'm sure it was) and poodles with their crazy fur for being water dogs.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> The short tail gene can cause other spinal problems (and not just in dogs - for example manx cats), so is not such an ideal solution.


Well it might take a little longer, but you can still select dogs with the shortest tail for breeding, and not directly those with the detrimental 'short tail' gene you talk of.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Phoenix24 said:


> Well it might take a little longer, but you can still select dogs with the shortest tail for breeding, and not directly those with the detrimental 'short tail' gene you talk of.


That is possible however will take generations especially if you want to keep working ability, health and good temperment intact. Also a lot of dogs and spaniels make up a good percentage of rescue dogs as it is especially working line spaniels that can be too much for a lot of people. The working bred terriers are even worse


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> I dont think anyone is saying a docked dog cant live a full happy life. I dont think anyone is saying its a horrible of a procedure for a dog to have to endure.
> 
> For me, its not even the docking itself that I have an issue with. Its the justifications for it. The fake façade of altruism. Come on its convenience, its human capriciousness. The heated defense begins sounding a bit like "the lady doth protest too much."
> 
> ...


For myself I don't believe I've adopted any façade of altruism, fake or otherwise. I do what I feel to be right for my dog. As long as I'm happy with that, other peoples opinions are something they're entitled to, as, I think are mine.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> That is possible however will take generations especially if you want to keep working ability, health and good temperment intact. Also a lot of dogs and spaniels make up a good percentage of rescue dogs as it is especially working line spaniels that can be too much for a lot of people. The working bred terriers are even worse


Its amazing what can be achieved in a few generations. Imagine what you could do in a human lifetime.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Phoenix24 said:


> Its amazing what can be achieved in a few generations. Imagine what you could do in a human lifetime.


A lot as we've seen with some breeds in the show ring sadly but again what do you do with the dogs that don't make the grade? Most dogs with a shorter tail or those the breeding programme produces aren't going to be suitable for breeding.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

You know here in the US a lot of dogs hunt with what are called "rash guards". Neoprene vests designed to keep the dog from tearing up his/her chest and belly while going through thick cover. I'm actually looking in to one for Bates (mutt) who has a very thin coat and is constantly covered in scrapes and scratches from simply living his life at mach 10 like he does.
I wonder how hard it would be to simply protect the tail with some sort of covering? I mean, I know... tails do not stay bandaged well, but if someone could invent a tail guard of some sort, man, they could make a fortune AND do away with the need for docking


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Phoenix24 said:


> Well it might take a little longer, but you can still select dogs with the shortest tail for breeding, and not directly those with the detrimental 'short tail' gene you talk of.


Meanwhile rejecting outstanding dogs because they do not meet a certain length of tail? or using inferior dogs because their tails are shorter? there is WAY too much grey area.



Phoenix24 said:


> *Its amazing what can be achieved in a few generations.* Imagine what you could do in a human lifetime.


Based on what? I don't believe you could breed for consistently shorter tails in a couple of generations without introducing other breeds.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Phoenix24 said:


> And would you say that to the breeders of the labradoodle, cockapoo, cavachon, etc, all those 'new' breeds that are coming through, some of which partly to mix dogs with good temperament with dogs with preferable coats?
> 
> How is it giving up on centuries of breeding - its still breeding, its still selecting for dogs with desirable characteristics, which is how it was and still is today for the likes of showing, or even just for a companion dog.
> 
> In the case of a working dog, you create a new breed with what you need, much in the way that collies were bred for being sheep dogs and grey hounds and whippets were bred for speed (was that for hare coursing... i'm sure it was) and poodles with their crazy fur for being water dogs.


Yes and gundogs have been bred for centuries for their abilities not just their looks.

What do you think of the mutilation of spay/neuter?


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

rona said:


> Yes and gundogs have been bred for centuries for their abilities not just their looks.
> 
> *What do you think of the mutilation of spay/neuter?*


Ahh that's different cos you can't see it.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

This argument just goes around in circles, and what annoys me is that people like myself choose who to have a small procedure carried out to prevent possible future injury are castigated, And yet, or so it seems to me. is that it's fine to carry on breeding dogs that have so many inherent health problems that many of them are unable to function as dogs should. Perhaps a possible solution might be to cross a springer with a pug, they have tight curly tails that might not need docking, I'm sure someone could manage that. Not sure how good a beating dog it would prove to be though. I doubt it would have the stamina for seven hours in cover.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

labradrk said:


> Ahh that's different cos you can't see it.


Well they are trying to stop it being carried out on farm animals, so why is it still promoted for pets?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

springerpete said:


> Perhaps a possible solution might be to cross a springer with a pug, they have tight curly tails that might not need docking


And then you run the risk of introducing hemiverterbra.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> There are two fallacious arguments going on here that have always bugged me in these discussions.
> 
> One, the "it's not as bad as..." argument. No, docking is not as bad as heaps of other stuff that is done to dogs worldwide. However, that doesn't automatically translate in to docking being just fine and dandy.
> 
> ...


Hunting is an industry, not a hobby, and is worth millions of pounds to the economy. Agility, working trials, fly ball etc, etc, all require training, but they do not prop up an industry of millions, many people with dogs give up their weekends, and other days because they enjoy working their dogs, and want to contribute towards the sport.

There is very little understanding of working gundogs from some of the posts I've seen. So, breed for a bob tailed spaniel, discounting the fact this may bring in spinal problems, that's not just springers and cockers, but sussex, clumbers, field and even American cockers which are an off shoot of cockers. And what about HPR's?

It's a load of b*llocks, people are willing to put their pups/dogs through elective procedures that are most likely to be at least as painful, and yet this one procedure is picked out as mutilation. Laughable, that something that is such a simple and short procedure, and allows a dog to have a full working career, is the devil's work.

Surely I will soon be told how cruel I am for allowing my dogs to retrieve freshly shot game. I mean, fancy making them put dead things in their mouths, anyone would think that's what they're bred to do!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

springerpete said:


> This argument just goes around in circles, and what annoys me is that people like myself choose who to have a small procedure carried out to prevent possible future injury are castigated, And yet, or so it seems to me. is that it's fine to carry on breeding dogs that have so many inherent health problems that many of them are unable to function as dogs should. Perhaps a possible solution might be to cross a springer with a pug, they have tight curly tails that might not need docking, I'm sure someone could manage that. Not sure how good a beating dog it would prove to be though. I doubt it would have the stamina for seven hours in cover.


I've not seen one person on here who has said it is ok to carry on breeding dogs with health problems. In fact the opposite is true; people are arguing that if show breeders can and are breeding away from exaggerations then surely it's not beyond belief that working breeders can breed a dog that is fit for function.

Some of the more exaggerated breeds may not be ok in my lifetime, just as a springer with a short enough tail might not appear in your lifetime - but neither is an excuse not to do it or to support breeders who refuse to do it.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

MerlinsMum said:


> And then you run the risk of introducing hemiverterbra.


Ah, but it would cut out the need for docking which seems to be the issue, and people like me would be safe from being branded as barbaric.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hunting is an industry, not a hobby, and is worth millions of pounds to the economy. Agility, working trials, fly ball etc, etc, all require training, but they do not prop up an industry of millions, many people with dogs give up their weekends, and other days because they enjoy working their dogs, and want to contribute towards the sport.
> 
> There is very little understanding of working gundogs from some of the posts I've seen. So, breed for a bob tailed spaniel, discounting the fact this may bring in spinal problems, that's not just springers and cockers, but sussex, clumbers, field and even American cockers which are an off shoot of cockers. And what about HPR's?
> 
> ...


Yes an industry that receives MILLIONS of pounds in subsidies from the tax payer...an industry built upon cruelty & suffering.

Animal Aid: Public subsidies paid to millionaire grouse shooters

.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

labradrk said:


> Meanwhile rejecting outstanding dogs because they do not meet a certain length of tail? or using inferior dogs because their tails are shorter? there is WAY too much grey area.


No different from rejecting outstanding show dogs because they are too wrinkled, or have entropion, or can't give birth naturally etc etc etc. The show world is learning - the working world somehow think they should be exempt and want to carry on as they have lways done.



labradrk said:


> Based on what? I don't believe you could breed for consistently shorter tails in a couple of generations without introducing other breeds.


So? What's wrong with outcrossing in order to solve a problem? It worked for dallies to get rid of the LUA gene.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I've not seen one person on here who has said it is ok to carry on breeding dogs with health problems. In fact the opposite is true; people are arguing that if show breeders can and are breeding away from exaggerations then surely it's not beyond belief that working breeders can breed a dog that is fit for function.
> 
> Some of the more exaggerated breeds may not be ok in my lifetime, just as a springer with a short enough tail might not appear in your lifetime - but neither is an excuse not to do it or to support breeders who refuse to do it.


I don't believe that I said anyone on here was supporting irresponsible breeding, and if anyone can produce a springer with a somewhat shorter tail then good on them, I applaud them, until then 'Smug' gun dog types' as I saw us refered to on another thread, will just have to follow our hearts and do what we consider best for our dogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

springerpete said:


> I don't believe that I said anyone on here was supporting irresponsible breeding, and if anyone can produce a springer with a somewhat shorter tail then good on them, I applaud them, until then 'Smug' gun dog types' as I saw us refered to on another thread, will just have to follow our hearts and do what we consider best for our dogs.


There is an ignore function Pete


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

You'll have to tell me how to use it before my pc goes through the window.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

springerpete said:


> You'll have to tell me how to use it before my pc goes through the window.


Go on to your profile, and you have an option for an ignore list. Just type in the names, it's cathartic!


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Yesssssssssssssss.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who can carry on blithely ignoring everyone and anyone who has the temerity to hold an opinion that differs tfrom mine.

I would much rather argue my corner if I felt I was in the right, and change my mind if I felt that I was in the wrong.

Still, it takes all kinds.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

It does indeed. But it also helps to know when to call a halt to a discussion that is going nowhere, Life's too short.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

springerpete said:


> It does indeed. But it also helps to know when to call a halt to a discussion that is going nowhere, Life's too short.


Some of us think time spent making people aware that they don't have to mutilate their dogs is time well spent. I'm not talkiing about died-in-the-wool people who are never going to be convinced here - I'm talking about the fact that this is an open forum and this thread can be viewed by anyone and everyone. For me, life isn't too short to make sure that they at least see there is a different way to ensure working dogs are fit for function rather than chopping off their tails just in case they _might_ get an injury. Whether they choose to accept it or to go on their merry way regardless is their own responsibility.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> You know here in the US a lot of dogs hunt with what are called "rash guards". Neoprene vests designed to keep the dog from tearing up his/her chest and belly while going through thick cover. I'm actually looking in to one for Bates (mutt) who has a very thin coat and is constantly covered in scrapes and scratches from simply living his life at mach 10 like he does.
> I wonder how hard it would be to simply protect the tail with some sort of covering? I mean, I know... tails do not stay bandaged well, but if someone could invent a tail guard of some sort, man, they could make a fortune AND do away with the need for docking


I so need one for Bear just because he likes to jump up and down in the thickest brambles he can find and is therefore very red looking. I worry though, that it would get caught on the brambles. 

Springers, as has already been noted, dive into the thickest cover. Whether you work your dog or not,it's what springers have been bred to do for many generations. This inevitably leads to tail injuries, especially because they don't wag, their tails go in circles, so get caught more easily than a side to side wag.

For those saying there's no point in docking _in case_ of future injury, did you see the chart I posted? Let's just let those 49% suffer persistently, then, that's better for your soul than docking and causing temporary suffering. :yesnod: 









And at some point, I'm probably going to see the vet to get Zak's tail operated on because of constant injuries. I'd prefer that he'd had the docking done as a tiny puppy because now,it'll take longer to heal and be more of a trauma for him to go to the vet, have a general anaesthetic, but obviously far better not to have had it done as a baby.


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

ouesi said:


> For me, it's not even the docking itself that I have an issue with. It's the justifications for it. The fake façade of altruism. Come on… it's convenience, it's human capriciousness. The heated defense begins sounding a bit like "the lady doth protest too much."


   In what way is a docked dog "convenient" for its owner?

Convenient so that I don't need to keep cleaning blood stains off the walls and furniture? Convenient so that I don't have to keep making protective tip-covers every time she splits the end? Convenient so that I don't have to deal with a granuloma and weeks of healing?

It's not convenience; it IS altruism.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> I so need one for Bear just because he likes to jump up and down in the thickest brambles he can find and is therefore very red looking. I worry though, that it would get caught on the brambles.
> 
> Springers, as has already been noted, dive into the thickest cover. Whether you work your dog or not,it's what springers have been bred to do for many generations. This inevitably leads to tail injuries, especially because they don't wag, their tails go in circles, so get caught more easily than a side to side wag.
> 
> For those saying there's no point in docking _in case_ of future injury, did you see the chart I posted? Let's just let those 49% suffer persistently, then, that's better for your soul than docking and causing temporary suffering. :yesnod:


There were 12,792 Springers registered with the KC in 2012. There are probably many more working dogs not KC registered. A survey on 120 dogs is hardly giving a true picture.

And if it is, only 49 dogs with injury out of the thousands who are registered (a vast amount of whom will be dogs with undocked tails) is no argument for docking.

And that's not even addressing the fact that the graph itself is meaningless.

Imagine a dog with an 8 inch tail. According to the graph, if it is an 8 inch docked tail, only 13 out of 162 will be injured. (2nd column) Yet if it is an 8 inch undocked tail, 49 out of 120 tails will be injured. (3rd column) They can't both be right.

The survey is meaningless and bears no resemblance to what is actually happening.

You can make statistics say anything - unfortunately, these statistics are not proving what pro-dockers would like them to prove.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who can carry on blithely ignoring everyone and anyone who has the temerity to hold an opinion that differs tfrom mine.
> 
> I would much rather argue my corner if I felt I was in the right, and change my mind if I felt that I was in the wrong.
> 
> Still, it takes all kinds.


God, I'm with you SW! I love a good debate, on many occasions I've listened to other opinions & they've changed my mind - but when I know I'm right I'll argue my case till the cows come home lol

I actually think some people say they have someone on ignore when they haven't really, they're just pretending

.

.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> God, I'm with you SW! I love a good debate, on many occasions I've listened to other opinions & they've changed my mind - but when I know I'm right I'll argue my case till the cows come home lol
> 
> I actually think some people say they have someone on ignore when they haven't really, they're just pretending
> .


So do I


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

springerpete said:


> I respect your stance against shooting, could I ask, just out of interest how you stand on *factory farming*, genetically modified crops, the addition of various additives to the food of livestock that is destined to end up on the tables of thousands of people across the world. You see I'm not sure which is the more immoral. Not wishing to start a debate, just curious.


Most pheasants released in the UK are bred on factory farms, 40% are imported from abroad. Disgracefully, the shooting lobby also pushed for them to be exempt from welfare legislation brought in to improve the conditions of caged birds of farms meaning they are actually worse off than battery chickens under the law.

There's also no need to shoot them out of the sky. They are semi-domestic and conditioned to eat out of feeders - why not just shoot them in the release pen and have a better chance of being on target?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

mummyschnauzer said:


> I'm glad I don't have a working dog and the dilemma of whether to dock or not, there really isn't a right or wrong answer here, you either have the tail docked or half docked whatever your preferenece, and hope a 3 day old pyppy doesn't suffer too much while having it done, or watch an adult dog have his tail ripped or badly injured and go through the painful process of Vet's visits and maybe even surgery, and then the lenghty painful period of the healing process or in some cases always having a problem because the tail hasn't healed and then final amputation.
> 
> I think I would go with the docking from a young age.


Can I just say, there is no such thing as docked, or half, docked. The portion of tail removed is nothing to do with the original length, it's about removing any part more prone to injury. So for a spaniel, generally, the correct length is approx a 2/3 length of the tail, and for *some* HPR's* it's approx 1/3.

The show dock is a more extreme dock than anything you would see on a working gundfog.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> Most pheasants released in the UK are bred on factory farms, 40% are imported from abroad. Disgracefully, the shooting lobby also pushed for them to be exempt from welfare legislation brought in to improve the conditions of caged birds of farms meaning they are actually worse off than battery chickens under the law.
> 
> There's also no need to shoot them out of the sky. They are semi-domestic and conditioned to eat out of feeders - why not just shoot them in the release pen and have a better chance of being on target?


And your stats for those lovely 2 for a fiver chickens that have their throats slit, if they're lucky, and are then electrocuted. Or is that the other way around, what a great way for them to live/die.

And WHAT????? Just read your post? Yep, we pet the pheasant's regularly :skep:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The show dock is a more extreme dock than anything you would see on a working gundfog.


There is no such thing as a show dock. Since 6th April 2007 all dogs docked in England have to conform to the law covering working dogs - ergo the only dogs shown with docked tails are working dogs who are also shown.

Furthermore, they are only allowed to be shown at shows where the public do not pay to enter - even in gamekeeper classes.

For those who don't know, gamekeeper's classes are not open to anyone; they are restricted to _"gundog owners who are employed as bona fide head, single-handed, beat or under-keepers, river-keepers or stalkers, or those who have been empoloyed in one of those positinos and has retired"._

_Quoted from the 2014 Crufts schedule_


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> And if it is, only 49 dogs with injury out of the thousands who are registered (a vast amount of whom will be dogs with undocked tails) is no argument for docking.
> 
> The survey is meaningless and bears no resemblance to what is actually happening.


49 out of the 110 queried so 45%, not 49 out of thousands. Meaningless figures work both ways  I think it's easy to ignore a small survey, but if you speak to people who have undocked springers, I fear you will find a repeat of the chart, nearing at least half experiencing tail injuries.

As an aside, I think it's a shame that, rather inevitably, this thread has diverted from its original point.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And your stats for those lovely 2 for a fiver chickens that have their throats slit, if they're lucky, and are then electrocuted. Or is that the other way around, what a great way for them to live/die.


I don't agree with poor chicken welfare either. My point is that most released pheasants are descended from birds kept on intensive farms - that is a fact.



> And WHAT????? Just read your post? Yep, we pet the pheasant's regularly :skep:


They are semi-domestic. As in they have been genetically selected and crossbred for generations, they are raised on farms and most that are released do not do very well in the wild. Anyone who's been to the countryside will know how 'dopey' pheasants are compared to wild birds and this is because they are not truly wild creatures.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> I don't agree with poor chicken welfare either. My point is that most released pheasants are descended from birds kept on intensive farms - that is a fact.
> 
> They are semi-domestic. As in they have been genetically selected and crossbred for generations, they are raised on farms and most that are released do not do very well in the wild. Anyone who's been to the countryside will know how 'dopey' pheasants are compared to wild birds and this is because they are not truly wild creatures.


Sorry, but there are wild partridge and pheasant up the road from me, that lead a completely natural life. I live in the countryside, and know exactly how game birds survive.

The largest cause of casualties I see by far, are those commuting to work.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hunting is an industry, not a hobby, and is worth millions of pounds to the economy. Agility, working trials, fly ball etc, etc, all require training, but they do not prop up an industry of millions, many people with dogs give up their weekends, and other days because they enjoy working their dogs, and want to contribute towards the sport.


Great, and so?
Why does it matter that hunting is an industry? I dont get the argument.
If youre docking to prevent injury, youre docking to prevent injury. There is no hierarchy of importance in preventing injury just because the injury is sustained in an industry vs. a hobby. Thats not a logical argument.

Or look at it this way. Every single dog I have ever owned has had dew claws, and every single dog I have ever owned has injured those dew claws simply doing every day pet dog stuff. 
Given the choice, I would have asked the breeders to remove the dew claws at a few days old in order to prevent injury. NOT because I foresaw a career for that dog that was part of an oh-so-important industry. Simply because Ive dealt with enough dew claw issues that if I can prevent them, I will. (I never had that choice with my rescues and mutts.)
However, recently I have read some articles about how dogs use their dew claws that make me wonder if it would be better to leave them. IOW, I keep an open mind


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Great, and so?
> Why does it matter that hunting is an industry? I dont get the argument.
> If youre docking to prevent injury, youre docking to prevent injury. There is no hierarchy of importance in preventing injury just because the injury is sustained in an industry vs. a hobby. Thats not a logical argument.
> 
> ...


Are you suggesting working gundogs use their tails to sweep aside brambles?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I just wanted to add here, I promise to keep an open mind about HWTM, I've yet to see dog with natural rhythm, but who knows?!


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Given the choice, I would have asked the breeders to remove the dew claws at a few days old in order to prevent injury.


Oh, so not because it's convenient then?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry, but there are wild partridge and pheasant up the road from me, that lead a completely natural life. I live in the countryside, and know exactly how game birds survive.


There's been a wild population of pheasants in Britain for centuries but these are not to be confused with the farmed and released hybrids (although there is inevitably some cross breeding). 35 million pheasants do not magically appear in the countryside each year by immaculate conception and nearly all of these are dead by the next season because they are just not great at surviving. Even the game and wildlife conservation trust estimates that only 10% of pheasants shot are wild-bred.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> The largest cause of casualties I see by far, are those commuting to work.


You're obviously not going to see the ones that die from predation, starvation and exposure....


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Are you suggesting working gundogs use their tails to sweep aside brambles?


No. Im suggesting that injury prevention *should* be reason enough to dock.

That so many gun dog people are getting all defensive, and that you feel the need to point out how hunting is an oh-so-important industry with more value than a hobby or being a mere pet starts suggesting to me that there may be more to this docking thing than injury prevention. Not to mention the condescending tone...

If you are secure in your decision, you dont need put-downs for those who disagree with you.
If you are not secure in your decision, why would that be? Im asking rhetorically BTW, not really looking for an answer.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

shamykebab said:


> Oh, so not because it's convenient then?


No  
I spay for my convenience, true. But dew claws ALWAYS get injured. Though true, the blood spatter is rather inconvenient....

Come to think of it, Bates splattered the walls with ear blood getting his ear nicked on some briars. Maybe my next mutt needs to get a close fighting dog crop, and bonus, if the crop is close enough, I wont need to tape anything so it will be convenient too


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> There's been a wild population of pheasants in Britain for centuries but these are not to be confused with the farmed and released hybrids (although there is inevitably some cross breeding). 35 million pheasants do not magically appear in the countryside each year by immaculate conception and nearly all of these are dead by the next season because they are just not great at surviving. Even the game and wildlife conservation trust estimates that only 10% of pheasants shot are wild-bred.
> 
> You're obviously not going to see the ones that die from predation, starvation and exposure....


From those pesky things called foxes, my word! Surely they don't exist except they do, and an old dog fox has been spotted a number of times on the shoot.



ouesi said:


> No. Im suggesting that injury prevention *should* be reason enough to dock.
> 
> That so many gun dog people are getting all defensive, and that you feel the need to point out how hunting is an oh-so-important industry with more value than a hobby or being a mere pet starts suggesting to me that there may be more to this docking thing than injury prevention. Not to mention the condescending tone...
> 
> ...


Oh get a life!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> There's been a wild population of pheasants in Britain for centuries but these are not to be confused with the farmed and released hybrids (although there is inevitably some cross breeding). 35 million pheasants do not magically appear in the countryside each year by immaculate conception and nearly all of these are dead by the next season because they are just not great at surviving. Even the game and wildlife conservation trust estimates that only 10% of pheasants shot are wild-bred.
> 
> *You're obviously not going to see the ones that die from predation, starvation and exposure....*


On a shoot, yep, we do.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Great, and so?
> Why does it matter that hunting is an industry?


You're gonna get an answer anyway. Some people are saying it's a hobby so let's not dock because we're doing it so it's convenient. It's not done for convenience, it's done to enable dogs to work with less chance of being injured because hunting is not some hobby for the bored, it's a job for some.



lennythecloud said:


> There's been a wild population of pheasants in Britain for centuries but these are not to be confused with the farmed and released hybrids (although there is inevitably some cross breeding).


Hybrid=two different species breeding together. Just saying.

No, that many pheasants don't suddenly appear, but I dispute them being 'semi-tame' or whatever, because they revert to type very quickly and become 'wild' pretty shortly after release bar a decreasing reliance on food being provided, perhaps. They're not sitting on our shoulders being petted.

As this has gone very off topic, can I ask what you all think about landowners being actively encouraged to shoot rabbits to keep numbers down? Are they of less value than pheasants or badgers?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> *
> 
> 
> Code:
> ...


Hunting and shooting generates millions, possibly more towards the economy. Ooooohf, I wonder how much hwtm generates?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Well, obviously, those commenting with authority, have actually, worked their dogs, either proven them pulling sleds, or at sheep dog trials?


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

shamykebab said:


> In what way is a docked dog "convenient" for its owner?
> 
> Convenient so that I don't need to keep cleaning blood stains off the walls and furniture? Convenient so that I don't have to keep making protective tip-covers every time she splits the end? Convenient so that I don't have to deal with a granuloma and weeks of healing?
> 
> It's not convenience; it IS altruism.





Spellweaver said:


> *There is no such thing as a show dock*. Since 6th April 2007 all dogs docked in England have to conform to the law covering working dogs - ergo the only dogs shown with docked tails are working dogs who are also shown.
> 
> Furthermore, they are only allowed to be shown at shows where the public do not pay to enter - even in gamekeeper classes.
> 
> ...


but it is fact that there was. never have i Ever seen a working terrier with a tail docked as short as Tobys was- he could barely wag his wee stump. his pedigree haven't seen a rat in many many many generations- he was docked purely for show.



ouesi said:


> Great, and so?
> Why does it matter that hunting is an industry? I dont get the argument.
> *If youre docking to prevent injury, youre docking to prevent injury. * There is no hierarchy of importance in preventing injury just because the injury is sustained in an industry vs. a hobby. Thats not a logical argument.
> 
> ...


i thought that was the original argument that people found fault with?

as for dew claws- my poppet is getting hers off when she is being spayed. both procedures are being done for her own good by the way- it doesn't exactly inconvenience me as she is so incredibly clean she can sleep on the normal blanket on my bed right through her season and never leaves a single stain. she is 3 and kuki 5- both still intact and never in a position to get caught accidentally, but pyo scares me!

i asked when kuki was expecting what the protocol was here for de-claw removal (most of the people i talk to 'in the breed' would be from other countries).. he said he has never liked doing it as he sees far more tail injuries (and racing injuries like tendon, bone damage etc) than pets having notable trouble with dew claws... he has changed his mind on the dew claw one from the number of times he has helped me patch her paw up after she catches it in the fields... he was the one who said that b**ger is coming off at her spay!' so it wasn't even my idea in the end! 
guess it depends on the area you/your vet is in as to what they deal with most- he is a country vet through and through, and has many, many beaters and the like in his clientele (and a few from-home hound racers- by that i mean they live as pets apart from racing day)


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> You're gonna get an answer anyway. Some people are saying it's a hobby so let's not dock because we're doing it so it's convenient. It's not done for convenience, it's done to enable dogs to work with less chance of being injured because hunting is not some hobby for the bored, it's a job for some.


So say its for injury prevention (as you, cinnamontoast have already with the helpful chart) instead of taking pot shots at other sports and venues in an attempt to defend what youre doing.

Seriously, why cant we just say its to prevent injury and have that be good enough? Why does the whole its a job thing have to come in to it? Why is hunting more important that taking your therapy dog to the childrens cancer ward? Because theres more money at stake? Really? Now money is what were going to use as a gage for what is and what is not humane? 
The argument insults the intelligence.

