# Tail Docking - Pros and Cons



## chrisd (Aug 25, 2011)

Hi everyone

I'm writing a piece on tail docking and would like to know what you think about it or what you know about it, both good and bad. Thanks for the help!


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

Buffy is a Miniature Schnauzer so she is a breed that still has their tail docked in the US. I would be sad if she had her tail taken away, I think it removes an important part of how the dogs express themselves to other dogs. There is an entire doggy 'body language' that a tail is a big part of.

Its amazing how many comments there are on vids of UK Schnauzers from Americans saying 'That's not a Schnauzer because it has a long tail' :blink:

Edit: I don't think there are any 'pros' in effectively mutilating an animal, especially as the reasons for doing so are cosmetic.


----------



## rottie (Jan 1, 2012)

I don't see any "pros" for docking a pet


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

I am totally against tail docking for any reason except medical. Even for working dogs. I just think it is heartless and unnecessary. Working sheep dogs keep thier tails ans all others should as well


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

The pros for certain breeds are that damage is kept to a minimum and later docking (which is more painful and can be difficult to manage) deemed necessary can be avoided.

Tail damage is notoriously difficult to heal.

The breeds I am talking about are those with little hair cover on tails which may have to work all day in thick cover eg cocker spaniels, springer spaniels, GSP, GWP, Weimaraner (short haired) etc.


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

weve recently had a doberman at our rescue,who for the 5 months he was with us had his tail bandaged,because of the damage to the end of it.
It was horrible seeing it unbandaged,and that was from hitting it in the kennel,If he had been my dog i woukd ahve had it docked.
I own a docked dog and have been with him since the day he was docked as a pup,he also had all his dew claws removed and he was none the wiser.My personal opinion is that as long as its done at a few days old,its not a problem


----------



## Strawberryearth (Apr 5, 2012)

I am against tail docking and other forms of animal mutiation i.e. ear pinching etc. When there is a medical necessity for this then fine, otherwise I think it is mutilation plain and simple. 

I love my dog's tail. She conveys so much using her tail alone that taking it away would be like not being able to use a tone of voice!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Can I just make a note here for those against docking tails as it reduces the dogs ability to interact with other dogs through body language, done correctly, working dogs such as the breeds mentioned in SB's post still do have a portion of tail, HPR's and the likes I believe retain approx 1/3 and spaniels approx 2/3, they can still very much wag their tail, and over docking is frowned upon. It's only in the show ring you saw them docked to a stump for appearances sake alone, rather than any reason to prevent injury. Of course that's stopped now, but it's made it incredibly difficult for those with working dogs to not only find a vet who will dock, but the costs are high, and of course it's completely banned in Scotland where people/breeders have no choice but to look south of the border for a pup with a shortened tail.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

My working-bred spaniel has a docked tail. It's a little shorter than necessary in my view, an inch or so longer would have been better to give him a bit more to signal with. However it doesn't seem to effect his ability to communicate with other dogs and since it wags like MAD the whole time he is outside the house then it wouldn't be much use as a body language signal anyway!!

Given how frantically it wags and how fearessly he throws himself through very rough undergrowth (so much so he often emerges with vegetation cuts on his tongue!!) I have no doubt that if it wasn't docked he'd have done some serious damage to it by now. So although we never sought out a docked dog on purpose I am glad his is done am in my opinion it has saved my dog a lot of long term pain and discomfort and me a whole host of vet's bill.

I am unsure as to the ethics of taking the tails of without aneasthetic, but it is done so early that apparently the nervous system to that area is not yet fully developed. I have no doubt that it does cause pain and some distress to the pups but comparing it to constantly damaging the tail and it getting infected over the whole lifetime of the dog I would choose an early removal. If tail damage is rare in a breed and tails are docked on purely cosmetic grounds or for defunct historical reasons then I don't see the point and don't think it should be done. But with my dog and dogs like him their is a valid medical point to it.

If tails were to be docked later, under aneasthetic then I cannot see how it differs from the routine genital mutilation of our animals it has become socially unnaceptable NOT to do!

So in summary I feel it is a wise preventative measure in certain breeds but I would like there to be a somewhat kinder way of doing it. However long term trauma and negative impact on quality of life I feel to be nil.

Just my opinion based on observations of my own dog. I fully appreciate why people might be very against mutilating 3 day old puppies in this way and if I didn't have a spaniel as bonkers as mine is I probably wouldn't understand the reasoning behind it. But I do, so I do see the point as I see the risk of tail damage in my adult spaniel as a near certainty if he had his tail, given the way he carries on while out on a simple walk.


----------



## Quinzell (Mar 14, 2011)

We have a minature pinscher with a docked tail. He was imported from America where it is still legal to dock them.

I personally don't see the point of it in the pet dog (unless for health/safety reasons).

That said, my other dog is an OES with a long tail. As he is a big dog with a very long tail, he often hits his tail into things as he wags it and I can't believe that it doesn't hurt him sometimes. Is that a good enough reason to have had it chopped off.......I don't think so, but I honestly don't feel educated enough in the topic to give an educated answer.

Sorry.....I'm sure my post has offered little value really :blink:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

To get a wider viewpoint in your position chrisd I would try the search function. I know it has been discussed before.










As the owner of the docked American Bulldog pictured above (rescue) I hate docking but can understand why it is done for working dogs.

Also worth noticing that people are prejudiced against you whilst out walking with a docked dog.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

I don't see any pro's for tail docking. I, personally, think it is barbaric. 

I know people use the argument of injuries to the tail, but dogs also get injuries to paws, ears etc... should we cut those off too? A builder doesn't cut of his thumb because he may hit it with a hammer . If a dog needs to have bits cut off to be able to do the job they were bred to do, then IMO they are not fit for function. 

There are some breeds who end up with practically no tail, just a stump, and I think those can be very difficult to read sometimes. I know someone with 4 ESSs with docked tails, and they still have a fair length to it so they don't have that problem... but then it makes me wonder why it was done in the first place. 

Tails are natural to a dog, they are born with them... if they weren't meant to have a tail, then they wouldn't be born with them.

ETA, I have no problems with tails being removed by a vet for a health reason.


----------



## springfieldbean (Sep 13, 2010)

My cocker spaniel has a docked tail, because he was born in a litter who were expected to be working dogs. If I could have had the choice, I would have chosen for him not to be docked, as the idea of deliberately mutilating a pup is abhorrent to me (and I love long, waggy tails!). I feel very sad that he was mutilated as a pup, and I hate feeling the end of his tail where it ends unnaturally.

Having said that, he still has a substantial tail as he was docked to about half - 2 thirds, so he can still communicate with it fine. Due to the long, feathery fur on his tail, it looks even longer, and you probably wouldn't know it was docked. And like Werehorse has said, he constantly wags it madly and loves nothing better than pushing himself through the thickest undergrowth, so I think it's highly possible it would get damaged if it was full length.

After speaking to various people who work their spaniels, they ALL say that they much prefer docked tails because of the likelihood of damage, and those who have had to have an adult's tail docked say it is an awful operation. For them, there is no question that they would choose the simple and quick op while the pup's a few days old, rather than risk the suffering of an adult dock.

So although I would never choose for a pet dog to be docked, I can see the reason for it in working spaniels.

As for docking show dogs' tails, I think that's revolting.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

It's not necessarily about them working or not, or not being fit for function. My working-bred spaniel doesn't actually work BUT his instincts are so bred into him that even if he isn't, in some people's view, fit for function (because he had to (?) have his tail removed to do his job (that he was bred for) effectively) it is impossible, impractical and would be wholey unfair on him to stop him doing his important spaniel business thing in the undergrowth. Even as a pet dog he still carries out the actions of his working ancestary and would put his tail in jepardy if he had one.

Spaniel tails are docked longer rather than shorter but "naturally" their tails are very long and very whiplike and delicate at the end and it is the portion that is removed that is easily damaged.

Tail injuries, unlike other injuries, are very likely to happen and keep on happening. The tail end is a long way from the rest of the body with poor circulation and is much more likely to get infection set in. Because of the way the skin is over the tail - when it splits it is very hard to heal. Plus, despite what people say, a dog doesn't really, desparately need the end of his tail so comparing it to his paws is non-sensical. Not having the end of his tail effects the dog's life no more than not having his balls - yet that is routine (albeit under aneasthetic - a point I acknowledged in my previous post).


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lozzibear said:


> I don't see any pro's for tail docking. I, personally, think it is barbaric.
> 
> I know people use the argument of injuries to the tail, but dogs also get injuries to paws, ears etc... should we cut those off too? A builder doesn't cut of his thumb because he may hit it with a hammer . If a dog needs to have bits cut off to be able to do the job they were bred to do, then IMO they are not fit for function.
> 
> ...


A builder couldn't function better with part of the anatomy taken off that he uses, that's the difference. Dogs that work don't *need* long tails, and it is of no detriment to the dog to remove the portion most prone to injury. It is of huge detriment to the dog if it is continually injured doing it's job and a daft law prevents something being done. I know of a lady with a spaniel in Scotland where it suffered over two years of treatment after an initial tail injury from working, where the vet was too scared of their laws to remove the portion that was injured for fear of appearing to be pro docking. We do all sorts of similar things to our animals to prevent illness and injury, it's simply silly to view docking tails as something different because we don't like the thought of it.


----------



## rottie (Jan 1, 2012)

The tail is not just for wagging


----------



## BlueBeagle (Oct 27, 2011)

I agree that cosmetic docking is unnessecary and cruel however, as stated by Smokeybear, SL and others, working breed dogs follow their instincts and therefore their tails are in danger because of this. 

My personal experience is I had a Dobe x who obviously wasn't docked but had a very long whip like tail. One day she caught the end of her tail on something while out on a walk and it took months of trying to mend her tail. It was a nightmare, it would heal and she would wag her tail, hit a door, wall, tree, whatever and it would open up again immediately.

In the end we need about 1/3 of her tail removed because it just would not heal  So if it saves a working breed dog from this torment then I think it is acceptable for it to be docked.

The issue is I don't know enough about how docking is done or how painful it is when done as very young pups. I can't truly believe docking to the extent of Dobermanns are is painless!


----------



## CockersIndie (Dec 14, 2011)

Personally I'm against docking entirely. For aesthetics it is a ghastly practise and im glad it has been removed from The show ring in this country. I don't work, but my show Cockers (she also dives into cover) best friend is a working cocker. His breeder does not dock. She has been breeding working Cockers for twenty odd years- both for actual working Cockers and pet working Cockers and has put in the contracts that she will pay for any tail damage occurring as a result of not docking- she has never had to pay out.

I'm against it, the tails looks better full length and I hate hate hate the idea of taking tails off pups even if they can't feel it (which I'm not sure I buy into).


----------



## clairesdogs (Aug 10, 2011)

I have 2 working cockers, both docked. Comparing a sheepdog to a working gundog isn't a fair comparison. I sheep dog is out in the fields not working through thick cover. A sheep dogs tail doesn't move like a spaniel (or HPRs) tail does, Infact im not sure a collie wags its tail much when herding?! Both my dogs were going to be working dogs, my girl came to me at 10 months as a failed gundog, my boy was an 8 week old pup from a litter that were also to be working dogs. We dabble in gundog work but mostly stick to Agility, Flyball and Canix. I don't agree with docking for cosmetic reasons, however with working dogs there is a definate realson. My friends sprocker (agility dog) has damaged his tail so much he has had amputations twice. My friends cocker has wagged her tail so hard against walls etc that the vet is thinking about docking it, it is ulcerated and painful for her. 

Im sure SL had some pictures of the damage caused to tails?!

Edited to add, my cockers still have 3/4 of their tails, they communicate very well!


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

Working dogs - maybe, depending on what work they're doing, retrieving game from undergrowth is permitted for some dogs, but Golden Retrievers have feathers on their tails, and they thrash about in undergrowth, so why aren't they docked?

Why were Yorkshire Terriers docked? Fashion and the show-ring should never be allowed to dock puppies - at any age, purely for cosmetic reasons. It's barbaric and totally unnecessary! Delighted it's been banned now for pet dogs although some people still want docked puppies. People call reputable breeders of Rotties asking for docked puppies and when they're politely educated about docking, they then go off to Ireland. 

We have a 6 month old GWP puppy in class - tail docked and its owners never had any intention of working him or show him, she just wanted a pet that looked "right" with a docked tail.  

Grrr, no wonder we all get angry with irresponsible breeders. :nono: They don't do a lot to help themselves do they!


----------



## clairesdogs (Aug 10, 2011)

Goden retrievers have a much thicker, heavier set tail than spaniels and HPR's. They also don't wag nearly as fast as a spaniel or HPR


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I go back to the days when it was usual to dock a lot of breeds. I worked for a vet where litters of terriers and spaniels came in for docking and I can honestly, hand on heart, say that the litters I saw being docked did not suffer. The pups squeaked when picked up from their litter mates, had their tails cut with scissors with no extra squeaking and then fell back asleep when put back. 

Having said that it can get infected, it was often done by 'breeders' who did not have a clue, and very often there was no need for it. I have nothing at all against it for working dogs or breeds that are likely to get tail injuries as adults and it would not have bothered me if it had not been banned for 'showing' breeds.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

My nephew loves playing football, im going to have to dock his legs in case he breaks them and stops being fit for purpose.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

clairesdogs said:


> I have 2 working cockers, both docked. Comparing a sheepdog to a working gundog isn't a fair comparison. I sheep dog is out in the fields not working through thick cover. A sheep dogs tail doesn't move like a spaniel (or HPRs) tail does, Infact im not sure a collie wags its tail much when herding?! Both my dogs were going to be working dogs, my girl came to me at 10 months as a failed gundog, my boy was an 8 week old pup from a litter that were also to be working dogs. We dabble in gundog work but mostly stick to Agility, Flyball and Canix. I don't agree with docking for cosmetic reasons, however with working dogs there is a definate realson. My friends sprocker (agility dog) has damaged his tail so much he has had amputations twice. My friends cocker has wagged her tail so hard against walls etc that the vet is thinking about docking it, it is ulcerated and painful for her.
> 
> Im sure SL had some pictures of the damage caused to tails?!
> 
> Edited to add, my cockers still have 3/4 of their tails, they communicate very well!


I do have some photos, I'll see if I can dig them out off photobucket, am about to dash out and get the girls out for a run, so it depends how long it takes to find them.



8tansox said:


> Working dogs - maybe, depending on what work they're doing, retrieving game from undergrowth is permitted for some dogs, but Golden Retrievers have feathers on their tails, and they thrash about in undergrowth, so why aren't they docked?
> 
> Why were Yorkshire Terriers docked? Fashion and the show-ring should never be allowed to dock puppies - at any age, purely for cosmetic reasons. It's barbaric and totally unnecessary! Delighted it's been banned now for pet dogs although some people still want docked puppies. People call reputable breeders of Rotties asking for docked puppies and when they're politely educated about docking, they then go off to Ireland.
> 
> ...


Retrievers aren't bred or used specifically to work thick cover, they're bred to retrieve the game, it's the dogs that flush that are more prone to tail injuries because they are bred to go into thick cover and flush game out. Having said that, some breeds do swap roles, but as has been said, the tails of retrievers and setters are much better covered than those of the breeds which are docked. Terriers are docked because they are bred to work down holes, and as I understand it, they can suffer the same type of injury, in a similar way as has been described with tails bashing against the hallway or door, but don't quote me on that one.

I think I'm right in saying it has to be done before they're either four or five days old? So very early, some vets do use a bit of pain killers in some form as well, but for me, at such an early age it's no worse than having a pup of 8 weeks old fitted with a microchip. Mine didn't make a noise when they were done last night, but some squeal like stuck pigs, it's a helluva big needle.



Monkeyshoes said:


> My nephew loves playing football, im going to have to dock his legs in case he breaks them and stops being fit for purpose.


That's a pointless argument, dogs don't need a full length tail to run or work, it's no comparison at all.





































The following photos are of adverse reactions to micrchips, something we don't think twice about as dog owners, and indeed campaign to have it made compulsory in some cases, and yet this is what happens to a proportion of dogs. These photos are gory, much worse than the tail damage pics.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

I appreciate accident happen and statistically it may affect the tail more, but that doesn't justify docking just in case. Big dogs die from a twisted stomach should we remove them just in case?


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

I agree with it being used for gundogs, but not for show/cosmetic purposes.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

The statistics you posted for injuries are intresting, im no expert but would I be right in thinking they don't take into account the working dogs who are unlocked that never received an injury to their tail?


----------



## BlueBeagle (Oct 27, 2011)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I appreciate accident happen and statistically it may affect the tail more, but that doesn't justify docking just in case. Big dogs die from a twisted stomach should we remove them just in case?


Your arguments are ridiculous! A dog needs it stomach to live a tail is not life sustaining.

If you look at the photos of the Spaniels' tails and imagine that infected, treated then start to clear up. The next time the dog wags it's tail it splits open and splatters blood everywhere. The tail bcomes reinfected and this time doesn't clear up. The dog is unwell and unhappy surely removing that bit of tail makes sense?

A similar analogy is a diabetic whose foot becomes ulcerated. They can be treated but it is very difficult due to poor circulation (similar to a dog's tail I believe?). Sometimes the ulcers don't clear up and the leg has to amputated. Are you saying the infected limb should stay on because it is more aesthetically pleasing for you?

A much better analogy to your previous arguments!


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

BlueBeagle said:


> Your arguments are ridiculous! A dog needs it stomach to live a tail is not life sustaining.
> 
> If you look at the photos of the Spaniels' tails and imagine that infected, treated then start to clear up. The next time the dog wags it's tail it splits open and splatters blood everywhere. The tail bcomes reinfected and this time doesn't clear up. The dog is unwell and unhappy surely removing that bit of tail makes sense?
> 
> ...


So using your analogy we should amputate all diabetics feet because they may become ulcerated. That makes much more sense.....?


----------



## chrisd (Aug 25, 2011)

Thanks for all the feedback everyone! I think the fact that there is a debate between two sides will make it an interesting piece for me to write, although I don't want it breaking out into an argument!

I can see both sides of the argument from a completely outside view and can understand everyones arguments


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I appreciate accident happen and statistically it may affect the tail more, but that doesn't justify docking just in case. Big dogs die from a twisted stomach should we remove them just in case?


What bluebeagle says.



Monkeyshoes said:


> So using your analogy we should amputate all diabetics feet because they may become ulcerated. That makes much more sense.....?


Um, no, diabetes is an illness, that might have other effects. It's also something that can be managed and treated effectively, and hopefully without offending anyone with diabetes, but a certain proportion is linked to obesity, there is no comparison at all.


----------



## BlueBeagle (Oct 27, 2011)

Monkeyshoes said:


> So using your analogy we should amputate all diabetics feet because they may become ulcerated. That makes much more sense.....?


No, not at all.

Going by SL's statistics out of 61 undocked Spaniels 49 got tail injuries that is over 75% (if my maths is correct ) So surely there is an argument for docking of working breeds *if* it can save them the trauma of an untreatable tail injury? Believe me ulcerated tails are not pleasant!

Done purely for aesthetics is wrong and although I would like to say I don't agree under any circumstances I have had a dog (and not a working breed but a crossbreed) with an awful tail injury and if I could spare any dog that I would.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

BlueBeagle said:


> No, not at all.
> 
> Going by SL's statistics out of 61 undocked Spaniels 49 got tail injuries that is over 75% (if my maths is correct ) So surely there is an argument for docking of working breeds *if* it can save them the trauma of an untreatable tail injury? Believe me ulcerated tails are not pleasant!
> 
> Done purely for aesthetics is wrong and although I would like to say I don't agree under any circumstances I have had a dog (and not a working breed but a crossbreed) with an awful tail injury and if I could spare any dog that I would.


The statistics were collated by someone in Scotland, as they are appealing against the outright ban on shortening tails because of the rate of injuries.

It very much depends on your own personal experience, and that can be affected by where you work your dogs. Some cover doesn't seem to cause the same injuries, and therefore some working folk choose not to dock at a few days old, because in their experience, and based on where they work their dogs, it just isn't necessary. In my view it should be left up to those who work their dogs to choose.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

I'm no good at maths so ill take your word for it.  

For me though the question still remains what percentage of unlocked working dogs never received a tail injury? Something those stats don't appear to address. 75% of dogs taken to the vets may have tail injuries but that 75% might only represent 5% of the total amount of working dogs . Obviously I'm just making these numbers up as there's no figures that take into account dogs that don't go to the vet with any injury.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Would accept someone docking tail for working reasons but not for anything else.


----------



## WeimyLady (Jan 3, 2010)

I will be controversial and say in my opinion, many of the traditionally docked breeds such as Rottweilers, Dobermanns, Boxers and so forth looked better docked. However I agree that as it is purely cosmetic it serves no purpose. 

What I do not agree with is the assumption that docking, when done correctly by a veterinary surgeon, is painful. There are a lot of myths about the docking of puppies, many of which are simply untrue, which I am sure anyone who has watched it being done can verify. 

I would only ever want a docked dog if the was legally able to be docked. I would not have a HPR or Spaniel with a tail.


----------



## PetloverJo (Nov 4, 2011)

I have both a springer and a cocker. Both with docked tails as from working strains so tail already docked before we got them. I can understand why they are docked as I've seen an undocked springers tail after it has been caught on gauze bush. It took ages to heal.

My cockers tail has been dock at a nice length where the tail is just starting to feather. My Springers on the otherhand you can barely see as it is a little stump.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> The statistics you posted for injuries are intresting, im no expert but would I be right in thinking they don't take into account the working dogs who are unlocked that never received an injury to their tail?


Sorry I didn't see your question earlier 

The figures were collated as part of a survey in Scotland for people with working dogs and full tails. I haven't a clue how that represents all those with working dogs with full tails in Scotland, but I do know that the survey and all the information is being collated to put forward to an appeal to overturn the ban, was done because people were fed up with their dogs getting injured whilst working them. So there will be a proportion as I said, of people with undocked dogs who work them with no problem at all, and as I said, some choose to leave their dogs with entire tails because they never encounter a problem. If you work the same shoot over and over, which is what most people do, and it's not the sort of cover where many (if any) injuries are sustained, it might be easier to leave your dog with an entire tail. Triallers work lots of different types of grounds, so understandably would prefer their dogs docked, as would those who know the type of ground and cover on their shoot, is one where tail injuries are regularly sustained. Which is why I said I think it really should be a decision left to those who work their dogs, at a few days of age it's impossible to say which pup(s) you might keep back, and good breeders try to home pups with those who will work them, not always the case unfortunately but then it's not ever going to be a perfect world.


----------



## rottiemum (Apr 12, 2011)

A slightly different point of view - I'm from America, where you never see (or at least you didn't - I don't know if anything's changed in 6 years) an un-docked rottie or dobe. Or a dobe with un-cropped ears, for that matter.

I have to say, though I never personally got a dog docked, I did own a rottie that had a docked tail - he had been a stray, and was already docked. It just never crossed my mind really that he should have a big long tail, because you never saw one. 
He did wag his little nub of a tail really hard though! He kind of wagged his whole body 

Anyway, I suppose my point is, when I moved here and saw dogs with their proper natural tails and ears, I thought they looked so beautiful with them intact. 

I wouldn't want one docked for cosmetic reasons, but understand why it would be done for working dogs or for medical reasons.


----------



## JenJen22 (Sep 29, 2011)

Just adding my own opinion here - i see no reason whatsoever to have a dog's tail docked unless its for medical reasons. i think dogs look horrible with no tails (any type) and think its more horrible that some people would dock them because they think it makes them look better which i think is a totally silly reason to surgically modify your dog.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Lucky is docked and dewclawed, she came from a farm in Yorkshire where the puppies were meant to go to working homes as ratters. Her siblings did go to working homes but Lucky was advertised as a pet only as she didn't have the "working potential".

I didn't go out looking for a docked dog, I was just looking for a JRT. She would look lovely with a long tail but I saw her face and had to have her, she was docked/dewclawed properly by the vet.

Personally I don't see a huge problem with it providing it is for working/health purposes and is done properly by a vet. I have seen a boxer with a damaged tail due to constant wagging/knocking, the end of it was very raw. Each time it scabbed up she would knock it again.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

I was unfortunate enough to have dealings in a cruelty case today at work whereby a litter of puppies tails were cut off with a pair of scissors. 

Fortunately the RSPCA were involved and the puppies will be treated and found good homes. 

No I don't like it


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

To work a spaniel in the type of cover they are expected to face without a docked tail would be a recipe for lots of injuries I'm afraid. My boys have all been docked, about 2/3trds and they have had no problems, they have enough tail to indicate their feelings quite well.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

springerpete said:


> To work a spaniel in the type of cover they are expected to face without a docked tail would be a recipe for lots of injuries I'm afraid. My boys have all been docked, about 2/3trds and they have had no problems, they have enough tail to indicate their feelings quite well.


This isn't aimed specifically at you, but does anyone know that docking stopped them having problems itsbjust as possible they could have been fine even without getting docked. Correlation and causation and all that jazz


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> This isn't aimed specifically at you, but does anyone know that docking stopped them having problems itsbjust as possible they could have been fine even without getting docked. Correlation and causation and all that jazz


If you look at the statistics I posted from the survey, it shows quite clearly that the majority of injuries to spaniels are to the end portion of the tail, which is why working folk prefer to have that bit taken off when very young, as that's the part where injuries occur most frequently.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

If i had a working dog i would want the tail docked, once a tail gets a injury its so hard to stop bleeding! Plus most injuries below a certain point of tail the vets will amputate anyway. So id rather not risk the injuries as tails are so hard to heal!


