# Cropped ears



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Just had to leave a discussion on another forum before I get banned! I see the point of docked tails for working types and it saves persistent injury, but cropped ears, surely they're purely cosmetic, particularly on a non-working dog? An American member was defending her choice to have cropped ears on her dobes. I can't see the point and I think it's just unjustifiable.


----------



## rose (Apr 29, 2009)

I think they are cruel, I think they crop them to make them look more scary, don't know why they do it Great Danes? Might stop them getting ear infections by getting more air into them? Looks painful and uncalled for IMO


----------



## AnimalMad88 (Jan 27, 2014)

Completely agree. Personally, I've never understood the need for it. Certainly it seems to be purely for cosmetic reasons today.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

It had a practical application with fighting dogs. That said a lot of breeds have it done simply for cosmetic reasons, often to make them look more alert, like a Doberman for example. It's been banned here for over a hundred years, there's no valid reason to do it today.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Its mutilation, end of.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Indeed not for me, pointless mutilation.

And I want to know how you can get cropped pit pups in the UK (8-12 weeks old), am sure there is someone out here doing it


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Muze said:


> Indeed not for me, pointless mutilation.
> 
> And I want to know how you can get cropped pit pups in the UK (8-12 weeks old), am sure there is someone out here doing it


If that is true then the breed is illegal so why not have illegal ears too. I am sure it cant be too difficult to crop ears if you know what you are doing.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Blitz said:


> If that is true then the breed is illegal so why not have illegal ears too. I am sure it cant be too difficult to crop ears if you know what you are doing.


It's still cruel though and IMO it's even more shocking than the occasional pit bull about, that people are cutting their ears off, presumably without proper vet care


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I think it's a awful thing to do luckily it's banned in the UK and France.

They did crop Briards ears to prevent them been ripped when defending sheep from wolfs and bears, now it's just cosmetic and still done in the USA and parts of Europe.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Muze said:


> Indeed not for me, pointless mutilation.
> 
> And I want to know how you can get cropped pit pups in the UK (8-12 weeks old), am sure there is someone out here doing it


Certainly not a vet here, as would be done elsewhere.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Why not just get a bloody breed who naturally has pointy ears if thats your thang.... the thought of cutting half a pups ears off , probably with scissors, without pain relief makes my blood run cold.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Horrific mutilation. I have heard the "lessens infections" excuse a fair bit for floppy eared dogs but they are floppy for a reason. Folk argue that it's a warmer, moister environment but conveniently brush aside the fact that foreign bodies and crap can enter ears far more easily once cropped.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

I'm pro docking but can't agree with cropping at all. It is essentially plastic surgery for dogs. Physicality's and morality's aside, I think it looks fugly, which kind of defeats the purpose of giving a dog plastic surgery? evidentially some people find it an attractive look.


----------



## cheekymonkey68 (Nov 18, 2012)

One of my friends breeds and shows Dogo Argentino in Brasil. They crop the ears. I asked him why, as they look much better with their ears and he said it's their Kennel Club standard for showing. 
I think its so unnecessary and is mutilation of a stunning dog.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

labradrk said:


> I'm pro docking but can't agree with cropping at all. It is essentially plastic surgery for dogs. Physicality's and morality's aside, I think it looks fugly, which kind of defeats the purpose of giving a dog plastic surgery? evidentially some people find it an attractive look.


Did I misunderstand or did you mistype....you are PRO docking of tails?


----------



## kare (Sep 8, 2014)

America still has declawing which if you truly research it is horrifically disabling for the cat. In short they are a very backward country.

I mentioned before hearing of a man who was attacked for walking a docked dog, a dobe I believe. Two guys cut HIS ears with a knife.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

kare said:


> America still has declawing which if you truly research it is horrifically disabling for the cat. *In short they are a very backward country.*
> 
> I mentioned before hearing of a man who was attacked for walking a docked dog, a dobe I believe. Two guys cut HIS ears with a knife.