Ive always thought of hunting as an aristocratic vestige. The privilege of a hoity-toity few. I realize thats not necessarily the case, however attitudes like the ones displayed on this thread and others dont do a whole lot to change that view.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Oh GOD, surely not? NOOOOOOOO, people who don't work dogs, simplfy passing judement, that'd NEVER happen


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

kodakkuki said:


> i thought that was the original argument that people found fault with?


Not by me - hence my dew claw example.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> So say its for injury prevention (as you, cinnamontoast have already with the helpful chart) instead of taking pot shots at other sports and venues in an attempt to defend what youre doing.
> 
> Seriously, why cant we just say its to prevent injury and have that be good enough? Why does the whole its a job thing have to come in to it? Why is hunting more important that taking your therapy dog to the childrens cancer ward? Because theres more money at stake? Really? Now money is what were going to use as a gage for what is and what is not humane?
> The argument insults the intelligence.
> ...


It is to prevent injury!!f f f

Honestly astoundeded!!


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

ouesi said:


> So say its for injury prevention (as you, cinnamontoast have already with the helpful chart) instead of taking pot shots at other sports and venues in an attempt to defend what youre doing.
> 
> *Seriously, why cant we just say its to prevent injury and have that be good enough? Why does the whole its a job thing have to come in to it? Why is hunting more important that taking your therapy dog to the childrens cancer ward? Because theres more money at stake? Really? Now money is what were going to use as a gage for what is and what is not humane?
> The argument insults the intelligence.*
> ...


because that didn't seem to be enough. the argument then came up 'well why is it only working dogs that seem to get hurt?' and that was answered. but wasn't a good enough explanation it seems.
mu kuki would never get herself into a position to get hurt the same way poppet would- she has a 100% pet mature, where as poppet is a perfect pet (more active, more obedient and eager to learn/please), but still has the fiesty-ness of an actual original yorkshire terrier, so more prone to follow something into difficult terrain and get in bother.
((i know we aren't talking terriers here really- but yorkies are the only breed i can use as a firsthand example!))


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2014)

kodakkuki said:


> because that didn't seem to be enough. the argument then came up 'well why is it only working dogs that seem to get hurt?' and that was answered. but wasn't a good enough explanation it seems.


So have the conversation. Explain your views. Reiterate if needed. Walk away if youre getting frustrated. 
But why the need to disparage and ridicule other jobs dogs do? Why the need to make it seem like mere pets are less important? Why the superior attitude? 
I dont get it, and it seems to happen a good bit in any discussion that includes hunting and gun-dogs...


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

ouesi said:


> So say its for injury prevention (as you, cinnamontoast have already with the helpful chart) instead of taking pot shots at other sports and venues in an attempt to defend what youre doing.
> 
> Seriously, why cant we just say its to prevent injury and have that be good enough? Why does the whole its a job thing have to come in to it? Why is hunting more important that taking your therapy dog to the childrens cancer ward? Because theres more money at stake? Really? Now money is what were going to use as a gage for what is and what is not humane?
> The argument insults the intelligence.
> ...


Is it really surprising that people get their backs up when certain members essentially accuse them of mutilating their dogs on every single post?

I don't care whether people agree or don't agree with docking, but there is a real snide undertone from some members.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> No
> I spay for my convenience, true. But dew claws ALWAYS get injured. Though true, the blood spatter is rather inconvenient....
> 
> Come to think of it, Bates splattered the walls with ear blood getting his ear nicked on some briars. Maybe my next mutt needs to get a close fighting dog crop, and bonus, if the crop is close enough, I won't need to tape anything so it will be convenient too


Have to disagee with you on this (unless you mean rear dew claws?). Siberian Huskies never have their front dew claws removed, like many owners I run mine in harness & none have ever suffered injury. - I cant say I've ever heard of anyones dogs getting injured either. Sorry if I have misunderstood.



cinnamontoast said:


> You're gonna get an answer anyway. Some people are saying it's a hobby so let's not dock because we're doing it so it's convenient. It's not done for convenience, it's done to enable dogs to work with less chance of being injured because hunting is not some hobby for the bored, it's a job for some.
> 
> Hybrid=two different species breeding together. Just saying.
> 
> ...


I think its a ridiculous situation. We have predators that could perform that service - unfortunately ignorant landowners see our native predators as 'vermin' aswell.

I value the life of every individual animal, but unlike rabbits or pheasants, badgers are indigenous to Britain, they are an ancient Briton. Rabbits are a prey species - so they breed like rabbits lol, 50 million pheasants are released annually - there are only around 300,000 badger in the whole of the UK - so in this respect badgers are more precious.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hunting and shooting generates millions, possibly more towards the economy. Ooooohf, I wonder how much hwtm generates?


& we are paying them MILLIONS in subsidies! 
Animal Aid: Public subsidies paid to millionaire grouse shooters

.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Ouesi, of course it's to prevent injury, that's surely the whole point. And nobody said being a hunting dog is more valid than being a PAT dog, it's a job, same as any other (as opposed to a hobby)

And as for being the province of the aristocratic class, let me PMSL as I consider those on here who hunt eg Springerpete and Bordie. Cracking blokes, great at what they do, but hardly snotty toffs with their heads in the clouds looking down on us mere mortals! I'm almost-but not quite-tempted to say that that's a very quaint American view of little England, where we've all met the Queen and play polo every second Sunday!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Well, obviously, those commenting with authority, have actually, worked their dogs, either proven them pulling sleds, or at sheep dog trials?


I knew you couldn't ignore me for long

I admit my huskies have never pulled a sled - they have to make do with pulling a rig, scooter or bike lol

.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Have to disagee with you on this (unless you mean rear dew claws?).
> 
> I value the life of every individual animal, but unlike rabbits or pheasants, badgers are indigenous to Britain, they are an ancient Briton. Rabbits are a prey species - so they breed like rabbits lol, 50 million pheasants are released annually - there are only around 300,000 badger in the whole of the UK - so in this respect badgers are more precious.
> 
> .


Bear has had several dew claw injuries meaning several operations, pain, suffering etc. I wish the breeder had removed them all 

So if elephants roamed wild, by your argument, they'd be fair game cos they're not native?! Do you think any non originally native animal should be removed, then?


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2014)

labradrk said:


> Is it really surprising that people get their backs up when certain members essentially accuse them of mutilating their dogs on every single post?
> 
> I don't care whether people agree or don't agree with docking, but there is a real snide undertone from some members.


No, I also disagree with terminology like the thread title itself. No productive discussion can come from emotional attacks on either side.



noushka05 said:


> Have to disagee with you on this (unless you mean rear dew claws?). Siberian Huskies never have their front dew claws removed, like many owners I run mine in harness & none have ever suffered injury. - I cant say I've ever heard of anyone dogs getting injured either. Sorry if I have misunderstood.


I mean front dew claws. Maybe Im doing something wrong, but Ive never had a dog NOT injure a front dew claw. And not all minor injuries either. Lots of veins and arteries in that area that can get torn when a dew claw is ripped.



cinnamontoast said:


> Ouesi, of course it's to prevent injury, that's surely the whole point. And nobody said being a hunting dog is more valid than being a PAT dog, it's a job, same as any other (as opposed to a hobby)
> 
> And as for being the province of the aristocratic class, let me PMSL as I consider those on here who hunt eg Springerpete and Bordie. Cracking blokes, great at what they do, but hardly snotty toffs with their heads in the clouds looking down on us mere mortals! I'm almost-but not quite-tempted to say that that's a very quaint American view of little England, where we've all met the Queen and play polo every second Sunday!


Eh... re-read some of those posts. I could be imagining things, but I dont think Im the only one noticing a tone of superiority... 
And yes, I know its not the case, thats why I even said I realize thats not necessarily the case in my post


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

ouesi said:


> So have the conversation. Explain your views. Reiterate if needed. Walk away if youre getting frustrated.
> But why the need to disparage and ridicule other jobs dogs do? Why the need to make it seem like mere pets are less important? Why the superior attitude?
> I dont get it, and it seems to happen a good bit in any discussion that includes hunting and gun-dogs...


i don't own working dogs, and nevr have i belittled other jobs dogs do. all my dogs are pets- none worked, none shown- though hopefully both will be certified in PAT this summer for different reasons and jobs- i want kuki to be a hospital/old folks home visiting dog, and poppet to school/ kids schemes... so no superior attitude here.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Bear has had several dew claw injuries meaning several operations, pain, suffering etc. I wish the breeder had removed them all
> 
> I don't know of anyone in my breed that removes their dew claws - you'll be hard pushed to find a Siberian in the ring or at a rally with them removed. (sorry to hear about Bears injuries)
> 
> ...


How on earth did you reach this conclusion? That's not what I meant at all OK, i'll try again lol - badger( like elephants ) don't breed prolifically, rabbits being a prey species - do. Rabbits have evolved breeding strategies to cope with predation (culling) the badger hasn't. Badger belong in our ecosystem, that doesn't mean I want non natives killed though- especially not elephants. As I said initially, I value the life of EVERY creature - hence why I'm so opposed to killing animals for fun.

.ETA - I would prefer that 50 Million non native gamebirds wernt dumped in our countyside in the first place. God knows the damage they are doing to our native fauna as they are out competed for food, they are having a serious impact on native reptile and invertebrates which they predate.

.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2014)

I have always struggled to understand how people that love their own pets so much, that look in their eyes and see a soul, can then go out and kill another animal. Just because it's different. Not a dog. 

People would soon change their tune if people hunted dogs for fun. 

My cats bring in worms as gifts. Even they get rescued and released. All life is sacred. Who are we to decide what deserves to live and be cherished and what dies at our hand? :frown5:


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

LOLcats said:


> I have always struggled to understand how people that love their own pets so much, that look in their eyes and see a soul, can then go out and kill another animal. Just because it's different. Not a dog.
> 
> People would soon change their tune if people hunted dogs for fun.
> 
> My cats bring in worms as gifts. Even they get rescued and released. All life is sacred. Who are we to decide what deserves to live and be cherished and what dies at our hand? :frown5:


I take it you are a vegan then?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

LOLcats said:


> I have always struggled to understand how people that love their own pets so much, that look in their eyes and see a soul, can then go out and kill another animal. Just because it's different. Not a dog.
> 
> People would soon change their tune if people hunted dogs for fun.
> 
> My cats bring in worms as gifts. Even they get rescued and released. All life is sacred. Who are we to decide what deserves to live and be cherished and what dies at our hand? :frown5:


They're not hunting for fun the animals the gundogs catch are eaten. The rats probably not so much but these aren't cute little pets they do carry disease. You're so concerned about pets hunting wildlife yet let your cats out? Have you see the stats on the damage domestic cats do to wildlife? Or is it ok when you don't have to see it


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> They're not hunting for fun the animals the gundogs catch are eaten. The rats probably not so much but these aren't cute little pets they do carry disease. You're so concerned about pets hunting wildlife yet let your cats out? Have you see the stats on the damage domestic cats do to wildlife? Or is it ok when you don't have to see it


The birds are first and foremost 'targets' that some are eaten is incidental - people pay for the 'pleasure' of shooting them.

Tons of pheasant are binned annually - the CA are desperately trying to encourage Indian restaurants to take some.

.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

ouesi said:


> So have the conversation. Explain your views. Reiterate if needed. Walk away if youre getting frustrated.
> But why the need to disparage and ridicule other jobs dogs do? Why the need to make it seem like mere pets are less important? Why the superior attitude?
> I dont get it, and it seems to happen a good bit in any discussion that includes hunting and gun-dogs...


I think you're getting a bit paranoid about the gundog thing. The only one who seems to mention them being superior is you.  In the few cases where gundogs have been mentioned it is has been to highlight something that may be more specific to gundogs, nothing to do with being superior.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2014)

labradrk said:


> I take it you are a vegan then?


I have been a strict vegetarian for over 20 years, I do not wear leather or suede and have recently made to change to dropping dairy and eggs from my diet as these industries are complicit in animal cruelty. But understand you asking, no one likes a hypocrite huh 



Nicky10 said:


> They're not hunting for fun the animals the gundogs catch are eaten. The rats probably not so much but these aren't cute little pets they do carry disease. You're so concerned about pets hunting wildlife yet let your cats out? Have you see the stats on the damage domestic cats do to wildlife? Or is it ok when you don't have to see it


My cats are in my garden and thankfully worms seem to be their prey of choice and are carried so gently I can put them safely back in a flower bed.

I'll be honest, if you are anti hunting you are forever asked to justify your stance and prove your worthiness. I'll be honest and say if if someone does eat meat but is against blood sports and hunting for pleasure, that's fine by me. Not my place to preach but I am entitled to have an opinion


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I don't agree with hunting for pleasure or bloodsports, hunting for food and necessary pest control where a quick shake by a terrier is much preferable to bleeding from every hole. I do eat meat


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> 49 out of the 110 queried so 45%, not 49 out of thousands. Meaningless figures work both ways  I think it's easy to ignore a small survey, but if you speak to people who have undocked springers, I fear you will find a repeat of the chart, nearing at least half experiencing tail injuries.
> 
> As an aside, I think it's a shame that, rather inevitably, this thread has diverted from its original point.


Agree about the deviation - but as for the figures, I would argue that 110 dogs out of so many thousands is not a representative example and hence the survey doesn't prove a thing - for example, out of the many thousands someone could easily find 110 undocked working springers who had no injury whatsoever to their tails and produce a graph that said it meant no undocked tails were injured. Unless a full and proper survey is done, advocates on both sides of the argument can use such meaningless figures to prove exactly what they want.



ouesi said:


> So say its for injury prevention (as you, cinnamontoast have already with the helpful chart) instead of taking pot shots at other sports and venues in an attempt to defend what youre doing.
> 
> Seriously, why cant we just say its to prevent injury and have that be good enough? Why does the whole its a job thing have to come in to it? Why is hunting more important that taking your therapy dog to the childrens cancer ward? Because theres more money at stake? Really? Now money is what were going to use as a gage for what is and what is not humane?
> The argument insults the intelligence.


The "because it's a job" argument is merely one of the reasons hunters have found to justify the dichotomy of being animal lovers yet killing animals for sport. If you need a shorter tailed dog becaue of your job, breed for shorter tails instead of chopping the tails off the dogs you have.



ouesi said:


> But why the need to disparage and ridicule other jobs dogs do? Why the need to make it seem like mere pets are less important? Why the superior attitude? I dont get it, and it seems to happen a good bit in any discussion that includes hunting and gun-dogs...


I agree, it does. It amuses me - or would amuse me if it were not a serious matter - that people can (rightly) denigrate over-exaggerated breeding for the show ring, and then in the next breath blithely accept that it's ok to physically alter the structure of a dog to facilitate their hobby.

There has long been a smug "working dogs are better than show dogs" attitude on this forum, and, as you have pointed out, it is really evident in this thread.



labradrk said:


> Is it really surprising that people get their backs up when certain members essentially accuse them of mutilating their dogs on every single post?
> 
> I don't care whether people agree or don't agree with docking, but there is a real snide undertone from some members.


If you are speaking about me I object to you calling it a snide undertone - I have been open and up front about what I thnk during the whole of the thread. (as have most opponents of docking on here). I have definite views; I state them openly; and I accept that others have their viewpoint even if it differs from mine. The snidiness seem to me to be coming from hunters running out of excuses to justify their actions.

As for other members being upset about being accused of mutilating their dogs - would you prefer that people kept quiet about what they see as detrimental treatment of animals? If several members were breeding bullogs that could not give birth without a cesarian, and were trying to say it was perfectly acceptable, would you think it was better to keep quiet about that so you did not upset them, or would you want to voice your opinion against it? (I am, of course, presuming you do think it is wrong to breed dogs that can't give birth naturally - if you advocate physically altering dogs to make them fit for function you may think it is ok  )



LOLcats said:


> I have always struggled to understand how people that love their own pets so much, that look in their eyes and see a soul, can then go out and kill another animal. Just because it's different. Not a dog.
> 
> People would soon change their tune if people hunted dogs for fun.
> :


I agree - I have tried to understand this dichotomy but so far it is eluding me. I can accept that people can hunt and kill for food - but how an animal lover can kill for fun is beyond me.



rocco33 said:


> I think you're getting a bit paranoid about the gundog thing. The only one who seems to mention them being superior is you.  In the few cases where gundogs have been mentioned it is has been to highlight something that may be more specific to gundogs, nothing to do with being superior.


I disagree - see my earlier comment.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree, it does. It amuses me - or would amuse me if it were not a serious matter - that people can (rightly) denigrate over-exaggerated breeding for the show ring, and then in the next breath blithely accept that it's ok to physically alter the structure of a dog to facilitate their hobby.
> 
> There has long been a smug "working dogs are better than show dogs" attitude on this forum, and, as you have pointed out, it is really evident in this thread.
> 
> I disagree - see my earlier comment.


Thank you 
Though honestly, I wasnt even dipping my toe in to the show vs. working debate! I was simply trying to point out that hunting is no different than any other activity you do with your dog as far as a justification for docking. IOW, why would the act of hunting make docking MORE justifiable than say dew claw removal so an agility dog doesnt catch a dew claw on the equipment? I dont see that it does.

But now Ive lost interest since instead of a respectful conversation were now resorting to calling people paranoid or telling them to get a life. Such a compelling argument there


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Thank you
> Though honestly, I wasnt even dipping my toe in to the show vs. working debate! I was simply trying to point out that hunting is no different than any other activity you do with your dog as far as a justification for docking. IOW, why would the act of hunting make docking MORE justifiable than say dew claw removal so an agility dog doesnt catch a dew claw on the equipment? I dont see that it does.
> 
> But now Ive lost interest since instead of a respectful conversation were now resorting to calling people paranoid or telling them to get a life. Such a compelling argument there


I agree about the name calling - I always think that when people have to resort to those sort of tactics then they're on a last ditch attempt to justify a shaky argument.

Don't let those kind of comments make you leave the thread - I appreciate our take on this subject is different but you have come up with some good and interesting arguments that have made me stop and think much more than all the blind acceptance has done, and it would be sad to lose your voice of reason.


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

I am really a bit hesitant to enter this thread, being that it's become a bit of a bear-pit, but I really can't let this go...



> If you need a shorter tailed dog becaue of your job, breed for shorter tails instead of chopping the tails off the dogs you have.


Are you seriously suggesting that a breeding programme designed to shorten the tails of certain breeds (don't give a monkeys about whether they are working, hobby or pet) is preferential to taking the end few inches off the tails of a couple of hundred puppies? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan surgically modifying dogs for human purposes, but you have to apply some perspective.

Such a breeding programme would pump out hundreds of unwanted pups, in this case working type HPR dogs, to be "dumped" on a saturated pet market. The suitable pups would, I imagine, have to be fairly closely bred to inbed the short tail trait. Now this kind of thing is essentially how we all got our different breeds in the first place, but that was back in the day when culling unsuitable pups (sometimes whole litter-loads) was acceptable. It isn't anymore. Do you really prefer such a scenario to tail-docking?

I will at some point this year be having my bitch spayed, it is a form a surgical modification and having her under a general anaesthetic is not a comfortable thought. But, I genuinly feel it is the best thing to do for her long term health. Some may disagree, many PFers have happy, healthy, entire bitches, and good on them, but this is how I feel about my dog.

I very much doubt that a working spaniel breeder enjoys the day these precious young pups are visited by the vet to have part of their tails removed, but they feel that it is the best thing for their long term health. The data available is too sparse to prove or disprove whether or not their belief is well-founded , but I would be a total hypocrite if I didn't respect that decision the way I would like people to respect my decision to spay.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Wilmer said:


> I am really a bit hesitant to enter this thread, being that it's become a bit of a bear-pit, but I really can't let this go...
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that a breeding programme designed to shorten the tails of certain breeds (don't give a monkeys about whether they are working, hobby or pet) is preferential to taking the end few inches off the tails of a couple of hundred puppies? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan surgically modifying dogs for human purposes, but you have to apply some perspective.
> 
> ...


Good post. I too mentioned the negative effects of breeding for shorter tails in already small gene pools but I think that point was ignored. What would you have to compromise to achieve shorter tails?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Wilmer said:


> I am really a bit hesitant to enter this thread, being that it's become a bit of a bear-pit, but I really can't let this go...
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that a breeding programme designed to shorten the tails of certain breeds (don't give a monkeys about whether they are working, hobby or pet) is preferential to taking the end few inches off the tails of a couple of hundred puppies? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan surgically modifying dogs for human purposes, but you have to apply some perspective.
> 
> Such a breeding programme would pump out hundreds of unwanted pups, in this case working type HPR dogs, to be "dumped" on a saturated pet market. The suitable pups would, I imagine, have to be fairly closely bred to inbed the short tail trait.


Fristly, it would be no different than the situation now - when a working breeder breeds for working ability, keeps one pup and dumps the rest (all working type pups) to an already saturated pet market.

Secondly, a moxture of line breeding done properly and outcrossing to breeds with natural bobtails would cause no more inbreeding than exists now in everyone wantiong a pup off a proven worker.

It's yet more excuses for continuing to take the easier method of chopping bits off dogs instead of breeding dogs thatare fit for function.



Wilmer said:


> I will at some point this year be having my bitch spayed, it is a form a surgical modification and having her under a general anaesthetic is not a comfortable thought. But, I genuinly feel it is the best thing to do for her long term health. Some may disagree, many PFers have happy, healthy, entire bitches, and good on them, but this is how I feel about my dog.
> 
> I very much doubt that a working spaniel breeder enjoys the day these precious young pups are visited by the vet to have part of their tails removed, but they feel that it is the best thing for their long term health. The data available is too sparse to prove or disprove whether or not their belief is well-founded , but I would be a total hypocrite if I didn't respect that decision the way I would like people to respect my decision to spay.


You are entitled to your opinion. However, you are not entitled to infer that those of us who argue ahainst unnecessary operations are being hypocritical in spaying and neutering - some of us follow our convictions and only spay or neuter if it is medically necessary.

I have six dogs at the moment, three bitches and three males. They are all entire except the oldest two. The oldest bitch had pyo and was spayed. The oldest dog developed testicular cancer about five years ago and was operatedon successfully.

So if I had bent to the fashion and had them all spayed or neutered, I would have put six dogs through an operation (with all the risks that anaesthesia and invasive procedures incur) when in reality only two have needed one.

When I say I do not advocate surgey unless it is necessary, then that is exactly what I mean.  No hypocrisy there at all.


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

> When I say I do not advocate surgery unless it is necessary, then that is exactly what I mean. No hypocrisy there at all.


I was not suggesting that anyone else was a hypocrite, simply that I would be personally if I opposed it.



> Fristly, it would be no different than the situation now - when a working breeder breeds for working ability, keeps one pup and dumps the rest (all working type pups) to an already saturated pet market.
> 
> Secondly, a moxture of line breeding done properly and outcrossing to breeds with natural bobtails would cause no more inbreeding than exists now in everyone wantiong a pup off a proven worker.


Is that really the case? People I know have found themselves on long waiting lists for a working pup from good lines, surely the breeder forced to sell the majority of their litter to the pet market is one with serious problems. I accept that the status quo isn't perfect, but introducing a whole new trait can only add to the "waste" - you have all the current traits you want to keep, breeding out undesirable traits from the outcrossing and stabilising the short tail characteristic so it breeds true. That's a lot of breeding and a lot of puppies.

I don't like docking as such and it would be nice if it wasn't thought necessary, but until I've walked a mile in the shoes of someone who works a spaniel or similar, I don't think I'm qualified to tell them how to deal with the problems they face. Once again, note the use of "I" - you are a different person to me, you have experiences I don't have, I'm not projecting my situation or feelings onto you.

My only reason for posting was that "breed it in" is a common response in threads like this, and I feel that there isn't enough consideration that it's easier said than done, and isn't consequence free.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> So you weren't accusing the show community of:
> or accusing them of having operations performed and not declaring it when you wrote
> So if you weren't accusing show people of doing such things, what did you mean?


I have only just got back to this thread . Having read through the 10 or so pages I had missed I see that you are constantly having to be told that that is not what someone said - so I will say the same.

I have not 'accused' anyone of doing anything. I was not aware that there was a 'show community'. There are thousands of individuals who show their dogs for various reasons. There will also not doubt be groups within a breed that get quite close and with a numerically small breed like one of yours then you will probably know each other and all the dogs but hardly in every breed  All I have done is state things that I have had experience of, not things I have guessed at, not things I have heard rumoured, but things I know about.



ouesi said:


> If folks would just own it. "I dock my dog because that's what suits me."
> Nothing necessarily wrong with that, modern dogs themselves are a human creation, made to suit humans. As dog owners, we ALL participate to one extent or another of altering our dogs to suit our needs.


Of course everyone alters their dog to suit their needs. I would say docking is one of the least invasive. How about keeping a working dog purely as a pet and not stimulating its mind. That is invasive, that is changing the dog's mindset and not allowing it to be natural. How about owning a terrier and not allowing it to hunt - and so on.



springerpete said:


> This argument just goes around in circles, and what annoys me is that people like myself choose who to have a small procedure carried out to prevent possible future injury are castigated, And yet, or so it seems to me. is that it's fine to carry on breeding dogs that have so many inherent health problems that many of them are unable to function as dogs should. Perhaps a possible solution might be to cross a springer with a pug, they have tight curly tails that might not need docking, I'm sure someone could manage that. Not sure how good a beating dog it would prove to be though. I doubt it would have the stamina for seven hours in cover.


I like it , a pugaspan.



rona said:


> Well they are trying to stop it being carried out on farm animals, so why is it still promoted for pets?


I think this was castration. Who is trying to stop it being carried out on farm animals. That would make for an interesting life 



Spellweaver said:


> No different from rejecting outstanding show dogs because they are too wrinkled, or have entropion, or can't give birth naturally etc etc etc. The show world is learning - the working world somehow think they should be exempt and want to carry on as they have lways done.
> So? What's wrong with outcrossing in order to solve a problem? It worked for dallies to get rid of the LUA gene.


Dalmatians are bred for looks though, not for working ability so if introducing another breed into it changes its temperament it really does not matter.



lennythecloud said:


> I don't agree with poor chicken welfare either. My point is that most released pheasants are descended from birds kept on intensive farms - that is a fact.
> They are semi-domestic. As in they have been genetically selected and crossbred for generations, they are raised on farms and most that are released do not do very well in the wild. Anyone who's been to the countryside will know how 'dopey' pheasants are compared to wild birds and this is because they are not truly wild creatures.


We have 100 percent wild pheasants round us but they are relatively dopey compared with other species. They wander into the road, they wander into buildings, they get stuck and have to be rescued.



noushka05 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> I think its a ridiculous situation. We have predators that could perform that service - unfortunately ignorant landowners see our native predators as 'vermin' aswell.
> 
> .


So you want farmers to allow rabbits to eat the grass that has been very expensively nurtured for the livestock that will end up on your plate and to dig holes that said livestock will break legs in and also to allow foxes to kill the table and laying birds because once a fox has discovered the joys of getting in the hen house it will not bother chasing rabbits around. Also how many foxes do you think would be needed on a farm to clear out the rabbits.
But then I am an ignorant landowner so what would I know!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Wilmer said:


> My only reason for posting was that "breed it in" is a common response in threads like this, and I feel that there isn't enough consideration that it's easier said than done, and isn't consequence free.


I think you underestimate the consideration that will have gone into such a response. I've not seen anyone suggest breeding a dog that is fit for function would be easy - in fact most posts mentioning "breed it in" have remarked that the reason this is not done is because it is far easier to continue chopping bits off.