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you look at the statistics I posted from the survey, it shows quite clearly that the majority of injuries to spaniels are to the end portion of the tail, which is why working folk prefer to have that bit taken off when very young, as that's the part where injuries occur most frequently.


It does show that, but it doesn't show the working dogs who's tails haven't been docked that never need to go to the vets to be counted in those stats. All they show is statistically an injury is more likely to effect the tail which obviously supports the docking side of things. Do you have any stats that show how many undocked working dogs never received an injury to their tail? Without that those figures are irrelevant Imo.

My analogies are apparently terrible, but it's like saying 50% of injuries to footballers effect the metatarsal therfore football is dangerous when that 50% only represents 1% of all people who play.


----------



## CheddarS (Dec 13, 2011)

We were looking for a docked Weimi, but once we saw cheddar our opinion changed, he has a beautiful substantial tail, which suits him. It is great to see him in the brush!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

It's widely accepted that it is _not cruel _to dock a dog's tail because humans want it to do a job of work - in other words it is widely accepted that it is not cruel to take a dog that is not fit for purpose and mutilate it until it is.

It is widely accepted that it _is cruel _to dock a dog's tail because humans like the look of it - in other words it is widely accepted that it is cruel to mutilate a dog because humans want it to look a certain way.

For me, both are wrong; no matter how many excuses either side come up with they are still mutilating a dog to suit human purpose.

Mutilating a working dog purely so it can do what humans want it to do is as bad, if not worse, as the breeders who breed exaggerations into their dogs. The only difference is that at the moment it is fashionable to accept the former and rail against the latter.

And just as breeders are now breeding exaggerations out of their dogs, so too should working breeders be breeding for the kinds of tails that will allow their dogs to work without being mutilated.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Can I just say that in one religion, babies have their foreskin removed without anaesthetic by (usually) a dentist confused: go figure) and the only pain relief is a drop of whisky on the tounge. Both boys I know who were circumcised ended up in hospital with raging infections. This is 'religious freedom'. Try and stop it and see what reception you get. 

I've previously said pretty much all I want to say on docking. I agree with it wholeheartedly on working dogs. My pet bred working type springer has had two claw operations so far: the tail is only a matter of time.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> It does show that, but it doesn't show the working dogs who's tails haven't been docked that never need to go to the vets to be counted in those stats. All they show is statistically an injury is more likely to effect the tail which obviously supports the docking side of things. Do you have any stats that show how many undocked working dogs never received an injury to their tail? Without that those figures are irrelevant Imo.
> 
> My analogies are apparently terrible, but it's like saying 50% of injuries to footballers effect the metatarsal therfore football is dangerous when that 50% only represents 1% of all people who play.


If you look at the statistics, it does show undocked dogs that sustain no injuries, so yes, they are represented. Not sure what you're wanting to see really? Do you just want to see a set of figures that support the opposite? Have you worked a dog or watched one work thick cover, or is it just an idea you're against because you don't agree with it because of what you've read or think about it?


----------



## rotties4eva (Nov 26, 2011)

Personally I am glad that it is illegal I love my rotties tails :001_smile:


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> And just as breeders are now breeding exaggerations out of their dogs, so too should working breeders be breeding for the kinds of tails that will allow their dogs to work without being mutilated.


And in the mean-time all the dogs that are bred with strong working instinct and unsuitable tails will just have to lump it with the tail damage, infections and difficult amputation operations? Or stay on a lead for life to keep them out of the undergrowth and their tails safe?

And now more generally i.e. not just directed at you, Spellweaver.

The argument against mutilation *simply because* it is mutilation doesn't stand unless you also rule out castration and speying. Don't kid yourselves that castration and speying are for the dog's benefit really. There may be some health benefits but many of them are disputed... mutilating a dog's genitals such that is cannot breed is for human convenience, ultimately. To save us the inconvenience of trying to prevent puppies by management alone.

The only argument that stands IF you accept castration and speying is the pain argument. So if docking could be made pain free you couldn't argue against it.

So really the only argument here is whether 3 day old pups feel much pain during the docking procedure and whether that pain could be reduced in any way.

You cannot logically say that pain-free docking is wrong but castration is right. Emotively, instinctively you may feel this but there is little logic in emotion. To the dog the removal of the balls is quite probably more catastrophic than the removal of the end of his tail.

ETA: just mulling on it further... you can't say that castration and speying are actually completely pain free either. Obviously we assume dogs feel nothing under aneasthetic but anyone who has had an operation will tell you that it's not exactly a pleasant, jolly time and the pain and discomfort after the event can be quite considerable...


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Broadly speaking I'm against docking - totally against it for cosmetic reasons.

I do not believe it is painless, for a number of reasons. 

For one thing there is zero evidence that newborn pups feel no pain or less pain than older dogs. On the contrary, it has been suggested that neonates may actually feel pain more acutely because of their immature nervous systems.

I also followed a thread some years back on an American based forum, where breeders were discussing the pros and cons of scissors / cutting versus banding. There were breeders who said they despised banding because it seemed to cause huge amounts of pain - they would never do it again, so now only used cutting. And yet there were other breeders saying the exact opposite. The only conclusion I drew from that was that both methods have the potential to cause pain - not to mention the risk of infection etc.

As said, I can no way justify chopping bits of a pup just because someone likes the way it looks. To me, its in the same vein as breeding dogs with anatomical features that make it hard for them to breathe / run / etc. Nothing wrong with having dogs you like the look of so long as the dogs don't suffer for it.

For working dogs I'm on the fence.... I have never been involved with gundogs so I don't feel in a position to comment. At the moment I'm happy for them to be exempt from the ban in England. Although, I do know of one or two people who have been involved with gundogs (inc springers) who are against docking and claim it is unnecessary even for working dogs, so I don't think its clear cut.

What I found most disturbing about the docking ban though was some breeders of some of the breeds docked purely for cosmetic reasons suddenly ending their connection with that breed and switching to a new one because they were no longer allowed to dock. I'm sorry, but if you can just ditch the breed you claim to love because you are no longer allowed to mutilate them there is something very wrong!


----------



## ADA (May 30, 2009)

In all probablity a dog kept in a confined space is likely to injure its tail so it is always important to give them unconfined space and avoid places where they could hurt their legs, ears as well as tails!
http://anti-dockingalliance.com


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> And in the mean-time all the dogs that are bred with strong working instinct and unsuitable tails will just have to lump it with the tail damage, infections and difficult amputation operations? Or stay on a lead for life to keep them out of the undergrowth and their tails safe?


I think you are indulging in a little reductio ad ridiculum there! It is perfectly possible for breeders of working dogs to begin breeding programs for tails that are fit for purpose, and at the same time for existing working dogs to be exercised off-lead without being subject to "tail damage, infections, and difficult amputation operations" every time they are walked. If it were not, think of all the gundogs who are pets who would also be carted off to the vets every time they went for a walk. And I'm not just talking about show bred dogs here - a lot of working bred dogs are sold as pets.



Werehorse said:


> And now more generally i.e. not just directed at you, Spellweaver.
> 
> The argument against mutilation *simply because* it is mutilation doesn't stand unless you also rule out castration and speying. Don't kid yourselves that castration and speying are for the dog's benefit really. There may be some health benefits but many of them are disputed... mutilating a dog's genitals such that is cannot breed is for human convenience, ultimately. To save us the inconvenience of trying to prevent puppies by management alone.
> 
> ...


Totally agree. As you point out, speying is merely another example of humans mutilating animals to fit in with human lifestyles and, as I'm sure you know, I have argued against the fashion for speying on here many times.

To argue that one kind of mutilation is ok because we accept other forms of mutilation is only going to ensure your argument fails at its first premise. It's the old, fallacious, "well it's ok if I smoke and kill people with my cigarette smoke because you drive a diesel and kill them with your exhaust fumes" argument. Two wrongs do not make a right. Any mutilation of animals that takes place purely so that human beings can either use them or have an easier life is wrong.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

So just to clarify the only statistics that are available are compiled by people who you openly admit have done so because they want the ban over turned? Definitely no chance of bias there then. I suppose all the vets who have spent years training and working at fixing dogs oppose docking only do so because they haven't seen the graph. 

No matter how you dress it up, you are removing part of a dog because there is a small chance that it might injury it. There is no medical reason. The fact that something might happen is a ridiculous reason. And the fact that it's illegal or heavily regulated around the world suggest to me that those in favour are in the minority. 

Cutting it off because it looks nice is bad
Cutting it off because it might hurt it at some point in the future is good. 

I don't see the difference. 

The point made about circumcision being acceptable is no argument either, just because people blindly following religious dogma hack up there sons genitals doesn't mean you should be allowed to hack off your dogs tail. 

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad how supposed animal lovers can exercise double-think so well. 

How old does a dog have to be before docking becomes wrong?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> No matter how you dress it up, you are removing part of a dog because there is a small chance that it might injury it.


Where did you get that from? I can't see anywhere where it says there is a 'small' chance that it might injure it.

I think it's difficult for pet owners to understand what a working dog does. However much someone's pet working bred spaniel runs around in cover, it doesn't compare with what working spaniels do.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

cinammontoast said:


> Can I just say that in one religion, babies have their foreskin removed without anaesthetic by (usually) *a dentist* confused: go figure) and the only pain relief is a drop of whisky on the tounge. Both boys I know who were circumcised ended up in hospital with raging infections. This is 'religious freedom'. Try and stop it and see what reception you get.
> 
> I've previously said pretty much all I want to say on docking. I agree with it wholeheartedly on working dogs. My pet bred working type springer has had two claw operations so far: the tail is only a matter of time.



Which religion uses _'dentists'_ to do this please?

I've never heard that one before and can tell you for a fact that* IF *you're referring to Judaism, then what you've stated is simply and wildly *incorrect.*

I've never heard of Muslim boys being circumcised by '*dentists'* either.

As for the 'raging infections' - again, I don't know a single Jewish or Muslim man (and I know MANY of both) who has ever experienced this as a baby due to circumcision. Would also add that I have attended numerous circumcisions and the baby rarely even cries.

You might also like to note that in Israel, for instance, the incidence of women getting cervical cancer is so dramatically lower than in most other countries and there is probably a correlation between this and men getting circumcised.

RE DOCKING:

If for cosmetic purposes then I think docking is ghastly and absurd.

For certain working breeds, I can appreciate it might be sensible to dock while puppies are still very young to prevent a whole host of problems when they are older.

However, I agree with what someone said about it making sense to breed for the types of tail that don't need docking re working dogs.



Monkeyshoes said:


> The point made about circumcision being acceptable is no argument either, just because people blindly following religious dogma *hack up there sons genitals *doesn't mean you should be allowed to hack off your dogs tail.


.

Out of interest, how many circumcisions have you attended?

I only ask as I've attended numerous.

I certainly never witnessed any _'hacking'_ and I suspect the majority of Muslims and Jews would find your wording offensive and inaccurate.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I think you are indulging in a little reductio ad ridiculum there! It is perfectly possible for breeders of working dogs to begin breeding programs for tails that are fit for purpose, and at the same time for existing working dogs to be exercised off-lead without being subject to "tail damage, infections, and difficult amputation operations" every time they are walked. If it were not, think of all the gundogs who are pets who would also be carted off to the vets every time they went for a walk. And I'm not just talking about show bred dogs here - a lot of working bred dogs are sold as pets.


Indeed. I have one. His tail is docked and he doesn't damage it. Other people have undocked working bred dogs as pets and they damage their tails even when not working because they have the strong working instinct bred in and dive into cover wagging their tails and cause damage. I have not said anything, anywhere about "every time they are walked" so you have put words in my mouth to make my point sound rediculous when actually it is valid. You accept that spaniel tails are weak by saying that breeders need to breed stronger tails. So in the mean time you prefer the option of waiting until the tail is damaged then the dog going through any trauma related to that?

Working or not a working bred undocked spaniel seems to be quite likely to damage its tail at some point. To me it seems fairer to the dog to have brief, preventative trauma at 3 days old than a long drawn out affair with a damaged tail and a difficult op later in life. To you it might seem otherwise. We still have to consider this argument and can't disregard it just because breeders *should* be doing something about the unsuitability of spaniel tails to their job. And I happen to agree with you, breeding a better tail would be a good way forward. But there remains the problem of the mean time and what to do with the dogs that don't have good tails whilst also needing to work them to make sure we are breeding good working stock.

On the other hand breeding for good tails is hard if the tails of your breeding stock never make it past 3 days old! So perhaps for long term tail health a few (and who knows how long it would actually take so it could be quite a big few) dogs have to suffer damaged tails for the long term benefits.



Spellweaver said:


> Totally agree. As you point out, speying is merely another example of humans mutilating animals to fit in with human lifestyles and, as I'm sure you know, I have argued against the fashion for speying on here many times.
> Any mutilation of animals that takes place purely so that human beings can either use them or have an easier life is wrong.


IF you reject castration and speying as wrong then you there is no reason for you not to also reject tail docking as wrong. All power to your elbow if that is truely your stance. It's kind of an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" thing? I take it you would be ok with the removal of an organ/limb if things went wrong with it and the dog would have a better quality of life without it e.g. pyometra, damaged tail, testicular cancer etc? By the way I have not seen you arguing against speying anywhere - I'm obviously not as addicted to PetForums as I thought. 



Spellweaver said:


> To argue that one kind of mutilation is ok because we accept other forms of mutilation is only going to ensure your argument fails at its first premise. It's the old, fallacious, "well it's ok if I smoke and kill people with my cigarette smoke because you drive a diesel and kill them with your exhaust fumes" argument. Two wrongs do not make a right.


I don't argue the that two wrong make a right. I meerly point out that to say one wrong is right and the other wrong is beyond wrong is an error in logic. It doesn't matter whether _I_ think tail docking of wrong or right for that to be true. I make the point because many people (obviously not you and as I said, all power to your elbow if that's where you stand) will get very upset about the idea of removing a dog's tail yet think nothing of removing the dog's balls - or even go as far as thinking not removing the dog's balls is wrong.

I happen not to have a problem with docking of working breeds, or castration, or speying as they all have some _potential_ benefit to the dog (whether these benefits are realised or even real is where the true debate on these matters lies). Ear cropping and docking for cosmetic purposes I cannot agree with because there is not even any potential benefit for the dog (unless some far-fetched ideas about very rare events are called upon).

I also think so much of what we actually do with our dogs is for our convenience and enjoyment and not necessarily the dogs that if you take the everything must benefit the dog to the logical extreme then we probably woudn't keep dogs at all - or at least it would be a very different arrangement from what we have now. So you have to draw the line somewhere and my line is somewhere around these issues. And experience and research can change where people put their line. If you'd asked me 5 years ago I would have been firmly against docking for example.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Out of interest, how many circumcisions have you attended?
> 
> I only ask as I've attended numerous.
> 
> I certainly never witnessed any _'hacking'_ and I suspect the majority of Muslims and Jews would find your wording offensive and inaccurate.




I've actually never been to one, and should I ever receive an invite to a party to celebrate the slicing off of abit of babies penis id politely decline whilst querying if God is so good at creation why do they think they need to make amendments?

And if any Jews or Muslims are offended by the word hack, then they need to possibly reset their moral compass.

"how dare he say hack! I'm so offended, we don't hack we slice with a knife"

Im offended by the fact that babies genitals are mutilated to appease a cloud fairy and im offended by the fact that in 2012 its still carried out. That is barbaric, but because the baby can't beg you not to, you don't give a damn.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> I have not said anything, anywhere about "every time they are walked" so you have put words in my mouth to make my point sound rediculous when actually it is valid.


Oh, I think you did 



Werehorse said:


> And in the mean-time *all *the dogs that are bred with strong working instinct and unsuitable tails will just have to lump it with the tail damage, infections and difficult amputation operations? Or *stay on a lead for life *to keep them out of the undergrowth and their tails safe?


Saying all working dogs are going to have to be kept on a lead for life surely means "for life" and not "for life unless they are walked" 



Werehorse said:


> You accept that spaniel tails are weak by saying that breeders need to breed stronger tails. So in the mean time you prefer the option of waiting until the tail is damaged then the dog going through any trauma related to that?


I argued on a thread against castrating a male dog "just in case" he contracted testicular cancer by saying that the cancer was so slow-spreading it was better to actually wait until a dog contracted testicular cancer and then do the op. That way, a vast number of dogs would never have to go through an operation. Similarly, it is better to save operations for actual injuries to tails rather than operate "just in case" and that way a vast number of dogs will never have to go through an operation.



Werehorse said:


> We still have to consider this argument and can't disregard it just because breeders *should* be doing something about the unsuitability of spaniel tails to their job. And I happen to agree with you, breeding a better tail would be a good way forward. But there remains the problem of the mean time and what to do with the dogs that don't have good tails whilst also needing to work them to make sure we are breeding good working stock. On the other hand breeding for good tails is hard if the tails of your breeding stock never make it past 3 days old! So perhaps for long term tail health a few (and who knows how long it would actually take so it could be quite a big few) dogs have to suffer damaged tails for the long term benefits.


Operate on them if only if they damage the tail. It seems quite straightforward to me. No damage, no operation necessary.



Werehorse said:


> IF you reject castration and speying as wrong then you there is no reason for you not to also reject tail docking as wrong. All power to your elbow if that is truely your stance.


It truly is my stance - have a gander at some of the posts I've made on the subject - I've had some humdingers of a discussion with the likes of Terry about it. 



Werehorse said:


> I take it you would be ok with the removal of an organ/limb if things went wrong with it and the dog would have a better quality of life without it e.g. pyometra, damaged tail, testicular cancer etc?


Of course - operating for medical reasons is totally different to operating for making life easier for humans.



Werehorse said:


> By the way I have not seen you arguing against speying anywhere - I'm obviously not as addicted to PetForums as I thought.


http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/104601-do-dogs-grow-more-if-they-neutered.html

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/118488-not-into-male-gender.html

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/212070-spaying-what-would-you-do-2.html

Just a few of the threads - there are a lot more 



Werehorse said:


> I also think so much of what we actually do with our dogs is for our convenience and enjoyment and not necessarily the dogs that if you take the everything must benefit the dog to the logical extreme then we probably woudn't keep dogs at all - or at least it would be a very different arrangement from what we have now. So you have to draw the line somewhere and my line is somewhere around these issues. And experience and research can change where people put their line. If you'd asked me 5 years ago I would have been firmly against docking for example.


I agree with this - I think we just differ in where we draw the line. For me, involved in the show world, it really p----s me off when exhibitors are portrayed as spawn of the devil because they shave a dog (talking about the shaving cresteds thread here) and yet the deliberate mutilation of a working dog to make it fit for a purpose humans have decreed for it is applauded. There's something not quite right there, to my way of thinking.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

My mother used to breed Yorkshire Terriers - roughly a million years ago - when I was a young teenager. I HATED seeing the puppies' tails docked but had to hold the pups for the vet. It was utterly barbaric and I don't care what anyone says about undeveloped nervous systems those pups felt PAIN IMO. They cried and wriggled and you could feel their little hearts racing. The bitch would be removed from the room while it was done and she would be distressed when she returned to them. It was horrible, it was vile and it HURT.

I understand that there are medical reasons to amputate various body parts. It's done under anaesthetic and with pain relief.

I can understand the need to remove testes and ovaries/uteri to prevent indiscriminate breeding; again, it's done under anaesthetic and with pain relief.

I can see that there might be a need to dock tails for working gun-dogs who bash through thick undergrowth. Why not leave it until they embark upon that career? Not all dogs bred to be gun dogs work as gun dogs It can be done under anaesthetic and with post-op pain management just as de-sexing is done. Then *only* the dogs who *need* the proceedure get it done.

People used the "undeveloped nervous system" argument to justify poor/no pain relief for human babies until a few studies showed that babies react to pain.

Are there studies of pain during tail docking in pups? Do we KNOW that they don't feel pain or do we just think so? Has anyone studied heart/respiration rates/emitted cries/movement etc?? We humans are very good at rationalising things and making animals into what we want them to be "a docked tail looks right" is a great example of that thinking.

Tails are attached; taking a tail off hurts. Deliberately hurting a dog should be a course of action undertaken with care and thought and for GOOD reason.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Deleted.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> It is perfectly possible for breeders of working dogs to begin breeding programs for tails that are fit for purpose, and at the same time for existing working dogs to be exercised off-lead without being subject to "tail damage, infections, and difficult amputation operations" every time they are walked. If it were not, think of all the gundogs who are pets who would also be carted off to the vets every time they went for a walk. And I'm not just talking about show bred dogs here - a lot of working bred dogs are sold as pets.


I disagree, you're talking about breeding for a bob tail, such as with Brittany's, which can carry risks in itself, and you are yet again breeding for an exaggeration. The show world has done a marvellous job of overcoating spaniels, it's a shame they chose to dock them to a stump for the show ring, if they could breed to get all that coat on the tail there might be a chance it would work 



Monkeyshoes said:


> So just to clarify the only statistics that are available are compiled by people who you openly admit have done so because they want the ban over turned? Definitely no chance of bias there then. I suppose all the vets who have spent years training and working at fixing dogs oppose docking only do so because they haven't seen the graph.
> 
> No matter how you dress it up, you are removing part of a dog because there is a small chance that it might injury it. There is no medical reason. The fact that something might happen is a ridiculous reason. And the fact that it's illegal or heavily regulated around the world suggest to me that those in favour are in the minority.
> 
> ...


You seem to be trying to make it sound like I'm hiding something about those figures. Would you prefer someone had collated the figures from the point of view that the tail docking ban had worked, when actually, the figures show that it patently hasn't? If you work a dog and remember you are not talking about someone's past time here, but businesses and in fact a billion pound industry that many are involved with, then you don't want it to be prone to injury where it's preventable. Many dogs have dew claws removed as well, there is one breed standard that requires them for some obscure reason, but dew claws can and do get caught up and cause very painful injuries with some breeds.

What a ridiculous comment to make about vets, and no, you're wrong, a lot of vets won't entertain docking pups because they are wary of being associated with the practice. Why is that? Because of so called animal lovers who are anti anything they *perceive* as cruel. Unfortunately this sort of group have been known to pursue violent and very nasty means of intimidation, which leaves many people fearing to openly admit they even work their dogs. I've seen gundog trainers with their vehicles vandalised because it's got their business logo on the side, and some idiots who know no better think it's great to trash it because all gundog trainers are obviously cruel and treat their animals badly!! If only they'd actually been and seen dogs working, doing what they were bred for and how much the obviously hate it!! 

Until you're in the position of working a dog and having one that injures it's tail, time and time again, you're not in a very good position to comment really, all you can do is make assumptions.

One thing I will agree with is that there are far too many folk breeding working dogs, having pups docked and then selling them on to pet homes. I wish more were strict about where their pups went, and homed to working homes as a priority. Of course not every pup bred to work will make the grade, and may end up in a pet home but as I've said previously, it's not a perfect world.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> A builder couldn't function better with part of the anatomy taken off that he uses, that's the difference. Dogs that work don't *need* long tails, and it is of no detriment to the dog to remove the portion most prone to injury. It is of huge detriment to the dog if it is continually injured doing it's job and a daft law prevents something being done. I know of a lady with a spaniel in Scotland where it suffered over two years of treatment after an initial tail injury from working, where the vet was too scared of their laws to remove the portion that was injured for fear of appearing to be pro docking. We do all sorts of similar things to our animals to prevent illness and injury, it's simply silly to view docking tails as something different because we don't like the thought of it.


I don't agree with that. A builder doesn't need that thumb to hammer... If, for example, the builder uses his left hand, then it will be his right hand getting hammered, and therefore that thumb that would be removed. So, he wouldn't really use that to do his job. He might need it for other things, but that is no different to a dog. A dog might not need their tail to work, but they need their tail for other things.

I don't like that cutting off parts of dogs when they are a couple of days old... I think it is sick to be honest. I do not buy, for one minute, that they do not feel it... I don't buy that at all. That is why I do not like it, because people are causing pain to babies.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Cutting it off because it looks nice is bad
> Cutting it off because it might hurt it at some point in the future is good.
> 
> I don't see the difference.
> ...


I dont see the difference either. If it does not hurt (and I believe the pups suffer very little) then why should it not be done for both reasons. If it does hurt and the pups suffer a lot then it should not be done for either reason. As in Scotland.

Pups are usually docked at a few days old, it would be illegal to do them later anyway.

The problem as I see it is that all domestic animals are bred for human gain, whether emotional gain as in dog, horse or other pet owning, or financial gain as in farming, and some aspects of dog or horse owning.

None of these animals would exist in the form we see them now if it were not for humans producing them like this. To make them fit into our world we then alter them a little. Is that actually wrong. We clip their hair off because it makes life easier for us, we take their tails off because we have bred them to act in a way that injures their tails. Emotionally some owners prefer the look of a dog with no tail, or maybe they prefer not to have blood spattered walls or emptied coffee tables. We neuter dogs so that they cannot breed, we neuter cats so they cannot breed.