That's quite the sweeping statement  :frown2:.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Dogless said:


> That's quite the sweeping statement  :frown2:.


They don't exactly help themselves with the continued existence of awful places like SeaWorld.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Is there any justification of doing this for working breeds? 

Plenty of people have non-working dogs tails docked (so IMO for cosmetic reasons) so is this much different? Am just curious really ......


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Dogless said:


> That's quite the sweeping statement  :frown2:.


But not necessarily untrue. 

It is a country of extremes - the best of the best as well as the worst of the worst. Which semi-civilized country aside from the US could you name which permits declawing and debarking?


----------



## Canine K9 (Feb 22, 2013)

People sometimes think Bailey has cropped ears (they are naturally pointy) but I wouldn't crop a dogs ears, don't see the need


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

I think you will find that declawing and cropping is very much losing favor in this country. 
When I first got in to danes it was virtually unheard of to show a non-cropped dog, now in most rings you see half and half. I expect the number of natural eared dogs to continue to increase as the fad dies out.
And the vets who will do the procedure are becoming very few and far between. 

As for docking tails, well... Ive been tempted. Dane tails are deadly weapons and are known to regularly floor grown men as the happy dog hits them right *there* IYKWIM 
But no, you cant dock a dane, theyre too tall, theyll fall over 
On a more serious note though, happy tail is no picnic 

Oh and declawing is not all the rage here either. Its even less acceptable than cropping has become - for very good reason.
In fact there is a growing data-base of vets who refuse to declaw for those who feel strongly enough about it that they wont use a vet who performs the procedure. (Our vet is on that list )


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> Just had to leave a discussion on another forum before I get banned! I see the point of docked tails for working types and it saves persistent injury, but cropped ears, surely they're purely cosmetic, particularly on a non-working dog? An American member was defending her choice to have cropped ears on her dobes. I can't see the point and I think it's just unjustifiable.


I tend to walk away from those discussions too. 
Some people are just really OTT about it, and the increasing anti-cropping sentiment nationwide just makes them more and more defensive and it comes out in often very ugly ways IMHO.

Cherokee proverb says you cant wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.
Seems apt here


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Ive left several Cane Corso forums, face book pages and even cut ties with the breeder I foster for
why
because of the propensity at the moment for bringing in Eastern European bred dogs who are both cropped and docked purely for aesthetic reasons and/or to 'hide' poor standard conformation of the head and hind

The breeder has brought in three cropped and docked from Eastern Europe, via Italy and Spain, purely so that they have these countries on their pet passports and, so, look 'more legit' as she has been, and continues to be, very outspoken about the lack of generation 'pedigrees' and conformation of standard from the Eastern European dogs

tbh Im thinking of leaving the Cane Corso world altogether 
as even those who appear to be all about the breed improvement and striving to get it recognised by the KC, show that good breeders can breed to standard with regularity and behave like a breed society should
eventually show that, even they, are really all about the pocket and all about 'me me me'

perhaps the old saying, about empty pots, is true and I should heed that


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

labradrk said:


> I'm pro docking but can't agree with cropping at all. It is essentially plastic surgery for dogs. Physicality's and morality's aside, I think it looks fugly, which kind of defeats the purpose of giving a dog plastic surgery? evidentially some people find it an attractive look.


Pro docking on what grounds?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt 

I think the most insane comment I heard from those defending the cropping of ears on Dobermans was that 'they don't look like a Doberman' with natural ears and resemble 'hounds'. Many actually agreeing they'd never own a natural eared /tailed Dobe. I found it all very sad I must say.

Cropping ears _is_ purely cosmetic.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Pro docking on what grounds?


I'm not getting into that debate because it goes around and around. So not going there, sorry!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Just had to leave a discussion on another forum before I get banned! I see the point of docked tails for working types and it saves persistent injury, but cropped ears, surely they're purely cosmetic, particularly on a non-working dog? *An American member was defending her choice to have cropped ears on her dobes. I can't see the point and I think it's just unjustifiable*.