The ethical route being more difficult is not a reason for its dismissal.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I think you underestimate the consideration that will have gone into such a response. I've not seen anyone suggest breeding a dog that is fit for function would be easy - in fact most posts mentioning "breed it in" have remarked that the reason this is not done is because it is far easier to continue chopping bits off.
> 
> The ethical route being more difficult is not a reason for its dismissal.


Agreed. I suppose its like saying finding a cure for cancer is too difficult, takes too long, and only a few people are capable of it... therefore why bother.

I don't at all see how altering breeding practices to incorporate a new aim, ie selecting dogs with the shortest tails to breed on from, is any more likely to saturate the pet market than someone selectively breeding for any other trait. Let's face it, the 'waste' puppies - if bred from dogs with other desirable/necessary traits (such as flushing prey) will still be useful as working dogs, whether or not they end up 'needing' to be docked. And the saturated pet market is largely down to irresponsible back-yard breeders who don't fully consider what they are going to do with all those puppies they might not be able to sell. There's no reason why a responsible breeding program for working dogs with shorter tails can't be achieved.

And I don't see why it is being called 'breed it in' (which sounds a bit like 'inbreeding') because in my view the route to success starts with 'breeding out' (ie outbreeding/outcrossing) - but someone else has already shot down the idea of crossing a springer with a Brittany, but there are other breeds out there.

Just my view.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Whilst it may not be the case all over the country, where I live, in the sticks, any breeder of working line spaniels or any other breed of working dog for that matter, will be unlikely to have pups ending up in a non working home. The waiting list for well bred workers is such that the guys I know can afford to be picky as to where their pups go, You generally need to be recommended, as was I when I bought my last two. They certainly shouldn't be associated with puppy farmers.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I have only just got back to this thread . Having read through the 10 or so pages I had missed I see that *you are constantly having to be told that that is not what someone said* - so I will say the same.


Are you reading the same thread as me?   Please point out even one post where this has happened.



Blitz said:


> There will also not doubt be groups within a breed that get quite close and with a numerically small breed like one of yours then you will probably know each other and all the dogs but hardly in every breed


:lol: :lol: border colleis a numerically small breed? May I respectfully suggest that you find out about the subject before you press the "submit" button?! :lol: :lol:

Border collies are one of the largest breeds, numerically speaking, in the show world. Up until 1st January this year, they were in Stud Book Band E. They regularly have more than 150 dogs at a show. (At Boston, for example, there were 165 dogs and 218 entries - the largest number of dogs on Working and Pastoral Day and on the whole four days of the show only Irish setters, Labs, Golden retrievers and whippets came anywhere close to that.) In most rings at Champ Shows there are two or three breeds during the day - the border collie rings have only border collies; they often start half an hour earlier than the main show, and the BOB is often rushing straight from the write-up into the group ring.

And believe me, everyone knows everyone else and knows everyone else's dog - unless they are newcomers, in which case they attract even more attention.



Blitz said:


> Dalmatians are bred for looks though, not for working ability so if introducing another breed into it changes its temperament it really does not matter.


Of course temperament matters - whether the dog is a working dog or not. When people write things like this, it is really easy to see why some people are angry at others' smug assumptions about non-working dogs.

The dalmation was merely one example - and it was calculated that by the 14th generation it was 99.98% pure dalmation. There was a thread about it here: http://www.petforums.co.uk/pet-news/151496-impure-dalmation-angers-crufts.html So even if I accepted your premise that temperament only matters for working dogs (which I don't) then you would still have pure working dog temperament by the 14th generation.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I have only just got back to this thread . Having read through the 10 or so pages I had missed I see that you are constantly having to be told that that is not what someone said - so I will say the same.
> 
> I have not 'accused' anyone of doing anything. I was not aware that there was a 'show community'. There are thousands of individuals who show their dogs for various reasons. There will also not doubt be groups within a breed that get quite close and with a numerically small breed like one of yours then you will probably know each other and all the dogs but hardly in every breed  All I have done is state things that I have had experience of, not things I have guessed at, not things I have heard rumoured, but things I know about.
> 
> ...


Our natural world is fast disappearing so what I really want is for farmers to stop seeing wild animals as 'vermin & to begin to find ways to coexist with them- It can be done, these 'Predator friendly' farmers do it, and they don't just have foxes and rabbits to contend with >> Predator Friendly® Certification :: Because Wildlife Matters . They value wildlife & share their land with all manner of species - even wolf & bear the Apex predators.

Because they value wildlife they have understanding of how ecosystems function and know that the 'predators maintain the balance of nature. What a fantastic ethos they have >> 'Humane practices keep Livestock safe and Wildlife Alive'. Because Wildlife Matters. these farmers/ranchers are true Guardians of our natural world.

Foxes are territorial you will only have as many as a territory will hold and of course they aren't the only species that predate rabbits. Killing should always be a last resort imo.

Out of interest, do you kill any foxes on your land on sight?

.

..

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: :lol: border colleis a numerically small breed? May I respectfully suggest that you find out about the subject before you press the "submit" button?! :lol: :lol:
> .


You are such a wind up artist 

You know full well that she was talking about your other breed. She did say "and with a numerically small breed like *one* of yours" :hand:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> You are such a wind up artist
> 
> You know full well that she was talking about your other breed. She did say "and with a numerically small breed like *one* of yours" :hand:


Honestly, no wind up - I never even imagined that she would think I was talking about bergamascos rather than border collies because that would make no sense of the point that I was making - which was that even in numerically large breeds everyone knows everyone else and would know if their dog had been altered. And she did say she knew nothing about the show world, so I was pointing out the actualities of the matter to her.

But hey, if she chose to ignore that I was talking about border collies and pretend instead that I was talking about bergamascos just so she could score a cheap point ... well, it backfired!


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

> The ethical route being more difficult is not a reason for its dismissal.


My point was, I'm not convinced creating a new, short-tailed spaniel is ethical. Dogs are being overbred and I see the creation of new breeds and breed sub-types as indicative of increased breeding activity (based on the understanding that developing a new true-breeding trait requires a more intensive breeding effort than maintaining an existing trait).


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Honestly, no wind up - I never even imagined that she would think I was talking about bergamascos rather than border collies because that would make no sense of the point that I was making - which was that even in numerically large breeds everyone knows everyone else and would know if their dog had been altered. And she did say she knew nothing about the show world, so I was pointing out the actualities of the matter to her.
> 
> But hey, if she chose to ignore that I was talking about border collies and pretend instead that I was talking about bergamascos just so she could score a cheap point ... well, it backfired!


you really do make ridiculous assumptions instead of reading what is written 

I rather doubt if you know every single border collie exhibitor in the whole country and the ones you are familiar with I rather doubt if you know the ins and outs of how they keep and produce their dogs.

I suppose I should laugh at your responses but they get a bit too rude for my liking.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Wilmer said:


> My point was, I'm not convinced creating a new, short-tailed spaniel is ethical. Dogs are being overbred and I see the creation of new breeds and breed sub-types as indicative of increased breeding activity (based on the understanding that developing a new true-breeding trait requires a more intensive breeding effort than maintaining an existing trait).


Given that dogs are already being over-bred now, imo it is far more ethical to breed a dog that is fit for purpose than to continue to overbreed dogs that are unfit for purpose and then peforming conformation altering operations on them in order to make them fit for purpose.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Our natural world is fast disappearing so what I really want is for farmers to stop seeing wild animals as 'vermin & to begin to find ways to coexist with them- It can be done
> Foxes are territorial you will only have as many as a territory will hold and of course they aren't the only species that predate rabbits. Killing should always be a last resort imo.
> 
> Out of interest, do you kill any foxes on your land on sight


Honestly, Noushka, I see your point re safeguarding wildlife and how we appear to be ruining our environment, I really do, but the brutal reality is that yes, most farmers will shoot a fox. They are destructive and will kill the whole chicken coop, not just take one to feed themselves and the family. They attack and leave everything dead. When one appeared inside the building where the miniature sheep who are kept at the yard had just lambed, you're damned right the owner killed it.

Re the rabbits, every yard owner I've ever known will happily allow hunters on to exterminate as many bunnies as possible because they are usually overrun. This aside, they'd rather not see horses with broken legs who've tripped in a rabbit hole.

Whilst I empathise with your points regarding our wildlife, I have to look at the reality of how we live and I do wonder whether some on this thread actually understand farming and why farmers get peed off with well meaning but not 'on the ground' folk.

The ivory tower is all very well, but the nasty reality is often very different.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> No. Im suggesting that injury prevention *should* be reason enough to dock.
> 
> That so many gun dog people are getting all defensive, and that you feel the need to point out how hunting is an oh-so-important industry with more value than a hobby or being a mere pet starts suggesting to me that there may be more to this docking thing than injury prevention. Not to mention the condescending tone...
> 
> ...


What a crock! Working gundogs were compared to a hobby, all I said, was that it's an industry, and made great pains to post that *all*l are trained, the difference with gundogs is they contribute towards a multi million pound industry.

FWIW the shoots I go on are not large commercial shoots, and two of them don't buy in any poults to release, in fact they limit the number of hen birds shot for that reason.

I got back from walking the two youngsters at twilight, today alone in the middle of shooting countryside I've seen a superb male kestrel, who is a regular, and a woodcock coming in to roost. Amazing isn't it how all this wild life is encouraged to thrive, and even more, how the dogs love their work and play time.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Honestly, Noushka, I see your point re safeguarding wildlife and how we appear to be ruining our environment, I really do, but the brutal reality is that yes, most farmers will shoot a fox. They are destructive and will kill the whole chicken coop, not just take one to feed themselves and the family. They attack and leave everything dead. When one appeared inside the building where the miniature sheep who are kept at the yard had just lambed, you're damned right the owner killed it.
> 
> Re the rabbits, every yard owner I've ever known will happily allow hunters on to exterminate as many bunnies as possible because they are usually overrun. This aside, they'd rather not see horses with broken legs who've tripped in a rabbit hole.
> 
> ...


We don't appear to be ruining our environment we unequivocally ARE ruining our environment.

Anyone would think we were living in the dark ages - hello, this is the 21st century lol - we have plenty ways of keeping chickens secure from foxes these days. My FIL, Uncles & friend have all manage to do so without killing anything - & our friends have a large flock of chickens & other poultry.

Sadly many farmers and landowners only care about animals with economic value - the intrinsic value of our wildlife is lost to them - to people with this mindset wild animals are just pests, vermin to be killed without a second thought!

These are real farmers living with the 'nasty reality' ABOUT Predator Friendly® except wild animals aren't 'nasty' to these farmers because they embrace and appreciate nature.

,

.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Our natural world is fast disappearing so what I really want is for farmers to stop seeing wild animals as 'vermin & to begin to find ways to coexist with them- It can be done, these 'Predator friendly' farmers do it, and they don't just have foxes and rabbits to contend with >> Predator Friendly® Certification :: Because Wildlife Matters . They value wildlife & share their land with all manner of species - even wolf & bear the Apex predators.
> 
> Because they value wildlife they have understanding of how ecosystems function and know that the 'predators maintain the balance of nature. What a fantastic ethos they have >> 'Humane practices keep Livestock safe and Wildlife Alive'. Because Wildlife Matters. these farmers/ranchers are true Guardians of our natural world.
> 
> ...


I live in a part of the UK where there are no natural predators at all. Rabbits abound then every few years myxy hits and the total population of a small area is wiped out. Our farm's rabbit population was completely eradicated 3 or 4 years ago but now they are coming back. That is a horrible death, it really is foul. The numbers have to be kept down, farm dogs and feral cats cannot do it any more than a fox can. 
Obviously I do not kill foxes as we don't have any. I would kill any animal that interfered with me keeping my own animals. Otherwise I would leave it alone. I am sure there are many foxes that do not go near habitation but if you have a 'rogue' fox that is coming in and killing poultry you do not really have a choice. Same with rats - they are welcome to live in our fields but not in our farm buildings. 
We do not actually own a gun so we do not shoot anything though!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What a crock! Working gundogs were compared to a hobby, all I said, was that it's an industry, and made great pains to post that *all*l are trained, the difference with gundogs is they contribute towards a multi million pound industry.
> 
> FWIW the shoots I go on are not large commercial shoots, and two of them don't buy in any poults to release, in fact they limit the number of hen birds shot for that reason.
> 
> I got back from walking the two youngsters at twilight, today alone in the middle of shooting countryside I've seen a superb male kestrel, who is a regular, and a woodcock coming in to roost. Amazing isn't it how all this wild life is encouraged to thrive, and even more, how the dogs love their work and play time.


It may be an industry but for the shooters its a hobby - they pay the landowner for the 'privilege' of shooting the birds.

Just incase you overlooked this link >> TAXPAYERS are paying MILLIONS of pounds subsidizing these MILLIONAIRES shoots!. Animal Aid: Public subsidies paid to millionaire grouse shooters

.

.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> We don't appear to be ruining our environment we unequivocally ARE ruining our environment.
> 
> Anyone would think we were living in the dark ages - hello, this is the 21st century lol - we have plenty ways of keeping chickens secure from foxes these days. My FIL, Uncles & friend have all manage to do so without killing anything - & our friends have a large flock of chickens & other poultry.
> 
> Sadly many farmers and landowners only care about animals with economic value - the intrinsic value of our wildlife is lost to them - to people with this mindset wild animals are just pests, vermin to be killed without a second thought!


But that's exactly it, isn't it? The farmers have to make a living, sometimes they need to eradicate threats. The badger cull, for example, in the farmers' opinion, it's cull the badgers or cull the infected cows. (Please note that I said the _farmers_' opinion)

Your acquaintances may be able to cope not killing anything, but tell me why my yard owner should have to allow a fox to kill his sheep and how can he keep them safe in their post and rail fenced paddock?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Oh geez, if only it were funny! 

How dare those livestock farmers view their livestock as cash on the hoof! I mean, they do it for the heck of it!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I live in a part of the UK where there are no natural predators at all. Rabbits abound then every few years myxy hits and the total population of a small area is wiped out. Our farm's rabbit population was completely eradicated 3 or 4 years ago but now they are coming back. That is a horrible death, it really is foul. The numbers have to be kept down, farm dogs and feral cats cannot do it any more than a fox can.
> Obviously I do not kill foxes as we don't have any. I would kill any animal that interfered with me keeping my own animals. Otherwise I would leave it alone. I am sure there are many foxes that do not go near habitation but if you have a 'rogue' fox that is coming in and killing poultry you do not really have a choice. Same with rats - they are welcome to live in our fields but not in our farm buildings.
> We do not actually own a gun so we do not shoot anything though!


I understand that in the absence of predators rabbits need to be controlled - you could really do with a fox some stoats & weasels and a few raptors to help you out lol

Have to say its nice to know you wouldn't just kill fox & rats on sight like many do - not that you could kill them on sight even if you wanted to lol

.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

The sad thing is, it is humans that are invading and modifying the world, and because of that there are problems we have to face, 'pests' and predators for example, and someone mentioned bovine TB. 

There sadly is a large amount of cases where the easiest option is chosen, for whatever reason (whether than be chopping off a dog's tail or shooting a persistently destructive fox), rather than addressing the wider issue and putting some effort into finding another way around it. Take the case of bovine TB. With the way science has progressed, the obvious answer is to invest in an effective vaccination against TB for cattle, but no... they would much rather invest in a costly and pointless mass cull of badgers, adding yet another tick to the long list of reasons why humans are simply selfish, brutal, blood-lusting killers (just put it that way for dramatic effect, but you get the idea).

The problems farmers have with foxes and chickens - surely by now we so-called intelligent beings have figured out how to keep a fox out of a coop. I mean, we're quite capable of keeping a lion in a zoo, or even a chimp... err, most of the time.

I will concede it is difficult to keep a fox out a sheep field, but once upon a time there was such a thing as a shepherd, and there must be a technological equivalent someone could employ today. Robots.. yes... that's the answer...  Oh but wait no... that would cost too much and be too complicated.

My point is, it is our responsibility to find alternative ways to 'controlling' our environment without further damaging it, because if we don't then we are going to end up in a serious mess sooner or later, and no amount of technology will help us then - it will be too little too late.

So yeah. Another divergence a little from the main topic... oops.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

The farmer has a very small flock, 4 ewes and their babies from the past few years. Anyone who has limited funds and can't employ a shepherd is going to take the steps he needs to protect the sheep whilst allowing them a natural life. His main income is horses who aren't bothered by foxes so he's not going to do much bar get out his shotgun.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Phoenix24 said:


> The sad thing is, it is humans that are invading and modifying the world, and because of that there are problems we have to face, 'pests' and predators for example, and someone mentioned bovine TB.
> 
> There sadly is a large amount of cases where the easiest option is chosen, for whatever reason (whether than be chopping off a dog's tail or shooting a persistently destructive fox), rather than addressing the wider issue and putting some effort into finding another way around it. Take the case of bovine TB. With the way science has progressed, the obvious answer is to invest in an effective vaccination against TB for cattle, but no... they would much rather invest in a costly and pointless mass cull of badgers, adding yet another tick to the long list of reasons why humans are simply selfish, brutal, blood-lusting killers (just put it that way for dramatic effect, but you get the idea).
> 
> ...


Yes they did have a solution big dogs to chase them away, unfortunately that also went for people and a pyr mountain dog or an anatolian chasing someone away isn't looked on too kindly these days .


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Whilst I empathise with your points regarding our wildlife, I have to look at the reality of how we live and I do wonder whether some on this thread actually understand farming and why farmers get peed off with well meaning but not 'on the ground' folk.


I've spent much of my working life visiting various farms and I like to think I know a little bit about the industry. You can understand something perfectly well but you don't necessarily have to agree with it - it's about being critical and ultimately progressive.

I've been to farms in rural Ireland that were using magic spells as an alternative to a vaccine. I understood why they believed in it (it had worked the previous year!) but I didn't see it as a viable alternative myself...



cinnamontoast said:


> Your acquaintances may be able to cope not killing anything, but tell me why my yard owner should have to allow a fox to kill his sheep and how can he keep them safe in their post and rail fenced paddock?


They should manage them better, most lamb deaths come about because of poor husbandry. Foxes don't prey on adult sheep and the evidence suggests that they do not prey on healthy lambs with healthy mothers either. In my experience foxes predate lambs when the weather is bad (lambs get hypothermic), when the lambs are poor (nutrition/disease issues) or when the mothers are rubbish (breed/age issues). This recent article by 'terrierman' maybe of interest to you (you can hardly accuse him of anti hunt bias):

Terrierman's Daily Dose: What Kills Sheep?

"In a world where less than 1% of sheep are killed by fox, and 15-25% of all lambs in some areas are dying from exposure to weather, perhaps the solution is not to shoot more fox to preserve sheep, but to construct more turn out pens, sheds and hedges where lambs can tuck in to get out of the weather?

The terrier and hound hunting world does not make this point, because to do so would be to admit that fox are not really the fierce lamb killers that they are made out to be"


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

> Given that dogs are already being over-bred now, imo it is far more ethical to breed a dog that is fit for purpose than to continue to overbreed dogs that are unfit for purpose and then peforming conformation altering operations on them in order to make them fit for purpose.


I'm sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right. Breeding a new type means more overbreeding than we have now. More miserable lives. The price is too high for me, thanks.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> But that's exactly it, isn't it? The farmers have to make a living, sometimes they need to eradicate threats. The badger cull, for example, in the farmers' opinion, it's cull the badgers or cull the infected cows. (Please note that I said the _farmers_' opinion)
> 
> Your acquaintances may be able to cope not killing anything, but tell me why my yard owner should have to allow a fox to kill his sheep and how can he keep them safe in their post and rail fenced paddock?


The Victorian attitude of 'eradicating threats' is why we have lost species and have pushed others to the brink! Sadly many farmers are ruled by farming folklore and greed. Ironically in their ignorance the badger cull will have made the bTB situation worse. But hey ho you cant educate pork. I just feel sorry for farmers like Jim Purser a farmer with moral values, his words: 'To farm I have to rape the countryside. It's got to be wrong' >> Another farmer who values our wildlife. http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...e-true-effect-of-the-badger-cull-8664037.html

Im pretty sure a 14 lb fox wont take on a sheep - ive watched foxes on many occasions stroll past the sheep in the field behind my parents house - I guess you mean lambs? when they're lambing take them inside. Studies have shown that fox predation accounts for only a tiny percentage of lamb deaths. (Electric fences are good)



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Oh geez, if only it were funny!
> 
> How dare those livestock farmers view their livestock as cash on the hoof! I mean, they do it for the heck of it!


 hello lol

and that's ALL some farmers care about £££ - they have absolutely no moral values where animals are comcerned.

/


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Pretty sure I mentioned earlier that they're mini breed sheep, very small black things. The lambs are tiny, we had the vet up to deliver a breech, used the old trick of a piece of straw to clear the nose. They're kept in stalls overnight: a fox could easily jump in.


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

FFS I can't believe this is still running, or maybe I can 

. An undocked springer is going to suffer far more pain in adulthood than a docked pup, just pure and simple from the nature of breed, please regardless of your thought of view take it from the view of the working breed. My Alf ( bless his little socks) would be far happier if he had had his tail docked. Don't ask me to walk him in an area where he can't sniff out various other animals, because if you are a true lover of animals you would recognise the very nature of his breed from over hundreds of years, just because humans a have changed their opinion a dogs cannot be change with the click of fingers.

The sheer joy of a springer owner, when returning from an off lead walk is incomparable to a leaded walk, the joy on a springers face really does have to be seen to be believed, the springer knows the deference. And if you were to walk a working dog you too would know the difference. And trust me the two walks would be incomparable. A simple procedure as a pup is worth many hours of pain as an adult dog, and if you do not or will not just stop for a minute and think of it all from the angle of the working dog then you are not true animal lovers. 

I'm sorry, it's rare that I am moved to such nastiness, but I will not take such bile against the docking of tails for animals that are worked in the field/bred for such without the thought for the consequence of the animal with an undocked tail, and after reading through this thread that is all I see, regardless of the animal, all I see is what humans think is right or wrong regardless of what may or may not be right for the animal. 

Do you really think that a working dogs tail is docked for the pleasure of the human? If you do then that says one hell of a lot more of you than those of the people that love these dogs, all you think of is something that is "right on"

As I have said before, my Alf is undocked, I can only assume he was bred from unworkable stock, but much as I love his tail, I wish he had been docked, as it would be far kinder to him. 

Before those against docking spout their bile, all I ask is that you just stop for a moment ants think about the dogs concerning docking, and ask your selves, what would the dog concerned say........
Yes I'd love a full tail and I would love the pain that comes with it. Ok maybe that may not mean a tail that's ripped to shreds but it means a tail that bleeds at least once a week, ok it's my owners fault for walking me offlead in places where there are bushes, but, oh my, if you could see the joy in my face when this happens you'd do it too, 

Please before you doubt the intensity of love those that have springers and other working dogs of similar ilk, and believe me we do with all our heart and beyond. We only have our dogs interest at heart, and trust me, if I could have been at the birth of our Alf and said to the then owner "please, in order to save him so much future pain, dock his tail" I would. I love seeing dogs with full tails, in fact I got snapped at by a rottie owner when I asked about his tail because it was unusual. But there are times when docking has its place, and if you are a true animal lover you will accept this, if you do not accept this the you have little concern for the animals well being, just concern for human being and the concept of what should be rather than what is right by the animal concerned.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> The farmer has a very small flock, 4 ewes and their babies from the past few years. Anyone who has limited funds and can't employ a shepherd is going to take the steps he needs to protect the sheep whilst allowing them a natural life. His main income is horses who aren't bothered by foxes so he's not going to do much bar get out his shotgun.


I'm going to be controversial and say that maybe he should give up his endeavours to breed 'miniature sheep' if his husbandry is up to scratch but he's consistently loosing lambs. They can hardly be productive and there are hundreds of non-miniature breeds to select from. People should keep livestock that are suited to the environment they have - it'd be silly to keep a texel on the moor or a swaledale in a shed - maybe it's silly to keep miniature sheep when they can't cope with normal fox pressure.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> I'm going to be controversial and say that maybe he should give up his endeavours to breed 'miniature sheep' if his husbandry is up to scratch but he's consistently loosing lambs. They can hardly be productive and there are hundreds of non-miniature breeds to select from. People should keep livestock that are suited to the environment they have - it'd be silly to keep a texel on the moor or a swaledale in a shed - maybe it's silly to keep miniature sheep when they can't cope with normal fox pressure.


Or build an enclosure that fox safe!!!! Hardly costly! Save him getting lambs killed and having to kill foxes! In fact with the money he would save on ammo and lambs he would maybe make a profit!!!!


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

bird said:


> Do you really think that a working dogs tail is docked for the pleasure of the human?


It certainly is for some - pet owners who have been used to owning docked Boxers, Rotties or Dobermanns _still_ don't want the tail. And that probably filters down to pet owners of gundogs as well.

The majority of pet dogs bred are destined for pet homes - otherwise there wouldn't be such a wealth of BYBs and puppy farmed dogs flooding the market. As an economic force, they are now the market leaders - they own the canine £pound.

I just wish it wasn't do easy for people wanting a docked dog to be able to get one, via imports from Ireland or Eastern Europe. Surely there needs to be some re-education here.

You can still show docked dogs at many dog shows in the UK - I was surprised to see so many dogs of non-gundog breeds with docked tails at a large Open show I went to recently, all born after the docking ban came in, so there's still a demand. And a supply.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

another way to look at this procedure that we humans do as routine for the well being of the puppy...

do you vaccinate a litter of pups before they leave for their home- or if it is leaving before, do you ensure your pup gets it's vaccines before it head's off for socialization? after all, many, many people believe wholeheartedly that it's necessary for the future well being of the dog- since no one wants to see their dog ill or suffering.
i've watched many, many videos of puppies being docked at 3 days or so yelp, maybe whinge a teeny bit, then back to the teat; i can tell you for a fact that those puppies suffer a heck of a lot less than a 500g 8-9 week old yorkie having a reaction to their vaccine. (my bambi when she was younger- she whimpered for 48 hrs and couldn't move her head without screaming for about 3 days. a yorkie gets the same amount of vaccine as a wolfhound- even though the average yorkie will weight 1kg and average wolfhound apparently 20kg! so it stings more- it hurts more yet as a tiny breed they are far more susceptible to illness (and when they get hit they get hit hard and fast- i know that fact as well) and therefor if you believe in vaccination you will believe in vaccinating a yorkie. (but it has been found that doing boosters for the tiny ones in 2 parts a few days apart stops most of the hurt. but it's still sore)

most also microchip at the vaccine appointment- for the dogs own future safety (but at this time simply because they are already at the vets). bambi stopped growing at 7 months, and has been 1.5kg ever since. she wasn't chipped until 8 months. my vet didn't want to 'stab such a tiny thing' so wanted to wait until she got bigger, and seeing kuki cry at 4 months (and about the same weight) getting it done i completely agreed... 


the things we do IN CASE our dog gets hurt, lost or sick. none of it is overly nice for them (or us) at the time- but they get over it, and some things seen to be gotten over soo much faster than others.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Hmmmm....always a controversial topic this , here's my thoughts, 

A breed cannot be considered 'fit for purpose' if in order to fulfill that purpose we need to cut bits of it's anatomy off.

Shooting is no more an industry than dog showing is, both have some folk who depend on it for their livelihood but it's mostly done as as a form of entertainment and as a hobby.