In the wild all animals will breed. There is a big feral cat problem in a lot of areas. They live in communities and they produce kittens. Animal lovers trap them, neuter them and then re release them. Is that kind, is that fair. The only reason to do it is because they annoy us by breeding.

Calves are castrated at a few days old as are lambs. Lambs are docked too at a few days old. Horses are gelded purely because stallions are hard to keep.

Surely we either have to stop keep animals as associations like PETA would advocate or we carry on controlling and changing certain things to suit the way we want to keep the animals.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lozzibear said:


> I don't agree with that. A builder doesn't need that thumb to hammer... If, for example, the builder uses his left hand, then it will be his right hand getting hammered, and therefore that thumb that would be removed. So, he wouldn't really use that to do his job. He might need it for other things, but that is no different to a dog. A dog might not need their tail to work, but they need their tail for other things.
> 
> I don't like that cutting off parts of dogs when they are a couple of days old... I think it is sick to be honest. I do not buy, for one minute, that they do not feel it... I don't buy that at all. That is why I do not like it, because people are causing pain to babies.


How would a builder hold the hammer or what he was hammering without a thumb? It's a moot point in any case, docking does not remove the whole tail, it removes a portion of the animal that isn't used for any purpose other than wagging, and as it can still very much do that effectively if it's docked correctly, and not for appearances, then the whole animal still functions very effectively. If a dog had a prehensile tail which it needed to use, that would be a different matter. I have yet to meet a prehensile dog.

I think it's sick to allow an animal to suffer unecessarily, when a simple procedure carried out at a very young age prevents the much higher risk of injury later on in life.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I've actually never been to one, and should I ever receive an invite to a party to celebrate the slicing off of abit of babies penis id politely decline whilst querying *if God is so good at creation why do they think they need to make amendments? *
> 
> And if any Jews or Muslims are offended by the word hack, then they need to possibly reset their moral compass.
> 
> ...


Well, we remove tonsils and the appendix and the spleen and wisdom teeth....so _'amendments'_ are made pretty frequently, actually.

And given that you have never witnessed what is involved in a circumcision, whereas I have, I would politely suggest that I am in a better position to state what does and does not happen. Thus to reiterate: there is no 'hacking'.

Ask yourself why historically the Royal Family practised circumcision of royal males. As it happens, circumcision was started by the ancient Egyptians, not by either Muslims or Jews.

The health benefits to women of circumcised partners are life saving, as I have mentioned already with regard to far lower rate of cervical cancer.

Finally, just to note that as my comments to you were totally polite, there was really no reason for you to respond so rudely.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Well, we remove tonsils and the appendix and the spleen and wisdom teeth....so _'amendments'_ are made pretty frequently, actually.
> 
> And given that you have never witnessed what is involved in a circumcision, whereas I have, I would politely suggest that I am in a better position to state what does and does not happen. Thus to reiterate: there is no 'hacking'.
> 
> ...


Tonsils appendix and spleen are removed due to medical reasons.

I didn't respond rudely I just explained that I find mutilation of children offensive and if religious people are so insecure in their beliefs that's their problem.

So because ancient Egyptians sliced off bits of babies willies its acceptable??

The azteks did human sacrifice, since old traditions have such reverence and deserve such respect I take it you would be happy to offer up your first born for me to remove their still beating heart? I mean it's an old traditional so therefore its fine?

It's a strange world when people professional to be knowledgeable on mutations of months old children, how many of these would be carried out on toddlers who could scream and beg you not to?

I've not got the stomach to see it live, the thought to me is disgusting and the one video I've seen online will stay with me forever, a baby screaming like that is blood curdling.

The amendments point I made refers to the fact god created us in his image yet the first thing they do is slice bits off, if God didn't want forking why did he make it??


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I have a docked gundog, a HPR to be more precise, and I would never wish to own a spaniel or HPR without it's tail docked. For me, the pros of having the tails docked on such breeds outweigh the cons.

I actually much prefer the look of a docked dog, although I think a full dock, as in the case of a Rottie or older show bred cocker, does hinder the dog in the way of communication. It would be hypocritical for me to say it's ok to dock one type of dog, but not another as the process is the same and the outcome is the same. So for me, generally I am pro docking, although I dont see the point of it in a boxer or Dobermann but I see every point in a gundog or terrier.

I know SLB doesnt have internet access at the moment but she has a problem with Louie's tail who is, as many of you know, a Lab x springer. He split it whilst out on a walk and it simply hasnt healed properly because he keeps re-opening the wound. Seeing how his tail behaves when he's running about in the undergrowth, it's pretty obvious why they become so damaged, and why there is a need to dock whilst the pup is still only days old.


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

Docking for cosmetic reasons, no definitely should not be done. I was always totally against the procedure and then we had the joy of getting a springer from a rescue who has full tail. 

He is a working breed, and the instinct in him is strong. The damage that he incurs just out and about is at times horrendous, the tail bleeds a lot on just a small stratch so sometimes it looks worse than it is, but if the tip of his tail had been removed as a pup, he'd stop spraying me with blood from his tail and looking on occasion like he'd been shot on his backend and I'd save a fortune in antiseptic wipes etc.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Tonsils appendix and spleen are removed due to medical reasons.
> 
> I didn't respond rudely I just explained that I find mutilation of children offensive and if religious people are so insecure in their beliefs that's their problem.
> 
> ...


To compare human sacrifice to circumcision is absurd.

The former is murder - the latter is a simple procedure that has health benefits and has been carried out safely for a considerably long time.

I appreciate that you witnessed one disturbing video. However, I have been personally present at many, many 'brit milahs' or circumcisions and speaking as someone who is so squeamish she can't even watch Grey's Anatomy  I can assure you I would not attend if it involved screaming or crying babies!

Nor would the countless Muslim, Jewish and yes some Christian mothers who opt for their sons to be circumcised.

Your 'amendments' argument does not really stand up. We do all sorts of things to our bodies that are purely cosmetic, from breast augmentation to putting false eyelashes on to men who inject steroids to 'bulk up'.

Personally, given that women are dying of cervical cancer, I think anything that lessens the incidence of this disease is a GOOD thing. Again I point at countries where the men are routinely circumcised: you will find a dramatically lower occurrence of women getting cervical cancer.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, I think you did
> 
> Saying all working dogs are going to have to be kept on a lead for life surely means "for life" and not "for life unless they are walked"


:lol: No you have mis-interpreted me I'm afraid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't done it willfully. 

Admittedly you could let your spaniel off the lead in a nice grassy field with no cover and it wouldn't damage its tail. But take it anywhere else and it is *at risk* of damaging its tail, yes on every walk. The way you interpretted what I was saying was that I was saying a spaniel is definitely going to end up hurting its tail on every walk. No. Clearly not. But the *risk* would be there every time it dived into cover so to prevent a tail injury as effectively as docking prevents it you'd have to keep them on lead around any kind of cover. And for a spanner whose main aim in life (in his head) is to carry out important spaniel business in as much cover as he can find that's going to be quite a sacrifice.

Sometimes being too pedantic means you miss the jist of what is being said. 

And I didn't _doubt_ that you were anti-neutering (it seems to fit in with your other posts) - I was just saying I hadn't seen it myself.

FWIW I don't think shaving chinese crested for the show ring is wrong either. There is no benefit to the dog there but there is little discomfort either (if done properly) so there really isn't an argument against it.


----------



## springfieldbean (Sep 13, 2010)

I was watching Sherlock's tail (half docked) this morning as he was retrieving his ball from some undergrowth and thinking about this. I think if you haven't seen how fast cockers and springers wag their tails when they're finding something ("wag" really isn't the word - they whizz round like an electric fan) then you probably won't understand the probability of damage.

Although I do hate the idea of docking, I don't think it's morally wrong IF you're doing it to prevent future trauma. I do agree that the chance of future damage should be pretty high to take such an extreme preventative measure, and I would like to see more stats really to show just how many undocked working spaniels' tails get damaged, but obviously these stats are difficult to find because most working dogs' tails are docked at 3 days old. 

I think the issue with breeding for strong tails is that it is more important to breed for health and temperament, and often if you introduce breeding for cosmetic traits, the more important characteristics lose out. If it were possible to breed shorter, thicker-furred tailed spaniels who were also healthy, intelligent, friendly and obedient, then that would be the perfect solution, but if that is ever going to happen it is a long way off and in the meantime you have to protect existing working dogs.


----------



## vivien (Jul 20, 2009)

I have a JRT and when I got her she had a full tail, by the time she was 6 months old she had hit her tail, as she constantly wags her tail and the tail would not heal ( the vet called it happy tail ) she had to have her tail docked when she was spayed and she is still as crazy as ever when wagging her tail so in my view unless the dog has a problem with his tail don't dock. 

Viv xx


----------



## Bullymastiff (May 6, 2010)

I personally dont have a problem with docking, ive had docked breeds in the past. I dont see how its cruel. Its only cruel if done in the wrong way like some stupid people who have tried to do it themselves!


----------



## rottiemum (Apr 12, 2011)

Just a really quick aside for those that are 'debating' the circumcision issue...In America it is done for most baby boys (I say most, because there are undoubtedly some that don't do it for whatever reason); and from what I understand it is for health reasons. 
I am not Muslim or Jewish. My brother was 'done' at birth, as was my father, and his before him. 

In my 39 years, I have never met an American man that wasn't 'done'...and I have to say, I've met my fair share 
I never saw one that wasn't until I met my Scottish husband.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Can you not see the difference? Breast augmentation is carried out on consenting adults, comparing it to a baby who is not given a choice is a straw man argument. 

If i cut off my babies forskin skin its child abuse

Guy with a beard does it its religion 

You believe God made us, God made us with a forskin. If you believe we shouldn't have one then god made a mistake that you are rectifying. I wouldn't care less if you waited till the kid reached 13 and was able to consent but I think we both know the practice would soon die out if you gave them a choice. I know i wouldn't let anyone butcher my bits without anaesthetic, and I doubt many Jews or Muslims would either. 

Get em while their too young to have a say. 

Strange how people who pierce new born babies are stigmatised as bad parents but religion is not allowed to be challenged.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

You're missing the point, if you read the post by Rottiemum it shows that circumcision on infant boys is not just carried out in the name of religion, it's done to prevent health problems occuring later in life. Which is just what tail docking does for working dogs.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You're missing the point, if you read the post by Rottiemum it shows that circumcision on infant boys is not just carried out in the name of religion, it's done to prevent health problems occuring later in life. Which is just what tail docking does for working dogs.


There are plenty of campaigns and groups in the USA trying to overturn it as standard practice as the supposed health benefits are negligible. I doubt the Egyptians who you say started the practice did so to prevent cervical cancer.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You're missing the point, if you read the post by Rottiemum it shows that circumcision on infant boys is not just carried out in the name of religion, it's done to prevent health problems occuring later in life. Which is just what tail docking does for working dogs.


Circumcision should be a whole new post and cannot possibly be compared with docking dogs. I know nothing at all about it but have always thought it sounds horrible. If it is true that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer why is it not done routinely everywhere. It would be interesting to hear more on that.
What about girls being 'circumcised', not sure if that is the right term - but that is truly barbaric and has all but died out as a practice.

By the way I was also not aware that it was routinely done in America. I only know what I read in novels but it always seems to be a Jewish thing.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

What about the bobtail gene?

There is already a gundog with the bobtail gene, a Brittany, so I guess it would be possible to introduce the gene into other breeds. Of course, that would mean much crossbreeding but the gene also exists in other breeds so the solution is already out there.

Does anybody know where the bobtail gene comes from?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Leanne77 said:


> What about the bobtail gene?
> 
> There is already a gundog with the bobtail gene, a Brittany, so I guess it would be possible to introduce the gene into other breeds. Of course, that would mean much crossbreeding but the gene also exists in other breeds so the solution is already out there.
> 
> Does anybody know where the bobtail gene comes from?


I understand there are bobtail boxers too.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Of course we could attempt to genetically engineer bob-tail dogs... but that's a whole new kettle of fish! :lol:


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I understand there are bobtail boxers too.


Aussie Shepherds can be natural bobtails and it will be a bobtail of this breed that I will have in the future. I know it can occur in Border Collies and the Pembroke corgi.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> There are plenty of campaigns and groups in the USA trying to overturn it as standard practice as the supposed health benefits are negligible. I doubt the Egyptians who you say started the practice did so to prevent cervical cancer.


Actually I didn't mention circumcision at all, it was another member. I didn't mention religion either, it was you who brought that into the argument.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> It's widely accepted that it is _not cruel _to dock a dog's tail because humans want it to do a job of work - in other words it is widely accepted that it is not cruel to take a dog that is not fit for purpose and mutilate it until it is.
> 
> It is widely accepted that it _is cruel _to dock a dog's tail because humans like the look of it - in other words it is widely accepted that it is cruel to mutilate a dog because humans want it to look a certain way.
> 
> ...


excellent post SW!! & exactly the way i feel!!


----------



## Dober (Jan 2, 2012)

I made a post about bobtails the other day, in Dobes:



Dober said:


> There are actually some cases of bob-tail Dobermanns, but the reason people don't generally breed towards it is that there are some theories the bob-tail gene is linked to spinal problems (although I'm not sure if any research supports this) and also that frequently in a whole litter maybe only one or two puppies would have bob tails, some might have muh longer but not full tails (like a weim) or deformed or bent tails. I think unless you lived in a docked country and were
> happy to just dock the tails that didn't come out right and keep breeding for the future, then you couldn't really work towards bobtail dogs in the UK as it wouldn't be fair to breed so many non-correct dogs in the meantime. They'd have to live with those malformed tails!
> 
> Apparantly Mr.Dobermann did try to breed bobtail dogs by selecting dogs with weak tails, but gave up and opted to dock instead. This could be why some dogs today have very weak, thin, curly tails. But who knows.
> ...


On the whole topic, I am of the same opinion as Spellweaver.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Can you not see the difference? Breast augmentation is carried out on consenting adults, comparing it to a baby who is not given a choice is a straw man argument.
> 
> Guy with a beard does it its religion
> 
> ...



I have never said nor believed that _'religion is not allowed to be challenged'._ I am not a religious person myself, as it happens. However, I like to gather facts and get both sides of an issue before I start condemning things with hyperbole, which is frankly what you have done.

You have never attended a circumcision - I have attended numerous circumcisions. It is certainly not 'butchering', it is performed by men who are specially trained. The baby usually does not even cry - I can say this with some confidence having attended so many circumcisions!

Personally I believe that the ritual DID start because of various health benefits - and that it was then enshrined within religion/theology to keep it going. The ancient Egyptians were extremely sophisticated with a lot more knowledge than you are perhaps giving them credit for.

As for your ridiculous remark about circumcision being 'child abuse' - I think that is an insult to those people who have alas suffered genuine child abuse.



Blitz said:


> Circumcision should be a whole new post and cannot possibly be compared with docking dogs. I know nothing at all about it but have always thought it sounds horrible. * If it is true that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer why is it not done routinely everywhere. I*t would be interesting to hear more on that.
> What about girls being 'circumcised', not sure if that is the right term - but that is truly barbaric and has all but died out as a practice.
> 
> By the way I was also not aware that it was routinely done in America. I only know what I read in novels but it* always seems to be a Jewish thing*.


It is not done routinely for several reasons,_ not least_ the misconception that it is a 'horrible' thing to do...

Also just to note that circumcision is not only a 'jewish thing'  It was started by the ancient Egyptians, and was then later incorporated in Judaism and then later in Islam.

As someone has mentioned, boys are usually circumcised in America. In addition, the British Royal Family has always practised it until William and Harry, who were the first not to be circumcised for many, many many years.

Female genital mutilation has no similarity to circumcision. It has NO health benefits, it can have dire effects on the girls it is performed on, and it is invasive. Again I can only state that having been present at so many circumcisions, the same is not true and you can be sure the Royal Family - who presumably get the very best in medical care and advice - would not have routinely circumcised all the boys if they didn't believe there were significant benefits!


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

deleted as double posted this


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

The ancient Egyptians were sophisticated but they didn't know about disease or viruses or illness to the extent that we should take their advice. 

Circumcision according to what I have read was a result of early desert folks hygiene not being up to scratch and the dry arid weather would make the forskin likely to be come infected due to insufficient hygiene practices. Today we have soap, so there's no need for it to continue. 

Just because you have seen it performed doesn't mean you know more about the practice. Should people only be able to express an opinion on animal cruelty after they have witnessed animals being abused? 

Hypothetically in a world where it wasn't traditional and didn't carry the religious or cultural baggage and nobody had ever even considered it. If i came up to you and your new born baby son and said I'm going to cut that bit off, can you honestly say you would go with it? If the answer is no then it's clearly wrong. If the answer is yes, I dread to think what other bits you would be willing to cut off. You don't need earlobes they can go too, you don't really need finger nails so pull them out, think of the germs and disease that live under them, it's just asking for trouble.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I disagree, you're talking about breeding for a bob tail, such as with Brittany's, which can carry risks in itself, and you are yet again breeding for an exaggeration. The show world has done a marvellous job of overcoating spaniels, it's a shame they chose to dock them to a stump for the show ring, if they could breed to get all that coat on the tail there might be a chance it would work


It's nice to be chatting again SL :thumbsup:

With the docking for showing issue, you've encapsulated my whole argument. Why do some people feel that it is ok to dock a working dog so that it can do one thing a human wants it to do (ie work) and yet, at the same time, feel it is not ok to dock a show dog so that it can do another thing a human wants it to do (ie show)? In both cases, a dog is being mutilated for something a human wants. I can understand people advocating both (even though I disagree with it); I can understand people being against both. But isn't it rather two-faced to say mutilation for one reason is ok, but mutialtion for another is wrong?

To put it another way, why is it ok for humans to mutilate dogs because humans want their help when they go out to kill other animals, but not ok for humans to mutilate dogs because humans like the look of mutilated dogs in the show ring?

(Just wanted to add that the above is not necessarily aimed at you, but generally at all the people who have posted on here to that effect)

I disagree that breeding for shorter tails/no tails is an exaggeration. An exaggeration is something that is detrimental. If certain gundogs' tails really are at risk every time they venture across the doorstep, breeding for s shorter tail/bobtail is a health benefit. It is no different to outcrossing a pointer into dalmatian lines to eliminate excess uric acid crystal formation. Surely it is preferable for an ethical working breeder to breed for shorter tails or bobtails rather than breeding dogs who he knows will have to have their tails mutilated? What is the difference between a working breeder breeding dogs who will have to have an operation on their tails, and a show breeder breeding dogs who will have to have an operation in order to whelp? None at all, really. So why is the former accepted and the latter not?

As for coats, I'm not getting into our usual argument about show coats/working coats and which is closer to the original (I think we both know each other's opinion on that by now ) but if it is possible for show people to breed a more heavier coated tail, then surely it is possible for working breeders to do the same so that they don't have to mutilate their dogs.

What it all boils down to is that if certain gundogs tails' really are at risk, there are things that working breeders can do that will eventually eliminate the risks and make mutilation unnecessary. The fact that they are unwilling to do so, and that they think it is fine to mutilate their dogs and to continue to mutilate their dogs, is as big a scandal as exaggerated breeding for the show ring.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Monkeyshoes said:


> The ancient Egyptians were sophisticated but they didn't know about disease or viruses or illness to the extent that we should take their advice.
> 
> Circumcision according to what I have read was a result of early desert folks hygiene not being up to scratch and the dry arid weather would make the forskin likely to be come infected due to insufficient hygiene practices. *Today we have soap, so there's no need for it to continue.
> *
> ...


_


The fact that I have been present for numerous circumcisions* IS *relevant when refuting your assertions about 'hacking' and screaming babies etc. I can testify that - at the many I attended - this was *not* the case.

As for 'not needing' circumcision any longer - again you are ignoring the fact that when men are circumcised, their partners don't tend to get cervical cancer. Cervical cancer kills.

Anything that reduces the occurrence of cervical cancer is good in my book - and I certainly prefer men being circumcised to girls of 13 having the cervical cancer jab.

Moreover, just because something is enshrined within a theology or faith does not mean one should automatically reject it. Just to give another example, the kosher laws found in Judaism made sense thousands of years ago - and to some extent make sense today. Yes it was followed back then because of religion but if there are health benefits too, I can't see this as a bad thing.

I suggest that we agree to disagree: this thread is about docking dogs' tails and I feel that we are somewhat hijacking it._


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> It's nice to be chatting again SL :thumbsup:
> 
> With the docking for showing issue, you've encapsulated my whole argument. Why do some people feel that it is ok to dock a working dog so that it can do one thing a human wants it to do (ie work) and yet, at the same time, feel it is not ok to dock a show dog so that it can do another thing a human wants it to do (ie show)? In both cases, a dog is being mutilated for something a human wants. I can understand people advocating both (even though I disagree with it); I can understand people being against both. But isn't it rather two-faced to say mutilation for one reason is ok, but mutialtion for another is wrong?
> 
> ...


We'll agree to differ on the show/working thing, ya know I'm right 

If someone chooses to show a dog only, it isn't in danger of injury being trotted round a show ring. Showing, as much as I admire those who put a lot of effort in, is a vocation, it's not a job as such, and whilst it's a good activity in many ways, it's not necessary except to retain physical characteristics desired for the show ring according to *an* interpretation of the breed standard, because as we both (all) know, there is a variation of that interpretation with some breeds.

Working your dog whilst not necessarily a full time job for many is a source of income, and contributes towards the whole industry, where many people work/train their dogs as a living. So a dog with an injured tail isn't just bad for the dog, it's actually part of your *team* out of commission, and sometimes for a considerable period of time, two years or more. Tail shortening is not mutilation in my view, and if you've seen a proper cocker (can't resist a naughty dig) then you would see they are not docked to a stump as the show versions were. I believe docking to that extreme does carry some health risks, and can understand fully why people were/are horrified to see it, and would agree that is a mutilation and can never be justified for dogs that don't go anywhere near a piece of thick cover!!

Let's face it, dogs aren't the only animal we dock, there are others we dock to prevent health problems, such as lambs to prevent fly strike.

If you could breed for a shorter tail whilst retaining other features and of course the all important ability, I've got nothing against that. I wouldn't suggest breeding for a bobtail in a spaniel though, the statistics show it's only the end third that suffers the most damage, funnily enough, it's the end third that working folk have removed, to prevent injuries whilst working. And as I've also said some folk who work their dogs choose an entire tail because they don't experience the same level of injuries where they work their jobs, which is sensible in my view.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> We'll agree to differ on the show/working thing, ya know I'm right


In ya dreams 



Sleeping_Lion said:


> If someone chooses to show a dog only, it isn't in danger of injury being trotted round a show ring. Showing, as much as I admire those who put a lot of effort in, is a vocation, it's not a job as such, and whilst it's a good activity in many ways, it's not necessary except to retain physical characteristics desired for the show ring according to *an* interpretation of the breed standard, because as we both (all) know, there is a variation of that interpretation with some breeds.
> 
> Working your dog whilst not necessarily a full time job for many is a source of income, and contributes towards the whole industry, where many people work/train their dogs as a living. So a dog with an injured tail isn't just bad for the dog, it's actually part of your *team* out of commission, and sometimes for a considerable period of time, two years or more. Tail shortening is not mutilation in my view, and if you've seen a proper cocker (can't resist a naughty dig) then you would see they are not docked to a stump as the show versions were. I believe docking to that extreme does carry some health risks, and can understand fully why people were/are horrified to see it, and would agree that is a mutilation and can never be justified for dogs that don't go anywhere near a piece of thick cover!!


All of which is true (except for the "proper cocker remark"  ), but none of which is an argument for docking rather than breeding in shorter tails/bobtails. My argument that it is as scandalous to breed a working animal you know will have to have an operation as it is to breed a show animal you know will have to have an operation still stands


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> We'll agree to differ on the show/working thing, ya know I'm right
> 
> If someone chooses to show a dog only, it isn't in danger of injury being trotted round a show ring. Showing, as much as I admire those who put a lot of effort in, is a vocation, it's not a job as such, and whilst it's a good activity in many ways, it's not necessary except to retain physical characteristics desired for the show ring according to *an* interpretation of the breed standard, because as we both (all) know, there is a variation of that interpretation with some breeds.
> 
> ...


Love it!


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

I was hoping a quick Google search would prove your argument to be a dud, but if anything it does show correlation between areas where circumcision is carried out and cervical cancer rates.

http://www.who.int/hpvcentre/statistics/en/

I don't agree that we should slice off bits of baby as opposed to giving girls an injection.

But I do agree we have hijacked the thread and our differing opinions will simply have us arguing untill we go blue in the monitor. ill also agree to disagree, no matter how hard we try arguing on the Internet doesn't solve anything. Id rather have Internet friends than Internet enemies, im sure at some point we will find things we do agree on.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> All of which is true (except for the "proper cocker remark"  ), but none of which is an argument for docking rather than breeding in shorter tails/bobtails. My argument that it is as scandalous to breed a working animal you know will have to have an operation as it is to breed a show animal you know will have to have an operation still stands


So you'd be happy to take a show dog out and ask it to work thick cover with a full coat and tail? I think not only is it completely mad, but it's also cruel to risk a dog that could injure itself.