I think it's mutilation, however, bear in mind that there are other procedures that are accepted in the US, like removing a dog's vocal chords, that are not allowed here.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

It's becoming more and more uncommon here, i'm seeing more dogs with flopped ears and long tails more so in rotties than dobes right now. Declawing cats is becoming rare these days and so is devocalization of dogs. 

The one thing that I do know which is interesting is my vets sedate the dogs for ear cropping and use lasers, the dogs are then given pain killers. Not that I am a fan of ear cropping but most vets now do it by lasers and treat it like actual surgery rather than holding the pup still and cutting the ears like before and sadly some "breeders" do this at home despite it not being legal  :mad2:

I have heard though some of the guarding herding breeds like caucasians take their ears basically off as they get destroyed by the coyotes(or something similar, I dare say maybe wolves? or some form of wild canine) and it's done to protect them but i'm still not 100% sure on this.

My personal preference is to leave them as they were born, often this includes spaying and neutering unless for medical or major behavioural reasons


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> But not necessarily untrue.
> 
> It is a country of extremes - the best of the best as well as the worst of the worst. Which semi-civilized country aside from the US could you name which permits declawing and debarking?


I'll name that country in one-Australia. In Perth, if a dog barks and annoys and gets rported three times, you can be made to get it debarked. Unbelievable.

What pees me off is the amount of people saying 'Hey, ignore the cropped ears, this isn't the U.K.'. Oh, well that's ok then! So many people agreeing and saying how great the dogs look. On a group set up by a vet!

Glad I was distracted all evening (lost my purse between Asda and home, been phoning all my card providers to stop cards)


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> I'll name that country in one-Australia. In Perth, if a dog barks and annoys and gets rported three times, you can be made to get it debarked. Unbelievable.
> 
> What pees me off is the amount of people saying 'Hey, ignore the cropped ears, this isn't the U.K.'. Oh, well that's ok then! *So many people agreeing and saying how great the dogs look*. On a group set up by a vet!
> 
> Glad I was distracted all evening (lost my purse between Asda and home, been phoning all my card providers to stop cards)


Personally, I find cropped ears ugly and hate seeing them, same with docked tails. But out of interest, what was the vet's opinion on all this?


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> I'll name that country in one-Australia. In Perth, if a dog barks and annoys and gets rported three times, you can be made to get it debarked. Unbelievable.


Ah but dont you know, Australians are as crazy as Americans just with a more palatable accent 
And of course the Brits are the epitome of civility, nothing uncivilized about them dontchaknow. 



cinnamontoast said:


> Glad I was distracted all evening (lost my purse between Asda and home, been phoning all my card providers to stop cards)


Oh that sucks! So sorry youre dealing with that


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2014)

SpringerHusky said:


> It's becoming more and more uncommon here, i'm seeing more dogs with flopped ears and long tails more so in rotties than dobes right now. Declawing cats is becoming rare these days and so is devocalization of dogs.
> 
> The one thing that I do know which is interesting is my vets sedate the dogs for ear cropping and use lasers, the dogs are then given pain killers. Not that I am a fan of ear cropping but most vets now do it by lasers and treat it like actual surgery rather than holding the pup still and cutting the ears like before and sadly some "breeders" do this at home despite it not being legal  :mad2:
> 
> ...


Yes, cropping to protect the ear is just about lopping the whole thing off. The protective crops are super short, not the long dramatic dobe/dane crops that you have to tape for months.


----------



## Dobermutt (Jan 22, 2014)

It really is purely cosmetic & it doesn't seem that there's any real functional purpose for cropping. 