Training your dogs to bring back the dead or dying bodies of birds you have reared for the sole purpose of blasting them out of the sky is not training them to work in any real meaningful sense , guide dogs work, SAR dogs work, sniffer dogs work, gun dogs simply enable their owners to take part in a hobby , just like show dogs or agility dogs do.

There is no reason why the breeding practices that show breeders are being asked to do such as outcrossing cannot be also done by gun dog breeders to breed for a naturally short tail....either that or stop using them in a pastime where you admit they will be injured. 

And finally ......personally I object to those that have claimed the word 'working' for the type of hobby dogs they breed and wear it like a badge of honour .......it's not and it does not justify their owners deliberately mutilating them.

I breed dogs, they are Show dogs, Assistance and Therapy dogs and some I've bred have been used as SAR dogs .....can I claim the word 'working' for the dogs I breed too ?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> It certainly is for some - pet owners who have been used to owning docked Boxers, Rotties or Dobermanns _still_ don't want the tail. And that probably filters down to pet owners of gundogs as well.
> 
> The majority of pet dogs bred are destined for pet homes - otherwise there wouldn't be such a wealth of BYBs and puppy farmed dogs flooding the market. As an economic force, they are now the market leaders - they own the canine £pound.
> 
> ...


If the general public were allowed in these shows then the exhibitors were actually breaking the law.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bijou said:


> Hmmmm....always a controversial topic this , here's my thoughts,
> 
> A breed cannot be considered 'fit for purpose' if in order to fulfill that purpose we need to cut bits of it's anatomy off.
> 
> ...


those activities don't involve killing defenceless animals, so I don't think so :wink:

Excellent post Bijou.

.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Working, it's just a word, one used to differentiate between examples of a breed that assist on shoots and those of the same breed that don't. It's not meant to denigrate other working dogs regardless of the disciplines they are in, Sniffer dogs, police dogs or those that work alongside the medical profession are all working dogs, The problem with this thread, like so many similar, is that it's been picked up by the anti shooting members, who are perfectly entitled to their beliefs, as, I think, am I and has become a bit of a soap box upon which certain members can vent their spleen.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Wilmer said:


> I'm sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right. Breeding a new type means more overbreeding than we have now. More miserable lives. The price is too high for me, thanks.


I don't agree. I do not see why breeding to a short-tailed type is any different from breeding to a particular working trait. The only difference I can see is that people prefer the easy, status quo option and try to find bogus arguments to preserve that status quo rather than pro-actively trying to solve the problem.

Let's see what happens when we apply your argument to correcting over-exaggerations in the show ring. For your argument to hold, you would have to argue that people breeding over-exaggerated show dogs should not try to breed a new, unexaggerated type but should continue to breed over-exaggerations in order to avoid overbreeding and more miserable lives.

Do you really think that is a valid argument? I don't. But if you don't think it is a valid argument. how can you expect the same argument to hold up when talking about working breeders correcting a fault?

At the end of the day, a working dog with a tail that is too long is merely another example of over-exaggerated breeding. Just because a long tail looks pretty, and wrinkles or squashed faces don't, is irrelevant: in all cases dogs are being bred that are unfit for function. Breeding a dog that needs an operation in order to avoid injury is as bad, imo, as breeding a dog that need an operation in order to breathe properly, or to correct entropion, or that meeds a cesarian in order to give birth.

The truth of the matter is that ethical breeders - be they working breeders or show breeders - breeding to correct a fault that makes a dog unfit for function are _not_ the breeders who are causing over-breeding and miserable lives. For that, you have to look towards unethical breeders such as breeders who deliberately breed dogs that are over exaggerated or are unfit for function - the very breeders, in fact, who you are defending.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> If the general public were allowed in these shows then the exhibitors were actually breaking the law.


Not exactly hun - only if the members of the public had to pay to enter. Docked dogs can be shown at any show where the public dont pay to enter - so even if they win at these shows they can't go to Crufts, for example - not even if they qualify for the gamekeeper's classes. What I didn't realise until I checked up on it just now is that you also have to have permission from the KC to show a docked dog - I am presuming that that is so they can check it was docked legally?

_Permission to show__
The owner of any dog, from any country, which was docked on or after 6th April 2007 (28th March 2007 for shows in Wales) must apply to the Kennel Club for permission to show before competing. Applications must be put in writing to The Kennel Club, 1-5 Clarges Street, London, W1J 8AB, UK._
Competing with docked or cropped dogs in the UK



Bijou said:


> Hmmmm....always a controversial topic this , here's my thoughts,
> 
> A breed cannot be considered 'fit for purpose' if in order to fulfill that purpose we need to cut bits of it's anatomy off.
> 
> ...


Absolutely spot on. Agree 100%.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> The farmer has a very small flock, 4 ewes and their babies from the past few years. Anyone who has limited funds and can't employ a shepherd is going to take the steps he needs to protect the sheep whilst allowing them a natural life. His main income is horses who aren't bothered by foxes so he's not going to do much bar get out his shotgun.


If he has limited funds, then it would be better to invest in more secure housing or else give up keeping sheep altogether. The easy option is to reach for the gun, but it does not solve the long term problem that his sheep are not safe from foxes. It is a farmers responsibility to ensure the safety and welfare of his flock - no matter what the size (and in this case - come on, its only 4 ewes and their offspring, not hundreds of sheep!) - just in the same way a pet owner is responsible for the safety and welfare of their animals.

On another note, I was just waiting for someone to start saying this discussion is giving people a chance to get on their soap box. Bit of a cop out really, isn't it, denigrating other peoples valid opinions by saying they're only on their soap box - in my opinion all of the various divergences from the central topic are all indeed related to the main argument, which isn't really just about chopping off a dog's tail, but about the way mankind alters everything around them to suit themselves, and the justification for it.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

MerlinsMum said:


> It certainly is for some - pet owners who have been used to owning docked Boxers, Rotties or Dobermanns _still_ don't want the tail. And that probably filters down to pet owners of gundogs as well.


That's so very true. My Aunt bred yorkies for years, and even though now the docking of their tails is banned, she still harps on about how she prefers them docked (because of how they look).


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Phoenix24 said:


> *On another note, I was just waiting for someone to start saying this discussion is giving people a chance to get on their soap box*. Bit of a cop out really, isn't is, denigrating other peoples valid opinions by saying they're only on their soap box - in my opinion all of the various divergences from the central topic are all indeed related to the main argument, which isn't really just about chopping off a dog's tail, but about the way mankind alters everything around them to suit themselves, and the justification for it.


It's a classic tactic of those who have run out of valid arguments for their position. It's amusing that some people feel that it's fine to state their opinion, but then accuse others of "getting on their soapbox" when they state theirs.  And funny how they only apply this to the poeple who disagree with them, isn't it? If people expressing opinions are "on their soapbox" then surely this should apply to people on both sides of the argument?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix24 said:


> That's so very true. My Aunt bred yorkies for years, and even though now the docking of their tails is banned, she still harps on about how she prefers them docked (because of how they look).


People who have shown and breed Rottweiler's for year's left the breed because of the ban. It's only just come in to effect in Northern Ireland and not until 2015 in Ireland and people are moving away from these breeds.Drop in registration numbers of Rottweiler's is nearly 50% I think since 2007.

Wonder how dogs in Scotland get on without having docked working dogs, might be wrong but wouldn't Scotland have a larger shooting industry? Be interested to hear from that camp?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Not exactly hun - only if the members of the public had to pay to enter. Docked dogs can be shown at any show where the public dont pay to enter - so even if they win at these shows they can't go to Crufts, for example - not even if they qualify for the gamekeeper's classes. What I didn't realise until I checked up on it just now is that you also have to have permission from the KC to show a docked dog - I am presuming that that is so they can check it was docked legally?
> 
> _Permission to show__
> The owner of any dog, from any country, which was docked on or after 6th April 2007 (28th March 2007 for shows in Wales) must apply to the Kennel Club for permission to show before competing. Applications must be put in writing to The Kennel Club, 1-5 Clarges Street, London, W1J 8AB, UK._
> ...


Thank you for putting me straight on this SW, I didn't realise this, I thought it applied to all shows - I think KC need to tighten their rules! lol



Phoenix24 said:


> If he has limited funds, then it would be better to invest in more secure housing or else give up keeping sheep altogether. The easy option is to reach for the gun, but it does not solve the long term problem that his sheep are not safe from foxes. It is a farmers responsibility to ensure the safety and welfare of his flock - no matter what the size (and in this case - come on, its only 4 ewes and their offspring, not hundreds of sheep!) - just in the same way a pet owner is responsible for the safety and welfare of their animals.
> 
> On another note, I was just waiting for someone to start saying this discussion is giving people a chance to get on their soap box. Bit of a cop out really, isn't is, denigrating other peoples valid opinions by saying they're only on their soap box - in my opinion all of the various divergences from the central topic are all indeed related to the main argument, which isn't really just about chopping off a dog's tail, but about the way mankind alters everything around them to suit themselves, and the justification for it.


Well said

This is an animal forum so largely made up of animal lovers - blood sports are always going to be an emotive subject- especially on a forum like this.

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> It's a classic tactic of those who have run out of valid arguments for their position. It's amusing that some people feel that it's fine to state their opinion, but then accuse others of "getting on their soapbox" when they state theirs.  And funny how they only apply this to the poeple who disagree with them, isn't it? If people expressing opinions are "on their soapbox" then surely this should apply to people on both sides of the argument?


Absolutely SW!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

springerpete said:


> Working, it's just a word, one used to differentiate between examples of a breed that assist on shoots and those of the same breed that don't. It's not meant to denigrate other working dogs regardless of the disciplines they are in, Sniffer dogs, police dogs or those that work alongside the medical profession are all working dogs, The problem with this thread, like so many similar, is that it's been picked up by the anti shooting members, who are perfectly entitled to their beliefs, as, I think, am I and has become a bit of a soap box upon which certain members can vent their spleen.


I wouldn't rise to it, Pete. Leave the pink and fluffy, worm rescuing folk be because this argument just goes around and around in circles. Carry on blasting those birds out of sky and mutilating those non working dogs of yours. :thumbup1:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

labradrk said:


> I wouldn't rise to it, Pete. Leave the pink and fluffy, worm rescuing folk be because this argument just goes around and around in circles. Carry on blasting those birds out of sky and mutilating those non working dogs of yours. :thumbup1:


Really any need? This is what p me off in this place, when people make stupid comments like this!! What was the point of it? What purpose does it serve other than to antagonise people? How childish!


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Really any need? This is what p me off in this place, when people make stupid comments like this!! What was the point of it? What purpose does it serve other than to antagonise people? How childish!


I was going to say the exact same thing. Proves my point exactly, alas.


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

> Let's see what happens when we apply your argument to correcting over-exaggerations in the show ring. For your argument to hold, you would have to argue that people breeding over-exaggerated show dogs should not try to breed a new, unexaggerated type but should continue to breed over-exaggerations in order to avoid overbreeding and more miserable lives.


I don't agree with continuing to breed dogs with over-exaggerations that interfere with their lifelong health. Personally I would quite happily see those breeds die out. If a sub-type was bred, there would be some ethical balance in that the modified dogs would suffer less thus lending some balance to the suffering of the unwanted litters. Not enough in my book, I'd rather see them disappear.

But in talking about working dogs, we're talking about dogs who have good health, but it is accepted wisdom that a small percentage of the pups are better off without the end of their tails. I don't feel that these dogs are destined for lifelong suffering, thus the cost of breeding change is too high. There is no balance.

As for breeding out faults, I cannot see how this requires the same level of intensive breeding that introducing a new trait would?

Anyway, bowing out now, today's too nice for online discussion and Betty will start eating the PC if she doesn't get a walk soon...


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Meezey said:


> Really any need? This is what p me off in this place, when people make stupid comments like this!! What was the point of it? *What purpose does it serve other than to antagonise people? *How childish!


LOL....because no one has been antagonizing people on this thread, have they? it's the same old story on this forum with the same old people ranting into thin air about subjects they know nothing about. It's laughable.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> I knew you couldn't ignore me for long
> 
> I admit my huskies have never pulled a sled - they have to make do with pulling a rig, scooter or bike lol
> 
> .


Could I hire your dogs to pull me out of bed to go to work in the morning?!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

labradrk said:


> LOL....because no one has been antagonizing people on this thread, have they? it's the same old story on this forum with the same old people ranting into thin air about subjects they know nothing about. It's laughable.


Do you work your dogs then? Couldn't remember if you did?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

gorgeous said:


> Could I hire your dogs to pull me out of bed to go to work in the morning?!


Hire them? - you can HAVE them Gorgeous! x

,


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Hire them? - you can HAVE them Gorgeous! x
> 
> ,


I'll swap for a muddy puddle paddling dirty golden retriever?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Phoenix24 said:


> Take the case of bovine TB. With the way science has progressed, the obvious answer is to invest in an effective vaccination against TB for cattle, but no... they would much rather invest in a costly and pointless mass cull of badgers, adding yet another tick to the long list of reasons why humans are simply selfish, brutal, blood-lusting killers (just put it that way for dramatic effect, but you get the idea).
> .


That is an interesting question. I do not know why cattle are not vaccinated but I assume there is a valid reason because it would be far far cheaper than what happens now - at the taxpayers expense and the farmers' inconvenience and sometimes great expense. TB has been worked at being eradicated for decades now. Cattle are tested at regular intervals, depending on how long it is since there has been TB in the area. If there is a positive animal it is culled and there is a movement restriction on the farm. It is taken VERY seriously. In the early days of testing whole farms could be wiped out, they could lose all their generations of blood lines. Most areas are clear now but it has reared its head again in some areas and, whether or not badgers are the main culprit, they are certainly passing it around. Not the badgers' fault and I have no idea how I stand on the issue as I do not live in a TB area.
Most farmers vaccinate their cattle at huge cost against everything they are likely to get so if there was a TB vaccine I am sure that it would be very widely acclaimed. I have not got time to google it just now but will do later.



lennythecloud said:


> I've spent much of my working life visiting various farms and I like to think I know a little bit about the industry. You can understand something perfectly well but you don't necessarily have to agree with it - it's about being critical and ultimately progressive.
> 
> I've been to farms in rural Ireland that were using magic spells as an alternative to a vaccine. I understood why they believed in it (it had worked the previous year!) but I didn't see it as a viable alternative myself...
> 
> ...


I am fairly sure a fox would not attack a healthy lamb. As I said we do not have foxes but we do have gulls that attack weak lambs and ewes. It is heartbreaking to see ewes that have gone down and are stuck a few hours before they are found and are missing eyes or even worse have been disembowelled, actually pecked round their back end till the birds can get their beaks inside and have a feast. These ewes are usually still alive. And lambs which have got chilled but would have been saveable and are gutted and de eyed. At least a fox would kill them a bit quicker! Nature is cruel. We do not have sheep now but I preferred to lamb inside. There are plenty of problems involved with that as well though - but not involving predators.
There is no way that extensively farmed sheep (that method of farming that the public like because it is so kind and natural) can be protected however much a farmer would like to do so.



noushka05 said:


> If the general public were allowed in these shows then the exhibitors were actually breaking the law.


I have had this up to reply to all morning so someone else may have replied. It is only against the law if the public have to pay to get into the show.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

labradrk said:


> LOL....because no one has been antagonizing people on this thread, have they? it's the same old story on this forum with the same old people ranting into thin air about subjects they know nothing about. It's laughable.


If people get so antagonized by differing opinions then perhaps they should stick everyone they disagree with on ignore.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

gorgeous said:


> I'll swap for a muddy puddle paddling dirty golden retriever?


Deal!! - I've had my eye on lovely Lily for years!!:w00t:

.


----------



## catpud (Nov 9, 2013)

Blitz said:


> That is an interesting question. I do not know why cattle are not vaccinated but I assume there is a valid reason because it would be far far cheaper than what happens now - at the taxpayers expense and the farmers' inconvenience and sometimes great expense. TB has been worked at being eradicated for decades now.


It is illegal to vaccinate cattle at the moment. The only vaccine option makes it near impossible to tell the difference from a TB infected cow and a BCG vaccinated cow when testing - hence why under EU law it is not allowed. I believe that there is research being done into making a test that can tell the difference but that will be a long time away - it's going to need to be proven to be very accurate then the EU will have to approve it.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> If people get so antagonized by differing opinions then perhaps they should stick everyone they disagree with on ignore.


Well unless they farm, or work their dogs at shoots, they are pretty much doing what they are accusing everyone else of ranting in to thin air on stuff they know nothing about? Everyone is equal then  apart from those who farm or work their dogs maybe.............. Or rant in to thin air!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Meezey said:


> People who have shown and breed Rottweiler's for year's left the breed because of the ban. It's only just come in to effect in Northern Ireland and not until 2015 in Ireland and people are moving away from these breeds.Drop in registration numbers of Rottweiler's is nearly 50% I think since 2007.
> 
> Wonder how dogs in Scotland get on without having docked working dogs, might be wrong but wouldn't Scotland have a larger shooting industry? Be interested to hear from that camp?


I am in Scotland but fairly remote and there is very little shooting here and I think mainly labs and pointers used as there is no undergrowth  But I would imagine that breeders that are fanatical about getting their dogs docked, or have pups that are going to be worked in proper shooting country, either just do it and break the law (I know one breeder who did this with boxers) or go to England (again I know of breeders that did this when it was easier to get them docked in England) or go to Ireland (till that stops too). On the other hand the breeders that do not want the effort will just have to have pups with tails - which probably limits where they can sell them.
People will go to great lengths to get what they want and I am sure a lot of non showing breeders and those not involved in the dog world probably have no idea it is illegal and carry on doing what they have always done.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Meezey said:


> Well unless they farm, or work their dogs at shoots, they are pretty much doing what they are accusing everyone else of ranting in to thin air on stuff they know nothing about? Everyone is equal then  apart from those who farm or work their dogs maybe.............. Or rant in to thin air!


lol absolutely right! -and then you have to consider that those who do farm & work their dogs don't exactly see things from an unbiased perspective

.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

catpud said:


> It is illegal to vaccinate cattle at the moment. The only vaccine option makes it near impossible to tell the difference from a TB infected cow and a BCG vaccinated cow when testing - hence why under EU law it is not allowed. I believe that there is research being done into making a test that can tell the difference but that will be a long time away - it's going to need to be proven to be very accurate then the EU will have to approve it.


Thank you. I guessed that was it but wanted to check for sure before saying so. BVD (which does not affect humans but is pretty devastating for cattle) is now vaccinated against. There has been a lot of problems with calves caused by the original vaccine so it has not been straightforward. Blood tests on cows that have been vaccinated will show up the same as those that have been in contact and self vaccinated but not the same as an infected animal. Scotland has an eradication program in place and where I live we have been testing and vaccinating voluntarily for years (virtually every farmer) so not vaccinating against TB is not a cost thing - as we have spent a fortune on BVD eradication over the years.

I do think some on here have a very odd opinion of farmers.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I am in Scotland but fairly remote and there is very little shooting here and I think mainly labs and pointers used as there is no undergrowth  But I would imagine that breeders that are fanatical about getting their dogs docked, or have pups that are going to be worked in proper shooting country, either just do it and break the law (I know one breeder who did this with boxers) or go to England (again I know of breeders that did this when it was easier to get them docked in England) or go to Ireland (till that stops too). On the other hand the breeders that do not want the effort will just have to have pups with tails - which probably limits where they can sell them.
> People will go to great lengths to get what they want and I am sure a lot of non showing breeders and those not involved in the dog world probably have no idea it is illegal and carry on doing what they have always done.


Just been reading that the Scottish are lobbying to be allowed to dock and have been as long as the ban has been in place, they are bringing dogs in from England ( and I'm sure allowing there bitches to whelp there) and that it allows the English to corner the working dog market and effects their livelyhood and traditions!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> Thank you. I guessed that was it but wanted to check for sure before saying so. BVD (which does not affect humans but is pretty devastating for cattle) is now vaccinated against. There has been a lot of problems with calves caused by the original vaccine so it has not been straightforward. Blood tests on cows that have been vaccinated will show up the same as those that have been in contact and self vaccinated but not the same as an infected animal. Scotland has an eradication program in place and where I live we have been testing and vaccinating voluntarily for years (virtually every farmer) so not vaccinating against TB is not a cost thing - as we have spent a fortune on BVD eradication over the years.
> 
> I do think some on here have a very odd opinion of farmers.


60% of farmland species are in decline - I believe 10% on the very brink - I don't think its much to expect the people who own most of the land to coexist with nature & be true 'guardians of our countryside' - instead of sterilising it of wildlife.

before I get my head bit off lol -I know some farmers are excellent - I am speaking generally.

.
.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Really any need? This is what p me off in this place, when people make stupid comments like this!! What was the point of it? What purpose does it serve other than to antagonise people? How childish!


Well said Meezey! It's a great pity when people don't have enough courage in their convictions to debate about them sensibly and cogently. It makes one wonder why they post on forums in the first place if all they want to do is post their argument and then ridicule anyone who disagrees with them.

As you say, a very childish tactic - and again one employed by someone who has run out of valid arguments.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> 60% of farmland species are in decline - I believe 10% on the very brink - I don't think its much to expect the people who own most of the land to coexist with nature & be true 'guardians of our countryside' - instead of sterilising it of wildlife.
> 
> before I get my head bit off lol -I know some farmers are excellent - I am speaking generally.
> 
> .


You will find that most farmers are fairly environmentally friendly because a lot of the subsidies are based on environmental practices. It is costing the tax payer a great deal of money and wrecking the place! For example we have a beautiful burn (stream) that runs through the bottom of our farm. Lovely rocky banks and grassy hollows full of wild flowers. The cattle have always kept it grazed down and the flowers have flourished. But oh no, to get environmental payments we have had to fence it off, so instead of a lovely haven for wild flowers it is now a mess of weeds without a flower in sight. I was so mad about it we nearly did not go on the scheme but money has to come first I suppose - and some of the other things we do are helpful to wildlife but to get enough points we had to fence off our beautiful burn and wreck it. We also have to have special grass for birds to eat in a couple of fields and not graze it or mow it. So, the geese do not like it and eat our good grazing, never see other birds in it. It is a mess of weeds and a total waste of money - but the powers that be insist on it. The only useful thing is probably the mowing of silage or hay fields in a way that ensures birds are not trapped in the middle and doing it late enough for nesting birds to have moved on. Ridiculous to pay thousands of pounds out to do this though. Remember too that not so many years ago all the land we are now being asked to wreck was improved with tax payers money. 
So do not blame farmers, try blaming the government when you see land practices you do not approve of.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Aside from childish comments I've learnt a fair bit from this thread so thanks


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Bijou said:


> ...
> And finally ......personally I object to those that have claimed the word 'working' for the type of hobby dogs they breed and wear it like a badge of honour .......it's not and it does not justify their owners deliberately mutilating them.
> 
> I breed dogs, they are Show dogs, Assistance and Therapy dogs and some I've bred have been used as SAR dogs .....can I claim the word 'working' for the dogs I breed too ?


seems you and others already have! an assistance (etc) dog does work... a gun dog does work... they both Work. you may not like it, but the word is not yours...



Spellweaver said:


> Well said Meezey! It's a great pity when people don't have enough courage in their convictions to debate about them sensibly and cogently. It makes one wonder why they post on forums in the first place if all they want to do is post their argument and then ridicule anyone who disagrees with them.
> 
> As you say, a very childish tactic - and again one employed by someone who has run out of valid arguments.


but yet many valid arguments have simply been ignored rather than make people go oh yea, i see your point there but... (only then you would have to have a rebuttal)

blitz- that is very interesting- again, until i looked further in to it i believed farmers destroyed the natural land to bring in their animals that were only there until they were put to slaughter... but first hand stories such as yours (and the farm animal management unit i'm doing) is incredibly interesting- and proves my (and many who believed the same ae me) unfounded opinions to be incorrect. i do love learning about different industries!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> You will find that most farmers are fairly environmentally friendly because a lot of the subsidies are based on environmental practices. It is costing the tax payer a great deal of money and wrecking the place! For example we have a beautiful burn (stream) that runs through the bottom of our farm. Lovely rocky banks and grassy hollows full of wild flowers. The cattle have always kept it grazed down and the flowers have flourished. But oh no, to get environmental payments we have had to fence it off, so instead of a lovely haven for wild flowers it is now a mess of weeds without a flower in sight. I was so mad about it we nearly did not go on the scheme but money has to come first I suppose - and some of the other things we do are helpful to wildlife but to get enough points we had to fence off our beautiful burn and wreck it. We also have to have special grass for birds to eat in a couple of fields and not graze it or mow it. So, the geese do not like it and eat our good grazing, never see other birds in it. It is a mess of weeds and a total waste of money - but the powers that be insist on it. The only useful thing is probably the mowing of silage or hay fields in a way that ensures birds are not trapped in the middle and doing it late enough for nesting birds to have moved on. Ridiculous to pay thousands of pounds out to do this though. Remember too that not so many years ago all the land we are now being asked to wreck was improved with tax payers money.
> So do not blame farmers, try blaming the government when you see land practices you do not approve of.


That is awful & I do blame the govt (& EU) for paying farmers to destroy habitat , but that doesn't alter the fact that many farmers are intolerant of wildlife on their land - & very ignorant about even basic ecology. CAP subsidies though, are absolutely ludicrous - paying farmers to destroy habitat, paying millions of ££ in tax payers money to millionaire landowners - with little going to the poorest farmers.

I'm sure you know that at the end of last year there was a chance to change CAPs to benefit nature - allocating 15% for wildlife conservation - the NFU, CLA where of course thrilled when the Govt rejected it.

.

/


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kodakkuki said:


> blitz- that is very interesting- again, until i looked further in to it i believed farmers destroyed the natural land to bring in their animals that were only there until they were put to slaughter... but first hand stories such as yours (and the farm animal management unit i'm doing) is incredibly interesting- and proves my (and many who believed the same ae me) unfounded opinions to be incorrect. i do love learning about different industries!


You should look into the "professional" conservationists too 

They are people who see a career path in a growth industry rather than have even the slightest interest or knowledge in the wild world around them. It's so so sad. These people are destroying the natural world to make rural playgrounds


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Wilmer said:


> I don't agree with continuing to breed dogs with over-exaggerations that interfere with their lifelong health.


But surely the pro-docking argument is that a long tail on a working dog *would* interfere with their lifelong health? If a long tail i_*sn't*_ going to intefere with their lifelong health then docking is even more senseless. If it *is* going to intefere with their lifelong health then, by your sentence above, you should be as against it as you are against any other over-exaggeration that interferes with lifelong health.



Wilmer said:


> Personally I would quite happily see those breeds die out.


Really? Do you _really_ think that a breed such as the dalmation, for example, a breed that suffered from high uric acid, should have been allowed to die out instead of outcrossing to a pointer to produce dalmations with low uric acid and thus solve the problem? (And all without incurring unwanted progeny and thus dismissing your over-breeding argument btw )

Conversely, if you think that _any _breed with a problem should be allowed to die out, why don't you think that gundogs who need surgery in order to be fit for function should also be allowed to die out?

Can you not see the double standards you are applying?.



Wilmer said:


> But in talking about working dogs, we're talking about dogs who have good health, but *it is accepted wisdom *that a small percentage of the pups are better off without the end of their tails.


To be honest, this phrase has angered me more than any pro-docking argument put forward so far. Accepted wisdom? Accepted by whom? Accepted only by a small group of people who think it is ok to mutilate dogs to facilitate their hobby instead of breeding dogs that are fit for purpose. And working dog owners/breeders on here wonder why they have accusations of smugness levelled at them! 