You might think your argument stands, keep telling yourself that. A simple snip at a few days old is a small price to pay for a life of doing a job you're bred to do, and have a desire to do, with a much lesser risk of injury. We all want to ensure our dogs have a long healthy live enjoying what they're doing, tail shortening for working breeds, where appropriate, does just this.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So you'd be happy to take a show dog out and ask it to work thick cover with a full coat and tail? I think not only is it completely mad, but it's also cruel to risk a dog that could injure itself.
> 
> You might think your argument stands, keep telling yourself that. A simple snip at a few days old is a small price to pay for a life of doing a job you're bred to do, and have a desire to do, with a much lesser risk of injury. We all want to ensure our dogs have a long healthy live enjoying what they're doing, tail shortening for working breeds, where appropriate, does just this.


Good answer Sleeping Lion. I think that those opposed to tail docking of working spaniels have never seen the cover that most of them work, even after many years of working my dogs I'm still amazed at how they get through some of it.
The other thing that slightly amuses and puzzles me is the fact that tail docking, or mutilation as some refer to it, is so frowned upon but the genetic mutilation of some breeds that has taken place over many years and has resulted in some breeds with in built health problems is deemed acceptable. Perhaps I'm just to dumb to get the point.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Monkeyshoes said:


> *I was hoping a quick Google search would prove your argument to be a dud, but if anything it does show correlation between areas where circumcision is carried out and cervical cancer rates. *
> 
> WHO | Statistics
> 
> ...


For what it's worth, I really do appreciate your fairness in posting a link showing some form of correlation.

I'm sure we'll find things to agree on re dogs


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ok - you're going to have to explain this to me more fully cos I don't understand how you think



Spellweaver said:


> All of which is true (except for the "proper cocker remark"  ), but none of which is an argument for docking rather than breeding in shorter tails/bobtails. My argument that it is as scandalous to breed a working animal you know will have to have an operation as it is to breed a show animal you know will have to have an operation still stands


means that I have somehow said this:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> So you'd be happy to take a show dog out and ask it to work thick cover with a full coat and tail? I think not only is it completely mad, but it's also cruel to risk a dog that could injure itself.


I can't quite see the link!



Sleeping_Lion said:


> You might think your argument stands, keep telling yourself that. A simple snip at a few days old is a small price to pay for a life of doing a job you're bred to do, and have a desire to do, with a much lesser risk of injury.


Being bred with a tail that does not need to be mutilated is even better. Do you really think it is better for a dog to be operated on rather than not need to be operated on?

Do you really think it is ethical for humans to breed a dog with a desire and aptitude to work but not breed the required conformation for the dog to do that work?

Do you really think it is ethical for humans to breed a dog with a desire and aptitude to work but then to have to mutilate that dog so he can work safely?

Do you really think that breeding a dog which you know will need an operation is any less ethical than breeding a dog who you know will be unable to reproduce without an operation?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

springerpete said:


> Good answer Sleeping Lion. I think that those opposed to tail docking of working spaniels have never seen the cover that most of them work, even after many years of working my dogs I'm still amazed at how they get through some of it.


But wouldn't it be better if they were bred with tails that allowed them to work the cover without needing mutilation? What else would you call it rather than mutilation, btw? You can give it any name you want; you are still mutilating an animal when you dock its tail.



springerpete said:


> The other thing that slightly amuses and puzzles me is the fact that tail docking, or mutilation as some refer to it, is so frowned upon but the genetic mutilation of some breeds that has taken place over many years and has resulted in some breeds with in built health problems is deemed acceptable. Perhaps I'm just to dumb to get the point.


Here's the arguement as I see it.

Breeding exaggerations in show dogs was once thought to be acceptable, but is no longer acceptable. Show breeders are working to breed away from exaggerations.

Mutilating working dogs, however, is just as bad as breeding for exaggerations, but it is not frowned upon and is even looked upon as laudable.

Somehow, people seem to be arguing that because man has bred gundogs to do a particular job of work, it is acceptable for man to mutilate the dogs so that they can actually do the work. That cannot be ethical.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Ok - you're going to have to explain this to me more fully cos I don't understand how you think
> 
> means that I have somehow said this:
> 
> ...


Sorry, the multi quoting thing has put things out of order. My point about the show bred cockers is that with a full tail, because they obviously don't work so won't have their tail shortened, and the full coat they have, which is in many instances a lot thicker than a working bred cocker, it would be cruel to send them to work thick cover. And yet apparently they are the original version of the cocker 

A working cockers tail is not mutilated in my view, it's shortened at an age where it causes a minimum of pain/distress, so that it can work effectively with a much lesser risk of injury. It would be ideal if dogs could be bred with the ideal length of tail, but this would be incredibly difficult to achieve.

Other threads in the past have indicated for previously docked breeds, it would be difficult to see what to expect in the future as regards tail length and shape, so explain to me how it would be possible to breed for a certain length, without incurring numerous injuries to dogs?

I've posted this before from a book published in the early 1900's about gundogs, and it patently shows that the working world had concerns about the show world exaggerating certain features with cockers, it's there in black and white, even back then. The photographs look like *good* examples of working bred cockers I know of and see regularly, they look nothing like show cockers of today, with their vast amounts of coat and hugely domed heads, which may be lovely dogs, but they are not how they were originally bred, and that's without going anywhere near ability.














































Check out the bottom of page 88 and top of page 89, also note the tail length which is much shorter than working folk would prefer, so progress has been made in the right direction


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Ok - you're going to have to explain this to me more fully cos I don't understand how you think
> 
> means that I have somehow said this:
> 
> ...


i dont!

but why put the effort into breeding for a shorter tail when you can take the easy route and just chop it off!

yes the shooting industry is just another blood sport for those who enjoy killing birds, its not a living for most..they do it for fun! so that to me doesnt justify cutting the tail off a puppy.

my father-in -law had racing whippets, its not uncommon for them to knock the tips off their tails, but the vast majority dont!, i dont believe in docking..'just incase'!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i dont!
> 
> but why put the effort into breeding for a shorter tail when you can take the easy route and just chop it off!
> 
> ...


So explain how you would breed for a shorter tail, without in the mean time incurring injuries to dogs with full tails because you don't dock, so you can assess full tail length, and of course then you still have to work that dog. And just how is tail length genetic? Tails can differ greatly, so please explain how you would breed for a length of tail that would be just short enough, or are you too talking about a bob tail dog? 

The shooting industry as a sport generates a huge amount of turnover, you may not agree with it, but many people rely on it for their income and livelihood.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> For what it's worth, I really do appreciate your fairness in posting a link showing some form of correlation.
> 
> I'm sure we'll find things to agree on re dogs


I'll argue my case till I've no more breath in my lungs, but damit, i can't argue against facts. Even if they are are contradictory to my points.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry, the multi quoting thing has put things out of order. My point about the show bred cockers is that with a full tail, because they obviously don't work so won't have their tail shortened, and the full coat they have, which is in many instances a lot thicker than a working bred cocker, it would be cruel to send them to work thick cover. And yet apparently they are the original version of the cocker


I've already said that I'm not entering into that argument again - we've discussed this on several threads already, threads on which I've posted pictorial evidence about show and working cockers and their relative resemblance to todays cockers, and so anyone who wants to can go and read about it on those threads and discuss it on those threads instead of highjacking this thread.

So, leaving to one side the diversionary tactics and getting back to the point of the thread:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Other threads in the past have indicated for previously docked breeds, it would be difficult to see what to expect in the future as regards tail length and shape, so explain to me how it would be possible to breed for a certain length, without incurring numerous injuries to dogs?


I never said it would be quick and easy. Breeding exaggerations out of show dogs is not going to be quick and easy, but that does not mean it should not be done. Similarly, breeding a gundog whose conformation actually allows it to do the job it was bred for without being mutilated will not be quick and easy, but it should be done.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I've already said that I'm not entering into that argument again - we've discussed this on several threads already, threads on which I've posted pictorial evidence about show and working cockers and their relative resemblance to todays cockers, and so anyone who wants to can go and read about it on those threads and discuss it on those threads instead of highjacking this thread.
> 
> So, leaving to one side the diversionary tactics and getting back to the point of the thread:
> 
> I never said it would be quick and easy. Breeding exaggerations out of show dogs is not going to be quick and easy, but that does not mean it should not be done. Similarly, breeding a gundog whose conformation actually allows it to do the job it was bred for without being mutilated will not be quick and easy, but it should be done.


There are no diversionary tactics, the facts are there in black and white, the show fraternity were breeding away from what was accepted as the breed standard, to exaggerate features for their own personal preferences.

Again, explain how you would instigate a proramme of breeding that wouldn't see any dog with a full tail injured while you breed for a certain length of tail?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So explain how you would breed for a shorter tail, without in the mean time incurring injuries to dogs with full tails because you don't dock, so you can assess full tail length, and of course then you still have to work that dog. And just how is tail length genetic? Tails can differ greatly, so please explain how you would breed for a length of tail that would be just short enough, or are you too talking about a bob tail dog?
> 
> The shooting industry as a sport generates a huge amount of turnover, you may not agree with it, but many people rely on it for their income and livelihood.


i suppose the way all desired features have been bred for, by selective breeding.

if bobtails arnt the answer then breed for a stronger tail, my old working springer was undocked he had a very thick strong tail, i really cant imagine him ever damaging it whatever the conditions.

maybe so. but it doesnt make very many aspects of it ethical!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The shooting industry as a sport generates a huge amount of turnover, you may not agree with it, but many people rely on it for their income and livelihood.


Just stop and think for a minute about the logical consequences of following that argument through. You are arguing that it is acceptable to continue to mutilate dogs because any solution will be a long term one and would affect people's livelihoods.

Now, I know you are passionate about factory farming, so I'll apply the logical conclusions of your argument to that. If you applied the above argument to factory farming, you would have to argue that it is acceptable to factory farm because any solution will be a long term one and would affect people's livelihoods.

Do you really want to argue that something should not be altered for the better just because it affects people's livelihoods?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Again, explain how you would instigate a proramme of breeding that wouldn't see any dog with a full tail injured while you breed for a certain length of tail?


I don't believe I've ever said that. What I have said is that tails should be left as they are and operated on only if they become injured - irresective of whether or not any breeding program is instigated.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i suppose the way all desired features have been bred for, by selective breeding.
> 
> if bobtails arnt the answer then breed for a stronger tail, my old working springer was undocked he had a very thick strong tail, i really cant imagine him ever damaging it whatever the conditions.
> 
> maybe so. but it doesnt make very many aspects of it ethical!


So how do you breed for a stronger tail even, that would mean you leave all spaniels in a litter with entire full length tails, with the hope that there would be the ones with stronger tails, ability and all the other tick boxes. What happens to those that don't meet the strong tail requirement, are they just palmed off to pet homes. What happens if the stronger tailed pups don't necessarily produce strong tails?



Spellweaver said:


> Just stop and think for a minute about the logical consequences of following that argument through. You are arguing that it is acceptable to continue to mutilate dogs because any solution will be a long term one and would affect people's livelihoods.
> 
> Now, I know you are passionate about factory farming, so I'll apply the logical conclusions of your argument to that. If you applied the above argument to factory farming, you would have to argue that it is acceptable to factory farm because any solution will be a long term one and would affect people's livelihoods.
> 
> Do you really want to argue that something should not be altered for the better just because it affects people's livelihoods?


Now, now Val :nono: there is no comparison at all between working dogs and factory farming, docking a working dog to prevent injury is not mutilation, it's a preventative measure. It doesn't cause much if any pain or distress, and the dog doesn't sit there pondering where the end portion of it's tail went, bemoaning the fact long into it's working life, wondering whether or not it would ever have suffered an injury. What a silly comparison to attempt to make!!


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Just stop and think for a minute about the logical consequences of following that argument through. You are arguing that it is acceptable to continue to mutilate dogs because any solution will be a long term one and would affect people's livelihoods.
> 
> Now, I know you are passionate about factory farming, so I'll apply the logical conclusions of your argument to that. If you applied the above argument to factory farming, you would have to argue that it is acceptable to factory farm because any solution will be a long term one and would affect people's livelihoods.
> 
> Do you really want to argue that something should not be altered for the better just because it affects people's livelihoods?


I can't figure out how to like but you explain my brain words better than I can, excellent post.

Down with the luddites and up with dogs with tails.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Just thought I'd post a pic of my young springer, about three inches docked from his tail, which is enough to ensure that he doesn't injure himself when he starts work in February. He looks as though he's a dog that's been ill treated dont you think. I treasure my dogs and the relationship that I have with them as my working companions and if docking helps them to enjoy it without risk of injury then I'm afraid I shall contiue to do so for as long as I work them. Does anyone really think that we, who work spaniels, dock our dogs tails for the fun of it? I assure you that we dont, it's done for a reason.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Now, now Val :nono: there is no comparison at all between working dogs and factory farming, docking a working dog to prevent injury is not mutilation, it's a preventative measure. It doesn't cause much if any pain or distress, and the dog doesn't sit there pondering where the end portion of it's tail went, bemoaning the fact long into it's working life, wondering whether or not it would ever have suffered an injury. What a silly comparison to attempt to make!!


No, no no! I never said any of that at all. You have missed the point completely! :nono:

Now sit up and pay attention at the back there SL! This was the point:

You argued that it would be impossible to implement a breeding program to shorten gundogs' tails because it would adversely affect the livelihood of people involved.

I pointed out that if we you were to use adversely affecting livelihoods as a criterion for not trying to improve the welfare of animals, then you would have to accept factory farming because to improve the lot of factory farmed animals would also adversely affect livelihoods.

See? Nothing at all to do with any of the nonsense above.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

springerpete said:


> Just thought I'd post a pic of my young springer, about three inches docked from his tail, which is enough to ensure that he doesn't injure himself when he starts work in February. He looks as though he's a dog that's been ill treated dont you think. I treasure my dogs and the relationship that I have with them as my working companions and if docking helps them to enjoy it without risk of injury then I'm afraid I shall contiue to do so for as long as I work them. Does anyone really think that we, who work spaniels, dock our dogs tails for the fun of it? I assure you that we dont, it's done for a reason.


But - and for the second time of asking - wouldn't you rather that your dog had been bred with a shorter tail so that you did not have to have him operated on?

I know I would prefer my dogs not to have an operation of there was a way to stop it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> No, no no! I never said any of that at all. You have missed the point completely! :nono:
> 
> Now sit up and pay attention at the back there SL! This was the point:
> 
> ...


Oh come on Val, I was patently paying attention, I never argued it would be impossible to implement a breeding programme, have a look back and see. I simply asked for you to explain how that could be done, I'll add to that, how can it be done while dogs can still be worked without exposing them to the possibility of injury with a full tail?

I don't have to accept factory farming in any form, that's your viewpoint. I don't support factory farming as you well know, I do however support working your dog without exposing it to a greater risk of injury, tail shortening at a few days of age reduces that risk considerably, unfortunately some folk just can't see the wood for the trees, or from the spaniels viewpoint, the brambles for the thicket!


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Genuine question to those who hunt and love the sport and love their dogs.

Instead of asking what the hell your supposed to do with the dogs that are born in the process of trying to breed this problem out. Why don't you find them loving homes? Yeah you might have to have a couple of litters before you get a dog that has the required length to really start the ball rolling, but in the interests of the dog, why don't you focus on making it so the next generation of hunters don't need to dock? Instead of its easier just to cut it off.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Genuine question to those who hunt and love the sport and love their dogs.
> 
> Instead of asking what the hell your supposed to do with the dogs that are born in the process of trying to breed this problem out. Why don't you find them loving homes? Yeah you might have to have a couple of litters before you get a dog that has the required length to really start the ball rolling, but in the interests of the dog, why don't you focus on making it so the next generation of hunters don't need to dock? Instead of its easier just to cut it off.


Sorry, but that implies that those who hunt and love the sport, and their dogs, don't find them loving homes in the first place?

Have you watched dogs work?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So how do you breed for a stronger tail even, that would mean you leave all spaniels in a litter with entire full length tails, with the hope that there would be the ones with stronger tails, ability and all the other tick boxes. What happens to those that don't meet the strong tail requirement, are they just palmed off to pet homes. What happens if the stronger tailed pups don't necessarily produce strong tails?
> !


i dont know SL, breeding for a tail that doesnt have to be lopped off has never been a problem for breeders of my breed its a natural breed in every way!..perhaps its better to do what the whippet men do then...nothing, like the vast majority of whippets most spaniels would never damage their tails anyway.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i dont know SL, breeding for a tail that doesnt have to be lopped off has never been a problem for breeders of my breed its a natural breed in every way!..perhaps its better to do what the whippet men do then...nothing, like the vast majority of whippets most spaniels would never damage their tails anyway.


If you look at the statistics though Noush, that's patently not true, a higher percentage of spaniels with a full length tail suffer injury when working, than those with a tail that's shortened. Whippets aren't bred to work cover, so I'm not sure why you're trying to draw a comparison?


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2012)

Must admit, Ive threatened to dock the danes tails on many occasions. Those things are deadly, and they HURT. 
DH gets it the worst though, their tail height full whip wag is right *there* if you know what I mean, and he has ended up doubled over a few times.

But alas, you cant dock a dane, theyre too tall, theyll fall over. 

In all seriousness though, several breeds (danes included) are known for getting happy tail which is notoriously hard to treat. If working dogs are injured that frequently with full tails, I can see taking preventative measures.

Though, personally, I dont like docking. I see my dogs use their tails as rudders when running top speed, as information to other dogs, etc. Docking to a nub is totally unnecessary IMO.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> But - and for the second time of asking - wouldn't you rather that your dog had been bred with a shorter tail so that you did not have to have him operated on?
> 
> I know I would prefer my dogs not to have an operation of there was a way to stop it.


I'm afraid at my age if I had to wait for genetic engineering to produce a spaniel with a shorter tail I'd never work another. And refering to it as an 'Operation' does stretch the point a bit, it's done in seconds, hardly radical surgery. I'm sorry but there's unlikely to be any common ground for those of us who enjoy working our dogs and those that dont, we live in different worlds, my tenet has always been to let everyone live their lives they way they see fit. As long as I'm satisfied that my dogs live good, full lives and are looked after to the best of my ability then I think the choice of whether to dock or not is mine and mine alone to make.
It might not be a bad idea for some, not all, of the detractors, to visit a shoot at the start of ther day, you'll see around 15 or so spaniels in top condition, all bursting with excitememnt at the prospect of the day ahead, and none of which look ill treated in any way, far from it, we who work our dogs as a rule place great store in keeping them fit and well looked after.
Personally I dont agree with the ethics of dog shows but I wouldn't dream of criticising those who enjoy it. Each to his own,


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't have to accept factory farming in any form, that's your viewpoint. I don't support factory farming as you well know,


That's why I extended your argument to factory farming, to make you realise just what you were arguing for 



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I do however support working your dog without exposing it to a greater risk of injury, tail shortening at a few days of age reduces that risk considerably, unfortunately some folk just can't see the wood for the trees, or from the spaniels viewpoint, the brambles for the thicket!


And I support
a) not mutilating animals purely so they can do the job man has bred them to do
b) breeding for the correct conformation to allow the animal to do the job man has bred them to do


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you look at the statistics though Noush, that's patently not true, a higher percentage of spaniels with a full length tail suffer injury when working, than those with a tail that's shortened. Whippets aren't bred to work cover, so I'm not sure why you're trying to draw a comparison?


ive not seen the statistics tbh, i still imagine that the vast majority are unscathed?

racing whippets are notorius for knocking the tips off their tails but arnt docked as a precaution.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> That's why I extended your argument to factory farming, to make you realise just what you were arguing for
> 
> And I support
> a) not mutilating animals purely so they can do the job man has bred them to do
> b) breeding for the correct conformation to allow the animal to do the job man has bred them to do


I haven't argued for factory farming at all Val,those are your words, not mine, I do not support factory farming at all. Your comparison is a poor one, and just doens't hold water I'm afraid, but to keep on trying to word your posts to make it appear as though I support this sort of practise is really low tbh.

I don't support mutilating animals either, I don't view docking as appropriate for working dogs as mutilation. If you support breeding for the correct conformation to do the job they were meant to do, then please look at my previous posts which patently refers to show folk breeding for exaggeration, back in the early 1900s, with evidence there in black and white that is had occurred even then. I haven't seen one cocker spaniel in the show ring that could work without being altered drastically first, if they've still got the ability that is. Thank goodness all it takes with the working variety is a quick snip at a few days of age!!


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry, but that implies that those who hunt and love the sport, and their dogs, don't find them loving homes in the first place?
> 
> Have you watched dogs work?


If that isn't the case why do pro dockers and breeders of dogs with exaggerated features keep raising the question of what they are supposed to do with the dogs that are bred in the transitional stages?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> If that isn't the case why do pro dockers and breeders of dogs with exaggerated features keep raising the question of what they are supposed to do with the dogs that are bred in the transitional stages?


Sorry, but your question doesn't answer the question I asked, which was that your post implies that those who work their dogs don't care about them. In my experience they very much do, but obviously as with any portion of society you will get differences, some won't care to the extent of others. The greatest example of this of course is the pet section of ownership, where you see pets mistreated and turned in to rescue in phenomenal numbers, so maybe we should ban pet ownership to prevent cruelty?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

springerpete said:


> Personally I dont agree with the ethics of dog shows but I wouldn't dream of criticising those who enjoy it. Each to his own,


My criticising the mutilation of the dogs you use on shoots is no different from you criticising the exaggeration of some show dogs - didn't you start up a whole thread about that?

For me, there is no difference in breeding a show dog with exaggerations and breeding a dog you know will have to be operated on. Both are equally unethical. Both are equally wrong.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> My criticising the mutilation of the dogs you use on shoots is no different from you criticising the exaggeration of some show dogs - didn't you start up a whole thread about that?
> 
> For me, there is no difference in breeding a show dog with exaggerations and breeding a dog you know will have to be operated on. Both are equally unethical. Both are equally wrong.


De ja vu, thought we'd covered this, a dog trotting round a ring isn't going to injure it's tail, a dog doing what it's bred to do, ie work thick cover, is much more prone to tail injury. I can increase the font size if you like


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The greatest example of this of course is the pet section of ownership, where you see pets mistreated and turned in to rescue in phenomenal numbers, so maybe we should ban pet ownership to prevent cruelty?


I bet you can't wait for the Olympics guaranteed gold in the mental gymnastics.

Maybe we should dock all dogs tails to prevent injuries.

I don't mean that to sound like I'm sarcastic but I am so that's how it comes across.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I bet you can't wait for the Olympics guaranteed gold in the mental gymnastics.
> 
> Maybe we should dock all dogs tails to prevent injuries.
> 
> I don't mean that to sound like I'm sarcastic but I am so that's how it comes across.


I am so underwhelmed by the Olympics, the excitement literally never begins for me 

I'm not sure why you think I would want to see all dogs docked, I think I've posted enough to show it isn't always necessary for working dogs even, it's something I think should be left up to the discretion of working dog owners, based on their experiences, and knowing where their pups may end up. I do agree, as I said earlier in the thread, not enough discretion is used by some folks who breed *working* dogs, and I wish that weren't the case. There are too many dogs being bred full stop, so it's awful to see numerous dogs bred supposedly to work and docked to do so, ending up in pet homes.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I haven't argued for factory farming at all Val,those are your words, not mine, I do not support factory farming at all. Your comparison is a poor one, and just doens't hold water I'm afraid, but to keep on trying to word your posts to make it appear as though I support this sort of practise is really low tbh.


That is not what I am doing at all. Quite the opposite, in fact, and I am sorry if I have put it in a way you have not understood.

I am pointing out that you do not support factory farming and so if someone used an argument which said we could not stop factory farming because it _would adversely affect people's livelihoods_, then you would not accept it.

I was pointing out that as this was the case, then you cannot accept the same argument with regard to gundogs with any degree of credibility - ie the argument that to instigate a program of breeding for shorter tails _would adversely affect people's livelihoods _.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> That's why I extended your argument to factory farming, to make you realise just what you were arguing for
> 
> And I support
> a) not mutilating animals purely so they can do the job man has bred them to do
> b) breeding for the correct conformation to allow the animal to do the job man has bred them to do





Spellweaver said:


> That is not what I am doing at all. Quite the opposite, in fact, and I am sorry if I have put it in a way you have not understood.
> 
> I am pointing out that you do not support factory farming and so if someone used an argument which said we could not stop factory farming because it _would adversely affect people's livelihoods_, then you would not accept it.
> 
> I was pointing out that as this was the case, then you cannot accept the same argument with regard to gundogs with any degree of credibility - ie the argument that to instigate a program of breeding for shorter tails _would adversely affect people's livelihoods _.


Come on Val, you extended my argument to factory farming, not me, and then had the audacity to post that's what I was arguing for. I'd actually prefer to post my own arguments thank you.

Factory farming is not, in any way, a genuine comparison with tail shortening for working dogs. It does not entail the dog being confined to a small space for it's livelihood, and being culled early in it's life for us to eat. I'm not sure why you're pursuing such an obvious red herring, as it's hardly going to make your debating skills look anything like coherrent, let alone compelling!!