Some people might say that, dogs used/bred for guarding/protection purposes (such as the Dobermann), would benefit from cropped ears to avoid them being pulled/held onto by an attacker/intruder and the same has been said for the tail. To me, that theory is ridiculous but believe it or not, I've heard that from more than one person and they truly believed it 

I think it's just all part of the appearance - their purpose, after all, was to guard and protect and the creator really wanted a dog that looked the part and let's be honest, floppy-eared Dobes are the cutest thing ever 

Either way - I don't agree with it at all, it's inexcusable and I'm surprised cropping hasn't been banned in the States yet, especially as there's less regulations, therefore more can go wrong and leave the dog in a sorry state.  It is absolutely unnecessary and I also agree that there's no way to justify doing it. Above all, the commonly cropped breeds all look miles more beautiful with their natural floppy ears!


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

I am on the fence with this one. I do despise docking, for cosmetic reasons.

However - and this is why I am on the fence - there can be injuries to the tips of working gundogs' tails. Which are then difficult to treat and heal.

But my sensible side does come out in favour of not docking.

Ear cropping - well WTF.... We banned dog fighting in the UK around 1835, and as most dogs' eared were cropped for that reason, then there was no reason to crop from then onwards. This is actually before some UK breeds were recognised in the USA... the Manchester Terrier for one... which apparently does now get cropped in the USA because "it was traditional" in its native country. Yeah right.

There is no definitive date as to when ear cropping was banned in the UK, but by the late 1890s no cropped dogs were allowed to be shows at KC shows and that still stands.

Holland have gone one step further and banned the *ownership* of cropped dogs (imported). It's controversial, but I'd like a similar ban here. Some have said that would limit their choice of importing new blood, but as more and more countries ban ear cropping, that argument gets weaker.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Personally, I find cropped ears ugly and hate seeing them, same with docked tails. But out of interest, what was the vet's opinion on all this?


He's Australian and asleep! I think it was a UK moderator who removed the girl who said it was horrific to crop ears, saying she can't moan about what other countries allow (hello, free speech!) and the American Op then banged on about how she loves her dogs so much, she has the choice to do this to them etc. I confess I was shocked.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It's horrible and the long show crops look ridiculous especially on danes. There was someone on another forum taped their giant schnauzer's ears up for months because they just would not have a schnauzer with floppy ears. You do tend to get the, sorry ouesi, very American thing of no government can tell me what to do, this is free country, it's my dog I shall do what I want with them attitude towards it. Or the people who say they won't own a breed because they can't do it, like the breeders here who threw their toys out of the pram and stopped working with the breeds they "loved" because they could no longer dock them.


----------



## yamazumi (Sep 22, 2009)

Instagram is quite bad for this. The owner of a Doberman defended cropping his ears to me on the basis it was their own preference, much like having a preference for a certain colour or breed. I don't see my dog going under a completely unnecessary mutilation with minimal, if any, benefits, just because i don't like the way she looks.

It all started with the owner of a lovely pit (Miami area) who had her dogs ears cropped, but the vet did them too short. Anyway, she's always getting abuse about it. I was civil and did not attack her, just pointed out the issue with it and had some less than civil retaliations from American's defending their right to do as they wish to their dog. I asked why, in the case of pits, they would want their dog to resemble that of one used for less than pleasant activities, because that's why it was done initially. 

What's done is done but I constantly see these cute little puppies on Instagram with their tails gone and their ears taped up and just ask why anyone would want to do that. 

I'm against the sweeping action of docking all puppies if there is the "potential" they will go to working homes. However, I know a man with a beautiful cocker who does work him and he had the very tip taken off, he said he wanted it done to protect him but had no desire for him to lose half his tail. Another cocker who belongs to a friends Uncle has had the same done, also works her. Why do people feel to need to take off so much of the tail the dog has no real use of it? So I only agree with docking on working dogs, and as for the fact that people get whole litters done because they might work, it's difficult as I believe docking is best done as young as possible, and at such an age you don't know what that dog will be like for working, but even at 8 weeks I doubt you can truly know either, so maybe they should be more responsible about it and only dock if they know full well that dog will be worked.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Prefer the look of some dogs with cropped ears. However simple preference and the drive for looks should never be used as an excuse for cruelty so I can not approve of the practice and will not support anyone who does.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Muze said:


> It's still cruel though and IMO it's even more shocking than the occasional pit bull about, that people are cutting their ears off, presumably without proper vet care


I was not suggesting that I agreed with it when I said it was an illegal dog with illegal ears.