Ten years ago it was "accepted wisdom" that the more wrinkles a shar pei had, the better it was. In ten years' time, maybe the tide will have turned and, just as people are now rallying against the "accepted wisdom" of show breeders who breed for exaggerations, they will be rallying against the "accepted wisdom" of working breeders who breed dogs that are unfit for function.



Wilmer said:


> As for breeding out faults, I cannot see how this requires the same level of intensive breeding that introducing a new trait would?


Breeding out a fault is breeding out a fault, whether it is wrinkles, an excessively high UA level, entropion, or a tail that it too long. There is no difference and no valid reason to say one out of the group is not a fault merely because it is "accepted wisdom" that it is not.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> seems you and others already have! an assistance (etc) dog does work... a gun dog does work... they both Work. you may not like it, but the word is not yours...
> 
> but yet many valid arguments have simply been ignored rather than make people go oh yea, i see your point there but... (only then you would have to have a rebuttal)
> 
> blitz- that is very interesting- again, until i looked further in to it i believed farmers destroyed the natural land to bring in their animals that were only there until they were put to slaughter... but first hand stories such as yours (and the farm animal management unit i'm doing) is incredibly interesting- and proves my (and many who believed the same ae me) unfounded opinions to be incorrect. i do love learning about different industries!


Hate to say the point of my statement whether you agree with SW or not was name calling and the comment was childish as was the rebuttal of people who know nothing ranting in to air!! Your posts have been as bad as others on here! Do you work your dogs? Again if not your doing the same ranting in to thin air about things you know nothing about??? It's mind boggling to read lol

I've learnt a lot from those with knowledge of working their dogs, or farming their land or conservation, those on the fringes do nothing to help those who do know the real facts of it, sadly I think Springerpete has seemingly taken a kicking because of that! I mean calling people fluffy when someone made a comment of " if you asked the dogs" I swear!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I wouldn't mind I started this thread pro working dogs being docked......


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

kodakkuki said:


> but yet many valid arguments have simply been ignored rather than make people go oh yea, i see your point there but... (only then you would have to have a rebuttal)


But I haven't found a valid pro-docking argument that *has* made me go "Oh yeah, I see your point there" - if I had, I would have said. In fact, if you look back on the thread, I have actaully said that some of Ouesi's arguments have made me stop and think - but after weighing up her points I have still not been convinced.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

labradrk said:


> LOL....because no one has been antagonizing people on this thread, have they? it's the same old story on this forum with the same old people ranting into thin air about subjects they know nothing about. It's laughable.


Just because people disagree with your point of view does not mean they know nothing about the subject. It merely means that they disagree with your point of view.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lennythecloud said:


> I'm going to be controversial and say that maybe he should give up his endeavours to breed 'miniature sheep' if his husbandry is up to scratch but he's consistently loosing lambs. They can hardly be productive and there are hundreds of non-miniature breeds to select from. People should keep livestock that are suited to the environment they have - it'd be silly to keep a texel on the moor or a swaledale in a shed - maybe it's silly to keep miniature sheep when they can't cope with normal fox pressure.





Meezey said:


> Or build an enclosure that fox safe!!!! Hardly costly! Save him getting lambs killed and having to kill foxes! In fact with the money he would save on ammo and lambs he would maybe make a profit!!!!


PMSL, the guy should give up something he wants to do and stop keeping sheep? Seriously? What planet are you on?

His aim is increasingly rubbish as he ages, he probably would save some money!


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2014)

labradrk said:


> I wouldn't rise to it, Pete. Leave the pink and fluffy, worm rescuing folk be because this argument just goes around and around in circles. Carry on blasting those birds out of sky and mutilating those non working dogs of yours. :thumbup1:


All that comment has achieved has revealed you to be the spiteful, mean (and narrow) minded person that you are.

Have you noticed it's not the folk that care about the environment and the animals in it that have resorted to petty name calling and snarky comments?

Such a shame a reasonable debate has to degenerate like this :nonod:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> PMSL, the guy should give up something he wants to do and stop keeping sheep? Seriously? What planet are you on?
> 
> His aim is increasingly rubbish as he ages, he probably would save some money!


 You do nothing at ALL to make anyone want to listen or understand! In fact your attitude does no one any favors at all!

If he wants ( key word there always about what people want) to keep a none standard bred of sheep for his environment, then rather than losing lambs and killing foxes he should protect them, just because he WANTS to do something doesn't give him the right to kill nor to not provide proper safe housing so his lambs don't get killed! Simple animal welfare really I mean what planet are you on?

Why does that ranting in to thin air comment keep going round in my head?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I'm quite amused by the people screaming mutilation and how farmers are evil monsters out to destroy the environment are now sitting noses firmly in the air claiming the other side is oh so arrogant and ruining the discussion . It seems there has been plenty of it on both sides.

While most people would be happy if there was a viable way to breed for shorter tailed dogs without the issues highlighted in the thread they would jump on it. You would get the people crying about tradition and storming away from the breeds they "love" because they can't dock them anymore, same as happened with rotties etc, but frankly the breed is better off without them.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Meezey said:


> I wouldn't mind I started this thread pro working dogs being docked......


pmsl. 

So that just proves you have been listening to the arguments put forth and taking them into consideration  Which of course is the whole point of this debate.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Anyways I'm stepping out of this thread! As I said started this thread pro working dogs being docked left it learning some new stuff and it's given me a lot to think about and oddly rather saddened me hunting, docking farming always so emotive but nasty taste in mouth from this one!! Maybe my cabin fever of being bed ridden for 7 days is effecting my prospective hence biddding the thread a hearty farewell.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Anyways I'm stepping out of this thread! As I said started this thread pro working dogs being docked left it learning some new stuff and it's given me a lot to think about and oddly rather saddened me hunting, docking farmimnug always so emotive but nasty taste in mouth from this one!! Maybe my cabin fever of being bed ridden for 7 days is effecting my prospective hence biddding the thread a hearty farewell.


Get well soon, Meezey.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Hate to say the point of my statement whether you agree with SW or not was name calling and the comment was childish as was the rebuttal of people who know nothing ranting in to air!! Your posts have been as bad as others on here!* Do you work your dogs? *_Again if not your doing the same ranting in to thin air about things you know nothing about???_ It's mind boggling to read lol
> 
> I've learnt a lot from those with knowledge of working their dogs, or farming their land or conservation, those on the fringes do nothing to help those who do know the real facts of it, sadly I think Springerpete has seemingly taken a kicking because of that! I mean calling people fluffy when someone made a comment of " if you asked the dogs" I swear!


no, as i have stated throughout i don't, but i can see why working dogs benefit from docking- and as i pointed out (even though it was ignored) is that vaccination is by far more traumatic to toy breeds than docking is to working breeds.

you're as bad as the rest for assumptions and as for complaining about others name calling- i think you'll find calling people childish just because you don't agree is in effect, name calling 



LOLcats said:


> *All that comment has achieved has revealed you to be the spiteful, mean (and narrow) minded person that you are.*
> 
> Have you noticed it's not the folk that care about the environment and the animals in it that have resorted to petty name calling and snarky comments?
> 
> Such a shame a reasonable debate has to degenerate like this :nonod:


again, name calling.



Meezey said:


> Why does that _ranting in to thin air_ comment keep going round in my head?


still being rude


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> no, as i have stated throughout i don't, but i can see why working dogs benefit from docking- and as i pointed out (even though it was ignored) is that vaccination is by far more traumatic to toy breeds than docking is to working breeds.
> 
> you're as bad as the rest for assumptions and as for complaining about others name calling- i think you'll find calling people childish just because you don't agree is in effect, name calling
> 
> ...


Last comments vaccinations will save a save puppies lives you choose not to do those first vaccines your puppy could and mostly likely will died, micro chipping is now a legal requirement you are breaking the law if you don't chip, docking is neither a legal requirement nor is it life saving. I also was pro docking then when those who try to put their point across by tell you to ask the dog, or tell people they know nothing and are ranting in to this air with their lack of knowledge have no knowledge of working a dog is just outstanding. Works both ways!

Childish means child like not name calling 

My final comment was a paraphrase of some else's insult!!! It's very much pot kettle black this thread! Strangely those who were pro docking have argued my support of it out of me!


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Last comments vaccinations will save a save puppies lives you choose not to do those first vaccines your puppy could and mostly likely will died, micro chipping is now a legal requirement you are breaking the law if you don't chip, docking is neither a legal requirement nor is it life saving.


not expecting Meezey to respond as they've left the thread twice now- but to point out- my point was about the suffering we Chose for the pups. actually, i've known pups to react so badly they die as a direct result of the vaccine. 
yes, chipping is a legal requirement- which is why i am going to have to invest in chipping training and purchase a mini chipper if i breed YTs again, but point is it is done for wellbeing of the dog. not every dog will get lost or dumped, but every fog needs chipped IN CASE.
i've had a fully vaccinated dog die of a virus very, Very similar to parvo, so even though they are vaccinated, they can still die in the same way- albeit from a slightly different mutation of a virus.
we don't HAVE to vaccinate, but do so to possibly prevent POSSIBLE future suffering. but i'd like someone to explain that to bambi when she is due another booster.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> not expecting Meezey to respond as they've left the thread twice now- but to point out- my point was about the suffering we Chose for the pups. actually, i've known pups to react so badly they die as a direct result of the vaccine.
> yes, chipping is a legal requirement- which is why i am going to have to invest in chipping training and purchase a mini chipper if i breed YTs again, but point is it is done for wellbeing of the dog. not every dog will get lost or dumped, but every fog needs chipped IN CASE.
> i've had a fully vaccinated dog die of a virus very, Very similar to parvo, so even though they are vaccinated, they can still die in the same way- albeit from a slightly different mutation of a virus.
> we don't HAVE to vaccinate, but do so to possibly prevent POSSIBLE future suffering. but i'd like someone to explain that to bambi when she is due another booster.


To prevent DEATHS not possible suffering! The risk of death from desease is higher in unvaccinated puppies.

Yes I have left it twice and back again!

So don't vaccinate then!

Higher risks ie death from not vaccinating in puppies than from not docking. No comparison!

Micro chipping is more to fine prosecute those who don't have control over their dogs very little to do with animal welfare more to do with people.

Guess what I might be back!


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Meezey said:


> To prevent DEATHS not possible suffering! The risk of death from desease is higher in unvaccinated puppies.
> 
> Yes I have left it twice and back again!
> 
> ...


well no, i won't not vaccinate- i've said she is getting a booster haven't i? 
to prevent Posssible deaths. aren't plenty of people don't agree with vaccination remember; i've seen dogs unvaccinated recover from parvo, and vaccinated ones die as have many others.

and my apologies, my last sentence was supposed to read vaccinating and chipping... the suffering more so with chipping...

no- the LAW regarding microchipping is to do with people, but that isn't why many people chip is it? chipping happened before the law- not because of.

my point is, people on this thread have said it isn't right to mutilate and cause suffering to a 3 day old puppy who will yelp then after a minute of so settle back in with mum, but will defend the fact that the odds of a puppy getting sick and from parvo outweigh the risk of the puppy getting sick and dying from the vaccine. it is a risk assessment a breeder makes for their dogs, for many, the risk of the dog suffering pain for a few seconds outweighs the risk of the dog constantly cutting open it's tail every time it gets into thick cover.
they are preventatives the breeder does to protect the pup in later life.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> well no, i won't not vaccinate- i've said she is getting a booster haven't i?
> to prevent Posssible deaths. aren't plenty of people don't agree with vaccination remember; i've seen dogs unvaccinated recover from parvo, and vaccinated ones die as have many others.
> 
> and my apologies, my last sentence was supposed to read vaccinating and chipping... the suffering more so with chipping...
> ...


Utterly confused your arguing against your own vaccine reasonings here!

Risk of death and risk tail injury your not making valid case at all.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

labradrk said:


> I wouldn't rise to it, Pete. Leave the pink and fluffy, worm rescuing folk be because this argument just goes around and around in circles. Carry on blasting those birds out of sky and mutilating those non working dogs of yours. :thumbup1:


Here's a response that shows intelligence, wit and a good understanding of the question being debated?????????????????????


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> no, as i have stated throughout i don't, but i can see why working dogs benefit from docking- and as i pointed out (even though it was ignored) is that *vaccination is by far more traumatic to toy breeds than docking is to working breeds.*


Why? Because of the size of the needle relative to the dog? I don't think so. Because relative to body size a small dog is getting more vaccine?

Do you even understand the process of vaccination and how it works?

One such source (NOAH) answers the question quite nicely:

Q: Why do all dogs get the same vaccine dose, irrespective of size, or breed?

A: When we give drugs such as antibiotics or wormers, the effect depends on achieving a certain concentration of the active ingredient in the body of the animal and, for this reason the larger body mass, the greater the total amount needed to achieve the correct dose concentration. However, vaccination doesn't work like this, when we give a dose of vaccine what we are doing is giving a sufficient dose to stimulate the body's immune system to generate a protective immune response. The immune system in fact requires the same degree of stimulus irrespective of the body mass or breed, therefore we need to use exactly the same dose of vaccine for a Chihuahua as for a Great Dane!

But, having a yorkie myself (well, my mums) and so does my aunt, I have seen varying degrees of reaction between them both - but having never had a larger dog I cannot compare. An interesting article written by a vet pulls in points from research done on the subject, and one point strikes me: that only 38 out of 10,000 dogs reacted to a particular vaccine in one study. That surely means that its worth the risk...?

Does a Smaller Dog Need a Smaller Vaccine? | petMD

So before anyone goes scaremongering about vaccines, don't just read the headline: tiny dogs given as much as big dogs and react worse to them. There is a reason for it, though the vets will tell you there could/should be more research done on the matter.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

kodakkuki said:


> blitz- that is very interesting- again, until i looked further in to it i believed farmers destroyed the natural land to bring in their animals that were only there until they were put to slaughter... but first hand stories such as yours (and the farm animal management unit i'm doing) is incredibly interesting- and proves my (and many who believed the same ae me) unfounded opinions to be incorrect. i do love learning about different industries!


It is good that you are open minded. Do not forget too that the animals that go slaughter have to be bred so therefore there are mummy and daddy animals too 
Most suckler cows breed till early teens so they have a long life, usually on one farm and they are often much loved. Ours have always had names and are cared for as individuals. Obviously bigger farms struggle to give the same emotional care but most of the small farms are the same. Ewes often breed up to 8 years old or older in small flocks so they are around on the farm for many years too.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Meezey said:


> You do nothing at ALL to make anyone want to listen or understand! In fact your attitude does no one any favors at all!
> 
> If he wants ( key word there always about what people want) to keep a none standard bred of sheep for his environment, then rather than losing lambs and killing foxes he should protect them, just because he WANTS to do something doesn't give him the right to kill nor to not provide proper safe housing so his lambs don't get killed! Simple animal welfare really I mean what planet are you on?
> 
> Why does that ranting in to thin air comment keep going round in my head?


Yep, that's me all over 

How do you propose to keep the sheep safe (regardless of size) if they need to be out grazing in a paddock? Solid fencing? The big old dog fox that lives behind my house often suns himself on my shed roof. I guess it's about 8 or 9 feet high.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> How do you propose to keep the sheep safe (regardless of size) if they need to be out grazing in a paddock? Solid fencing? The big old dog fox that lives behind my house often suns himself on my shed roof. I guess it's about 8 or 9 feet high.


Electric fencing? Just a thought...

I have said earlier that if they can keep a lion in a zoo...


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> Yep, that's me all over
> 
> How do you propose to keep the sheep safe (regardless of size) if they need to be out grazing in a paddock? Solid fencing? The big old dog fox that lives behind my house often suns himself on my shed roof. I guess it's about 8 or 9 feet high.


During the lambing season, a lot of farmers bring their ewes indoors overnight, (usually in a barn).

If the breed in question are miniatures, they probably don't need to be on the grass 24/7.

Could he not leave them out through the day and bring them undercover at night?


----------



## Flamingoes (Dec 8, 2012)

Got to page 29 and then a part of me died.

I've liked so many opposing arguments and comments for varying reasons.

I'll explain a bit



labradrk said:


> I wouldn't rise to it, Pete.* Leave the pink and fluffy, worm rescuing folk *be because this argument just goes around and around in circles. Carry on blasting those birds out of sky and mutilating those non working dogs of yours. :thumbup1:


The bit in bold is me; I've been a staunch vegetarian since I was three and will turn a taxi away if it has leather seats; wont eat honey because of the intensive farming, all my beauty products are vegetarian or vegan etc

BUT (and please don't think is because she is my real life best friend :001_huh: ) I DO agree with this;



Nicky10 said:


> I don't agree with hunting for pleasure or bloodsports, hunting for food and necessary pest control where a quick shake by a terrier is much preferable to bleeding from every hole. I do eat meat


The thought that poisons are being put down etc and other animals may ingest them (NOT suggesting that rats are a lesser species; just realistically and originally from a semi-rural area and horsey community etc I know the issues; though am thankfully unaffected by them and can afford to be vegetarian and do what *I* can do to the best of my ability and circumstance to protect animals) where as a working dog can take one out very quickly without the agony of poisoning etc and without them being released 'humanely' into a different environment which may well damage THAT area, unless it's been throughly researched then I would prefer the dog option.

I couldn't, however, ever hunt for fun; the thought sickens me and to be honest me and Nicky have many debates over whether hunting to be used as food is, not, not 'ethical' but sort of 'right'; to my mind, as someone else said, I couldn't be an animal lover and kill another animal.

I just wouldn't have it in me; I break my heart if I stand on a slug.

Re the original topic; I'd never considered it through and through until this thread so I'm unsure where I stand as I don't know the pain threshold of a pup etc and have no experience of hunting so can't comment.

My last words, however, are completely off topic, but have to be said as she's a tower of strength to me and a good friend; sleeping_lion is in no way a snob or hoity-toity :lol:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Phoenix24 said:


> Electric fencing? Just a thought...
> 
> I have said earlier that if they can keep a lion in a zoo...


It's very expensive to keep lions safely! Electric fencing is normally a strip above the normal fence. He has it running round the whole property (76 acres) to keep his stallions in and all the horses safe from getting onto the M1 



Sweety said:


> During the lambing season, a lot of farmers bring their ewes indoors overnight, (usually in a barn).
> 
> If the breed in question are miniatures, they probably don't need to be on the grass 24/7.
> 
> Could he not leave them out through the day and bring them undercover at night?


The sheep are in at night, but they're in a stall. They can't get put, but a fox could jump over the wall which is about 3.5 ft high. He should really cover the stalls over but then he'd have a problem ventilating them. I'm hoping he gives up breeding them: he did ring the last male lambs and got the two rams cut then gave one away cos they were fighting and had to be kept separately. It wasn't fair to keep one in while the other went out.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Flamingoes said:


> I couldn't be an animal lover and kill another animal.
> 
> I just wouldn't have it in me; I break my heart if I stand on a slug.
> 
> :


I'm like you about treading on a slug, spiders are welcome in my house and flies are removed not killed (unless Alfie gets it )

However I can kill and have done many many times with wounded and sick animals. Had to kill a rabbit once that some sweetheart had purposely run over and left with a broken back 

Does that mean I can't be an animal lover?


----------



## Flamingoes (Dec 8, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> *It's very expensive to keep lions safely! Electric fencing is normally a strip above the normal fence.* He has it running round the whole property (76 acres) to keep his stallions in and all the horses safe from getting onto the M1
> 
> It's also of great debate within the zoological field and has been for many a year now; for example (and google this all you like (not you CT just 'anyone' )
> but black rhinos, for some reason, even though the fencing is of a low wattage and tailored to each animal, get stuck on them and have to be poked off with a stick, where as other flavour rhinos don't bother with it.
> ...


And round and round we go :yesnod:


----------



## Flamingoes (Dec 8, 2012)

Sorry to double post



rona said:


> I'm like you about treading on a slug, spiders are welcome in my house and flies are removed not killed (unless Alfie gets it )
> 
> However I can kill and have done many many times with wounded and sick animals. Had to kill a rabbit once that some sweetheart had purposely run over and left with a broken back
> 
> Does that mean I can't be an animal lover?


No :nonod:

But I do question myself over things like this very often.

I'm always learning and trying to understand more and so I can only give my opinion at the time of my current understanding.

The only relative situation I remember is finding a near-dead badger on the road and my ex was scared of picking him up in case he savaged him  so I took the dress off that I was wearing and wrapped him up in it and put him in a bush, so at least he was warm and wouldn't get run over and could die in peace without being run over to a mush; then walked back to the car and into my uni room in my underwear


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Every now and then Mixy rears it's ugly head. trouble is my lads will fetch into hand anything of interest they find, I've lost count of how many rabbits I've had to despatch over the years, I look on it as the kindest thing to do.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Flamingoes said:


> No :nonod:
> 
> But I do question myself over things like this very often.
> 
> ...


You see, if I found something like that I'd contact a friend with a gun. I've done so for a very badly wounded deer in the past. I've also kept an animal safe while calling the appropriate rescue. However if I can end suffering more quickly with my own hands then I do. I feel totally sick after but I'd feel worse if I'd left it suffering waiting for someone else


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> I'm like you about treading on a slug, spiders are welcome in my house and flies are removed not killed (unless Alfie gets it )
> 
> However I can kill and have done many many times with wounded and sick animals. Had to kill a rabbit once that some sweetheart had purposely run over and left with a broken back
> 
> Does that mean I can't be an animal lover?


I think it makes you a stronger person than me- I can't do it, God knows I wish I could when I see a rabbit with myxomatosis, but I just can't :nonod:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

The OH accidentally ran over a bunny today. He then dispatched it as it was clearly suffering. I killed the baby rabbit the dog brought me as I thought it kinder than leaving it to linger on in pain. I think it's important to do such things quickly and whatever one may think of shooting, I would hope that the guns are a decent shot and can do the job efficiently.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Flamingoes said:


> Got to page 29 and then a part of me died.
> 
> I've liked so many opposing arguments and comments for varying reasons.
> 
> ...


Damn you, I've been working on my hoity toity image for so long!!

Honestly, the rest of the thread is incredibly repetitious, it's all been said before, by similarly minded people and it just doesn't interest me. The fact that there are still open minded people out there, who understand that working dogs do contribute towards an industry, they do have a major place in generating revenue and even better than that, it's the enjoyment we get working them. Let's hope that sensible people can always make sensible decisions for the welfare of their dogs.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Damn you, I've been working on my hoity toity image for so long!!
> 
> Honestly, the rest of the thread is incredibly repetitious, it's all been said before, by similarly minded people and it just doesn't interest me. The fact that there are still open minded people out there, who understand that working dogs do contribute towards an industry, they do have a major place in generating revenue and even better than that, it's the enjoyment we get working them. *Let's hope that sensible people can always make sensible decisions for the welfare of their dogs.*


Well it seemed to me at the beginning of this thread that the bolded was indeed the whole point of the conversation. 

For me its not an issue of docking or not docking. 
There are a multitude of things we humans do to and for our dogs that can be put to question in the animal welfare department. Lets go on the choke chain thread and discuss dog welfare there... 

No... For me, its about how we arrive at the decisions we make for our dogs. Like I said earlier, we need to examine our reasoning critically, not from a place of emotion, reactivity, and defensiveness, but from a reasoned, honest place where we look at all possibilities with an open mind.

The importance of hunting is IMHO not a valid justification for docking. Thats MY opinion. And that doesnt mean I know nothing about hunting or that Im a bleeding-heart tree-hugger whos opinion is worthless. 
Im saying that as someone who has a lot of respect for responsible hunters (and a healthy awareness of how many irresponsible jerk hunters are out there too as our visiting deer-colored dog wears her I am not a deer orange vest). 
I grew up with hunters. My grandfather hunted with beagles.
My dear neighbor whos one of the few people I trust to take care of my dogs when were out of town has a retriever who hunts all different types of game all year round and I have a lot of respect for how they treat their dogs even if it is in many ways very different than how I treat mine. I still say hunting with dogs is a first-world luxury and not any more of a necessity than HWTM. 
If a dog dressed up in a gladiator costume dancing on his hind legs around a handler wielding a plastic sword offends you, congratulations, now you know how many feel about a puppys tail being removed so that he can grow up to flush and bring back dead birds shot by humans.

I also think we need to leave room to re-examination our decisions as time goes on and new information surfaces.
For example, the interesting research quoted early on in the thread about how pups a few days old do feel pain even if they may not show it. 
Or like I was saying about the neoprene rash guards, if someone were to come out with an effective tail guard, that prevented injury to the tail, would folks choose that over docking? 
(Which BTW I think someone needs to come up with that design anyway since a lot of dogs with happy tail could really benefit from it.)

Its not about absolute right or wrong answers, but rather continued re-examination to keep ourselves honest" if you will.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Well it seemed to me at the beginning of this thread that the bolded was indeed the whole point of the conversation.
> 
> For me its not an issue of docking or not docking.
> There are a multitude of things we humans do to and for our dogs that can be put to question in the animal welfare department. Lets go on the choke chain thread and discuss dog welfare there...
> ...


Let's examine the differences between something like heelwork to music and the hunting/shooting industry. For which activity are vast tracts of land managed? Honestly, it's not rocket science, the hunting and shooting *industry* supports hundreds, if not thousands of jobs. Yes, we could all stop tomorrow and rely on farmed foods for our consumption and enjoyment, never work our dogs again.

But as someone passionate about my dogs, I believe working them is intrinsic to their development, and we would lose something from the breed, in fact I think it's already been lost from some breeds, and some lines of some breeds.

As for the land part, what would happen to the land? At the moment, there are vast areas set aside for game to thrive, yes, some predators are controlled, but that's not to the detriment of some of our wild mammals and birds that are also under pressure for natural resources. I see more wildlife out working/walking my dogs on or adjacent to shooting land than anywhere else. Get rid of the shooting industry, and no-one's going to manage the land for free, crows and other pests will increase in number with no control. So as an industry, even though we're not all *paid* employees, there's an awful lot of work goes into managing the countryside.

I know immediately people will post about the persecution of some predators that are protected, and as I've posted many, many times in the past, there are always going to be some people who are old school, but the people I speak to are forward thinking, they don't keep looking to the past for arguments. The shoots I go on rely on their own birds, they're not large, commercial shoots, which I don't like, again, posted this in the past. The shooting industry as a whole is frowned upon by some people, and yet those same people are probably quite willing to do their weekly shop from the local supermarket, including fresh produce as cheaply as possible, as long as they're not shown the images of why it's so cheap it doesn't matter.

Docking some working dogs always causes a stir, and always will, *usually* from those who don't work their dogs, and have no understanding of the industry except what they read on websites of those who are completely anti the shooting industry. The argument rages round in circles, and there are some comments made that are quite personal about people who enjoy working 
their dogs and eating game. Personally, I'll carry on working my dogs, I love being in touch with the countryside, and preparing my own food. I don't like the way we've become so out of touch with reality that people are quite willing to point the finger of cruelty at those who choose to dock pups to ensure they don't injure their tails when working, but fill their trollies full of stuff at the supermarkets that comes at a cost of much more cruelty.

I think enough's been said really to put across the points from both sides, I've seen these threads time and again and put up with being called bloodthirsty and cruel many times, hence why I now just ignore some of the comments completely.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Let's examine the differences between something like heelwork to music and the hunting/shooting industry. For which activity are vast tracts of land managed? Honestly, it's not rocket science, the hunting and shooting *industry* supports hundreds, if not thousands of jobs. Yes, we could all stop tomorrow and rely on farmed foods for our consumption and enjoyment, never work our dogs again.
> 
> But as someone passionate about my dogs, I believe working them is intrinsic to their development, and we would lose something from the breed, in fact I think it's already been lost from some breeds, and some lines of some breeds.
> 
> ...