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> My criticising the mutilation of the dogs you use on shoots is no different from you criticising the exaggeration of some show dogs - didn't you start up a whole thread about that?
> 
> For me, there is no difference in breeding a show dog with exaggerations and breeding a dog you know will have to be operated on. Both are equally unethical. Both are equally wrong.


Of course you are right, my Spaniel looks really mutilated, I suppose the only difference between the poor bugger and certain types of show dogs is that he can keep going for hours and enjoy what he does. I hang my head in shame.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Just stop and think for a minute about the logical consequences of following that argument through. You are arguing that it is acceptable to continue to mutilate dogs because any solution will be a long term one and would affect people's livelihoods.
> 
> Now, I know you are passionate about factory farming, so I'll apply the logical conclusions of your argument to that. If you applied the above argument to factory farming, you would have to argue that it is acceptable to factory farm because any solution will be a long term one and would affect people's livelihoods.





Spellweaver said:


> No, no no! I never said any of that at all. You have missed the point completely! :nono:
> 
> Now sit up and pay attention at the back there SL! This was the point:
> 
> ...





Spellweaver said:


> That is not what I am doing at all. Quite the opposite, in fact, and I am sorry if I have put it in a way you have not understood.
> 
> I am pointing out that you do not support factory farming and so if someone used an argument which said we could not stop factory farming because it _would adversely affect people's livelihoods_, then you would not accept it.
> 
> I was pointing out that as this was the case, then you cannot accept the same argument with regard to gundogs with any degree of credibility - ie the argument that to instigate a program of breeding for shorter tails _would adversely affect people's livelihoods _.





Sleeping_Lion said:


> Come on Val, you extended my argument to factory farming, not me, and then had the audacity to post that's what I was arguing for. I'd actually prefer to post my own arguments thank you.
> 
> Factory farming is not, in any way, a genuine comparison with tail shortening for working dogs. It does not entail the dog being confined to a small space for it's livelihood, and being culled early in it's life for us to eat. I'm not sure why you're pursuing such an obvious red herring, as it's hardly going to make your debating skills look anything like coherrent, let alone compelling!!


It's no red herring. It's obvious you either cannot or will not accept the point I am trying to make. Look at the quotes above. Read them properly. For the third time (sigh) - I am not comparing tail docking to factory farming.

This is what I have been saying (three times now in three different ways to try to make you understand):

You had an argument that it would be impossible to instigate a program of change into the length of gundogs tails because it would adversely affect the livelihoods of the people concerned.

I applied that argument to factory farming.

If that argument is applied to factory farming, one would have to say that nothing could be done to stop factory farming because it would adversely affect people's livelihoods.

However, you are passionate about factory farming and so would not be able to accept this argument with regards to factory farming.

Logically, if you could not accept it with regard to factory farming, then you should not accept it with regard to changing the length of gundogs' tails.

Now do you see what I mean? I hope so, because I can't put it any clearer. I am not saying that you are advocating factory farming. I am not comparing factory farming to docking gundogs' tails. I am merely saying that if you apply your argument from one area to another area, then this would be the logical result. And as you cannot accept the reault in one area, then logically you should not accept in in another.

Come on SL, you're not stupid. I always had you down as someone who could follow a logical argument, which was all this was. Tell me you now undertsand!!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

springerpete said:


> Of course you are right, my Spaniel looks really mutilated, I suppose the only difference between the poor bugger and certain types of show dogs is that he can keep going for hours and enjoy what he does. I hang my head in shame.


I'm not advocating that exaggerated show dogs are ok. I'm arguing that mutilating gundogs is as bad.

I find it amusing that people on this thread who were horrified at the pug in PDE2 having to have an operation so that it could breathe cannot (or will not, which I suspect is more likely) see the correlation between that and a gundog having to have an operation so that it can live its life without injuring itself. The two-facedness of it amazes me.

Or I should say, I'd find it amusing if it were not so serious a subject.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I'm not advocating that exaggerated show dogs are ok. I'm arguing that mutilating gundogs is as bad.
> 
> I find it amusing that people on this thread who were horrified at the pug in PDE2 having to have an operation so that it could breathe cannot (or will not, which I suspect is more likely) see the correlation between that and a gundog having to have an operation so that it can live its life without injuring itself. The two-facedness of it amazes me.
> 
> Or I should say, I'd find it amusing if it were not so serious a subject.


But that Spaniel isn't suffering if it has it's tail or not, you can't say that about the Pug.

I didn't thing SL said it would affect livelihoods but the interim dogs!!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> It's no red herring. It's obvious you either cannot or will not accept the point I am trying to make. Look at the quotes above. Read them properly. For the third time (sigh) - I am not comparing tail docking to factory farming.
> 
> ...


I'm chuckling like mad Val, look at all your quotes, are you arguing what I'm posting or what you're posting that I'm arguing, I think it's pretty obvious. Find some quotes of mine that you can use to back up your arguments, or is that impossible, because I've never actually said anything to back up the arguments you want me to make?

I never had an argument it would be impossible to breed for a tail less prone to injury, I said I didn't think it was possible, and asked you to explain how it was possible, you haven't come up with a plausible explantation. Instead, you persist on trying to put forward the view that because I think tail shortening for working dogs is justifiable, I somehow agree with and endorse factory farming, which is of course ludicrous, and I'm the one that's supposedly short of debating skills and the capability to understand a point of view?? Hmmmmm 

Thank you for questioning my intelligence btw, nice ending point!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm chuckling like mad Val, look at all your quotes, are you arguing what I'm posting or what you're posting that I'm arguing, I think it's pretty obvious. Find some quotes of mine that you can use to back up your arguments, or is that impossible, because I've never actually said anything to back up the arguments you want me to make?
> 
> I never had an argument it would be impossible to breed for a tail less prone to injury, I said I didn't think it was possible, and asked you to explain how it was possible, you haven't come up with a plausible explantation. Instead, you persist on trying to put forward the view that because I think tail shortening for working dogs is justifiable, I somehow agree with and endorse factory farming, which is of course ludicrous, and I'm the one that's supposedly short of debating skills and the capability to understand a point of view?? Hmmmmm
> 
> Thank you for questioning my intelligence btw, nice ending point!


I've not questioned your intelligence. If I'd thought you incapable of following the progression of a logical arguement I woul;dn't have posted one in the first place. Rather than questioning your intelligence, I gave you credit for enough intelligence to understand that the logic of this reply to Noushka as to why breeding for shorter tails was not viable:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> The shooting industry as a sport generates a huge amount of turnover, you may not agree with it, but many people rely on it for their income and livelihood.


when extended to something such as factory farming would actually and up being something you did not believe in. Nowhere was it saying you believed in factory farming. All it was saying was the one idea, transposed to the other idea, would have ended up as something you did not believe in.

It's one of the simplest, basic arguments in logic. If you believe X, then you would automatically have to believe Y because all the conditions in X are also in Y. But as you don't believe Y, then you cannot say that you believe X.

Now, I suspect that you actually do follow the logic of that argument, but are pretending you don't so that you don't have to admit your position is untenable.

However, if you truly don't understand the simple basic logic of the argument then I apologise unreservedly for over-estimating your capabilities.

Either way, I can see no further point in continuing this.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I'm thinking the OP has lots of material for his essay now. :lol: There's lost of circular arguments though so at least he'll have to earn his crust as an essay writer sorting them all out. 

Gah! I think I'm going to have to go and write a blinkin essay myself just to straighten out all the arguments and counter arguments.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

springerpete said:


> Good answer Sleeping Lion. I think that those opposed to tail docking of working spaniels have never seen the cover that most of them work, even after many years of working my dogs I'm still amazed at how they get through some of it.
> The other thing that slightly amuses and puzzles me is the fact that tail docking, or mutilation as some refer to it, is so frowned upon but the genetic mutilation of some breeds that has taken place over many years and has resulted in some breeds with in built health problems is deemed acceptable. Perhaps I'm just to dumb to get the point.


I dont find any acceptable, imo hobbies shouldnt involve Any animal suffering and though im certain a lot of gunmen treat their dogs very well, i dont agree with routine tail docking in the name of a 'sport'.. and im sorry but I really cant think of much at all that IS ethical about a blood sport.

.

.


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2008)

Long 'ol thread.

For those that are pro docking then i'm sure you will be entirely comfortable with watching this :-Tail Docking and Dew Claw Removal in 2 Day-Old Pups:Torture or Not? - YouTube Dr Greg Docking and Dew claw video

If your not comfortable watching but are pro then its a bit poor to be 'out of sight, out of mind' about it

I am against docking, the arguments about tail damage and someones docked dog wagging madly and so is a good thing that they were docked reads as someone trying hard to see justification for it. Sadly they will never know if their dog only wagged madly when docked merely because its tail was now a stump and hindered its communication or if it would have wagged less if it had had a natural tail.

Granted, dogs can still communicate but is it like humans using less fingers in sign language or removing all our teeth so our words sounded less discernible in verbal communication? Wont know without being a dog ourselves but to change natural to unnatural has to change the state for them in someway.

Having said that, i am pleased after having watched the video that the removal is not as gruesome in the act as my mind had made it, for puppies anyway. Sure, the puppy was responding in what to my ears sounded like pain and there was definite nerve tissue being extracted with the tail (despite nerves apparently not fully formed in puppies) but its demystified it for me.

Interesting suggestion that tail docking came about more as a tax avoidance/declaration than for welfare of the animal.

I think all contributors should watch so that they may be better informed, it may change some people's mind which would also be interesting to know.

I would still be against it myself, but feel a little better about it.

Nat


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

oh its not changed my mind one bit...I could never have put my precious puppies through that for my hobby!


.


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2008)

A snippett from Wikipedia (Docking (dog) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia);



> History
> 
> Historically, tail docking was thought to prevent rabies, strengthen the back, increase the animal's speed, and prevent injuries when ratting, fighting, and baiting.[2] In early Georgian times[clarification needed] in the United Kingdom a tax was levied upon working dogs with tails and so many types of dogs were docked to avoid this tax.[2] The tax was repealed in 1796 but that did not stop the practice from persisting.
> 
> Tail docking is done in modern times either for prophylactic, therapeutic, or cosmetic purposes. For dogs that worked in the field, such as some hunting dogs and herding dogs, tails could collect burrs and foxtails, causing pain and infection and, due to the tail's wagging, may be subject to abrasion or other injury while moving through dense brush or thickets. Tails with long fur could collect feces and become a cleanliness problem.[citation needed]


Supports both the tax reason and the heavy working dog reason.

I imagine a lot of the docked dogs i see have never seen a farm or engaged in strenuous field activity, certainly chasing a ball thrown into an open space is nothing like a hard worked hunting dog (in which i could perhaps understand docking)

Sure, some dogs have had problems with their tails but as pets i generally cant see a reason for docking. Tails are not made of glass, Basil thrashes his about, its very long, very thick and he is more of a dog for it

Nat


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Interesting video. When I have seen them done the tail has not been sutured. I am not sure about the tax thing - after all dogs are/were docked in every country and the tax would not have applied. Also only certain working breeds are docked, and there are welfare reasons with all of those - if it was for tax purposes then retrievers and collies would be docked too.

Most of the crying the pup did was from being held, rather than being hurt. A bit like piglets, pups make a lot of noise when they are disturbed.

I do wonder if banding them would be kinder, a lot quicker and less invasive. A lot of breeders do band them and I have banded hundreds of lambs and banded very many calves to castrate them. There is usually a few minutes of kicking but then it is ignored so not sure if they feel any discomfort after the first few minutes or not.

One thing I found very strange in the video was that the vet was obviously not expecting to do the dew claws and had to ask the nurse about shaving the tail, yet he had obviously just done the rest of the litter as there was a row of tails!


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

I agree the pup was crying because it was held, having its tail cut off didn't even enter into the equation.

Can you see the earth from whatever planet you are on?

Badger-baiting
Bear-baiting
Betta-fighting
Bull-baiting
Bullfighting
Cage fighting [9]
Chilean rodeo
Cockfighting
Cock throwing
Coursing
Cricket fighting
Dog fighting
Donkey-baiting
Duck-baiting
Fox hunting
Fox tossing
Gladiatoral spectacles
Goose pulling
Hare coursing
Hog-baiting
Human-baiting
Hyena-baiting
Insect fighting
Jackal coursing
Lion-baiting
Monkey-baiting
Octopus wrestling
Pasola
Rat-baiting
Spider fighting
Wolf hunting
Wolf-baiting

Can anyone explain which are acceptable and which aren't?


----------



## bluegirl (May 7, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I go back to the days when it was usual to dock a lot of breeds. I worked for a vet where litters of terriers and spaniels came in for docking and I can honestly, hand on heart, say that the litters I saw being docked did not suffer. The pups squeaked when picked up from their litter mates, had their tails cut with scissors with no extra squeaking and then fell back asleep when put back.
> 
> Having said that it can get infected, it was often done by 'breeders' who did not have a clue, and very often there was no need for it. I have nothing at all against it for working dogs or breeds that are likely to get tail injuries as adults and it would not have bothered me if it had not been banned for 'showing' breeds.


I agree with this, I have cocker spaniels and have been witness to tail docking and removal of dew claws and I would say their response was like a baby having their vaccinations, they have no idea what was coming and made a little squeal then put straight back on mothers teat and all was forgotten so to speak.

I did wrestle with the idea when I first began to breed as I really do still like the look of a docked dog but I know I wouldn't have gone along with it if it was horrific, but after researching it and seeing footage on the internet I decided to go ahead and I do not regret my decisions.

If there wasn't a ban I would still have docked show cockers.


----------



## shamans (Jun 15, 2012)

I will not dock my dogs tail. Not because I think it's torture but honestly I don't like how it looks. I love the look of my dog wagging it's tail.


The pros can be some people like the way it looks. A tail bone can get fractured if the dog hits it against something and complications can rise. 


cons are probably that to some it wont look good.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I agree the pup was crying because it was held, having its tail cut off didn't even enter into the equation.
> 
> Can you see the earth from whatever planet you are on?
> 
> ...


well theres nothing sporting, manly or Humane about pitting innocent animals against other animals or hunting animals for so called 'sport', so the only acceptable ones are those involving consenting human beings like the cage fighting example, ....both my Sons do Jiu Jitsu and MMA, they wouldnt dream of getting their thrills by harming animals!

.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

I agree, but I wondered where those who shoots birds draw the line?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I agree, but I wondered where those who shoots birds draw the line?


There is nothing that could possibly convince the majority that shooting on a large scale is anything but wrong.
Just remember that it's the country sports which kept this green and pleasant land, rather than prairie during the 40s-70s when the government was pushing for ever more food production and herbicide/pesticides were openly encouraged.

Times change and now the threat comes from those that have a disney perspective/strategy for our countryside. Not quite but almost a dangerous as past governments, as they will be driving our true wildlife ever more into smaller and smaller areas. 

Anyway, you do not have to shoot anything to work a dog


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> There is nothing that could possibly convince the majority that shooting on a large scale is anything but wrong.
> Just remember that it's the country sports which kept this green and pleasant land, rather than prairie during the 40s-70s when the government was pushing for ever more food production and herbicide/pesticides were openly encouraged.
> 
> Times change and now the threat comes from those that have a disney perspective/strategy for our countryside. Not quite but almost a dangerous as past governments, as they will be driving our true wildlife ever more into smaller and smaller areas.
> ...


LOL well your views are debatable Rona lol, though i totally agree with your 1st sentence, nothing will because it is wrong ...as you know im of the opinion that the countryside shouldnt be some playground for the tiny minority, yes some wildlife, that which doesnt come into conflict with gamekeepers interests may well thrive, but still who knows what the impact of releasing 40 million birds has on other species?? plus many gamekeepers arnt very sensitive towards our native predators and control of them is ruthless! Look at Black Peak in the peak district for example! yet another goshawk nest destroyed! there use to be 6 nesting pairs of these beautiful birds...we only have one now!...and gamekeeper organisations are always calling for licenses to legally kill our protected predators such as raptors and pine martens!...its ridiculous and obscene!

RSPB: Outrage at Peak District bird of prey threat

anyway since the buzzard debacle its made a lot of people aware that these people only care about protecting their own interests...so at least some good came out of it.

are you getting that feeling of de ju vu Rona

.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Well, I tried to avoid this since Im anti docking, and could see me getting caught up in a big debate, which I can't be bothered with. But I do want to say several things. 

1. I worked at a vet, and we never had any of the dogs supposedly at risk of tail injuries come in for tail injuries. Not a one. The ONLY tail repairs we ever had to do were on greyhounds with happy tail. And greyhounds are not a breed cited as needing to be docked, yet they seem, to me, to be more prone to tail injuries than any other breed. So....if tail docking is purely for the welfare of the dogs and to prevent injuries, why are other slim/delicate tailed breeds not docked?

2. I have a 'traditionally docked' breed, a dobe. He has a full tail, and I can see absolutely no reason for why he shouldn't. It is not a delicate or flimsy tail, its a thick, strong tail and I don't see that it would be prone to damage any more than the tail of any other breed. 
His tail is not dissimilar to a dalmatians tail, and they were never docked.
Of course, dobes were not traditionally docked because of fears of tail injury, but, supposedly, to prevent them having something for an intruder to grab. 
Obviously today, the VAST majority of dobes are pet or show dogs, maybe doing some shutzhund, but certainly not in any roles where their tails would need to be taken off. 
So for this breed, I consider it completely and utterly unnecessary for them to be docked.
For dobes, the reason people still fight for the right to dock (or retain the right to, in other countries) is for the following reasons: tradition, 'breed standard' and appearance. Nothing to do with the welfare of the dog. Nothing. 
I talk to a lot of dobe people, read a lot of forums, particularly USA ones where docking is still allowed, and I never ever see the reason cited as being for the welfare of the dog. It ALWAYS comes down to the owner just prefering it because its 'traditional', 'breed standard' or they're just used to it and resistant to change.
Therefore, I abhorr tail docking in breeds like this, where they have no reason to be docked other than for human preference, whims and aesthetics.
This, I have an issue with.

3. I dislike tail docking. But I dislike ear cropping even moreso. 
I wouldn't want to see either done to a dog, but if I had to pick the one that disturbs and bugs me most, it would be ear cropping. 
And the attitude of those that are pro crop can be absolutely sickening. I have screen shots if anyone ever doesn't believe me on this one, but I've had dobe people justify their desire to crop with statements as foul as: 'life is too short to live with ugly dogs'. 
That, to me, is a repulsive attitude. 

4. I have known breeders of 'traditionally docked' breeds in countries where this is still legal flat out state that they would leave the breed and stop any involvement with them if docking were banned. Even people who have been passionate about the breed for many years.
This, to me, is disturbing. It shows that one visual feature is more important to them than anything else, more important than the temperament and nature of that breed, more important than working to improve health, more important than anything else.
I personally cannot see how someone could just drop their love of a breed based on this one issue. Its still the same dog, still the same nature, still the same EVERYTHING. 
It makes me think they never cared about the breed to begin with if they can drop it just because one little irrelevent feature about it has been changed, and changed on welfare grounds, to boot.

5. For what its worth, my breeder is pro docking, though obviously he can no longer do it in this country. But he still defends the practise and wishes he still could dock his pups. But when we discussed this issue, he stated that of all the body modifications we do on dogs, he cites dewclaw removal as the most cruel, and he would never ever remove dewclaws. 
Just something to think about, I guess.

6. On the idea of removing the tails of ALL pups in a certain litter in case one individual may develop tail issues later on.....I don't like that.
Let me tell you about rats. They're VERY prone to tail injuries. Their tails are long, thin and hairless and they catch in bars/cages/toys relatively frequently. They can be bitten by other rats, and often are in scuffles, and I have a number of rats here with either missing tails or bits missing from fighting or accidents. 
Tail injuries in these animals are pretty common. 
Yet would I 'dock' all the tails on a litter of baby rats to prevent them potentially having a tail injury later on? Hell no. 
And really, I don't understand that mind set. 

7. Just my views. I do believe in the vast majority of cases, tail docking is simply for appearance and human aesthetics and because its 'what we're used to'. 
On a completely petty note: I don't like the way docked dogs look. I don't like 'stumps'. They always just look like an amputation to me, which they are. But my eye never 'rests' on the stump and becomes used to it or sees the dog as a complete package. The stump always stands out to me so boldly in the same way it would if I met a fellow human with a missing arm and just a stump left. I can't ever feel comfortable looking at their amputation site.
I hate even moreso people who refer to their dogs stump as a 'nubbin' and give it a cute name as if it is adorable. 
It aint adorable, to me. Its like going up to a man who has lost a leg and saying 'Aaaaw, what a cute little nubbin!!!!' It just seems......really odd to me to give a cutesy poo name to the stump left from where you amputated a body part on your dog.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

When i go out shooting with family our dogs encounter tail injuries very often, they take months to heal properly and are a complete pain! I would have them docked if i could. Plus our vet said if the incident happens below a certain part then they amputate anyway.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I do have a certain gripe with calling shooting a bloodsport. To be fair, I dont think it is. When I think of the word 'bloodsport' I think of animals getting killed for sheer pleasure only, the target animal then simply being discarded without a thought, or taken as a trophy. Alot of the time the target animal has no chance of a fair getaway. I also see an image of an animal being pitted against another animal when I think of what a bloodsport is.

Shooting isnt like this. In the UK shooting is either carried out to control a pest or to put food on the table.

I know those who are anti bloodsports/shooting are not going to see it this way, I wouldnt have seen the difference myself 5 years ago (being hugely into animal welfare and green isssues back then) but my opinions changed when I became involved with gundogs and working them.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Leanne77 said:


> I do have a certain gripe with calling shooting a bloodsport. To be fair, I dont think it is. When I think of the word 'bloodsport' I think of animals getting killed for sheer pleasure only, the target animal then simply being discarded without a thought, or taken as a trophy. Alot of the time the target animal has no chance of a fair getaway. I also see an image of an animal being pitted against another animal when I think of what a bloodsport is.
> 
> Shooting isnt like this. In the UK shooting is either carried out to control a pest or to put food on the table.
> 
> I know those who are anti bloodsports/shooting are not going to see it this way, I wouldnt have seen the difference myself 5 years ago (being hugely into animal welfare and green isssues back then) but my opinions changed when I became involved with gundogs and working them.


i have no qualms at people hunting 'true wild game' for the pot, i wouldnt class that sort of hunting as a blood sport..its just hunting for food imo, on the other hand i dont see what else you could possibly call the release millions of semi tame birds into the countryside purely for the pleasure of those who enjoy shooting??...i think the gunmen themselves class that sort of shooting as a sport?? and as a great deal of blood is spilled i think 'blood sport' a very apt title! ...though its a far from 'sporting!' ..

Animal Aid: A law unto themselves - the game shooting industry under the spotlight (part 2)

this evidence has been submitted to parliament, i doubt this government will act on it though!

Written evidence submitted by Animal Aid

SUMMARY

·Animal Aid is opposed to all animal cruelty and wildlife crime but it notes that much wildlife crime occurs near land with legal game shooting interests.

·The illegal persecution of raptors occurs mainly near land with game shooting interests.

·Illegal snaring of mammals occurs mainly near land with game shooting interests.

·Illegal poisoning of birds and mammals occurs mainly near land with game shooting interests.

·Gamekeepers are the single largest group who are prosecuted for wildlife crime.

·Landowners with game shooting interests are rarely prosecuted when a wildlife offence occurs in their orbit.

·The refusal of government to introduce a law of Criminal Vicarious Liability within England and Wales is lamentable.

·Police Wildlife Protection Officers generally must conduct their wildlife duties secondary to other policing. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that they tend to be badly trained and under-resourced.

·Legislation concerning surveillance is hampering the collection of wildlife crime evidence.

·The General Licences issued by Natural England and devolved governments are not enforced but abused and a conduit for wildlife crime.

·We have not seen the maximum tariff for wildlife crime applied except in suspended form.

1.Animal Aid has actively campaigned against the cruelty of game bird shooting since 1999. Since that date other groups have been more closely committed to the opposition of the blood sport, notably the League Against Cruel Sports. What we all agree as well as the direct cruelty of breeding the birds to kill for pleasure, is the wholesale destruction of indigenous British wildlife that is considered 'vermin'. Vermin is a game shooting defined word. It means any creature injurious to game.

2.There are prescribed legal methods for catching and destroying 'vermin'. Animal Aid maintains that the protection of game is not a good legal reason for destroying wildlife. Indeed much wildlife is attracted to the artificial feeding conditions created by the presence of unnaturally large populations of game birds. The size of the predator colony is related to the size of the prey colony. The natural balance becomes an unnatural balance.

3.The restrictions placed on legal control of wildlife are not sufficient for the game shooting community. It resorts to illegal methods. For instance, birds of prey habitually alight on fence posts and other poles. Illegal spring traps are placed on the tops of poles and secured with chains.

4. Snares are placed in well-established runs beneath obstructions like fences. Indiscriminate snares catch badgers. Snares must not be self-locking. The purpose is to catch the creature who will be despatched later. It is a simple operation to fix the free running toggle on a snare to make it illegally self-lock around the victim's neck.

5.Ladder traps and Larsen traps are illegally used to catch birds of prey, who are destroyed and not released as required by the law. Both designs of traps are not inspected and provisioned as required by law. The latter design is illegal in its country of origin: Denmark. Larsen traps are even used to trap foxes and are placed at ground level where the bait bird is terrorised by the investigating fox.

6.Poison baits are left where birds of prey and other predators hunt. The poisons that are used are not only banned, they are indiscriminate.

7.There is insufficient scope in this submission to offer specific examples - to be found in numerous news reports - of gamekeepers being successfully prosecuted for wildlife persecution. Nobody could claim that detected, successful prosecutions represent the full scope of offences.

8.It is gamekeepers who are consistently arrested and prosecuted for wildlife crime near shooting grounds, yet they often claim that evidence has been placed by animal rights objectors. Gamekeepers are under considerable pressure to produce results for shoot owners and operators. The number of birds available on drives and the success of the shoot is a responsibility carried by the gamekeeper. Often he and his family live in a tied house on the shooting estate. The involvement of land owners and other employers is implicated when the gamekeeper is not dismissed following a wildlife crime that should otherwise bring shame upon the estate. The Scottish Government's recently introduced legislation of Criminal Vicarious Liability will force ultimate responsibility for gamekeepers' crimes upon employers. The Westminster government steadfastly refuses to follow the enlightened Edinburgh lead. English raptor crime is more numerous than Scottish. The Hen Harrier is eliminated from Peak District grouse moors where it should be thriving.

9.Wildlife and Firearms law is complex and muddled. Police officers cannot be expected to know every facet and often do not. The General Licences issued by Natural England specify each year which species may be shot as 'pest' species. Police forces issue shotgun licences where 'pest control' is presented as good reason for possessing a shotgun. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver and mass murderer who was living in a row of terraced houses in Whitehaven possessed a shotgun for 'pest control'. His 'good reason' for keeping a shotgun cannot have been compared with the need for 'pest control' of other people living in the same terrace. The 'good reason' of 'pest control' is used to abuse the General Licences issued by Natural England and devolved regional governments. 'Pest' species may only be destroyed to protect agriculture, public health, aviation or flora and fauna. It is illegal to shoot them for any other reason, including for sport. Yet, the pages of the shooting magazines regularly feature men and women posing for the camera with shotguns and carefully arranged multiple rows of dead pigeons and crows. The descriptions for the photographs describe how the birds were shot over fields of stubble. Editors award accolade for the biggest bag.

10. Police Wildlife Protection Officers always seem badly informed. Shooting seasons exist for game birds to breed in the closed season. But released game birds, who represent the bulk of game birds in the countryside, do not breed well in the wild. At the close of the season, in February and March, released game birds, who are now wildlife by law, are collected in special cages for breeding-in-captivity stock. The breeding ratio of one cock to 8 or 10 hens results in the discarding of most of the cock birds. No pheasant may be killed or taken outside of the shooting season. But a prominent advertisement by the well-known game meat producer Rick Bestwick offered good prices for cock pheasants to be processed into meat products long after the end of the shooting season. The Police Wildlife Protection Officer notified, seemed baffled as to what action he could take.

11. There is increasing pressure on police resources and manpower is in the process of reduction under government economy measures. Animal Aid cannot see how Wildlife Protection and the detection of Wildlife Crime can improve under these restraints. Police Wildlife Protection Officers conduct their duties alongside all other policing matters, which must be given first priority.

12. The law and the decisions of law enforcement authority make it very difficult to produce evidence of wildlife crime. Video and photographic evidence can be rejected if it is considered to be surveillance. Police claim they may not procure video evidence to use in prosecutions. Criminals, who are caught red-handed in wildlife crime or offences against the Animal Welfare Act 2006 once the wild animal is in captivity, go untroubled by the law.

13. We have never seen the maximum tariff for wildlife crime applied.

23 February 2012


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Pest Noun:
1. A destructive insect or other animal that attacks crops, food, livestock, etc
2. An annoying person or thing; a nuisance

In my opinion my neighbours cats fall under that description, would you object to me shooting them? 

Phesents to me don't. 

If you dont object to the shooting of them for fun, and have no qualms aslong as they are for the pot, would you benok about making them fight to the death aslong as I ate them?


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I have no issue with your view noushka05. I do have an inner turmoil when it comes to the fact that thousands of birds are reared and released purely to be shot, and that wild predators are persecuted in order to protect the game birds. I purely love the dog aspect of such things, I have no interest in shooting animals, only rough shooting would mildly interest me. So, I have to agree with everything you posted, it just didnt sit right with me that the term 'bloodsport' kept cropping up.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Pest Noun:
> 1. A destructive insect or other animal that attacks crops, food, livestock, etc
> 2. An annoying person or thing; a nuisance
> 
> ...


Firstly, I (strongly) dont like cats, so make up your own mind about my answer to your first question.

Secondly, I wasnt referring to pheasants being pests.

Thirdly, your last paragraph doesnt make sense. Personally, I do object to shooting for fun. And if you made them fight to the death, that would be a bloodsport surely (and something I disagree with). But why would you make them fight to the death if your aim was to have them for the pot? If that was the case, it would be more about the bloodlust rather than food.

But, I think this is getting off the topic now (along with circumcision and all that).


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Leanne77 said:


> I have no issue with your view noushka05. I do have an inner turmoil when it comes to the fact that thousands of birds are reared and released purely to be shot, and that wild predators are persecuted in order to protect the game birds. I purely love the dog aspect of such things, I have no interest in shooting animals, only rough shooting would mildly interest me. So, I have to agree with everything you posted, it just didnt sit right with me that the term 'bloodsport' kept cropping up.


im sorry i am a bit like a dog with a bone arnt I, and i think ive taken yet another thread way off tangent....im getting good at that

so back to tail docking!....

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> LOL well your views are debatable Rona
> .


Sorry Noush, you don't know what my views are because you always assume I am pro hunting/shooting. I am not, but I don't listen or read propaganda and my views come first hand.
I try to have a balanced view and as I said in my previous post, "There is nothing that could possibly convince the majority that shooting on a large scale is anything but wrong"


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Sorry Noush, you don't know what my views are because you always assume I am pro hunting/shooting. I am not, but I don't listen or read propaganda and my views come first hand.
> I try to have a balanced view and as I said in my previous post, "There is nothing that could possibly convince the majority that shooting on a large scale is anything but wrong"


i only assume it because thats how you come across much of the time,im sorry Rona, ...& i have formed my views on facts and personal experience not propadganda,... and thats why my views are always going to be one sided, im not going to have a balanced view because i could never support anything where so much cruelty is involved, and its not just cruelty to millions of gamebirds but also to our wildlife that come into confict with the shoots... all that in the name of a 'sport' .


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I assume everyone that is anti-docking is also completely vegan as well then? You'd have to be really. Because the way most farm animals are raised and treated is probably ethically worse than docking a pup's tail. All lambs are docked. The balls of other farm animals are removed by banding, not under aneasthetic.

And if breeding and raising animals, then killing them for our own purposes is a blood sport then we are surrounded by it.

I used to wonder why you couldn't do just the pups in a litter that were going to be worked (aside from not knowing which were going to work at 3 days old! i.e. if we could somehow figure that out). However, having a working-bred spaniel as a pet makes you see the sense in it. Even without working him he *thinks* he's working every time we go out and spends his whole time running at top speed through all kinds of cover because he has the urge to do that so bred into him. I've repeated this particular statement a number of times but people don't seem to believe me. I exercise my dog properly, in line with his requirements based on what he is bred for. So even though he is "just a pet" he gets the exercise type a worker gets, just a bit less of it. I don't just chuck a toy for him in a flat, grassy field. That woudn't fulfil his needs! His docked tail means he can do what HE LOVES more safely.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Werehorse said:


> I assume everyone that is anti-docking is also completely vegan as well then?


I don't like this argument, and I have seen it pop up time and time again. Apparently, in order to be opposed to any kind of animal welfare issue, you HAVE to be vegan otherwise you're just a hypocrite. Doesn't wash, Im afraid.
Its like saying anyone here who is opposed to dog fighting must also be vegan otherwise they're being hypocrites.
Anyone who is opposed to animal cruelty of ANY KIND must also be vegan otherwise they're being hypocrites. 
By this reasoning, Im supposed to be cool with any and all animal cruelty issues simply because Im a non vegan. Its a ridiculous statement to make.

Aside from the fact that I don't believe veganism to be the be all and end of of animal welfare, AND the fact that veganism itself still contributes to animal deaths and killing (to be truly vanilla and harm no other species on this planet, you'd have to kill yourself and cease to exist, so how far do you want to take this exactly?)

I run a rat rescue. I do not run a cat or dog or horse rescue. Is it because I automatically do not care about those species? No, its because I can only do so much on limited funds with limited space. 
To say 'you don't do X for this species, you must be a hypocrite for helping another species!' is just.......its not true, and suggests that caring for animals should be an 'all or nothing' thing. Either help every single animal on earth, in every single situation, or do nothing at all and happily support their abuse.

Im against tail docking, but not a vegan. 
Maybe Im a hypocrite. Maybe Im just seeing that these are two different issues? I AM against factory farming. 
Im also against poisoning wild rats, but I wear leather.
Actually, while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, find me a vegan who ISN'T a hypocrite, because I've yet to find one.
Come to that, find me a human being who isn't a hypocrite......I don't believe they exist.

Not everyone can actually even live as vegan, as a side note, so it isn't always just that easy.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Werehorse said:


> I assume everyone that is anti-docking is also completely vegan as well then? You'd have to be really. Because the way most farm animals are raised and treated is probably ethically worse than docking a pup's tail. All lambs are docked. The balls of other farm animals are removed by banding, not under aneasthetic.
> 
> And if breeding and raising animals, then killing them for our own purposes is a blood sport then we are surrounded by it.
> 
> I used to wonder why you couldn't do just the pups in a litter that were going to be worked (aside from not knowing which were going to work at 3 days old! i.e. if we could somehow figure that out). However, having a working-bred spaniel as a pet makes you see the sense in it. Even without working him he *thinks* he's working every time we go out and spends his whole time running at top speed through all kinds of cover because he has the urge to do that so bred into him. I've repeated this particular statement a number of times but people don't seem to believe me. I exercise my dog properly, in line with his requirements based on what he is bred for. So even though he is "just a pet" he gets the exercise type a worker gets, just a bit less of it. I don't just chuck a toy for him in a flat, grassy field. That woudn't fulfil his needs! His docked tail means he can do what HE LOVES more safely.


no a blood sport is a recreational activity that involves killing animals, farming livestock isnt done for the fun of it.

as it happens i dont eat meat nor do dairy tho im not a vegan because i do eat eggs, but even so i still dont consider docking an animal for someone to participate in a hobby the same as docking a farm animal to prevent it from getting flystrike

actually looking at your last paragraph, i wonder how many undocked pet springers damage their tails charging about on walks?...mine lived to be 15, one year as a rubbish gundog, 14yrs as a beloved pet, and he thrashed around all over the place and his tail was never injured.

.


----------



## kat&molly (Mar 2, 2011)

My Molly isn't docked,no injuries so far but she's only 2 and a half so there's still time...


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Isn't it strange that so many threads like this one go away from the original line of discussion and end up as a 'Pro, 'Anti' shooting augument?


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

springerpete said:


> Isn't it strange that so many threads like this one go away from the original line of discussion and end up as a 'Pro, 'Anti' shooting augument?


Not really, everyone is apparently against docking for cosmetic reasons but those who are pro-docking like shooting living things and that's there reason they feel they need it.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Not really, everyone is apparently against docking for cosmetic reasons but those who are pro-docking like shooting living things and that's there reason they feel they need it.


Being pedantic, but thats not quite true 

I never said I was against docking for cosmetic reasons. I actually said I was pro docking and didnt really have a problem with it for cosmetic reasons. If I did, that would be hypocritical of me. Having said i'm pro docking, i'm not into shooting things, quite the contrary. The reason for tail docking wasnt so we could shoot things, but so the dog didnt injure the tail. Dont forget that hunting gundogs are also used under birds of prey and people also have them to compete in competitions, without ever working them. What has also been said is that a hunting gundog, regardless of whether it actually works or not, will still go through the motions of hunting and flushing of it's own accord.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

Leanne77 said:


> Being pedantic, but thats not quite true
> 
> I never said I was against docking for cosmetic reasons. I actually said I was pro docking and didnt really have a problem with it for cosmetic reasons. If I did, that would be hypocritical of me. Having said i'm pro docking, i'm not into shooting things, quite the contrary. The reason for tail docking wasnt so we could shoot things, but so the dog didnt injure the tail. Dont forget that hunting gundogs are also used under birds of prey and people also have them to compete in competitions, without ever working them. What has also been said is that a hunting gundog, regardless of whether it actually works or not, will still go through the motions of hunting and flushing of it's own accord.


Since we are being pedantic(my favourite thing to be)

If you dont mind it for cosmetic reasons, what else would you consider acceptable? Would it be ok for me to pierce my dogs ears because I like theblook of it?


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

The vegan line stands because stuff that is done to farm animals to get the products we use on a daily basis (not necessities, people live without them) is THE SAME AS docking a dogs tails (also for things that aren't necessities). Therefore if tail docking is morally unaccepatble to you then things that are THE SAME ethically should also be unacceptable to you.

If things that are THE SAME as tail docking are practised in farming (which they are) then if you are against tail docking you must also reject farming. If you accept farming then you must accept tail docking. Because it is THE SAME practises involved in both.

If you have drawn your line at tail docking then you must also reject things that are ethically WORSE than tail docking, and there are many of those things in farming as well.

If someone chooses to accept tail docking then they have a choice over where to draw their line and that could easily exclude dog fighting etc without being a logical problem. Not accepting tail docking but accepting things that are ethically worse than tail docking is a logical problem. Nothing to do with hypocrisy, and I don't belive I mentioned the word.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Not really, everyone is apparently against docking for cosmetic reasons but those who are pro-docking like shooting living things and that's there reason they feel they need it.


Every time you eat a piece of meat you're eating something that once lived, the only difference is I do it for myself as have generations of people before me. I also fish for salmon, trout and other fish for the table , I assume that's wrong as well, unless you never eat meat or fish,you are in no position to criticise those who choose to catch their own. I'm not 'Pro docking as such, my retreiver obviously isnt docked, that would be stupid because he's not expected to work in the same conditions as my spaniel, he runs no risk of injuring himself so there is no need for it. I'm sorry, but most things we do as humans impact in some way on other species, always have, always will. Are you going to give up going to the 'Chippies because the seas are being overfished, I dont have to, I take what I can eat from the river and leave the rest. I care about the enviroment, as do most of my 'barbaric' shooting friends,we are aware better than most how fragile a thing it is and we do all we can to protect it so that we can continue to enjoy its harvest in years to come.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Of course, you could get round the logical problem of being against tail docking (for purposes of working dogs being used to help catch meat) and not being vegan be only sourcing your animal products from farmers whose practices you have carefully scrutinised and deemed to be acceptable to you. 

And since people are now using anti-shooting arguments to embelish the anti-docking argument then you can only put forward that argument if you also reject things that are the same or worse than shooting wild-fowl IF you want to continue to use that to aide the anti-docking stance. And to be honest most farming practices are the same as or worse than raising then shooting wild fowl. Lending more weight to the vegan thing.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> Of course, you could get round the logical problem of being against tail docking (for purposes of working dogs being used to help catch meat) and not being vegan be only sourcing your animal products from farmers whose practices you have carefully scrutinised and deemed to be acceptable to you.
> 
> And since people are now using anti-shooting arguments to embelish the anti-docking argument then you can only put forward that argument if you also reject things that are the same or worse than shooting wild-fowl IF you want to continue to use that to aide the anti-docking stance. And to be honest most farming practices are the same as or worse than raising then shooting wild fowl. Lending more weight to the vegan thing.


Could you explain how most farming practices are the same or worse than raising then shooting wild fowl. Which farming practices are you against.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

springerpete said:


> Every time you eat a piece of meat you're eating something that once lived, the only difference is I do it for myself as have generations of people before me. I also fish for salmon, trout and other fish for the table , I assume that's wrong as well, unless you never eat meat or fish,you are in no position to criticise those who choose to catch their own. I'm not 'Pro docking as such, my retreiver obviously isnt docked, that would be stupid because he's not expected to work in the same conditions as my spaniel, he runs no risk of injuring himself so there is no need for it. I'm sorry, but most things we do as humans impact in some way on other species, always have, always will. Are you going to give up going to the 'Chippies because the seas are being overfished, I dont have to, I take what I can eat from the river and leave the rest. I care about the enviroment, as do most of my 'barbaric' shooting friends,we are aware better than most how fragile a thing it is and we do all we can to protect it so that we can continue to enjoy its harvest in years to come.


I personally dont think catching fish for the table is comparable to the gamebird industry, there will always be more than enough pheasant & red legged partridge to harves because the countryside is swamped with them year upon year...and this is my problem Pete, its never going to be a good thing for the environment to have these 40 million birds dumped in our countryside...and its certainly not good news for our native predators and omnivours...what about protection for them???

.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Also, in some ways it's not really about a PERSONAL stance but a SOCIETY stance. And as a society we accept things that are the same as and worse than docking dogs' tails (whether individuals do or not) so it make no sense for us as a society to reject tail docking.

Obviously society views are made up of the generalisation of individual views so you can still have the discussion from a personal perspective but there is a good deal logically topsy turvy about society rejecting tail-docking in dogs but accepting other things that are worse...

There are two ways of approaching a moral problem when it boils down to it - what is the intention and what is the outcome. If you moralise on outcome you would either have to accept or reject docking as a unit, whatever the intention (to prevent injury, for the looks of it etc) - you also have to accept or reject things that are exactly like docking in terms of outcome for the animal involved (i.e. docking sheep, castration etc). But if you moralise on intention it becomes more shades of grey. Is the intention to prevent fly-strike in a sheep that will be killed and eaten at some point (that being it's purpose in life such as we have brought it into the world) a better or worse intention morally speaking than preventing tail injuries in a spaniel so that we can use the spaniel to help us kill and eat other things (the spaniel having been bred for the purpose of doing this activity and finding much fulfillment in doing so - certainly more fulfillment that a sheep gets from being killed and eaten.)

And in terms of tail injury prevention/fly strike prevention it's all about risk. You can lessen the risk of both these things by management - farmers can actually wash their sheep's bums and control their diet so the poo is less likely to stick to the tail. Spaniel owners can stop their spaniels doing what they do in rough cover. But you can also quickly and easily, and more completely, lessen the risk by tail docking. Or you can not manage, not dock and take the risks and deal with the outcome when it occurs.

For the record I'm just debating here. Yes I have a docked spanner and can really see the reasons for docking and can also argue for it logically, considering other things that are widely accepted. I don't LIKE docking, I don't RELISH it, I don't think it is lovely and pain free. But I choose to accept it, partly because of the other things I accept and where I have drawn my own personal line (at this moment in time - I reserve the right to change my mind) and because I do think that it is the better thing for the dogs, the lesser of two evils if you like. I don't think tail docking is GOOD, I don't think working a spaniel with a full tail and putting at risk of tail injury and all associated trauma is GOOD, but I think tail docking is LESS BAD.

And to be honest I don't think much of what humans do with and to animals is particularly GOOD, but then I don't think being a wild animal is a walk in the park either. (I do think letting a spaniel be a spaniel without risk of tail injury is VERY GOOD - but accept that breeding spaniels as they are with the weak tails in the first place might be BAD, but it's been done and would involve further suffering to alter which would also be BAD).

Oh lordy my brain just did a massive jump forwards down this arguement line and I'm starting to question the existance of GOOD and BAD now. I really need a vodka - I can see why russian philosophers get themselves in trouble.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Blitz said:


> Could you explain how most farming practices are the same or worse than raising then shooting wild fowl. Which farming practices are you against.


I think I was mostly thinking about chickens when I said that and most probably being a bit flippant.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

springerpete said:


> Every time you eat a piece of meat you're eating something that once lived, the only difference is I do it for myself as have generations of people before me. I also fish for salmon, trout and other fish for the table , I assume that's wrong as well, unless you never eat meat or fish,you are in no position to criticise those who choose to catch their own. I'm not 'Pro docking as such, my retreiver obviously isnt docked, that would be stupid because he's not expected to work in the same conditions as my spaniel, he runs no risk of injuring himself so there is no need for it. I'm sorry, but most things we do as humans impact in some way on other species, always have, always will. Are you going to give up going to the 'Chippies because the seas are being overfished, I dont have to, I take what I can eat from the river and leave the rest. I care about the enviroment, as do most of my 'barbaric' shooting friends,we are aware better than most how fragile a thing it is and we do all we can to protect it so that we can continue to enjoy its harvest in years to come.


Ah right, I can't argue with your logic.

I like shooting things - I eat what I shoot - I have to cut off my dogs tail.

I've just had a right idea how we can resolve this and make everyone happy.

You go hunting your sustainable wild fowl, only instead of using a dog, once you have shot it you go retrieve it yourself. That way dogs aren't risking possibly injuring their tails so no need to dock.

I can't see any reason that wouldn't work.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> i only assume it because thats how you come across much of the time,im sorry Rona, ...& i have formed my views on facts and personal experience not propadganda,... and thats why my views are always going to be one sided, im not going to have a balanced view because i could never support anything where so much cruelty is involved, and its not just cruelty to millions of gamebirds but also to our wildlife that come into confict with the shoots... all that in the name of a 'sport' .





noushka05 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> I personally dont think catching fish for the table is comparable to the gamebird industry, there will always be more than enough pheasant & red legged partridge to harves because the countryside is swamped with them year upon year...and this is my problem Pete, its never going to be a good thing for the environment to have these 40 million birds dumped in our countryside...and its certainly not good news for our native predators and omnivours...what about protection for them???
> 
> .


See we actually agree on these points. 
I don't blame the gamekeeper for all the woes in the countryside though.
Yes some are right gits who care about nothing, but then so are quite a few "conservationists" 
As I said, there is no argument to support the release of huge quantities of pheasant onto an area that cannot sustain them.
There has been and maybe always will be benefits to the countryside, be it diversity, winter sustenance for wildlife, or just plain rural economic survival to well run shoots.
The rural economy has to survive some how, otherwise we will lose a precious thing.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Since we are being pedantic(my favourite thing to be)
> 
> If you dont mind it for cosmetic reasons, what else would you consider acceptable? Would it be ok for me to pierce my dogs ears because I like theblook of it?


The only reason I dont mind it for cosmetic reasons is because i'm pro docking for working reasons. There is no need to do it for cosmetic reasons, I dont see the point, and I actually get quite angry when I see puppy boxers and Dobermanns that have docked tails, mainly because I wonder about the circumstances surrounding it...E.g are the owners aware of the law? Was it done illegally?

Ok, lets put it this way - I'm very pro docking for working dogs, indifferent to it in non-working dogs. I dont like to see it done for cosmetic reasons but I would never make a big fuss about it.

And no, it wouldnt be ok to pierce your dogs ears IMO. There are always going to be things we do to our dogs which causes them pain or suffering, even if thats emotionally (such as the neighbouring springer which has never been allowed off a lead, gets the same 1/2 mile walk day in, day out, has never swam or done any of the things it's ancestry is crying out to do but is anybody up in arms about this? I see this as a far bigger issue than the fact it has a docked tail).

We all have a line which we draw between what is acceptable and what isnt, it's just that where that line is drawn differs from one person to another. I dont see the big deal myself.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Leanne77 said:


> The only reason I dont mind it for cosmetic reasons is because i'm pro docking for working reasons. There is no need to do it for cosmetic reasons, I dont see the point, and I actually get quite angry when I see puppy boxers and Dobermanns that have docked tails, mainly because I wonder about the circumstances surrounding it...E.g are the owners aware of the law? Was it done illegally?


they may well have been docked in Ireland


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Leanne77 said:


> What has also been said is that a hunting gundog, regardless of whether it actually works or not, will still go through the motions of hunting and flushing of it's own accord.


I agree with this. Even gundogs kept as pets will go through the motions - I almost never saw my cockers on walks but I always knew where they were because I could hear them in the undergriowth.

However - given that gundogs, irrespective of whether they are worked or not, will go through the motions - surely if tail damage were as widespread as pro-dockers would have us believe, the vets would be full of gundogs with damaged tails? There were 23,258 cocker spaniels registered with the KC in 2011, and 12,258 springer spaniels. That's 36,241 dogs who will not have been docked in just one year. Given that sort of figure year after year after year, if tail damage _were_ that prevalent, vets would become multi-millionaires on operations on spaniel tails alone.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/675/quartstatsgundog.pdf

My niece is a vet nurse so I asked her how many gundogs she could remember being operated on for damaged tails - and in the five years she's been qualified the only one she can remember was a red setter who had become entangled in barbed wire - and there was damage all over, not just to the tail.

The fact that there have been people on this thread who work in vet surgeries saying much the same thing about low incidences of gundogs with tail damage would lead me to believe that this low incidence is not just a one-off anomaly.

So the only logical conclusion I can come to is that yes, there is the possibility of tail damage, but the incidence is far lower than the pro-dockers would have us believe, and far too low to advocate the mutilation of every working gundog.