Hear hear!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Damn you, I've been working on my hoity toity image for so long!!
> 
> Honestly, the rest of the thread is incredibly repetitious, it's all been said before, by similarly minded people and it just doesn't interest me. The fact that there are still open minded people out there, who understand that working dogs do contribute towards an industry, they do have a major place in generating revenue and even better than that, it's the enjoyment we get working them. Let's hope that sensible people can always make sensible decisions for the welfare of their dogs.


Perhaps its because they see so much misinformation - I don't think some people realise that game bird shooting IS a blood sport. Shooters pay for the enjoyment of killing the birds - if no birds were ever eaten they would still be bred to be shot, the shoots make their money from charging the shooters to kill the birds. I wish people would be honest about this.

Personally I'm not convinced by the economic argument either- we have a shooting estate on our doorstep I certainly cant see any benefit it brings into our community. Tax payers are paying millions in subsidies to these estates - I would like to see a proper study into the sustainability of shoots.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Let's examine the differences between something like heelwork to music and the hunting/shooting industry. For which activity are vast tracts of land managed? Honestly, it's not rocket science, the hunting and shooting *industry* supports hundreds, if not thousands of jobs. Yes, we could all stop tomorrow and rely on farmed foods for our consumption and enjoyment, never work our dogs again.
> 
> *Why do vast tracts of land NEED to be managed? How ever did nature cope before man came along to manage it lol. Our National Parks are SO 'managed' that they are ALL only a category 5 - because of this over management our uplands are extremely poor in biodiversity. Wildlife management is just a phrase used by landowners,farmers,gamekeepers to justify senseless slaughter of wild animals - its really just indiscriminate persecution of species that interfere with vested interests.
> 
> ...


Perhaps the industrial scale killing of predators doesn't bother you - well it sickens me - and I will always speak my mind on any form of animal cruelty - as the saying goes - I'll stand up for my beliefs even if I'm the last one standing.

*Snares
The National Anti-Snaring Campaign reports on an incident in Scotland.
'A female badger was almost cut in two by a snare - but was still alive when found by a doctor.When the doctor touched the badger, her heart fell out, still beating, before she died.' *

Snarewatch - About

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/booklets/callingtheshots.pdf

.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion, I don&#8217;t know if you&#8217;re deliberately missing my point because you can&#8217;t argue against it, of if you just don&#8217;t get it, but either way, we&#8217;re not arguing the same points so it&#8217;s kind of pointless 

I&#8217;m not saying hunting isn&#8217;t important however you want to define &#8220;importance.&#8221; I&#8217;m saying that *to me* and how I would decide if I needed to dock a dog or not, the &#8220;importance&#8221; of hunting is not a valid justification. 

I also fully understand that *for you* it is. 

The HWTM example is an example of a &#8220;job&#8221; that handlers do with their dogs, and these handlers feel about their HWTM the same way YOU feel about hunting. Those feelings you have about working your dog in the field? HWTM devotees have those SAME feelings only directed to their sport of choice. It was an attempt to show you a common ground. 

It was also an attempt to show you the futility of having a &#8220;my sport is better than your sport&#8221; tit-for-tat. 
Or put differently, let&#8217;s all try to be realistic about our own sport, and let&#8217;s be respectful of the other guy&#8217;s sport. 

That you don&#8217;t realize this and instead choose to defend hunting over HWTM is pretty telling TBH...

Edit: BTW, I am curious about the part where I asked if someone came put with an effective tail guard like the rash guard I described, if you would choose to use that over docking. Would you?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Let's examine the differences between something like heelwork to music and the hunting/shooting industry. For which activity are vast tracts of land managed? Honestly, it's not rocket science, the hunting and shooting *industry* supports hundreds, if not thousands of jobs.


The exact same argument could be used in support of bullfighting in Spain and Latin America and whale and dolphin hunting in Japan - are you in favour of these too SL?

The tobacco industry and the slave trade provided (and still do) massively profitable industries and many jobs but thankfully most right thinking people have now concluded that 'making lots of money' does not justify unethical behaviour.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes, we could all stop tomorrow and rely on farmed foods for our consumption and enjoyment, never work our dogs again.


You're conveniently ignoring the fact that ~90% of pheasants shot ARE farmed, often intensively and often abroad, with disgracefully low welfare protection. I notice you haven't provided any evidence to counter this, only denying that your own shoot buys in birds -what about the rest of the industry?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> But as someone passionate about my dogs, I believe working them is intrinsic to their development, and we would lose something from the breed, in fact I think it's already been lost from some breeds, and some lines of some breeds.


Should the American pit bull terrier be worked in their historical role to preserve the breed? How about the otterhound?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> As for the land part, what would happen to the land? At the moment, there are vast areas set aside for game to thrive, yes, some predators are controlled, but that's not to the detriment of some of our wild mammals and birds that are also under pressure for natural resources.


Game keepers were almost entirely responsible for the extinction or near extinction of Britain's raptors in the last centaury. Although they may be _trying_ to market themselves as responsible custodians of our countryside, up until recently they were ruthless and reckless in their 'control' programs and were ecologically unsound.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I see more wildlife out working/walking my dogs on or adjacent to shooting land than anywhere else. Get rid of the shooting industry, and no-one's going to manage the land for free, crows and other pests will increase in number with no control. So as an industry, even though we're not all *paid* employees, there's an awful lot of work goes into managing the countryside.


The UK has the biggest pheasant shooting industry in Europe but we are one of the least forested nations - something is clearly going wrong. There are vast tracts of land across the world, far bigger than anything we have in the UK, that are managed without the help of the shooting industry.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> The shoots I go on rely on their own birds, they're not large, commercial shoots, which I don't like, again, posted this in the past. The shooting industry as a whole is frowned upon by some people, and yet those same people are probably quite willing to do their weekly shop from the local supermarket, including fresh produce as cheaply as possible, as long as they're not shown the images of why it's so cheap it doesn't matter.


I know for a fact that many game keepers and farmers shop in supermarkets. You're making the assumption that anyone against shooting buys poorly produced food but you have absolutely no basis or evidence to support that.

The vast majority of shoots, big or small, buy in birds. Where does the soya based food that phessies are fed on come from SL?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think enough's been said really to put across the points from both sides, I've seen these threads time and again and put up with being called bloodthirsty and cruel many times, hence why I now just ignore some of the comments completely.


You say enough has been said from both sides right after you happily put your points across (again) yet you don't have the courtesy to listen to what the other side has to say in response? That's a convenient method of debating I suppose...


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

People shooting with dogs is the same as millions of people being ripped from their homes, crammed into ships and taken across the atlantic to basically be worked to death causing reprecussions that are still affecting people 150 years after it was abolished. Ok then :huh:

Do people on both sides but especially the antis have any evidence that isn't from horribly biased sources? All evidence is biased of course but a peta type website and someone very anti-hunting aren't going to be reliable.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> People shooting with dogs is the same as millions of people being ripped from their homes, crammed into ships and taken across the atlantic to basically be worked to death causing reprecussions that are still affecting people 150 years after it was abolished. Ok then :huh:


I didnt read it that way. I read it as supporting hunting because its an industry that creates jobs is the same argument that was used to support slavery. Not that hunting and slavery are the same thing, but that the rationale for keeping these traditions alive are similar.

Again, all about examining our reasoning for deciding to do what we do to our dogs. 
We ask a lot of these awesome creatures, I think its fair to ask of us that we examine our reasoning.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Let's examine the differences between something like heelwork to music and the hunting/shooting industry. For which activity are vast tracts of land managed? Honestly, it's not rocket science, the hunting and shooting *industry* supports hundreds, if not thousands of jobs. Yes, we could all stop tomorrow and rely on farmed foods for our consumption and enjoyment, never work our dogs again.
> 
> But as someone passionate about my dogs, I believe working them is intrinsic to their development, and we would lose something from the breed, in fact I think it's already been lost from some breeds, and some lines of some breeds.
> 
> ...


See here the thing that annoys me here, the *usually* by people who don't work their dogs or don't understand the industry, I don't work my dogs now I will in the future, the issue I have taken with this, is those who don't work their dog never have and doubt ever will work their dogs name calling and getting on their high horse about it, to me it doesn't do those who do work their dogs as a living any favours and those who use their dogs as hobby aren't much better!! I don't like hunting wish it wasn't done, my best friends OH is a game keeper, so understand why it has to be done, as I said started this thread pro docking for working breeds but the attitude of some could make me change my stance! Killing for a hobby really doesn't cut it for me, but I do understand that there is a need for it, and respect that it's a living for some and a very valuable part of the economy to certain areas and it is their main industry! Put it this way some parts of this thread read as it would read if I tried to debate theoretical physics on the back of me loving The Big Bang Theory!!! So people telling others they just don't understand when they clearly don't have anything to do with the industry either is pretty farcical...


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> People shooting with dogs is the same as millions of people being ripped from their homes, crammed into ships and taken across the atlantic to basically be worked to death causing reprecussions that are still affecting people 150 years after it was abolished. Ok then :huh:


Did I say that? No I didn't. Actually read what I put. I was making the point that making money and having fun does not excuse unethical behaviour - whether that be reckless banking, dog fighting or slavery. I am not saying these things are the same, they're obviously on different levels.



Nicky10 said:


> Do people on both sides but especially the antis have any evidence that isn't from horribly biased sources? All evidence is biased of course but a peta type website and someone very anti-hunting aren't going to be reliable.


Evidence for my points comes from a range of sources including DEFRA reports and shooting industry publications. It's not made up:

Gun lobby persuades Government to kill off game bird welfare law - News - Food & Drink - The Independent


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> People shooting with dogs is the same as millions of people being ripped from their homes, crammed into ships and taken across the atlantic to basically be worked to death causing reprecussions that are still affecting people 150 years after it was abolished. Ok then :huh:
> 
> Do people on both sides but especially the antis have any evidence that isn't from horribly biased sources? All evidence is biased of course but a peta type website and someone very anti-hunting aren't going to be reliable.


If you are referring to Animal Aid as the peta type website ? - AA back up all their claims with references - and please note that quite few of these references come govt sources & even from the hunt/shoot fraternity themselves - non are from AR sources. >>

1 Fred Pearce, 'Grouse-shooting popularity boosts global warming', New Scientist, 12 August 2006
2 Yallop AR, Thacker J, Thomas G, Stephens M, Clutterbuck B, & Sannier C, 'The extent and intensity of management burning in the English
uplands', Journal of Applied Ecology. 43(6) 1138-2664, 2006.
3 Yallop AR & Clutterbuck B, 'Land management as a factor controlling increase in dissolved organic carbon release from upland peat soils
1: Spatial variation in DOC productivity', Science of Total Environment 407(12):3803-3813, 2009
4 Yallop AR, Clutterbuck B & Thacker J, 'Increases in humic dissolved organic carbon (hDOC) export from upland peat catchments: the role of
temperature, declining sulphur deposition and changes in land management', Climate Research 45: 43-56, doi: 10.3354/cr00884, 2010
5 Committee on Climate Change, Adaptation Sub-Committee Progress Report, 'Managing the land in a changing climate', 10 June 2013
6 Campaign Against Climate Change, 'How does air compare to other means of travel?'
7 HD, 'Game on', The Economist Blog, 11 August 2011

8 Roger Harrabin, 'Call to pay landowners to save peat', BBC, 13 August 2013
9 Richard Bannister letter to Helen Phillips, Natural England, 1 April 2011
10 Martin Wainwright, 'RSPB lodges EU complaint over Walshaw Moor controversy', The Guardian, 15 October 2012
11 Adam Lusher, 'Legal battle "threatens England's grouse moors"' The Telegraph, 5 February 2012
12 Christine Ottery, 'Natural England drops peatland bog-burning inquiry', The Guardian, 14 March 2012
13 ibid
14 'Walshaw Moor, South Pennines, RSPB complaint to the European Commission', October 2012
15 Richard Bannister letter to Helen Phillips, Natural England, 1 April 2011
16 Adam Lusher, 'Legal battle "threatens England's grouse moors"' The Telegraph, 5 February 2012
17 Natural England, '25 year agreement on management operations at Walshaw and Lancashire Moors', 23 March 2012
18 RSPB, 'Walshaw Moor, South Pennines, RSPB complaint to the European Commission', October 2012
19 Martin Wainwright, 'RSPB lodges EU complaint over Walshaw Moor controversy', The Guardian, 15 October 2012
20 Adam Lusher, 'Legal battle "threatens England's grouse moors"' The Telegraph, 5 February 2012
21 George Monbiot, 'Natural England has become a gopher of the landed classes', The Guardian, 7 June 2012
22 Natural England, '25 year agreement on management operations at Walshaw and Lancashire Moors', 23 March 2012
23 Adam Lusher, 'Legal battle "threatens England's grouse moors"' The Telegraph, 5 February 2012
24 ibid
25 The Moorland Association, 'A Guide to Upland Policy Formation: Heather Moorland', February 2010
26 Committee on Climate Change, Adaptation Sub-Committee Progress Report, 'Managing the land in a changing climate', 10 June 2013
27 Roger Harrabin, 'Call to pay landowners to save peat', BBC, 13 August 2013
28 George Monbiot, 'The resurgent aristocracy', 4 June 2012

29 RSPB, 'Walshaw Moor, South Pennines, RSPB complaint to the European Commission', October 2012
30 Lindsay Waddell, 'It may well be time to shut the grit boxes for the good of the red grouse', Shooting Times, 3 October 2012
31 Christine Ottery, 'Natural England drops peatland bog-burning inquiry', The Guardian, 14 March 2012
32 Mure Dickie, 'Scottish grouse estates raise their game to match English rivals', Financial Times, 11 August 2013
33 Michael McCarthy, 'Fury at minister Richard Benyon's 'astounding' refusal to ban deadly bird poison', The Independent, 18 October 2012
34 Nick Curtis, 'A day in the death of a glorious grouse', Evening Standard, 13 August 2009
35 Trevor Critchley, 'The rainforest on our doorstep', The Ecologist, 15 May 2008
36 Fred Pearce, 'Grouse-shooting popularity boosts global warming', New Scientist, 12 August 2006
37 ibid
38 Yallop AR & Clutterbuck B, 'Land management as a factor controlling increase in dissolved organic carbon release from upland peat soils
1: Spatial variation in DOC productivity', Science of Total Environment 407(12):3803-3813, 2009
39 Yallop AR, Clutterbuck B & Thacker J, 'Increases in humic dissolved organic carbon (hDOC) export from upland peat catchments: the role of
temperature, declining sulphur deposition and changes in land management', Climate Research 45: 43-56, doi: 10.3354/cr00884, 2010
40 Yallop AR, Thacker J, Thomas G, Stephens M, Clutterbuck B, & Sannier C, 'The extent and intensity of management burning in the English
uplands', Journal of Applied Ecology. 43(6) 1138-2664, 2006.
41 ibid
42 Committee on Climate Change, Adaptation Sub-Committee Progress Report, 'Managing the land in a changing climate', 10 June 2013
43 RSPB, 'Birds by name: Red grouse'
44 Devon Wildlife Trust, 'Red Grouse'
45 ibid
46 The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, 'Strongylosis control in red grouse'

47 The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, 'Controlling louping ill'
48 The Moorland Association, 'Disease Control, Trichostrongylus Tenuis, Louping Ill in Sheep'
49 BASC, 'Respect for Quarry: Good practice for successful shotgun shooting'
50 John Roll Pickering, 'An invitation to shoot game', Guns on Pegs
51 BASC, 'Respect for Quarry: Good practice for successful shotgun shooting'
52 ibid
53 Shootpics.co.uk, 'Dispatching pheasants and partridges humanely'
54 Michael McCarthy, 'Fury at minister Richard Benyon's 'astounding' refusal to ban deadly bird poison', The Independent, 18 October 2012
55 RSPB, Bird crime: offences against wild bird legislation in 2009'
56 Nick Curtis, 'A day in the death of a glorious grouse', Evening Standard, 13 August 2009
57 National Anti-Snaring Campaign, 'Horror of snares'
58 RSPCA, 'What is a snare?'
59 David Randall & James Burleigh, 'Lampers are the "thugs of the countryside"', The Independent, 3 October 2004
60 Savills, 'Grouse Moor News', Summer 2010
61 Countryside Alliance, 'The Glorious Twelfth', 11 August 2011
62 Yallop AR, Thacker J & Clutterbuck B, 'Burning on deep peat and bog habitat in England'. Reconciliation and re-examination of results
from English Nature. Research Reports 66, 698 and unpublished data. Submission to Natural England - March 2012.

,


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The information is still going to be biased against shooting etc in the same way that solely taking information from the countryside alliance is going to be biased for it.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Blimey, how do you guys have time to find and post all these references? I'm busy at work but dip in when I can but this is getting a bit mad!


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Meezey said:


> See here the thing that annoys me here, the *usually* by people who don't work their dogs or don't understand the industry, I don't work my dogs now I will in the future, the issue I have taken with this, is those who don't work their dog never have and doubt ever will work their dogs name calling and getting on their high horse about it, to me it doesn't do those who do work their dogs as a living any favours and those who use their dogs as hobby aren't much better!! I don't like hunting wish it wasn't done, my best friends OH is a game keeper, so understand why it has to be done, as I said started this thread pro docking for working breeds but the attitude of some could make me change my stance! Killing for a hobby really doesn't cut it for me, but I do understand that there is a need for it, and respect that it's a living for some and a very valuable part of the economy to certain areas and it is their main industry! Put it this way some parts of this thread read as it would read if I tried to debate theoretical physics on the back of me loving The Big Bang Theory!!! So people telling others they just don't understand when they clearly don't have anything to do with the industry either is pretty farcical...


I think it would go a long way towards keeping the conversation respectful and productive if we could eliminate the need to trivialize opinions simply because that poster doesnt participate in the hunting industry. 
The whole you dont have a working gun-dog therefore everything you have to say about working gun-dogs is invalid argument is divisive and just not productive IMHO.

I dont need to have first hand experience with poking a fork in my eye to know that it probably hurts. Lets give each other enough respect to assume we are capable of forming an educated opinion on something even without first-hand experience with it.

Never mind the whole point that some of us DO have first-hand experience with hunting and working gun-dogs and still have differing opinions on it....


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Perhaps the industrial scale killing of predators doesn't bother you - well it sickens me - and I will always speak my mind on any form of animal cruelty - as the saying goes - I'll stand up for my beliefs even if I'm the last one standing.
> 
> *Snares
> The National Anti-Snaring Campaign reports on an incident in Scotland.
> ...


And if you believe that you will believe anything 



Nicky10 said:


> ]People shooting with dogs [/B]is the same as millions of people being ripped from their homes, crammed into ships and taken across the atlantic to basically be worked to death causing reprecussions that are still affecting people 150 years after it was abolished. Ok then :huh:
> 
> Do people on both sides but especially the antis have any evidence that isn't from horribly biased sources? All evidence is biased of course but a peta type website and someone very anti-hunting aren't going to be reliable.


I now have an image of SL and lots of other people going out with canons and stuffing their dogs in them and firing them. 

As for the second part of your post I would say it is unlikely that the majority of antis have evidence that has not come from peta type websites and therefore is total baloney. Most but not all pros will have had personal experience and not need to have 'evidence' from websites. 
I have to admit that my knowledge of gundog working is hazy but I am sure there are good and bad shoots and gamekeepers in the same way that there are good and bad anything. You do not ban something just because of that though, you work from inside to put everything on a good level.
I have worked sheepdogs and I damn well know that a lot of sheepdogs are treated atrociously but it does not mean that working sheepdogs should be banned.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Blimey, how do you guys have time to find and post all these references? I'm busy at work but dip in when I can but this is getting a bit mad!


At home in bed signed off work, is that okay or should my internet usage be capped?


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Martin Luther King holiday here.
Youre all stuck with me today muahahahahahaha!


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> The information is still going to be biased against shooting etc in the same way that solely taking information from the countryside alliance is going to be biased for it.


Err excuse me but the journal of applied ecology is a respectable peer-reviewed collection of primary research and reviewed research papers. Bias in publishing to journals like that is typically frowned upon, and all research papers state the source of their funding.

Yes people might cherry pick which sources they want to use, but the sources themselves may be perfectly unbiased and respectable bits of research. Anyone who wants to make a good argument will do their best to provide examples of the 'other side' and then justify why they disagree with that argument.

That list of sources that noushka05 listed - if you bothered to read it you will see not only newspapers (which do have a lot of bias in them, some of them), but peer reviewed journals, scientific magazines, and articles from SHOOTING magazines, plus conservation and government body resources. I think that is a fairly comprehensive and wide ranging list of sources, don't you?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Even if the sources are from reputable journals etc it's still an animal rights site putting them together and reporting on them. They're going to put their slant on it.

I don't doubt cruel things happen in shooting and those pens wreak of oh well the chickens can touch 3 others so keeping them in cages they can't move in is ok. I also don't doubt humans are one of the most destructive forces on the planet. However, getting all your evidence from one place is detrimental.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Even if the sources are from reputable journals etc it's still an animal rights site putting them together and reporting on them. They're going to put their slant on it.
> 
> I don't doubt cruel things happen in shooting and those pens wreak of oh well the chickens can touch 3 others so keeping them in cages they can't move in is ok. I also don't doubt humans are one of the most destructive forces on the planet. However, getting all your evidence from one place is detrimental.


And what one place is that? A single website that lists hundreds of wide ranging references that you can go and read for yourself and make your own judgements? Because anyone who really wants to know an argument is going to do that.

And you can look on the flip side. All those pro-hunting/docking are likely to source their own arguments from people, magazines and websites that interest them... ie websites pro hunting/docking.

Does that statement annoy you? It sounds like i'm suggesting pro-hunting/docking types only read the stuff related to their hobby and don't ever look at anything else.

That's exactly how people anti-hunting/docking feel when people like yourself point fingers and basically call us all tree-hugging blinkered idiots who only subscribe to PETA. I personally avoid PETA - not because I think they are wrong, I just try to stick to the raw science and less of the hype and emotion.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

No as I said any pro-hunting/docking site is going to be as biased and if that's all people look at they'll think this is the best thing ever and no animal ever suffers


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Phoenix24 said:


> And what one place is that? A single website that lists hundreds of wide ranging references that you can go and read for yourself and make your own judgements? Because anyone who really wants to know an argument is going to do that.
> 
> And you can look on the flip side. * All those pro-hunting/docking are likely to source their own arguments from people, magazines and websites that interest them... ie websites pro hunting/docking.*
> 
> ...


Why would they need to read about it? They can see the need with their own eyes and through years of in the field experience


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

If we can set aside the pro/anti hunting thing for a second, Im still very curious if anyone cares to weigh in...

If a product was available that effectively protected tails from injury, would you choose to use this product over docking?
I realize its not a simple question as you would have to have a test group of un-docked working dogs to test the product out on, which brings on additional questions about how willing breeders would be to make guinea pigs of their dogs in that way... Would it be worth it though if the outcome meant not having to dock?

These are the vests I was talking about:
Cabela's 5mm Neoprene Flotation Dog Vest with Armor-Flex™ Chest Protector : Cabela's
They make em in flotation and non-flotation varieties. The one our guest dog wears is bright dont shoot me, Im not a deer orange.

I know a lot of people have had success dealing with happy tail with bandages made out of a pool noodle or other creative ways. Surely with modern materials and technology, someone can come up with an effective, easy to use tail-shield of sorts? 
Has there been any effort in to creating such a thing? And if not, why not do you suppose?


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

rona said:


> Why would they need to read about it? They can see the need with their own eyes and through years of in the field experience


Is that not a source of its own bias? I have years of experience monitoring and tagging wild birds, and I don't deny this does give me a little bias in how I feel about certain bird related subjects (i'm not talking about shooting necessarily), BUT even with all that experience do you really thing I DON'T read bird related magazines and talk to birding people, which will broaden my views and opinions on the matter?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> It was also an attempt to show you the futility of having a my sport is better than your sport tit-for-tat.
> Or put differently, lets all try to be realistic about our own sport, and lets be respectful of the other guys sport.


But I rather think _you're_ missing the point, actually, because she's said that she doesn't believe gun dogs are the only valid working dogs. Strikes me that you're rather deliberately missing what she's put.



Meezey said:


> At home in bed signed off work, is that okay or should my internet usage be capped?


OMG, what is your problem with me? Am I not allowed to comment on a forum now? At what point did I tell you to cap your usage? Don't be so dramatic. It wasn't your posts to which I was referring, as I'm sure you know but boy, are you spoiling for a fight! Did I personally offend you or something?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Phoenix24 said:


> Is that not a source of its own bias? I have years of experience monitoring and tagging wild birds, and I don't deny this does give me a little bias in how I feel about certain bird related subjects (i'm not talking about shooting necessarily), BUT even with all that experience do you really thing I DON'T read bird related magazines and talk to birding people, which will broaden my views and opinions on the matter?


Of course you do. Most people read and talk with others about their interests and learn a lot that way. BUT if you read or were told something that was the complete opposite of what you believed or knew was right then you would discard it.


----------



## Flamingoes (Dec 8, 2012)

rona said:


> You see, if I found something like that I'd contact a friend with a gun. I've done so for a very badly wounded deer in the past. I've also kept an animal safe while calling the appropriate rescue. However if I can end suffering more quickly with my own hands then I do. I feel totally sick after but I'd feel worse if I'd left it suffering waiting for someone else





simplysardonic said:


> ]I think it makes you a stronger person than me- I can't do it[/B], God knows I wish I could when I see a rabbit with myxomatosis, but I just can't :nonod:


That's my reply to your post too, Rona 

It's ridiculous because I'm only hurting them more but I just couldn't do it :nonod:



Phoenix24 said:


> And you can look on the flip side. All those pro-hunting/docking are likely to source their own arguments from people, magazines and websites that interest them... ie websites pro hunting/docking.
> 
> *Does that statement annoy you?* It sounds like i'm suggesting pro-hunting/docking types only read the stuff related to their hobby and don't ever look at anything else.
> 
> That's exactly how people anti-hunting/docking feel when people like yourself point fingers and basically call us all tree-hugging blinkered idiots who only subscribe to PETA. I personally avoid PETA - *not because I think they are wrong, I just try to stick to the raw science and less of the hype and emotion.*


Of course it will annoy her; hypocrisy annoys a lot of people.

This thread is just :huh:


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> No as I said any pro-hunting/docking site is going to be as biased and if that's all people look at they'll think this is the best thing ever and no animal ever suffers


My apologies if I mis-read or missed out that bit.

And of course anyone who only ever looks at extreme animal rights web pages (I say extreme because lets face it, breaking out all those mink from fur farms was an ecological disaster, and bombing people's homes because they might work somewhere vaguely connected with animal testing is just plain extreme and does not give a good image to animal rights!) will also think that _all _hunting involves animal suffering. (I personally think there is no kind way to kill an animal, but some ways are quicker than others).


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

ouesi said:


> If we can set aside the pro/anti hunting thing for a second, Im still very curious if anyone cares to weigh in...
> 
> If a product was available that effectively protected tails from injury, would you choose to use this product over docking?
> I realize its not a simple question as you would have to have a test group of un-docked working dogs to test the product out on, which brings on additional questions about how willing breeders would be to make guinea pigs of their dogs in that way... Would it be worth it though if the outcome meant not having to dock?
> ...