It is almost like saying that we should amuptate the legs of every dog who lives in a town just in case he has a traffic accident. Pure stupidity.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> The vegan line stands because stuff that is done to farm animals to get the products we use on a daily basis (not necessities, people live without them) is THE SAME AS docking a dogs tails (also for things that aren't necessities). Therefore if tail docking is morally unaccepatble to you then things that are THE SAME ethically should also be unacceptable to you.
> 
> If things that are THE SAME as tail docking are practised in farming (which they are) then if you are against tail docking you must also reject farming. If you accept farming then you must accept tail docking. Because it is THE SAME practises involved in both.


Or, to put it another way (are you reading this, SL?  )

If you accept tail docking you also have to accept factory farming. And if you don't accept factory farming (which you don't!) then you should not accept tail docking.

Sorry for hijacking your post to prove a point to SL, Werehorse. However, your vegan argument does not stand because there _are_ other ways to buy and eat meat other than buying and eating factory farmed meat. I do agree that it is more difficult and more expensive to do so, but it is possible.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Sorry just wanted to say how interesting this thread is and how well argued all the various stances are. So well argued in fact that I am now bouncing back and forth from one view to another trying to decide which I agree with most!


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Or, to put it another way (are you reading this, SL?  )
> 
> If you accept tail docking you also have to accept factory farming. And if you don't accept factory farming (which you don't!) then you should not accept tail docking.


Not necessarily. One might find *factory* farming practises more ethically unacceptable than tail docking, after all keeping an animal in confined quarters for its whole life is very different from docking the tail so that it can be very much not kept in confined quarters its whole life. As an example. However tail docking is routine for sheep and other similar things are routine elswhere in normal farming. If you reject tail docking you must reject normal farming. If you accept tail docking you can choose to place you acceptability line below normal farming but above factory farming.

Its a little hazy and not as simplistic as I am want to make out in my arguments, I simplify to make the logical challenge clearer. In reality rather than in an internet debating chamber one has to take each individual practise and asses it carefully by your own standards and place it on one side or other of your acceptability line and one should be as consistant as one can about it (for a random example, rejecting horse racing but accepting greyhound racing would be a logical inconsistency if we assume (I am assuming for the purposes of this example) that the arguments against both are identical).



Spellweaver said:


> Sorry for hijacking your post to prove a point to SL, Werehorse. However, your vegan argument does not stand because there _are_ other ways to buy and eat meat other than buying and eating factory farmed meat. I do agree that it is more difficult and more expensive to do so, but it is possible.


Indeed, I ammended in a further post. But again, docking lambs tails is not about factory farming - so to make it more simplistic is one eats lamb or wears wool then one is, by one's actions, accepting tail docking of lambs. And it's a very fine line to draw between tail docking of lambs and tail docking of dogs. There are many moral and logical parallels to draw between the two practises.

Again I'm mostly just throwing these arguments around to make people think, it's so easy when you care about animals to start chucking the words "barbaric" and "cruel" around (been there, done that, even done the vegan thing  ) when actually it's all shades if grey and if you think docking a lamb's tail is acceptable but docking a dog's tail is off-the-scale barbaric then it's worth pausing and having a think about it logically. Or indeed going back to my original thought - if removing the genitalia is desirable then can docking the tail be so far away from that to the point of being cruel and barbaric?

FWIW I would be interested to find out what the actual risk of tail damage is to a working-bred (not show or pet bred, they will have different levels of drive) pet springer or cocker... i.e. the only one of the litter who didn't go to a working home. There are no stats on this and I can only go from personal experience in thinking that the risk is quite high. But SL's stats show that the risk for working dogs is quite high so if you have a litter of pups who will probably go to working homes it still makes sense to dock even if one or two end up in pet homes.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Werehorse said:


> The vegan line stands because stuff that is done to farm animals to get the products we use on a daily basis (not necessities, people live without them)


This is not your right to decide what people can and can't live without.
Some people cannot live healthily without animal products in their diet, fact. 
People can live healthily without a docked dog.



Werehorse said:


> If things that are THE SAME as tail docking are practised in farming (which they are) then if you are against tail docking you must also reject farming. If you accept farming then you must accept tail docking. Because it is THE SAME practises involved in both.


And if you've ever bought a lipstick by rimmel, maybeline, or any other number of companies, you must accept and embrace dog fighting. Because you've bought and supported animal testing, therefore you must support and buy into dog fighting, because the same level of cruelty is involved in both. It would be hypocritical to support one kind of animal abuse and not another, wouldn't it?



Werehorse said:


> If you have drawn your line at tail docking then you must also reject things that are ethically WORSE than tail docking, and there are many of those things in farming as well.


Who defines what is ethically 'worse'? Surely ethics are personal?
I personally think that one of the most disgusting things people can do is to poison rats; thats gets to me really badly. But others would not consider that unethical at all. I consider poisoning rats more unethical than tail docking or farming. 
And I think most people who are opposed to tail docking probably ARE opposed to many other animal welfare issues. 
As others have said, one doesn't have to support factory farms to eat meat. And some have no choice in whether they consume animal products or not. Who doesn't have a choice about whether they support tail docking or not?



Werehorse said:


> Not accepting tail docking but accepting things that are ethically worse than tail docking is a logical problem. Nothing to do with hypocrisy, and I don't belive I mentioned the word.


Theres that 'ethically worse' thing again. Ethics are changing from one person to another. There is no written guide to what is ethical and what isn't. What is ethical to me isn't to the next person.And what I think of as dreadfully unethical is perfectly ok to others.
I have to add too, yes, some farm animals are docked, some aren't. Some breeds of sheep are docked because they tend strongly toward fly strike. And in large numbers, not just 'potentially' or perhaps one lamb in the flock might, it is a huge problem. Other breeds of sheep are not docked, because they don't have this issue.
This is not comparable to docking a whole litter of puppies just in case one MIGHT get a tail injury in later life. 
If the rates of these dogs getting serious tail injuries were as high, and provable, as the rates of some of these sheep breeds getting fly strike, tail docking would be a much easier issue to sort out.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

If i could dock my dogs tails i would because their a nightmare. They are constantly getting cut and take a long time to heal. One of my labs goes out with my family shooting and shes always got a bad tail. I dont think it should be done for no reason though, only if their working dogs.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Ah right, I can't argue with your logic.
> 
> I like shooting things - I eat what I shoot - I have to cut off my dogs tail.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid I can. Very often birds come down in spots that would be impossible for anything but a dog to retreive them. That's why we have dogs, it also ensures that any injured birds are picked up.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

had someone in my family say "oh i cant see the harm in it, its not like it hurts".

WHAAAAATTTT!!!! my mouth dropped and i changed the subject as i was so annoyed with her.


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

When seeing the breeds that have been docked in the past for working etc, I do prefer the docked look.

Would I care if I got a breed thats tail in years before had been docked and its wasnt nope, but I do prefer the look.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

springerpete said:


> I'm afraid I can. Very often birds come down in spots that would be impossible for anything but a dog to retreive them. That's why we have dogs, it also ensures that any injured birds are picked up.


Can you give any examples of these areas that only dogs can reach as to my knowledge anywhere my dog can get I think I could. If anything I'd have thought it would be the other way around.


----------



## Yorkiemorkiemum (Jun 14, 2012)

I am totally against docking. My brother used to volunteer at the RSPCA and at the time it was legal to dock Yorkies ect and he saw dogs that had had botch jobs done. I also dont agree with having working dogs docked. I spent some time on my grandads farm in the channel islands and we had a springer spanial and a cocker also a sheepdog non of them docked and the spaniels used to run the ditches for vermin ect. Ive also spent time in Ireland where all my husbands family have land and they use spaniels to run the ditches and for gun dogs and they wont entertain docking. They say that a farmer has a good chance of taking his arm off in machinery but you wouldnt dream of chopping it off 'just in case'.
I must say that we had our second yorkies dew claws removed as early as poss because our older kept catching his and ripping them off. The vet said they were usefull in the old days for holding their pray but were a damned nuisance if you had carpet in your home.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Can you give any examples of these areas that only dogs can reach as to my knowledge anywhere my dog can get I think I could. If anything I'd have thought it would be the other way around.


I can. My OH has a Labrador bitch, who marked a pricked bird across pretty much a valley last shooting season. The pricked bird fell into thick bracken type cover, he looked at his bitch, noted she'd marked the fall, and sent her. How many humans do you know, that going to the site of a fallen bird, not one that was killed outright, would be able to put their nose to the ground and track the pricked bird, retrieving it to hand. And how many do you know could do it quicker than a dog?

Of course in this instance it was a Labrador, which obviously doesn't have a docked tail, there's no need for the type of cover they work, but the point is, the dogs are used because they have a nose that helps them to find birds. I've heard of instances of dogs literally standing on hares and birds because they hold their scent in so tight to their boyd. Many times walking my dogs I've come across situations where they have been surprised with a bird flushing direct under their feet, I'd had no idea was there, and they hadn't till it moved. However, train a dog to mark, and hunt the area where something has been shot, and they will work tirelessly to bring it back to hand, it's their job.

And yes SW, I am reading, but you will never admit to reality, so I won't attempt to persuade you otherwise hen. You stick to what you think you know about working dogs (and if anyone saw that last bit of typing, that was the OH, let's just say he doesn't do the *numpty* forums  )


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> See we actually agree on these points.
> I don't blame the gamekeeper for all the woes in the countryside though.
> Yes some are right gits who care about nothing, but then so are quite a few "conservationists"
> As I said, there is no argument to support the release of huge quantities of pheasant onto an area that cannot sustain them.
> ...


I'd love to think there are gamekeepers who care about the bigger picture and not just the job in hand Rona, im sure there are some who's predator control is more sensitive and who wouldnt deliberately break the law doing their 'job', but i imagine they all still use snares and traps?? and i know you are also against this barbaric practice!. If those connected to the shoots truely care about the environment, they should use some of that revenue to fund independant scientific studies on the impact on the environment of the release of all these birds, even on smaller shoots without qualified ecologists, how can anyone know how serious the impact might be?.... after all a lot of our indiginous wildlife species are taken by pheasants...& butterflies, and other invertabrates, grass snakes, adders, lizards etc etc are in decline , then we have our native bird species and migrants having to compete with them for food and the number of some species is dropping dramatically...do they want to know if the released game are having a big impact? if they are conservationists at heart, im sure they would.

Gamebird shooting is a 'sport' for the tiny minority, theres nothing noble, nothing ethical in killing animals for fun! ..the the fact that birds get eaten is secondary (& many of them arnt!), if most shooters are honest they do it because 1st and foremost they enjoy it, ive seen shoots plenty of times, ive lost count of the birds ive seen spiralling out of the sky because they havent been shot clean, its not a swift, humane end for those birds, its one of the most sickening spectacles ive had the misfortune to witness.

a huge section of General public are always going to think the worse & tar them all with the same brush...especially as no one involved ever seems to speak out against all the bad practices that go on, if they want a better image then the whole industry needs to take a good hard look in the mirror, stop being so greedy, stop scapgoating our native predators & sort itself out! improve welfare for ALL breeding birds and youngsters & put our wildlife 1st.

well thats my rant over for today:tongue_smilie: lol


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Yorkiemorkiemum said:


> I must say that we had our second yorkies dew claws removed as early as poss because our older kept catching his and ripping them off. The vet said they were usefull in the old days for holding their pray but were a damned nuisance if you had carpet in your home.


Shocking, what has changed from the OLD DAYS until now?

Dogs use their dew claws for turning, gripping etc and there are more cases of carpal arthritis in dogs without dewclaws than with.

But your post is a fantastic demonstration of double standards, so thank you for that.

Expect the same condemnation for this as you deliver to those who dock.

Removing dewclaws because of carpets! ?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Shocking, what has changed from the OLD DAYS until now?
> 
> Dogs use their dew claws for turning, gripping etc and there are more cases of carpal arthritis in dogs without dewclaws than with.
> 
> ...


i didnt notice that well spotted!

front dew claws are like a dogs thumbs, i dont agree with routinely removing these either.:nono:

.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> i didnt notice that well spotted!
> 
> front dew claws are like a dogs thumbs, i dont agree with routinely removing these either.:nono:
> 
> .


My breeder said the same, even though he is not opposed to the idea of cropping and docking, he said the fact that dewclaws have bones in them, and they have to be kinda 'dug out' of the skin makes it a much more painful procedure, and he refuses to remove them.
Dresden has his, and he does indeed use them to hold bones, toys and such. I see no reason why anyone would want to remove them.

His are very tight to his legs, but I've seen some very floppy, loose ones on dogs that would perhaps be more prone to catching on things, though. But I can't see dresden's ever being a problem any more than my thumbs are a problem!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I'd love to think there are gamekeepers who care about the bigger picture and not just the job in hand Rona, im sure there are some who's predator control is more sensitive and who wouldnt deliberately break the law doing their 'job', but i imagine they all still use snares and traps?? and i know you are also against this barbaric practice!. If those connected to the shoots truely care about the environment, they should use some of that revenue to fund independant scientific studies on the impact on the environment of the release of all these birds, even on smaller shoots without qualified ecologists, how can anyone know how serious the impact might be?.... after all a lot of our indiginous wildlife species are taken by pheasants...& butterflies, and other invertabrates, grass snakes, adders, lizards etc etc are in decline , then we have our native bird species and migrants having to compete with them for food and the number of some species is dropping dramatically...do they want to know if the released game are having a big impact? if they are conservationists at heart, im sure they would.
> 
> Gamebird shooting is a 'sport' for the tiny minority, theres nothing noble, nothing ethical in killing animals for fun! ..the the fact that birds get eaten is secondary (& many of them arnt!), if most shooters are honest they do it because 1st and foremost they enjoy it, ive seen shoots plenty of times, ive lost count of the birds ive seen spiralling out of the sky because they havent been shot clean, its not a swift, humane end for those birds, its one of the most sickening spectacles ive had the misfortune to witness.
> 
> ...


http://www.gwct.org.uk/documents/releasing_guidelines_2.pdf
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust - Press Releases
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust - Research & Surveys
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust - The Sussex Study

This is linked to BASC
Wildlife Habitat Trust

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/moretrees-moregood/advice-centre/Documents/Pheasants_brochure.pdf


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Reading all of that I have come to the conclusion that folk will argue about owt these days.

Tail docking in working dogs where 25-40% of the tail is removed is risk management on behalf on the dogs. Anyone who sends an undocked dog into thick cover with brambles, gauze and a potential of unseen hazards i.e. old fencing or barbed wire does not have the dog's best interests at heart. For those that haven't seen a HPR dog's tail go when it locks on or is sent in to do what it does best I suggest you get out and go see it and then coment - you could power a ferry from the proppellor action they generate. Ever get a knot in your hair as a kid when your mum was brushing it after your bath and the brush gripped and pulled? Hurt like Billy O didn't it? Now think of a lot more pressure being put on tendon, skin and bone with forward motion speed and the winding speed of the rotating tail, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

Could they breed for a tail fit for purpose? Sure. It would take ages to breed a mutilation of less vertebrae by which point most breeds would be lost due to the crossing with genetic flaws which could potentially lose the heightened scences of the breeds we know but it could be done. Why don't those apposed to docking 20-40% of a dog's tail start the programme off?

Cutting it off because it looks good is bad - that is down to the Breed Standard folk.

Cutting it off because the dog may injure it later is good - well it minimises risk to the dog so yes and it isn't removed completely, only a percentage is. It used to be that vets would not go below 60% removal or something for spaniels and that went down to 50%.


To summarise: Circumcision is apparantly done to reduce risk and tail docking is done to reduce risk.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Can you give any examples of these areas that only dogs can reach as to my knowledge anywhere my dog can get I think I could. If anything I'd have thought it would be the other way around.


I could take you to to many places on our shoot where you most certainly couldn't get to, unless of course you're able to crawl through thick bramble and blackthorn, a woodcock shoot isn't like walking across a nice open field, there are areas that only a spaniel can cope with. My retreiver, brave as he is would not be able to get into some of the cover that the spaniels face. 
 Whilst I respect your right to hold whatever opinion you wish, it's obvious that as far as working spaniels are concerned you realy have no idea of what they do on a daily basis.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

I've just been reading this thread from where I last checked, i dont want you thinking I'm sat here hovering, just coincide im typing this reply so quickly.

I know someone who shoots and uses a dog and it isn't docked im not an expert your right. But why can't you go into the brambles and blackthorn?


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> So using your analogy we should amputate all diabetics feet because they may become ulcerated. That makes much more sense.....?


I like having my feet!! And my GSP has his tail too!


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I know someone who shoots and uses a dog and it isn't docked im not an expert your right. But why can't you go into the brambles and blackthorn?


So what do they shoot? What type of dog is it? Where do they shoot? Is the dog flushing or retreiving or both? What is the terrain like?

Would you rather a dog worked with a full tail and risked a real nasty injury that could result in further and more painful surgery causing more stress and discomfort than the initial operation or would you prefer to reduce the risk?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I've just been reading this thread from where I last checked, i dont want you thinking I'm sat here hovering, just coincide im typing this reply so quickly.
> 
> I know someone who shoots and uses a dog and it isn't docked im not an expert your right. But why can't you go into the brambles and blackthorn?


I have had this conversation before with someone that shot from Yorkshire, they hadn't docked, we ended up more or less agreeing that dogs in different parts of the country working different cover needed to be accessed differently for risk to tails.
Most dogs in Yorkshire don't even see let alone face cover like that in southern England.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

I haven't gone through the whole of this thread. 

My ESS is has 2/3rd of his tail and he still gets "bloody tail" when working as do other spanners that i know.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Shadowrat said:


> My breeder said the same, even though he is not opposed to the idea of cropping and docking, he said the fact that dewclaws have bones in them, and they have to be kinda 'dug out' of the skin makes it a much more painful procedure, and he refuses to remove them.
> Dresden has his, and he does indeed use them to hold bones, toys and such. I see no reason why anyone would want to remove them.
> 
> His are very tight to his legs, but I've seen some very floppy, loose ones on dogs that would perhaps be more prone to catching on things, though. But I can't see dresden's ever being a problem any more than my thumbs are a problem!


i imagine a lot of people believe theyre no use to the dog anyway so they might aswell have them cut off...just incase...ive never come across a siberian husky without front dew claws and most i know in the breed work their dogs.. no problems at all, if pups are born with hind dew claws they do remove these though.



rona said:


> http://www.gwct.org.uk/documents/releasing_guidelines_2.pdf
> Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust - Press Releases
> Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust - Research & Surveys
> Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust - The Sussex Study
> ...


i dont dispute that planting cover for gamebirds hasnt benefitted some species but thats not what im saying Rona, what im saying is that there have been NO studies to see what the impact is on the countryside from the 40 million Gamebirds...does the benefit of this better habitat offset the damage the birds themselves are doing?? dont you think they ought to be finding out? until they do it proves they are just pseudo conservationists.... take our reptiles for example... its a FACT that pheasants are one of the biggest threats to them...i dont want to see them disappear, the countryside shouldnt be a play ground for the minority! . GWCT, BASC ,CA, whatever are hardly bias and just look how they word their findings on impacts on songbirds by predators & by grey squirrel....scape goats as usual  ...its sickening how the hunting lobby are hijacking conservation organisations..they use the lowest tactics to get their way:...shamefully i even believed all their propaganda against grey squirrels & our native corvids:mad2:...

Could these people get anymore hypocritical though..releasing all those non native birds with no knowledge of what damage they might be doing...whilst wanting to want to wipe out the non native grey squirrel, which by their own findings isnt doing the damage they would have us believe


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> i dont dispute that planting cover for gamebirds hasnt benefitted some species but thats not what im saying Rona, what im saying is that there have been NO studies to see what the impact is on the countryside from the 40 million Gamebirds...does the benefit of this better habitat offset the damage the birds themselves are doing?? dont you think they ought to be finding out? until they do it proves they are just pseudo conservationists.... take our reptiles for example... its a FACT that pheasants are one of the biggest threats to them...i dont want to see them disappear, the countryside shouldnt be a play ground for the minority! . GWCT, BASC ,CA, whatever are hardly bias and just look how they word their findings on impacts on songbirds by predators & by grey squirrel....scape goats as usual  ...its sickening how the hunting lobby are hijacking conservation organisations..they use the lowest tactics to get their way:...shamefully i even believed all their propaganda against grey squirrels & our native corvids:mad2:...
> 
> Could these people get anymore hypocritical though..releasing all those non native birds with no knowledge of what damage they might be doing...whilst wanting to want to wipe out the non native grey squirrel, which by their own findings isnt doing the damage they would have us believe


Honest Noush, you aren't ever going to give any credit to shooting land owners are you?

I know this place very well as I am a friend of a previous gamekeeper and have walked this ground extensively.
http://www.voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/_Attachments/resources/951_S4.pdf
Basingstoke Conservation Volunteers - Index
http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u196/downloads/rr195.pdf
Conservation Evidence.com - sharing conservation experience

This shooting land owner doesn't give a toss does he? 

There are hundreds and hundreds just the same throughout the country, striving to create a better and more productive countryside.

These too
Welcome to the Knepp Castle Estate


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

....interesting......is it not simply that either :

a) the dog is not suitable for the activity

or

B) the activity is not suitable for the dogs.?

How is it even remotely acceptable to continue to breed dogs that need parts of their anatomy cut off before they can be considered 'fit for purpose' ?

shooting farmed game birds and getting your dog to retrieve their dead and dying bodies is not 'working'- it's a hobby - and the dogs that are used are no more 'working' than those that take part in agility, obedience or dancing with dogs - if you are truly worried about injuring your dogs then DON'T deliberately send them into places where they will be hurt - and stop cutting off their tails as proof of how much you care !


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree with this. Even gundogs kept as pets will go through the motions - I almost never saw my cockers on walks but I always knew where they were because I could hear them in the undergriowth.
> 
> However - given that gundogs, irrespective of whether they are worked or not, will go through the motions - surely if tail damage were as widespread as pro-dockers would have us believe, the vets would be full of gundogs with damaged tails? There were 23,258 cocker spaniels registered with the KC in 2011, and 12,258 springer spaniels. That's 36,241 dogs who will not have been docked in just one year. Given that sort of figure year after year after year, if tail damage _were_ that prevalent, vets would become multi-millionaires on operations on spaniel tails alone.
> 
> ...


I see a lot of springers ive had 3 myself have 2 now and very rarely have i seen one without their tail docked so this alone could be why spaniels with damaged tails are not seen very often in vets surgeries.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Can you give any examples of these areas that only dogs can reach as to my knowledge anywhere my dog can get I think I could. If anything I'd have thought it would be the other way around.


Oh believe me a spaniel can get where water cant, many,many times over the years i would have loved to have got where my dogs were.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i didnt notice that well spotted!
> 
> front dew claws are like a dogs thumbs, i dont agree with routinely removing these either.:nono:
> 
> .


They usually take the dew claws off when they dock, harvey my eldest now is the only springer ive had that wasnt docked so also has his dew claws and so many times i wished he hadnt, hes gone through agonies and the vet has always been very reluctant to remove it, as its quite a big op when they are adults.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> ....interesting......is it not simply that either :
> 
> a) the dog is not suitable for the activity
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that to the dog, it's all work. I've always wondered where the line is drawn between 'work' and 'play' (or dog sport if you like) because it appears to be a human concept. The sled dogs competing in the Aviemore rally are going to see their task as being exactly the same as if they were carrying humans and cargo across the Arctic. It's only us who know the difference.

I think the point that has also been made several times is that folk dont need to deliberately send their dogs into places that may injure them. The dogs do this of their own accord, it's what every molecule in their body is telling them to do.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Monkeyshoes said:


> Can you give any examples of these areas that only dogs can reach as to my knowledge anywhere my dog can get I think I could. If anything I'd have thought it would be the other way around.


It's so obvious that you've never seen spaniels working rough cover. I should very much like to see you or anyone else follow one of my dogs as he hunts for a bird in shoulder height brambles. And unless you have the olfactory senses of a dog you'd be very unlikely to find any bird. I have no more to say on the subject, anyone who works spaniels will know what I mean, those who dont will have no clue.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ....interesting......is it not simply that either :
> 
> a) the dog is not suitable for the activity
> 
> ...


Exactly! And can you imagine the furore if people started chopping off bits of their dogs so they could indulge in the other hobbies you mention above? Imagine, "Well, he might get his tail injured if I tread on it when we do the dance moves so I chop the end off it ........ I do it because I care about him and don't want to risk injuring him."

How many of you who do exactly the same to your gundogs so that you can indulge in _your_ hobby would agree with that? Yet, as Bijou has pointed out so well above, that is exactly what you _are_ doing.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> if you are truly worried about injuring your dogs then DON'T deliberately send them into places where they will be hurt - and stop cutting off their tails as proof of how much you care !


Simplistic. As has previously been pointed out, types such as springers don't need 'deliberately' sending into places where they'll damage their tails. It's what they do.

If I can't see mine, I can generally hear the crashing through the undergrowth. I have never trained them to the gun. They go through where other dogs go round cover. They don't care if it's brambles, blackthorn, a hawthorn hedge that keeps in cattle, they will go through it.

One has a docked tail, never injured it. Another has a full tail, has damaged it. Both dogs stay together and go through the same places when walked. Go figure, rocket science it ain't. Unless I walk them in the little nearby park, I will encounter cover that they will go into unless I lead walk them.

Suffice to say, I will never again get an undocked springer.