The dog would have to wear it all the time rather than just when it's officially working as a dog that damages it's tail in undergrowth on a shoot will also damage its tail when it's just casually hunting on a walk or even doing every day things.

So, for me personally, i'd still go with a dock. I'm honesty enough to say I like the look of a docked dog and really dont like to see breeds like GSP's, spaniels, Weims etc with long tails.


----------



## Apollo2012 (Jun 10, 2013)

ouesi said:


> If we can set aside the pro/anti hunting thing for a second, Im still very curious if anyone cares to weigh in...
> 
> If a product was available that effectively protected tails from injury, would you choose to use this product over docking?
> I realize its not a simple question as you would have to have a test group of un-docked working dogs to test the product out on, which brings on additional questions about how willing breeders would be to make guinea pigs of their dogs in that way... Would it be worth it though if the outcome meant not having to dock?
> ...


Anything a dog could wear while flushing game etc is extremely likely to either get caught and pulled off or get caught and get the dog stuck at the same time.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Phoenix24 said:


> My apologies if I mis-read or missed out that bit.
> 
> And of course anyone who only ever looks at extreme animal rights web pages (I say extreme because lets face it, breaking out all those mink from fur farms was an ecological disaster, and bombing people's homes because they might work somewhere vaguely connected with animal testing is just plain extreme and does not give a good image to animal rights!) will also think that _all _hunting involves animal suffering. (I personally think there is no kind way to kill an animal, but some ways are quicker than others).


I said somewhere that anyone just looking at countryside alliance sites are going to be as biased to the other side. I'm all for no animals suffering as far as possible just the animal rights people can go too far.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> If we can set aside the pro/anti hunting thing for a second, Im still very curious if anyone cares to weigh in...
> 
> If a product was available that effectively protected tails from injury, would you choose to use this product over docking?
> I realize its not a simple question as you would have to have a test group of un-docked working dogs to test the product out on, which brings on additional questions about how willing breeders would be to make guinea pigs of their dogs in that way... Would it be worth it though if the outcome meant not having to dock?
> ...


Whilst I would prefer to protect their tails, the way they behave means anything is unlikely to stay safely on the tail. I spoke to a girl whose spaniel does a lot of work under the gun: the dog has a full tail, constantly injures it and despite her clever bandaging, it still gets injured and whatever she uses (lots of vet wrap involved usually) it comes off.

I'd be worried about the vests being caught as the dog went through thick brambles. Bear is scab free this week, having stayed on a field, no bush scrambling. I can't always keep him away from the woods, though, it's no life just retrieving a ball in a field.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Apollo2012 said:


> Anything a dog could wear while flushing game etc is extremely likely to either get caught and pulled off or get caught and get the dog stuck at the same time.


that was actually my thought to... but then, some think i have no right to be on this thread with no first hand knowledge (which is why i didn't say it in the beginning!)


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> I said somewhere that anyone just looking at countryside alliance sites are going to be as biased to the other side. I'm all for no animals suffering as far as possible just the animal rights people can go too far.


Not all animal rights people! I promise you I will never go round bombing pro-shooting members houses or trying to steal their dogs to 'free' them from such a cruel life  (SpringerPete you better watch out... only kidding)

I get your point anyway, I think I was just trying to point out that even heavily biased groups (like PETA and CA) will hopefully - despite how they interpret their argument to tailor their views - still list a respectable range of sources so readers can make up their own minds. Hopefully.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Phoenix24 said:


> Not all animal rights people! I promise you I will never go round bombing pro-shooting members houses or trying to steal their dogs to 'free' them from such a cruel life  (SpringerPete you better watch out... only kidding)
> 
> I get your point anyway, I think I was just trying to point out that even heavily biased groups (like PETA and CA) will hopefully - despite how they interpret their argument to tailor their views - still list a respectable range of sources so readers can make up their own minds. Hopefully.


The really extreme members are always a minority in anything of course I wasn't accusing you of being one of the ones bombing people's houses, releasing mink, trying to sue seaworld as cetaceans are humans etc. The problem is people will just read their interpretation of it instead of going back to the sources and that interpretation is going to be horribly biased.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> that was actually my thought to... but then, some think i have no right to be on this thread with no first hand knowledge (which is why i didn't say it in the beginning!)


Everyone here has a right to their view on this thread, so long as it doesn't involve flaming, name calling or any kind of tantrums, lol. And I mean everyone, including people who haven't had a 'working' dog for shooting.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Leanne77 said:


> The dog would have to wear it all the time rather than just when it's officially working as a dog that damages it's tail in undergrowth on a shoot will also damage its tail when it's just casually hunting on a walk or even doing every day things.
> 
> So, for me personally, i'd still go with a dock. I'm honesty enough to say I like the look of a docked dog and really dont like to see breeds like GSP's, spaniels, Weims etc with long tails.


I appreciate the honest reply. 

As for getting stuck, I would have to see pictures of what british heavy cover looks like, but the way neoprene works and the give it has, I have trouble picturing it causing a dog to get stuck. It would tear first for one, and it has a lot of give to it anyway. But I honestly dont know, for me it would be worth investigating further.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Phoenix24 said:


> Everyone here has a right to their view on this thread, so long as it doesn't involve flaming, name calling or any kind of tantrums, lol. And I mean everyone, including people who haven't had a 'working' dog for shooting.


that was my thoughts to


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> I appreciate the honest reply.
> 
> As for getting stuck, I would have to see pictures of what british heavy cover looks like, but the way neoprene works and the "give" it has, I have trouble picturing it causing a dog to get stuck. It would tear first for one, and it has a lot of give to it anyway. But I honestly don't know, for me it would be worth investigating further.


I found some blackthorn twigs in my hay this week. The thorns are about an inch long. I used to use neoprene brushing boots on the horse. I think the dog might be left hanging. Neoprene is quite strong, it won't rip and set the dog free, IMO.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Flamingoes said:


> That's my reply to your post too, Rona
> 
> It's ridiculous because I'm only hurting them more but I just couldn't do it :nonod:


You are in the majority, don't beat yourself up over it


----------



## Flamingoes (Dec 8, 2012)

Phoenix24 said:


> Everyone here has a right to their view on this thread, so long as it doesn't involve flaming, name calling or any kind of tantrums, lol. * And I mean everyone, including people who haven't had a 'working' dog for shooting.*


I genuinely don't think the people with working dogs have done this.

Seriously I am 'VERY' vegetarian and ridiculously pink and fluffy, but I do have to appreciate that everyone has different views, opinions and lifestyles.

Going back to me and Sleeping_Lion, as an example (and she's always being made an example of, she'll not mind  )

I could never condone or support shoots etc, yet we're very good friends and she has a different lifestyle to me.

I'd rather express my views and her do the same and take it on board than castigate someone for living a life I don't understand.

It would never be for me; I agree 100% with Simplysardonics post I quoted a little while earlier this evening.

I also consider Noushka a friend, have known her a few years and know she would and has been there for me emotionally; and agree with a lot of what she says too.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to hold one view very firmly for themselves (not directed at anyone, just the whole tone of the thread) yet appreciate other people will firmly hold theirs and both to have mutual respect.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> I found some blackthorn twigs in my hay this week. The thorns are about an inch long. I used to use neoprene brushing boots on the horse. I think the dog might be left hanging. Neoprene is quite strong, it won't rip and set the dog free, IMO.


Depends on the thickness. Our visiting RRs vest is nothing like brushing boots. Its elasticized and has much more give to it.

And Im not talking about putting a vest on dogs, Im talking about putting a few inches of material on their tails. Do you think a small piece of material attached to the end of a dogs tail would get caught and leave a dog hanging?

FWIW, dont docked dogs also get injured? How is that handled when they get injured?


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I dont see how you would attach something protective to the end of the tail? Nothing would surely stay considering the battering a tail can take.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Blimey, how do you guys have time to find and post all these references? I'm busy at work but dip in when I can but this is getting a bit mad!


Yes it took me ages to c&p them off that Animal Aid link - 30 seconds at least! 



Nicky10 said:


> The information is still going to be biased against shooting etc in the same way that solely taking information from the countryside alliance is going to be biased for it.





Blitz said:


> And if you believe that you will believe anything
> 
> I don't know for sure it is true - its anecdotal - but don't you agree that many animals do suffer in snares?
> 
> ...





Nicky10 said:


> Even if the sources are from reputable journals etc it's still an animal rights site putting them together and reporting on them. They're going to put their slant on it.
> 
> I don't doubt cruel things happen in shooting and those pens wreak of oh well the chickens can touch 3 others so keeping them in cages they can't move in is ok. I also don't doubt humans are one of the most destructive forces on the planet. However, getting all your evidence from one place is detrimental.





Nicky10 said:


> I said somewhere that anyone just looking at countryside alliance sites are going to be as biased to the other side. I'm all for no animals suffering as far as possible just the animal rights people can go too far.


There are peer reviewed papers amongst those references - don't you believe in science?

Other sources used were from the Countryside Alliance, GWCT, BASC - this lot represent game shooting interests, so hardly likely to be biased towards AR set lol

Anyway what exactly is it you dispute? I may be able to provide other references.

.

.

.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I believe in science just not their interpretation of it which you have to admit will be biased. The sources themselves look pretty reliable

Of course I was always taught science gets things wrong and to question everything even seemingly reliable sources.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Leanne77 said:


> I dont see how you would attach something protective to the end of the tail? Nothing would surely stay considering the battering a tail can take.


I dont either, but I have a lot of faith in human inventiveness and I really wish someone would invent something that does protect tails!

What do handlers do when a docked dog injures his/her tail?


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Re. working cover. I've been looking through my pics for something that might give an idea of that that means, sadly, it's almost impossible to provide examples of the type of ground the dogs on our shoot work. You just can't see them. I did find a couple that may go some way to illustrating how dense it can get. The picture of my dog in the stream, behind him is the area he's just been working. This wasn't a shooting day, he just picked up the scent of a woodcock.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

springerpete said:


> Re. working cover. I've been looking through my pics for something that might give an idea of that that means, sadly, it's almost impossible to provide examples of the type of ground the dogs on our shoot work. You just can't see them. I did find a couple that may go some way to illustrating how dense it can get. The picture of my dog in the stream, behind him is the area he's just been working. This wasn't a shooting day, he just picked up the scent of a woodcock.


So Im guessing its namely the tails that get injured, not ripped body skin correct?
What are the actual mechanics of how tails get injured? They get in there and wag them and split them same as a dane gets happy tail hitting the tail on walls?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> that was actually my thought to... but then, some think i have no right to be on this thread with no first hand knowledge (which is why i didn't say it in the beginning!)


No one is saying that, my point of bring that up was comments of those who didn't agree with docking ( which btw I wasn't one of) were told their points were not valid or they didn't understand, because they don't have gun dogs or understand the industry so by those commemts all those for docking who did not have a gun dog they worked, didn't understand or didn't know the industry. So pretty pointless debate and comments if those for and those against did not understand what they were talking about! So by those lines of thinking there would be how many people who use their docked gun dog in this thread?


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I dont either, but I have a lot of faith in human inventiveness and I really wish someone would invent something that does protect tails!
> 
> *What do handlers do when a docked dog injures his/her tail?*


I've never known a docked dog injure its tail though. With the kind of dock my dog has coupled with his height, it would never get an injury.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> But I rather think _you're_ missing the point, actually, because she's said that she doesn't believe gun dogs are the only valid working dogs. Strikes me that you're rather deliberately missing what she's put.
> 
> OMG, what is your problem with me? Am I not allowed to comment on a forum now? At what point did I tell you to cap your usage? Don't be so dramatic. It wasn't your posts to which I was referring, as I'm sure you know but boy, are you spoiling for a fight! Did I personally offend you or something?


I don't have a problem with you don't know you lol merely responding to you wonderings. Fight? Seriously? Only just saw this, not have one of those since school? Shall we met at a set time and caps lock each other to submission?


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Leanne77 said:


> I've never known a docked dog injure its tail though. With the kind of dock my dog has coupled with his height, it would never get an injury.


Better go knock wood! 
Put the dog out in the field long enough and youre going to get an injury of some sort. 
Im sure there are docked dogs out there who have injured their tails, I was just wondering how its handled.

Im also betting dogs working in the kind of cover springerpete posted get injured ears and dew-claws periodically too. Do springers have their front dew claws removed?


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> So Im guessing its namely the tails that get injured, not ripped body skin correct?
> What are the actual mechanics of how tails get injured? They get in there and wag them and split them same as a dane gets happy tail hitting the tail on walls?


They obviously get a few scratches but that's all they usually are, superficial scratches that are easily sorted out. this is so difficult to explain if you've never seen spaniels hunting. Their tails are always wagging, they love the work, but nearing a scent the tails go into overdrive, it's that coupled with brambles that causes the damage. I don't want to open up this discussion yet again, I think it's been done to death and there is obviously no meeting ground, but let me say that in forty years of working spans' all docked, I've never had one that has injured his tail. I know some think it unethical but it's worked for my dogs.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> I believe in science just not their interpretation of it which you have to admit will be biased. The sources themselves look pretty reliable
> 
> Of course I was always taught science gets things wrong and to question everything even seemingly reliable sources.


Perhaps you could point out where they have misused this information? - because I honestly cant see where.

I was taught to always believe in the best available science & that in science - peer review is terribly important.

Of the points I made which exactly are you disputing Nicky?

.
,

.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

springerpete said:


> They obviously get a few scratches but that's all they usually are, superficial scratches that are easily sorted out. this is so difficult to explain if you've never seen spaniels hunting. Their tails are always wagging, they love the work, but nearing a scent the tails go into overdrive, it's that coupled with brambles that causes the damage. I don't want to open up this discussion yet again, I think it's been done to death and there is obviously no meeting ground, but let me say that in forty years of working spans' all docked, I've never had one that has injured his tail. I know some think it unethical but it's worked for my dogs.


Actually, I do know what you mean about the spaniel tail  I was figuring it was a concussion injury not a scratch but wanted to be sure. And yes, concussion injuries are a bear to heal which is why I asked what is done to injured tails. The only solution I know of is docking the bit that wont heal. Was hoping to hear that maybe there are some techniques with tail injuries I didnt know about.


----------



## Ann Elizabeth (May 12, 2013)

ouesi said:


> So Im guessing its namely the tails that get injured, not ripped body skin correct?
> What are the actual mechanics of how tails get injured? They get in there and wag them and split them same as a dane gets happy tail hitting the tail on walls?


I have 3 ESS and my son has my 'original' dog (Max prefers living with my son) and they are Max docked by 1/3, Mia docked by 2/3 Lily and Shoki have full tails. None of them are 'worked'.
IMO Mia's tail is too short and I would never have chosen to have it docked by that much, having said that she wags her tail as furiously as others and is fearless going through any field/wood/undergrowth as is Max, Shoki (8 months) has stayed out of deepest woods/undergrowth so far. But I have had to fight my way into bushes/brambles to free Lily's tail on more than one occasion. Sometimes the other two will go chasing something and Lily will stop on the edge just wagging her tail till they return. I ponder whether she has learnt that she will get stuck and that's why she waits. 
Mia has had plenty of little scratches on her stomach/chest but nothing serious.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Leanne77 said:


> I've never known a docked dog injure its tail though. With the kind of dock my dog has coupled with his height, it would never get an injury.


I knew a docked dog once that was dripping blood at the end of a particularly hard day.......it was from his testicles though not his tail :w00t:


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Further to dogs getting injured whilst rummaging in the bushes.
One of my retrievers seemed to think she was a springer and tended to go through heavy undergrowth rather then round. Golden tails are very thickly coated in hair and don't wag as much consequently I've never had an injured tail with a retriever. However she was always getting tears in her ears which do not have the dense long hair that Springers have. Obviously Goldens were not developed to work in the same way as Springers, they are there to retrieve and are very useful when retrieving duck as their thick coats keep them warm and the very soft mouth doesn't damage the bird.


----------



## Ann Elizabeth (May 12, 2013)

rona said:


> I knew a docked dog once that was dripping blood at the end of a particularly hard day.......it was from his testicles though not his tail :w00t:


ouch!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Siskin said:


> Further to dogs getting injured whilst rummaging in the bushes.
> One of my retrievers seemed to think she was a springer and tended to go through heavy undergrowth rather then round. Golden tails are very thickly coated in hair and don't wag as much consequently I've never had an injured tail with a retriever. However she was always getting tears in her ears which do not have the dense long hair that Springers have. Obviously Goldens were not developed to work in the same way as Springers, they are there to retrieve and are very useful when retrieving duck as their thick coats keep them warm and the very soft mouth doesn't damage the bird.


Always worked mine in the beating line. My first one could outshine many a Spaniel and then go and eye wipe the picking up dogs. 

Must say, my others have paled in comparison


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

As Im sure many of you know, docking is perfectly legal and routinely done here in the US. 
This is a fairly unbiased article put together by the AVMA about docking. I found it interesting that they did name springers and cockers specifically as having a higher rate of tail injury, but even more interesting that greyhounds, lurchers, and whippets have the highest rate of injury - even higher than springers and cockers. 
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Documents/dogs_tail_docking_bgnd.pdf

Another procedure that is routinely done on puppies here is dew-claw removal at a few days old. This is done in multiple breeds.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I understand that neutering is also carried out very young in the States, like two months?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Meezey said:


> I don't have a problem with you don't know you lol merely responding to you wonderings. Fight? Seriously? Only just saw this, not have one of those since school? Shall we met at a set time and caps lock each other to submission?


I get to choose weapons and I choose.......pistols at dawn!


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> I understand that neutering is also carried out very young in the States, like two months?


Younger than in the UK, yes. Usually around 4 to 6 months. Mainly for population control reasons as your average pet owners cant be trusted to not let their dog get pregnant or impregnate another dog so vets highly encourage it. Especially when its often the local vet who gets brought the perfectly healthy dog to PTS because the owners just dont want the dog anymore


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> I get to choose weapons and I choose.......pistols at dawn!


Who's Dawn? Does she live near by?

I admit to maybe being a grumpier than usual, cabin fever me thinks!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> I understand that neutering is also carried out very young in the States, like two months?


It is happening here with cats, breeders neutering kittens before they leave ( 12 weeks for pedigree cats) not sure if any dog breeders do as yet.


----------



## Flamingoes (Dec 8, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Perhaps you could point out where they have misused this information? - because I honestly cant see where.
> 
> I was taught to always believe in the best available science & that in science - peer review is terribly important.
> 
> ...


She isn't, Noush xx

She just sucks at all social communication  

She's very open minded and all she's saying is that she DOES keep an open mind and that she can't take one source over another if it's biased to the opinion of the person posting it.

As an example; we are die hard best mates and see things from COMPLETELY different points of view;

off thread example;

Last time she came over to see me I found an empty and dry vodka bottle from ages ago; we had an horrific two hours where she immediately jumped to the conclusion I had recently been drinking; she's hard core and let me sit crying in the kitchen - BUT she thought it over and logically AND emotionally worked it out and we made up (will only make sense to those who know me outside this thread xx )

What she wont stand for is completely biased opinion, and you know I love you to bits, Noush, but Nicks my best friend and I can't help keep coming back when she's knocked 

She's very scientifically and logically minded and she will argue with you until the cows come home, but she WILL listen and take it on board 

What she wont stand is hypocrisy, same as me.

Me and her are completely salt and cheese but I promise she isn't trying to pick a fight; she's just irked at some of the comparisons and such

I'll shut up now 



cinnamontoast said:


> I get to choose weapons and I choose.......pistols at dawn!


You aren't helping, t*t face :frown2:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Phoenix24 said:


> Not all animal rights people! I promise you I will never go round bombing pro-shooting members houses or trying to steal their dogs to 'free' them from such a cruel life  (SpringerPete you better watch out... only kidding)
> 
> I get your point anyway, I think I was just trying to point out that even heavily biased groups (like PETA and CA) will hopefully - despite how they interpret their argument to tailor their views - still list a respectable range of sources so readers can make up their own minds. Hopefully.


I have never liked what PETA have to say and never really believed a word but it was brought home to me what rubbish they talk when I read an article on their web site about sheep breeding which was frankly total baloney without even a hint of truth in it. The problem is that when you read something you (me too) assume there must be a grain of truth in it but when you read something you have undisputed knowledge of so you have proof there is not truth at all in it you have to realise that any number of their other claims could be totally made up.

It is the same when you read a newspaper report on something you know about and realise that it is just rubbish - yet it is hard not to believe the next article you read that you have no personal knowledge of.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Flamingoes said:


> You aren't helping, t*t face :frown2:


Oh, rude bird!

*Innocent face*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I have never liked what PETA have to say and never really believed a word but it was brought home to me what rubbish they talk when I read an article on their web site about sheep breeding which was frankly total baloney without even a hint of truth in it. The problem is that when you read something you (me too) assume there must be a grain of truth in it but when you read something you have undisputed knowledge of so you have proof there is not truth at all in it you have to realise that any number of their other claims could be totally made up.
> 
> It is the same when you read a newspaper report on something you know about and realise that it is just rubbish - yet it is hard not to believe the next article you read that you have no personal knowledge of.


I remember all those videos of supposed stressed sows that the Animal rights people were touting round a few years ago. What they didn't say was that the sows were hogging  

Obvious to anyone that knew but looked ruddy horrendous to those that didn't


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Meezey said:


> I don't have a problem with you don't know you lol merely responding to you wonderings. Fight? Seriously? Only just saw this, not have one of those since school? *Shall we met at a set time and caps lock each other to submission*?


I don't think I have ever snorted a laugh before like I did when I read this.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I have never liked what PETA have to say and never really believed a word but it was brought home to me what rubbish they talk when I read an article on their web site about sheep breeding which was frankly total baloney without even a hint of truth in it. The problem is that when you read something you (me too) assume there must be a grain of truth in it but when you read something you have undisputed knowledge of so you have proof there is not truth at all in it you have to realise that any number of their other claims could be totally made up.
> 
> It is the same when you read a newspaper report on something you know about and realise that it is just rubbish - yet it is hard not to believe the next article you read that you have no personal knowledge of.


I've no idea how I got PETA stuck in my head, just to clarify that fabulously long list of well balanced sources was from animal aid not PETA. I swear my heads somewhere else sometimes and my fingers just type.

I support plenty of animal rights groups, but somehow PETA just stick in the throat a little. They come across as a bit... militant... and like with most moral/ethical/political or related issues I simply cannot stand it being rammed in my face - even if I agree with the view point.

Which is a shame because with the right methods, and a bit more consideration, PETA could do amazing things for animal rights.

On another point, I still cannot see how springers injure their tails. I'm not saying they don't, I just don't get HOW, nor how docking them seems to apparently almost 100% prevent it. Surely a wagging tail of any reasonable length could get bashed, and the hair on a docked tail still get tangled? And if they are injuring their tails, what about the rest of them? How does the appendage right at the back get all the attention, what happens to all the rest of the dog?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

PETA or at least their leader has said they want an end to all animals in captivity. They're against using animals for medical experiments yet allow Ingrid Newkirk to take insulin that comes from animals . They support breed bans because it's a step to banning all dogs. Oh and they think pokemon and sonic the hedgehog are evil :huh:.

If they weren't so militant they could do wonderful things for animals but they've gone so far past extremists.

Those sources aren't from PETA though but animal aid which by the looks of it is much less extreme

Noushka Emma explained it far better than I ever could


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Phoenix24 said:


> On another point, I still cannot see how springers injure their tails. I'm not saying they don't, I just don't get HOW, nor how docking them seems to apparently almost 100% prevent it. Surely a wagging tail of any reasonable length could get bashed, and the hair on a docked tail still get tangled? And if they are injuring their tails, what about the rest of them? How does the appendage right at the back get all the attention, what happens to all the rest of the dog?


Springers dive into thick cover, blackthorn, brambles, whatever to look for or retrieve game. Their tails whir in a circular fashion, unlike other dogs who wag side to side. Blackthorn thorns are about an inch long. The tails may get caught on a thorn, spanner doesn't even notice, yanks through the blackthorn, voilà, horrible bloody tail. At least that's my experience with my two youngsters with full tails.


----------



## Flamingoes (Dec 8, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> PETA or at least their leader has said they want an end to all animals in captivity. They're against using animals for medical experiments yet allow Ingrid Newman to take insulin that comes from animals . They support breed bans because it's a step to banning all dogs. Oh and they think pokemon and sonic the hedgehog are evil :huh:.
> 
> If they weren't so militant they could do wonderful things for animals but they've gone so far past extremists.
> 
> ...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

The skin seems thinner on the end of the tail and there's less protection from a fat layer etc.. skin over just bone is the main issue not the length of the tail 
This is why breeding for a shorter tail is pie in the sky
Taking the tip off also worked for my friends Lab who used to split it every time it hit a wall indoors


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Phoenix24 said:


> On another point, I still cannot see how springers injure their tails. I'm not saying they don't, I just don't get HOW, nor how docking them seems to apparently almost 100% prevent it. Surely a wagging tail of any reasonable length could get bashed, and the hair on a docked tail still get tangled? And if they are injuring their tails, what about the rest of them? How does the appendage right at the back get all the attention, what happens to all the rest of the dog?


Did you read the AVMA article I posted? Its as I suspected, the same type of injury that happens to breeds like great danes and greyhounds. It actually happens MORE often to greyhounds than springers. But basically its a structure thing (lots of bone, no protective layer of muscle, little fat, thin skin) coupled with poor circulation in that area that makes the healing more difficult.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The same kind of injury led to a dalmatian we knew being docked because it kept getting injured when it whacked it's tail off things.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Flamingoes said:


> She isn't, Noush xx
> 
> She just sucks at all social communication
> 
> ...


So by this logic if I was pro shoot and supplied this evidence against the shooting industry it would be accepted ?? - you are too funny.

please can you explain why I'm being a hypocrite Em?

.

.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Am I missing something here? ....if Spaniels need to be docked because of the type of tail they have and the way they use it then 

A) why are they bred like this ? 

B) why are they deliberately used in an environment that will cause them injury ? 

Either change the tail or change the way you use them 


Dogs are the most malleable of species w can create them into any shape we want and breed in the kind of behaviours we find useful ...WHY then are Spaniel breeders not breeding in the changes they so obviously need ?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Ooo look Border Collies should be stopped from competing in agility

http://www.cleanrun.com/images/features/A Survey of Injuries.pdf


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Docked tail Injury report from The German Shorthaired Pointer Breed


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

springerpete said:


> They obviously get a few scratches but that's all they usually are, superficial scratches that are easily sorted out. this is so difficult to explain if you've never seen spaniels hunting. Their tails are always wagging, they love the work, but nearing a scent the tails go into overdrive, *it's that coupled with brambles that causes the damage*. I don't want to open up this discussion yet again, I think it's been done to death and there is obviously no meeting ground, but let me say that in forty years of working spans' all docked, I've never had one that has injured his tail. I know some think it unethical but it's worked for my dogs.


Brambles, such evil stuff. Dad had walked Dougie last year and he came back trailing a 3 foot length of bramble it was all wrapped round his man bits and tangled in the hair on his legs (the dogs that is not dads lol). Took me about an hour to get the damn stuff out


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Rona - Agility folk do not routinely cut off parts of their dogs 'just in case' and they certainly don't consider that taking part in agility means their dogs WILL get injured , unlike the shooting fraternity that freely admit that their pastime is impossible for the dogs to do safely without a surgical procedure.