As a society, we are not above chopping off and altering animals to suit ourselves. We breed for traits, we neuter animals. Do you honestly think this will stop because some people think we should? It's not going to happen.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

A bit like chopping off rollocks, sometimes it's in the dogs best interest


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I have a small collie bitch who will go into cover just as well as any spaniel if there is the possibility of a rabbit or pheasant in there. The only part of her to ever get damaged is her ear tips, never her tail. Thats purely because a collies tail does not act in the same way as a hunting gundog's. Therefore, I wonder if altering tail behaviour could be a solution (although, the way the tail behaves is actually a clue as to what game they are scenting as it behaves differently depending on whats under their nose, well, it does for my HPR anyway).


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

If all Springers have an innate desire to crash their way through the undergrowth then why are non 'working' ones not also allowed to be docked ?

I live in the Fens - it's flat open country with very little ground cover that could injure tails yet the shooting brigade round here still routinely cut their dogs tails off - why ?

...and if it's tail length/action/hairiness etc etc that''s causing the problem that why are gundogs deliberately being bred with those characteristics ?


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Leanne77 said:


> I have a small collie bitch who will go into cover just as well as any spaniel if there is the possibility of a rabbit or pheasant in there. The only part of her to ever get damaged is her ear tips, never her tail. Thats purely because a collies tail does not act in the same way as a hunting gundog's. Therefore, I wonder if altering tail behaviour could be a solution (although, the way the tail behaves is actually a clue as to what game they are scenting as it behaves differently depending on whats under their nose, well, it does for my HPR anyway).


Thats exactly right its the way the spaniel uses its tail, i have only 1 with a full tail so its more obvious to see the movement, high and round and round and round i swear someday he will take off, hes actually come out of undergrowth with it entwined so tight and thats because of the circular movement.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

........well then surely this makes your dog 'unfit for function' - tell me why it's considered morally better to breed 'working' dogs that cannot 'work' without having an operation to remove part of their anatomy than to perform corrective surgery on breeds such as Pugs and Shar peis ?


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> *If all Springers have an innate desire to crash their way through the undergrowth then why are non 'working' ones not also allowed to be docked ?*
> 
> I live in the Fens - it's flat open country with very little ground cover that could injure tails yet the shooting brigade round here still routinely cut their dogs tails off - why ?
> 
> ...and if it's tail length/action/hairiness etc etc that''s causing the problem that why are gundogs deliberately being bred with those characteristics ?


Because the law is ridiculous, and this law is just as stupid as the BSL. Scotland probably have the better idea by having a complete ban, although obviously I dont agree with it.

Many people travel to get their dogs on a shoot, and some travel because different areas provide different cover, different game and therefore different opportunities and experiences. Just because you have seen them working the Fens, does not mean they dont work their dogs elsewhere too.

This argument is going round and round. there will always be a big divide between pro and anti dockers, and each will not be able to see things from the others PoV.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

And on it goes....................


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

this subject has been done to death over and over again over the years so just need to agree to disagree on this ime afraid.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Honest Noush, you aren't ever going to give any credit to shooting land owners are you?
> 
> I know this place very well as I am a friend of a previous gamekeeper and have walked this ground extensively.
> http://www.voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/_Attachments/resources/951_S4.pdf
> ...


no because the majority of shooting land owners will only conserve species that dont interfere with their vested interests...the rest they trap,snare,poison,shoot,lobby for licences to 'control' them!

but actually i think knepp castle estate looks great Rona lol, .. its clear a lot of research as gone in to maintaining and increasing bio-diversity, though i do hope they encourage wildlife from the top of the food chain down? because i see no mention of the accipitridae BOP's and it looks great habitat to support various raptor species?(i havent read it thoroughly), ..and i really hope they dont use traps & snares in their management of the estate?

the links are good but as ive said ive never disputed that planting cover doesnt benefit some wildlife....but do you have any links to studies on the impacts gamebirds are having on wildlife?? :arf:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> If all Springers have an innate desire to crash their way through the undergrowth then why are non 'working' ones not also allowed to be docked ?
> 
> ...and if it's tail length/action/hairiness etc etc that''s causing the problem that why are gundogs deliberately being bred with those characteristics ?


Because the law is an ass. Anyone can find a docked springer and they aren't necessarily from working lines. All you need is a bloke with a gun licence to say it's his litter. They _should_ be docked, IMO.

Because if you tried to breed out those characteristics, you'd probably also eliminate the innate haracteristics of what makes them great gun dogs.



Bijou said:


> ........well then surely this makes your dog 'unfit for function' - tell me why it's considered morally better to breed 'working' dogs that cannot 'work' without having an operation to remove part of their anatomy than to perform corrective surgery on breeds such as Pugs and Shar peis ?


Never said it was, but I think maybe some pug breeders are _potentially_ after the high price that type command and aren't too concerned about the need for corrective surgery of the poor pups. Docking at here days is surely better than multiple operations on an adult dog or a vet who's scared to operate for fear of being seen as 'docking' despite an injury that won't heal.



springerpete said:


> And on it goes....................


Because people will blindly decide what they want believe despite the horrific pictures of injuries and because they have never encountered the situation itself. I doubt very much, for example, that many anti-hunt types ever actually followed a hunt and witnessed the kill. Altering animals is what humans do for convenience, for safety, for function and so we can have them live with us and work with or for us.

My next springer will be docked. I will not be there to see that and I will not be a bad owner because I prefer them docked. It will be, as our my current boys, spoilt rotten, pampered and adored.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Leanne77 said:


> I'm pretty sure that to the dog, it's all work. I've always wondered where the line is drawn between 'work' and 'play' (or dog sport if you like) because it appears to be a human concept. The sled dogs competing in the Aviemore rally are going to see their task as being exactly the same as if they were carrying humans and cargo across the Arctic. It's only us who know the difference.
> 
> I think the point that has also been made several times is that folk dont need to deliberately send their dogs into places that may injure them. The dogs do this of their own accord, it's what every molecule in their body is telling them to do.


but in the sport of sled dog racing the dogs dont need to be mutilated to perform their 'work', they are as nature intended... Au naturel lol.

yes my sibes dive into thickets whenever they get chance maybe i shoud have had them docked

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> no because the majority of shooting land owners will only conserve species that dont interfere with their vested interests...the rest they trap,snare,poison,shoot,lobby for licences to 'control' them!
> 
> but actually i think knepp castle estate looks great Rona lol, .. its clear a lot of research as gone in to maintaining and increasing bio-diversity, though i do hope they encourage wildlife from the top of the food chain down? because i see no mention of the accipitridae BOP's and it looks great habitat to support various raptor species?(i havent read it thoroughly), ..and i really hope they dont use traps & snares in their management of the estate?
> 
> the links are good but as ive said ive never disputed that planting cover doesnt benefit some wildlife....but do you have any links to studies on the impacts gamebirds are having on wildlife?? :arf:


EH?
All the studies a Manydown answer that question


----------



## metaldog (Nov 11, 2009)

I've read this whole thread and I've had an idea :idea:
Why not breed less happy spaniels who don't wag their tails so much and then they won't get injured?  

My lurcher had a happy tail injury and I covered it with a plastic syringe and it healed in a week or two.

So this got me thinking we could invent spaniel tail armour to prevent injuries, while we are waiting for the new line of unhappy spanners to get established. We could make a fortune :thumbup:

Off to the drawing board and to register for the patent


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> EH?
> All the studies a Manydown answer that question


am i missing something? the only studies i see at Manydown were on grey partridge they are an indiginous species,... im taliking about released gamebirds, particularly pheasant...which by the way are thought to be one of the reasons the rare partridge has declined.... they are a host to a parasite that they tramsmit to the partridge...i believe:arf: !


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinammontoast said:


> Never said it was, but I think maybe some pug breeders are _potentially_ after the high price that type command and aren't too concerned about the need for corrective surgery of the poor pups.





cinammontoast said:


> Altering animals is what humans do for convenience, for safety, for function and so we can have them live with us and work with or for us.


And with the two above quotes you show the utter hypocrisy that abounds around dog welfare. Pro-dockers advocate chopping bits off their dog to make it fit for function, yet they castigate show owners and try to make out that because their dog "works" rather than "shows" then that somehow makes them better breeders/owners, and that somehow their dogs are healthier than their show counterparts (I'm talking about show cocker v working cocker, show springer v working springer et etc)

How many times on here have we seen posters extol the virtues of working dogs against their show counterparts? How many times have we heard working owners saying that show animals of today couldn't do the work they were originally bred for? Well what a surprise, neither can their working counterparts. Bred to a shape that is not suitable for the work humans want them to do, they have to have bits chopped off them so that they do not injure themselves when they cannot help but follow the instincts humans have bred into them.

At least their show counterparts don't have to be mutilated so that their owners can enjoy their hobby with their dogs. No gundog has to have bits chopped off it in order to show.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bijou said:


> ....interesting......is it not simply that either :
> 
> a) the dog is not suitable for the activity
> 
> ...


spot on Bijou!!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> And with the two above quotes you show the utter hypocrisy that abounds around dog welfare.
> 
> At least their show counterparts don't have to be mutilated so that their owners can enjoy their hobby with their dogs. No gundog has to have bits chopped off it in order to show.


Why thank you for putting those words in my mouth! 

Gun dogs no _longer_ have to be docked to show (how old are you?!) The show dock was shorter than the working dock to my recollection.

It's not mutilation IMO and if you think it is, then so surely is neutering, which is far more invasive. Many owners spay to avoid the risk of a pyo: are they hypocrites? Most 'pet' male horses are gelded so they are 'fit for function' ie you don't get killed when a nearby mare is in season. Is that mutilation? To go back to an earlier point, is circumcision? Just check back to SL's pictures of tail injuries or look up a thread by an owner who works their dog and the lengths to which they must go to continue doing so because the vet refuses to remove the damaged last third of an irretrievably damaged tail.








Note the bald end of the tail which has quite likely been repeatedly damaged.

Many dogs are tattooed and chipped: should that practise also be stopped, because it's probably as painful.

You can go a bit over the top with this argument: should we not remove lumps from dogs because it's not natural? Should we not repair a child's cleft palate because we're interfering? If it's to help and ensure the animal has less risk of injury, should any operation be permitted? Should all meat eaters become vegan as mentioned earlier? Have you seen what happens to farm animals that are banded or shot at birth because they're male?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> They usually take the dew claws off when they dock, harvey my eldest now is the only springer ive had that wasnt docked so also has his dew claws and so many times i wished he hadnt, hes gone through agonies and the vet has always been very reluctant to remove it, as its quite a big op when they are adults.


almost missed this HM

do you mean they routinely remove front dew claws in working springers when they dock them?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinammontoast said:


> Why thank you for putting those words in my mouth!
> 
> Gun dogs no _longer_ have to be docked to show (how old are you?!) The show dock was shorter than the working dock to my recollection.


Erm - what part of my post made you think that I didn't know gundogs don't have to be docked to show? I don't think you can have read it properly  - *the whole point *of the post was that gundogs don't need bits chopped off them to show but they do need bits chopped off them to work to work.

As for my age, I'm 57 - what has that got to do with anything in my reply? How old are you? 



cinammontoast said:


> It's not mutilation IMO and if you think it is, then so surely is neutering, which is far more invasive.


It is mutilation IMO - just as cropping ears is. (Or perhaps you agree with that as well - perhaps you have no aversion to hacking any bits off dogs to sculpt them to your idea of what a dog should be. I'm beginning to think that for working gundogs the term "designer dog" is taking on a whole, new, sinister meaning  )

But going back to serious debate, if you'd read my earlier reply to Werehorse you would know I agree with your point about neutering and do not agree with it unless it is medically necessary.



cinammontoast said:


> Most 'pet' male horses are gelded so they are 'fit for function' ie you don't get killed when a nearby mare is in season. Is that mutilation? To go back to an earlier point, is circumcision?


Ah, the old "It doesn't matter if I smoke and kill people with my 2nd hand smoke because drivers kill people with their exhaust fumes" argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.



cinammontoast said:


> Just check back to SL's pictures of tail injuries or look up a thread by an owner who works their dog and the lengths to which they must go to continue doing so because the vet refuses to remove the damaged last third of an irretrievably damaged tail.


Again, you are missing the point of the post. The point is that working gundog owners are content to chop bits off their dogs' tails in order to make their dogs fit for function when they should be breeding for shorter tails instead.



cinammontoast said:


> Many dogs are tattooed and chipped: should that practise also be stopped, because it's probably as painful.


Rubbish.



cinammontoast said:


> You can go a bit over the top with this argument: should we not remove lumps from dogs because it's not natural? Should we not repair a child's cleft palate because we're interfering? If it's to help and ensure the animal has less risk of injury, should any operation be permitted? Should all meat eaters become vegan as mentioned earlier? Have you seen what happens to farm animals that are banded or shot at birth because they're male?


Indulging in a bit of reductio ad ridiculum there! There is a vast difference between a medical procedure to correct something that is wrong, and unnecessary surgery just so humans can make an animal do something it was not "designed" to do. It's very sad that pro-dockers cannot see or understand this.

As for the farm animals "excuse" - if you equate that with docking your dog, then it logically follows that if you accept one you accept the other - otherwise you are being totally illogical. Or, to put it another way, if you equate what happens to farm animals with docking your dog, then if you don't support what happens to farm animals then you should not support docking either.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

cinammontoast said:


> You can go a bit over the top with this argument: should we not remove lumps from dogs because it's not natural? Should we not repair a child's cleft palate because we're interfering? If it's to help and ensure the animal has less risk of injury, should any operation be permitted?


You can't compare removing something like a lump, which can be life threatening, to docking a tail so the human owner can enjoy their hobby.

You also can't compare a _child's_ facial deformity, which will negatively impact their entire life, social life, job prospects, relationships and health, with chopping off a _dog's_ body part so the human owner can enjoy their hobby.
Humans and dogs are different. We live in a society were we're judged on our looks, looks are important. Dogs don't judge one another on looks, it isn't important. Comparing the two species when it comes to cosmetic surgery is not relevant.

This is also why comparing circumcision to docking (as I've seen many a time) is so ridiculous. Im not pro circumcision by any means, Im not in favour of anything done to the body of a being that cannot consent other than to save lives (I don't even like ear piercing on babies or toddlers). 
But.....one is a limb with bone in it that is used in communication, and one is a bit of skin. Its like comparing apples and oranges.
I know people like to say that docking a tail doesn't affect a dog's communication much at all, and we over-emphasise that aspect of it but......how do we, as humans, _know_ this? We can't have any real idea how it affects a dog's interactions to not have a tail, and it is arrogant of us to assume we do.
There isn't, to the best of my knowledge, a single natural canine species that is born without a tail, is there? Im not talking about naturally bob tailed breeds, because thats human interference again, Im talking about naturally occurring members of the canine family.
Nature gives canines tails, regardless of how easily they might be injured. And she has to do this for a reason. 
Its only when humans get involved that canines end up without them, either by birth or cosmetic surgery.

Once again, why do we pick and choose which animals it is acceptable, and even preferred, to cut bits off to 'prevent potential future injury' and which ones it isn't acceptable on?
Why aren't greyhounds docked, if docking is truly about the welfare of the dog and that alone? Because I've seen far more tail injuries on these skinny tailed dogs than I've ever seen on any other breed.

Would it be acceptable, to anyone here, for me to take all 46 of my rats to the vet tomorrow and request tail amputations for each and every one, as a 'preventative'? Because I've had a lot of rescue rats over the years have tail injuries, some severe and requiring one or more surgeries, some of them really were quite horrific, worse than people here might be able to imagine, we're talking bone and tendon on show, tails hanging off by threads, tails going gangrenous etc. People would look at me like I was either insane, or immensely cruel if I proposed doing this to anything other than a dog. 
Yet if it were a litter of springer pups, that would be ok? Even though the situation is pretty much the same (ie, a preventative)?

What about cats? When working in vet nursing, I saw at least 5 cats a year come in with abscessed tails, or broken tails, or mangled tails. I certainly saw more cats and rats with tail injuries than I ever saw dogs. 
And as I said, the dogs we DID see with tail injuries were invariably greyhounds....not a breed cited as requiring docking, yet clearly there is a 'problem' going on with this breed and tail injuries.

It just seems so inconsistent.

Any animal with a tail has the chance of having that tail injured. Tails hang, they dangle, they can't be pulled away as quickly as a leg or paw, they're thin, they're long, they hang out the back of the animal. They're perfect body parts to catch, trap, get crushed, twisted, broken etc.
And yet it only seems to be dogs that we give a damn about this in.

And I do agree with others here: if an animal has to be surgically altered to do its job effectively, then how 'fit for purpose' is it, in reality?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Erm - what part of my post made you think that I didn't know gundogs don't have to be docked to show?
> 
> But going back to serious debate, if you'd read my earlier reply to Werehorse you would know I agree with your point about neutering and do not agree with it unless it is medically necessary.
> 
> ...


I said gun dogs used to be docked to show. I mentioned your age as it is no longer allowed, obviously.

Springers _*are*_ designed to work cover-that's half their purpose.

I know exactly what happens to farm animals, been there, helped. I fully support the ear tags and rules for transport/slaughter as I prefer not to convey disease from one place to another.

I am geting ridiculous, I know, extreme words to demonstrate what I believe. If you think chipping doesn't hurt much, I suggest you ask to watch-most vets won't allow it as the pups often become distressed. Brig screamed the place down. I've never had a tattoo so I dunno if it hurts, but speaking to friends, I gather it's very painful. I probably am ridiculous but last time I say anything on this thread, going back to a previous post: if it's going to be harmful in future, then let's get rid now. And breeding for the bobtail has been tried: you need a certain length so you can pull the dog backwards if necessary. Bobtail breeding has been unsuccessful in many breeds.

Adieu!


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> almost missed this HM
> 
> do you mean they routinely remove front dew claws in working springers when they dock them?


It is routine that when a gundog is docked, it's dewclaws are also removed. The two alterations go hand in hand.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Leanne77 said:


> Because the law is ridiculous, and this law is just as stupid as the BSL. Scotland probably have the better idea by having a complete ban, although obviously I dont agree with it.
> 
> Many people travel to get their dogs on a shoot, and some travel because different areas provide different cover, different game and therefore different opportunities and experiences. Just because you have seen them working the Fens, does not mean they dont work their dogs elsewhere too.
> 
> This argument is going round and round. there will always be a big divide between pro and anti dockers, and each will not be able to see things from the others PoV.


In Scotland the ban for working dogs is under review and the evidence is showing that the ban should be lifted.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

grandad said:


> In Scotland the ban for working dogs is under review and the evidence is showing that the ban should be lifted.


It'll be skewed because most with a working dog wouldn't run to the vet every time their dog has a damaged tail.
These are to a large extent, people who manage stock and have a wide knowledge of animal husbandry.
Being judged by the urban vets and universities is never going to give a clear picture. 
If these people can happily castrate a dog for no good reason other than the fact it's easier to handle and then turn around and criticize those that do something similar for the benefit of the animal,it just isn't right


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinammontoast said:


> Springers _*are*_ designed to work cover-that's half their purpose.


But not designed well enough if you have to chop bits off them so that they can actually *do* it.  In fact, when you look at it, working breeders have bred the work drive into the dogs without breeding the right kind of body conformation for the dogs to fulfil that work drive safely. How cruel and uncaring is that?



cinammontoast said:


> If you think chipping doesn't hurt much, I suggest you ask to watch-most vets won't allow it as the pups often become distressed.


I don't "think" microchipping doesn't hurt much, I *know* it doesn't. A little common sense should have told you that as a 57 year old dog lover, owner and breeder I have, over the years, seen many pups microchipped. Never seen it bother any of them, though! And neither have I ever known a vet to refuse anyone to be with their pet when it is microchipped.

If you have to pretend all these sorts of things to yourself in order to justify chopping bits off your dog, doesn't that tell you something?


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

cinammontoast said:


> If you think chipping doesn't hurt much, I suggest you ask to watch-most vets won't allow it as the pups often become distressed. Brig screamed the place down.
> Adieu!


I used to work at a vet, I assisted with the chipping of many dogs, I also was allowed to watch my own puppy chipped, and my own ferrets, they were never 'taken away' where I couldn't see. My pup didn't even notice, my ferrets didn't even notice, and when I was working at the vet, I only remember ONE puppy making a fuss, and it was a tiny yorkie puppy that was noisy from the get go anyway. So no, I do not believe there is much pain involved in chipping, but it will depend on the dog.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Werehorse said:


> Of course, you could get round the logical problem of being against tail docking (for purposes of working dogs being used to help catch meat) and not being vegan be only sourcing your animal products from farmers whose practices you have carefully scrutinised and deemed to be acceptable to you.
> 
> And since people are now using anti-shooting arguments to embelish the anti-docking argument then you can only put forward that argument if you also reject things that are the same or worse than shooting wild-fowl IF you want to continue to use that to aide the anti-docking stance. And to be honest most farming practices are the same as or worse than raising then shooting wild fowl. Lending more weight to the vegan thing.


how is farming animals for the food chain comparable to breeding and rearing millions of semi-tame gamebirds( not 'wild fowl' ) for a few to indulge in a hobby?



Leanne77 said:


> It is routine that when a gundog is docked, it's dewclaws are also removed. The two alterations go hand in hand.


makes you wonder how wild canids ever cope having 'thumbs' doesnt it blimey ive witnessed foxes diving into the thickest thickets & im pretty certain most dont go on to injure their dew claws!

by the way, thanks for answering my question Leanne  x
.


----------



## LottieLab (Jan 2, 2012)

I think the only time that tails should be docked is for full-time working dogs. Working dogs have to run around all day through bushes, so their tails could get caught or broken.

However, there is no need to dock dogs for purely cosmetic reasons - that's just cruel:frown:. Moto had his tail docked (I'm not his real owner, so I didn't choose!) but it's not as short as most dogs, so he can still wag pretty well! But for dogs who have been docked really short, it's just not nice because they can't communicate with other dogs via their tails.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> how is farming animals for the food chain comparable to breeding and rearing millions of semi-tame gamebirds( not 'wild fowl' ) for a few to indulge in a hobby?
> 
> makes you wonder how wild canids ever cope having 'thumbs' doesnt it blimey ive witnessed foxes diving into the thickest thickets & im pretty certain most dont go on to injure their dew claws!
> 
> ...


Mine ripped his once just running and stopping quickly after that he has had a lot of trouble with it and believe me its extremely painful, hes the only one not docked as the others that are/was docked had their dew claws removed at the same time.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> Mine ripped his once just running and stopping quickly after that he has had a lot of trouble with it and believe me its extremely painful, hes the only one not docked as the others that are/was docked had their dew claws removed at the same time.


oh i know individuals can occasionally damage them, but removing the digits because its standard practice to do so 'just incase' doesnt sit well with me.

.


----------



## ADA (May 30, 2009)

If the Scottish ban is overturned it will have been for political reasons - unfortunately to bring it into line with other parts of the UK with all its loopholes! It would be an opportunity for governments to put a tax on dog breeders/owners who have been claiming working litters for the purpose of having them docked (a reversal of the ancient tax!)
How many dog owners have had injuries to their dogs which were not tail injuries? One does not see any lengthy out pourings about those injuries on fora.
As has been said by Spellweaver, more has been put into assessing a dog's ability in the field (as even cross breeds are involved in docking exemptions) rather than to type, tail carriage, length, movement etc. Breeders of these dogs find it easier to put political pressure on to retain the right to dock rather than endeavouring to breed for a suitable working tail that has fewer problems in the hazardous terrain into which they are sent. The tailed Painted "Dogs" of Africa hunt in thorn bushes (I noted a leg injury); foxes, wolves, dingos and other ancestors of the dog all hunt in varous types of dangerous terrain. Field Spaniels often have too long a tail compared with pet breeding.


----------



## Netpon (Feb 21, 2012)

My old mongrel was forever cutting his pads in the park, maybe I should have had his paws chopped off to stop it happening!
Sorry but to remove a body part 'just in case' is not acceptable. In 18 years of working at a vets we see a lot more torn ears than damaged tails (so why do they have spaniels with long hairy ears???) and the main victims of tail injuries are greyhounds and whippets.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Netpon said:


> My old mongrel was forever cutting his pads in the park, maybe I should have had his paws chopped off to stop it happening!
> Sorry but to remove a body part 'just in case' is not acceptable.
> .


Like spay and neuter?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Like spay and neuter?


But that argument only works if you agree with the current trend to spay and neuter "just in case". Many don't.


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Two infections and 1 glue up job later in the tip of Teals tail (springer x) due to chasing game through bracken etc on walks I can understand why working breeds who will be worked should have the option of tail docking.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Netpon said:


> My old mongrel was forever cutting his pads in the park, maybe I should have had his paws chopped off to stop it happening!
> Sorry but to remove a body part 'just in case' is not acceptable. In 18 years of working at a vets we see a lot more torn ears than damaged tails (*so why do they have spaniels with long hairy ears???*) and the main victims of tail injuries are greyhounds and whippets.


The same reason as scent hounds, to supposedly aid the capture of scent. I dont buy that myself though as many dogs ears arent even long enough to touch their nose or the ground.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

grandad said:


> In Scotland the ban for working dogs is under review and the evidence is showing that the ban should be lifted.


really? where did you get your info?


----------