Does this not seem wrong to you ?


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2014)

Bijou said:


> Rona - Agility folk do not routinely cut off parts of their dogs 'just in case' and they certainly don't consider that taking part in agility means their dogs WILL get injured , unlike the shooting fraternity that freely admit that their pastime is impossible for the dogs to do safely without a surgical procedure.
> 
> Does this not seem wrong to you ?


Ah but agility's just fun, spaniels _*work*_. I get the sense that this working lark is really important, meaning it's ok to make sacrifices - greater good and all that?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Rona - Agility folk do not routinely cut off parts of their dogs 'just in case' and they certainly don't consider that taking part in agility means their dogs WILL get injured , unlike the shooting fraternity that freely admit that their pastime is impossible for the dogs to do safely without a surgical procedure.
> 
> Does this not seem wrong to you ?


I have seen pups docked, I like to see some breeds with shorter tails and I am in no way anti docking - but I do see where you are coming from. There would be all hell let loose if show dogs were openly altered to win in the show ring - and it is not really any different in a lot of cases. A bit of ear altering is no different from a bit of tail altering.

Does not alter the fact that I see nothing wrong with docking though.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> Rona - Agility folk do not routinely cut off parts of their dogs 'just in case' and they certainly don't consider that taking part in agility means their dogs WILL get injured , unlike the shooting fraternity that freely admit that their pastime is impossible for the dogs to do safely without a surgical procedure.
> 
> Does this not seem wrong to you ?


Not any more wrong than lobbing off bits to make a dog fit into family life. Or sticking a bloody great needle into small puppies to insert a foriegn body.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> B) why are they deliberately used in an environment that will cause them injury ?
> 
> Dogs are the most malleable of species w can create them into any shape we want and breed in the kind of behaviours we find useful .





Bijou said:


> Rona - Agility folk do not routinely cut off parts of their dogs 'just in case' and they certainly don't consider that taking part in agility means their dogs WILL get injured , unlike the shooting fraternity that freely admit that their pastime is impossible for the dogs to do safely without a surgical procedure.
> 
> Does this not seem wrong to you ?


My point about agility dogs is that the Collie is the most used breed but they have a higher *percentage* incidence of injury, so why are they still used or not being modified?

Because they are the best at what they do...........

Collies however were bred as stamina dogs not sprinters


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rona said:


> My point about agility dogs is that the Collie is the most used breed but they have a higher *percentage* incidence of injury, so why are they still used or not being modified?
> 
> Because they are the best at what they do...........
> 
> Collies however were bred as stamina dogs not sprinters


It is an interesting point too. I always had collies and I did agility but again I do see your point. Agility collies must have a high chance of injury as they twist and turn in a most unnatural way. But they love it, they are athletes and all athletes are at greater risk of joint and ligament damage than the average man on the street.

I think maybe all the antis should join Peta and help them lobby to ban dogs as pets because everything we do with them is unnatural. We put them through a lot of mental and physical pain with what we do with them.

We take an 8 week puppy away from its mother and siblings - not natural. We get the vet to stick a needle in with vaccine - not natural. We microchip, very painful - not natural. We spay or castrate - not natural. We shut dogs in cages - not natural. We leave them on their own from a young age - not natural. We walk them on a lead and do not allow them freedom - not natural.

Does chopping off a bit of tail at a few days old not pale into insignificance beside all those things that we do because we want our dogs as pets and want them to fit into our lifestyle regardless of the fact that it might not be too wonderful for the dog.

Blimey, now I think I have convinced myself we should not own dogs


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

From Rona's link: 
The German Shorthaired Pointer is a pointing gundog of continental type. It is a heavy set dog with a lively temperament and very strong and fast movements in the terrain.

The German Shorthaired Pointer could be docked up until 31 December 1988. From the 1 January 1989, the docking of dogs tails was banned in Sweden.

It became apparent that the German Pointers with long tails born during 1989, received a fair amount of injuries on their long tails already in 1989. It can be noted that the dogs had not reached even one year of age. The tail injuries continued to occur during 1990 and 1991. *The frequency and severity of the tail injuries increased. *

Intersting last line, once docking was banned, tail injuries increased and were more severe. Kind of says it all for me.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2014)

Blitz said:


> It is an interesting point too. I always had collies and I did agility but again I do see your point. Agility collies must have a high chance of injury as they twist and turn in a most unnatural way. But they love it, they are athletes and all athletes are at greater risk of joint and ligament damage than the average man on the street.
> 
> I think maybe all the antis should join Peta and help them lobby to ban dogs as pets because everything we do with them is unnatural. We put them through a lot of mental and physical pain with what we do with them.
> 
> ...


Well, that's the AR agenda in a nutshell. An argument I find just as fallacious as some of the pro docking ones presented on this thread. We have an expression in the states - "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" that I think applies here 

For me it boils down to "doing the best you can until you know better, and when you know better, you do better." Blood letting, arsenic for syphilis, and cocaine for coughs used to be the best we knew to do at the time. Once new information surfaced we found better ways. 
Right now docking may be the best solution we know of to prevent injuries, but I still hold out hope that clever, compassionate people will come up with even better solutions in the future that will make docking no longer necessary. I just hope that when those solutions arrive, that people will welcome them with an open mind instead of staying stuck in the old ways because that's all they know....


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> Rona - Agility folk do not routinely cut off parts of their dogs 'just in case' and they certainly don't consider that taking part in agility means their dogs WILL get injured , unlike the shooting fraternity that freely admit that their pastime is impossible for the dogs to do safely without a surgical procedure.
> 
> Does this not seem wrong to you ?


Bijou, with the greatest respect, Even if I didn't use my dog on a shoot he would still be liable to injury. He's a springer, he views any form of cover, regardless of how dense it might be, as something to be investigated. The only answer would be to never let him off his lead or to stop him from any free running exercise in the sort of environment he loves to be in. Should I prevent him from doing something he so obviously loves to do or should I take the only step available to me to try and prevent injury, therefore allowing him to satisfy the drive to hunt that is inherent in the breed. Whether you disagree with me or not is not my concern, my concern is that my dog has a good life, and I'm happy that he does, to see a spaniel hot on a scent is to see a happy dog. I've seen all the pros' and cons' on this thread, I've ignored the odd sarcastic comment as well as the occasional one that could be considered rude. Nothing I've read is going to stop me and my dogs enjoying the life we share. My Retriever is a picking up dog through and through, my Spaniel, he's a died in the wool hunting dog, it's what he lives for, I'm not going to take that away from them to satisfy those that disagree with the way we live.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Pete - can you tell me if breeding Springers and Spaniels for shorter tails has ever been tried ? .....it could be accomplished within three generations and is surely the obvious solution.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

If I have read the German Pointer article correctly - the number of dogs with tail injuries was 33%. Ergo, 66% did not experience tail injuries.

Is it right to remove the tail, just in case an injury occurs?

Or would if be preferable to use amputation as a treatment (obviously under anaesthetic) should an injury occur and not heal quickly/satisfactorily?

The figures seem to suggest that MOST dogs in the relevant groups do not injure their tails, nor require subsequent amputation.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> Pete - can you tell me if breeding Springers and Spaniels for shorter tails has ever been tried ? .....it could be accomplished within three generations and is surely the obvious solution.


I don't know to be honest, until recently, perhaps because of where I live and the fact that nearly all of my friends who have springers use them as gun dogs, it's not been an issue that's cropped up. I have been a little surprised at the furore the topic has caused. although I'm used to criticism from the anti bloodsport lobby I've never given a lot of thought to the docking issue....It's always been a case of getting a pup from a known and respected breeder and taking it for granted that the pups will have been docked. Maybe that's wrong, but it's just the way it's been for as long as I know, the guys that breed these pups.( In my area at least.) will only sell to guys like me who plan to use them.
Maybe there is a better way, but until one comes along guys that like to work their spans will only have docking as an option. It's a bit academic for me, at age 69 I doubt I'll ever have to worry about buying another pup so it can be something for the youngsters to address


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> If I have read the German Pointer article correctly - the number of dogs with tail injuries was 33%. Ergo, 66% did not experience tail injuries.
> 
> Is it right to remove the tail, just in case an injury occurs?
> 
> ...


Mammary tumours are about 26% and only 45% of those are cancerous but this is used as a reason the spay


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

rona said:


> Mammary tumours are about 26% and only 45% of those are cancerous but this is used as a reason the spay


(and as a note- it was mammary cancer that took my Tinker from us- the one who was spayed at 6 months and then incontinent from 7 months) so to me it isn't a reason at all to spay, but others with different experiences see it very differently. (but yet i spay because i live in fear of a closed pyo, but then some don't think that is reason to spay) no matter the reason, we do it TO them- they don't call the vets and ask! we weigh risks and chose preventative surgery for them.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rona said:


> Mammary tumours are about 26% and only 45% of those are cancerous but this is used as a reason the spay


I think the main reason for advocating spaying is to stop indiscriminate breeding which is ultimately a serious welfare issue, as well as several other conditions which it protects against in the process.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> Mammary tumours are about 26% and only 45% of those are cancerous but this is used as a reason the spay


But they can kill a dog, not docking doesn't.

See this and the vaccination argument is were I end up sounding anti docking there is no comparison there isn't, many don't spay again it can kill! Docking or not docking isn't going to cost a dog it's life!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> I think the main reason for advocating spaying is to stop indiscriminate breeding which is ultimately a serious welfare issue, as well as several other conditions which it protects against in the process.


It's still mutilation whatever reason it's for


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> But they can kill a dog, not docking doesn't.
> 
> See this and the vaccination argument is were I end up sounding anti docking there is no comparison there isn't, many don't spay again it can kill! Docking or not docking isn't going to cost a dog it's life!


45% of that 26% weren't cancerous. Why not treat when it occurs?

74% never have it!!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> (and as a note- it was mammary cancer that took my Tinker from us- the one who was spayed at 6 months and then incontinent from 7 months) so to me it isn't a reason at all to spay, but others with different experiences see it very differently. (but yet i spay because i live in fear of a closed pyo, but then some don't think that is reason to spay) no matter the reason, we do it TO them- they don't call the vets and ask! we weigh risks and chose preventative surgery for them.


So sad, but of course, cancer is usually undetectable until it is too late. As is a closed pyo. Both life threatening and often terminal - so possible prevention is probably a fair risk assessment - though even then with no guarantees. :frown2:

An injured tail would be detectable and hopefully be treatable. Very unlikely to cause the death of the animal.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> 45% of that 26% weren't cancerous. Why not treat when it occurs?


Rona again it's to save a dogs life whether you chose to spay or not, different argument for me, can't be compared to docking, docking or not docking has no impact on unwanted litters neither does docking pose the moral dilemma people stuff from of should they or shouldn't they as either choice could cost them their dogs life!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> 45% of that 26% weren't cancerous. Why not treat when it occurs?
> 
> 74% never have it!!


And what about pyo? Or phantoms, or unwanted litters? Bit more risk involved in to spay or not or to dock or not! The choice of people for or against could result in death, do tail injuries?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rona said:


> It's still mutilation whatever reason it's for


Ultimately, yes - but a threat to life seems a more valid reason than a "possible" injury IMO.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> Ultimately, yes - but a threat to life seems a more valid reason than a "possible" injury IMO.


Spay is a major operation with associated risks some life threatening!!
I had a kitten once who died in agony because of spay 
Docking has minimal risks and is done in seconds


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

1 in 4 bitches get pyo!!! So surely spaying young is better that putting an old girl through major surgery?


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2014)

rona said:


> It's still mutilation whatever reason it's for


I wouldn't call docking or spaying mutilation personally....
Both are medical procedures, yes, mutilation, no.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Did you read the AVMA article I posted? Its as I suspected, the same type of injury that happens to breeds like great danes and greyhounds. It actually happens MORE often to greyhounds than springers. But basically its a structure thing (lots of bone, no protective layer of muscle, little fat, thin skin) coupled with poor circulation in that area that makes the healing more difficult.


I will have to dig through the 50 pages to find it (any clues.., lol). There's not a lot of fat on their legs either - and I have been wondering what about their ears? Great big floppy fluffy things - do you not ever see ears getting ripped to shreds?


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Meezey said:


> But they can kill a dog, not docking doesn't.
> 
> See this and the vaccination argument is were I end up sounding anti docking there is no comparison there isn't, many don't spay again it can kill! Docking or not docking isn't going to cost a dog it's life!


I just wanted to pick up on this point - that article ouesi posted from the AVMA says something on this, I shall just copy paste:

"Complications - As with any surgical procedure, there is potential for complications, such as excessive bleeding, infection, delayed healing and necrosis. Neuromas, which have been associated with chronic pain, may develop, but their incidence and persistence is not known.

Chronic Health Issues - It has been suggested that dogs whose tails are docked may have underdeveloped pelvic musculature; the evidence, however, is not conclusive. Dogs of breeds that are docked have a higher incidence of incontinence; however, this may be due to traits other than docked tails. Dogs with docked tails within some breeds may have less well developed levator ani and coccygeus muscles."

So as you can see, tail docking itself is not risk free (though it is apparent more comprehensive research is needed on these risks), and some of those complications can be fatal. Any kind of medical procedure carries risks of complications, whether it be vaccination, neutering, or docking.

Our vet told us, for example, that although we were having a lot of issues with our yorkie catching his dew claw, removal of the dew claw is not a straightforward "snip" but actually quite 'major' surgery that had its own set of risks and potential long term problems.

So rather than put him through that, we do our best to manage the issue - by keeping his dew claw short to reduce snags (we even considered special socks/wrist bands - and would have done that but after the last time he so far has been ok...).

I would like to hope that with docking some other alternative can be found (i'm still sticking to the hopes of breeding shorter tailed springers, or selecting for springers who don't wag so much!).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> 1 in 4 bitches get pyo!!! So surely spaying young is better that putting an old girl through major surgery?


Where did that come from?

From what I've seen it's 2% -2.2%


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rona said:


> Where did that come from?
> 
> From what I've seen it's 2% -2.2%


I do not know what the figures are but would have thought it hard to work out. The greatest majority of bitches are spayed and the vast majority of those that are not spayed are bred from therefore will be unlikely to get pyo.
I would have thought far more than 2 percent of at risk bitches would get it.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I do not know what the figures are but would have thought it hard to work out. The greatest majority of bitches are spayed and the vast majority of those that are not spayed are bred from therefore will be unlikely to get pyo.
> I would have thought far more than 2 percent of at risk bitches would get it.


the couple of emergency pyo related spays i have seen have been previously bed dogs- one a lab and another i can't recall as it was years ago (when on work experience from school). always found that odd tbh as it goes against the things i've read!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rona said:


> Where did that come from?
> 
> From what I've seen it's 2% -2.2%





kodakkuki said:


> the couple of emergency pyo related spays i have seen have been previously bed dogs- one a lab and another i can't recall as it was years ago (when on work experience from school). always found that odd tbh as it goes against the things i've read!


When I first started vet nursing in the 70s bitches were not spayed as routinely as now and we had a 'pyo season' with a couple of pyos a week. Probably did about the same amount of routine spays.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I do not know what the figures are but would have thought it hard to work out. The greatest majority of bitches are spayed and the vast majority of those that are not spayed are bred from therefore will be unlikely to get pyo.
> I would have thought far more than 2 percent of at risk bitches would get it.


Retrospective study says 24% of unspayed bitches also that cases have increased by 1.8% and elective spaying has decreased in the same period!

Neither here nor there really it's no comparison to tail docking.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2014)

Phoenix24 said:


> I will have to dig through the 50 pages to find it (any clues.., lol). There's not a lot of fat on their legs either - and I have been wondering what about their ears? Great big floppy fluffy things - do you not ever see ears getting ripped to shreds?


If I'm understanding correctly, it's not a ripping injury like you would get on ears and legs (I have a dog who's covered in scars from this sort of injury). It's a concussion injury which coupled with the lack of good blood supply makes healing rather complicated. It's not a question of dabbing some ointment on it and letting it scab over.

The AVMA article here:
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Documents/dogs_tail_docking_bgnd.pdf

The article cites research in the UK about gundogs and interestingly, the dogs with the highest rate of tail injury are whippets, lurchers, and greyhounds, yet these breeds are not traditionally docked. 
Kenneling increases the risk too. I wonder how gundogs are transported to a shoot in the UK, here in the US we have kennel vehicles for a lot of the transport, so I imagine that increases the risk of tail injury.

Even with the high rates of injury in some breeds, the article states that "based on the most current data available, approximately 500 dogs need to be docked to prevent one tail injury."

I think there is enough reason to actively look for an alternative to docking. Obviously you want the dogs to be able to do what they love, and you want them to be able to do it with minimal injury (I think no injury is unrealistic). But it seems to me that research in to alternatives to docking would be time and effort well-spent.

Edit: 
Speaking of alternatives, there is a lot of research and support going on right now in the US for an alternative to the invasive spay procedure (and it is an invasive procedure), one of which is removing only the ovaries. As more people are opting for this alternative, more information becomes available as to it's effectiveness, and more veterinarians get to practice and perfect the procedure.
http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/13_12/features/Safer-Spaying-Methods_20144-1.html

Just another example of continuing to search for better and safer alternatives for our dogs.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Lurcherlad said:


> If I have read the German Pointer article correctly - the number of dogs with tail injuries was 33%. Ergo, 66% did not experience tail injuries.
> 
> Is it right to remove the tail, just in case an injury occurs?
> 
> ...


With experience of full tail injuries myself, amputation looks possible. However, what about the 33% that do injure their tails? It reoccurs rather too often for my liking: should those dogs be left to suffer? Would it not be better to dock routinely rather than allow a third to be in pain? It strikes me that the argument conveniently ignores the third who are injured. (Not you personally, LL) Only a third, so it's ok because two thirds aren't affected under a certain age? Zak didn't have a tail injury until he was two.

I find it fascinating that we can still all be discussing this! Page 47! Did we frighten off the OP?!


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> If I'm understanding correctly, it's not a ripping injury like you would get on ears and legs (I have a dog who's covered in scars from this sort of injury). It's a concussion injury which coupled with the lack of good blood supply makes healing rather complicated. It's not a question of dabbing some ointment on it and letting it scab over.
> 
> The AVMA article here:
> https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Documents/dogs_tail_docking_bgnd.pdf
> ...


Re. transporting dogs, I'm only speaking for shoots I've been involved in, the dogs are transported either in the owners own vehicles or the back of the keepers Landie, usually with a few beaters being flattened underneath them.
Something that may interest you, some years back we had a party that included a number of Americans in the group, I was tasked with the job of driving one of the wives around with me for the day. My truck probably being the least dirty.
At the finish, on reaching the gamekeepers cottage to drop her off she very politely thanked me and told me, looking at my filthy springer, that she was '' Completely in awe of these little brown and white dogs.'' She couldn't, she told me '' Believe how hard they worked and how they so obviously enjoyed what they were doing'' It's nothing to do with the thread I know but I realised you were from the U.S. and it brought back a pleasant memory for me, so thank you for that.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Phoenix24 said:


> Chronic Health Issues - It has been suggested that dogs whose tails are docked may have underdeveloped pelvic musculature; the evidence, however, is not conclusive. Dogs of breeds that are docked have a higher incidence of incontinence; however, this may be due to traits other than docked tails. Dogs with docked tails within some breeds may have less well developed levator ani and coccygeus muscles."
> 
> I would like to hope that with docking some other alternative can be found (i'm still sticking to the hopes of breeding shorter tailed springers, or selecting for springers who don't wag so much!).


Of course, all operations carry risks, however, I don't see how removing a third of the tail can lead to underdeveloped back end muscles. Brig has the meatiest ar$e of my three. Poor blighter must get sick of having his bum smacked, it's very tempting! (In a nice way, never a telling off way!) Also, how does a dock lead to potential incontinence? Possibly if the dock is very short-hate the show dock-or if infection tracks back?

I think the deliberate breeding of short tailed dogs was mentioned on here previously along with the rider that it can cause spinal deformities. I think I'd far rather dock than risk producing litters of deformed dogs


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2014)

springerpete said:


> Re. transporting dogs, I'm only speaking for shoots I've been involved in, the dogs are transported either in the owners own vehicles or the back of the keepers Landie, usually with a few beaters being flattened underneath them.
> Something that may interest you, some years back we had a party that included a number of Americans in the group, I was tasked with the job of driving one of the wives around with me for the day. My truck probably being the least dirty.
> At the finish, on reaching the gamekeepers cottage to drop her off she very politely thanked me and told me, looking at my filthy springer, that she was '' Completely in awe of these little brown and white dogs.'' She couldn't, she told me '' *Believe how hard they worked and how they so obviously enjoyed what they were doing*'' It's nothing to do with the thread I know but I realised you were from the U.S. and it brought back a pleasant memory for me, so thank you for that.


Spaniels are indeed pretty awesome little dogs  We're in the land of the Boykin spaniel and around here we see mostly those and Brittanys.  Great family dogs too.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Spaniels are indeed pretty awesome little dogs  We're in the land of the Boykin spaniel and around here we see mostly those and Brittanys.  Great family dogs too.


I have no idea what a 'Boykin' is, if you could find a picture I'd much appreciate it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> I find it fascinating that we can still all be discussing this! Page 47! Did we frighten off the OP?!


I'm very proud of us PFers that we've made it this far with minimal snarking on such a emotive topic. :thumbup1:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

American made breed and oh so shiny :001_wub:
Welcome to The Boykin Spaniel Society - Camden, South Carolina


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Ooh, shiny! Is it made like a sprocker? Nice looking solid colours.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2014)

springerpete said:


> I have no idea what a 'Boykin' is, if you could find a picture I'd much appreciate it.


Yep, Nicky10's link 

Boykins are little liver dogs. Unbelievably adorable and as hardy and hardworking as you could want. Pretty idiot-proof to train too. Just great all around dogs.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Thank you for the link Nicky, To be honest, if one ever turned up on our shoot and I wasn't told I'd just assume it was a Cocker, nice looking dogs.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> I'm very proud of us PFers that we've made it this far with minimal snarking on such a emotive topic. :thumbup1:


Yes, it seems to have calmed done now..


----------



## kat&molly (Mar 2, 2011)

rona said:


> It's still mutilation whatever reason it's for


Lol, still trying to deflect from what the threads actually about- so far I've seen Agility dogs and now spaying.

I always spay my bitches because years ago we always lost them to related diseases, and my last girl got cancer aged 10, a pretty dangerous age to be having operations. So for me it's a no brainer.
It isn't so that they fit in to 'family life' either , or any mess they might make.
One of my girls now has bladder problems, not due to spaying but because of her failing health- if I didn't like mess I wouldn't put up with that.
I prefer to get on and deal with the dog I have.

Now, docking.
I don't hold really strong views, my Spaniel is a pet, with a full tail (she evens wears a harness,how uncool is my poor dog) if they can be bred with a shorter tail then it would be nice to see it done.


----------



## Flamingoes (Dec 8, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> So by this logic if I was pro shoot and supplied this evidence against the shooting industry it would be accepted ?? - you are too funny.
> 
> please can you explain why I'm being a hypocrite Em?
> 
> ...


Nooo Noush, didn't mean you; didn't really mean anything to do with this thread at all, was just trying to get her point over without her coming across as all arsey :lol:


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Of course, all operations carry risks, however, I don't see how removing a third of the tail can lead to underdeveloped back end muscles. Brig has the meatiest ar$e of my three. Poor blighter must get sick of having his bum smacked, it's very tempting! (In a nice way, never a telling off way!) Also, how does a dock lead to potential incontinence? Possibly if the dock is very short-hate the show dock-or if infection tracks back?
> 
> I think the deliberate breeding of short tailed dogs was mentioned on here previously along with the rider that it can cause spinal deformities. I think I'd far rather dock than risk producing litters of deformed dogs


I'm only guessing, as I am not a vet (I am a biologist!), but I suspect that carrying the weight of the tail, plus the muscle attachments involved, can help to develop muscle tone and strength at the back end. Although it might not seem like it, long tails have evolved in many species for the purpose of counter balance (think cats, mice, monkeys, kangaroos - and yes, even dogs). Given their body shapes, these animals carry a lot of weight at the head end, ie the skull, and during movement the weight of the tail acts like a balance in the same way as when we hold out our arms to steady ourselves.

Now as for the incontinence - that is related to nerve damage in the spinal/pelvic region. I'm not saying cutting the tail off directly causes this damage, but inflammation and infection can spread to the spinal column and have an effect there. And any amputation carries a similar risk - if not worse. I remember watching a medical drama a while back and someone had to have their leg amputated as they were trapped under a fallen building. They survived that part but died in hospital because of fatty tissue from the bone getting into the blood supply and into the brain (a fat embolism - good old wikipedia for a quick look at that Fat embolism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So whilst the risk may be relatively low in docking a tail, it does not mean it is absent.

Hehe. Obviously your dog must have wagged his ar$e into shape  Wish I had a tail in that case.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Am I missing something here? ....if Spaniels need to be docked because of the type of tail they have and the way they use it then
> 
> A) why are they bred like this ?
> 
> ...


My point exactly.



rona said:


> Mammary tumours are about 26% and only 45% of those are cancerous but this is used as a reason the spay





rona said:


> 45% of that 26% weren't cancerous. Why not treat when it occurs?
> 
> 74% never have it!!


Some of us who are anti-docking are also anti-spaying and anti-neutering for that very reason


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> With experience of full tail injuries myself, amputation looks possible. However, what about the 33% that do injure their tails? It reoccurs rather too often for my liking: should those dogs be left to suffer? Would it not be better to dock routinely rather than allow a third to be in pain? It strikes me that the argument conveniently ignores the third who are injured. (Not you personally, LL) Only a third, so it's ok because two thirds aren't affected under a certain age? Zak didn't have a tail injury until he was two.
> 
> I find it fascinating that we can still all be discussing this! Page 47! Did we frighten off the OP?!


The unfortunate 33% do not get ignored, but why should the other 66% suffer - just in case 

And recent research seems to suggest that they do suffer pain.

Surely, the long and protracted attempt to heal the damaged tail prolongs the animal's suffering, rather than a short attempt, then an early realisation that healing is not occurring, followed by a swift operation to remove, going back to healthy tissue with the best chance of a quick heal?

I truly believe, though, that it's a subject where opinions will always be divided - there is no middle ground for most people, I think.

I don't have a spaniel - but if I did I would prefer it to have a tail 

I do have a lurcher (another breed prone to injury) who does have a habit of diving into the brambles after a bunny or two - so far, so lucky 

We shall agree to disagree


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> The unfortunate 33% do not get ignored, but why should the other 66% suffer - just in case
> 
> *And recent research seems to suggest that they do suffer pain.
> *
> ...


i have never argued against this, but do feel the need to point out that if you have a puppy who is in pain, regardless of age they will certainly let you know about it- even if they are slightly uncomfortable they will make a fairly huge fuss until someone fixes it for them. in the many videos of pups being docked i've watched i haven't seen signs of prolonged pain (by prolonged i mean over a minute) and these were show docked yorkies! they seem to make much less fuss than a pup getting a thermometer up their bum!

a cocker is on my bucket list- i want him to have a full tail- but i also want him to be show strain with a bit less drive (in theory)!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Flamingoes said:


> Nooo Noush, didn't mean you; didn't really mean anything to do with this thread at all, was just trying to get her point over without her coming across as all arsey :lol:


Thank you for clarifying -ish Sorry again that I misunderstood Em x


----------