I am definitely not in favour of cropping but have nothing against docking because I was brought up with it and I have seen it done plenty of times with litters of pups not suffering in any way. Maybe if I had been brought up with cropping I would not be anti. Having never seen it done I have no idea - but I cant imagine it would be as painless as docking.

I would not get in a fight with someone from another country where it is normal though. After all I am sure there are cultures where dogs are never kept in cages (crates) and they would think owners here tremendously cruel whereas we think it is a good idea. And dogs that are never allowed off the lead (which I hate anyway but that is beside the point) would be thought very cruel by cultures that allow their dogs more freedom.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I have to admit i like the look of cropped ears. Having said that, i am totally against it being done.*


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I dont mind the look of a working crop but I find the show crops look awful, and make the dog look quite stupid IMO.

I cant really see a need for it nowadays but as a pro docker, I cant really get up in arms about ear cropping. I dont like it but i'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over it.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

yamazumi said:


> Instagram is quite bad for this. The owner of a Doberman defended cropping his ears to me on the basis it was their own preference, much like having a preference for a certain colour or breed. I don't see my dog going under a completely unnecessary mutilation with minimal, if any, benefits, just because i don't like the way she looks.
> 
> It all started with the owner of a lovely pit (Miami area) who had her dogs ears cropped, but the vet did them too short. Anyway, she's always getting abuse about it. I was civil and did not attack her, just pointed out the issue with it and had some less than civil retaliations from American's defending their right to do as they wish to their dog. I asked why, in the case of pits, they would want their dog to resemble that of one used for less than pleasant activities, because that's why it was done initially.
> 
> ...


The whole litter will be docked if the breeder can confirm that some of them WILL be going to working homes. Not the potential to go, but will be going.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Very weird state of affairs!! There were some cases where dogs ears were cropped for a reason and some were for cosmetic reasons. Rather like tails some for a reason others purely for appearance! It amuses me slighty that cutting off one bit of a dog is okay but another bit is not? Having a previously docked breed I can remember the outcry when the docking ban was brought in, same outcry when Northern Ireland brought it in, then when Ireland brought it in. Strange how quickly we forget that not to long ago we chopped bits off dogs usually in the home too. People here too defended it with it was their choice! Ivory towers and all that.... FYI am anti docking & cropping! No longer even like the look of my breed docked, some breeds look awful with tails and did really bad in the tail selection stakes  I love the look of Dobes and a few other breeds with cropped ears but am against it and wouldn't import a dog with cropped ears, but would not judge those that do! Hope the USA and other countries follow suit and ban docking and cropping!


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

It`s a vile practice. It is happily banned in most civilised countries.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> It`s a vile practice. It is happily banned in most civilised countries.


My collie has just been spayed, I guess the personal preference for a dog with behaviour that fits in more with my life could be seen as wrong? My daughter certainly wasnt pleased with me at getting it done, some women and men mutilate their own bodies with piercings and tattoos.
I am new to dogs, but it seems most dog trends come from the Kennel Club.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

El Cid said:


> My collie has just been spayed, I guess the personal preference for a dog with behaviour that fits in more with my life could be seen as wrong? My daughter certainly wasnt pleased with me at getting it done, some women and men mutilate their own bodies with piercings and tattoos.
> I am new to dogs, but it seems most dog trends come from the Kennel Club.


Spaying and docking are NOT the same.

You didn't have a neonate spayed to make her LOOK a certain way.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

El Cid said:


> My collie has just been spayed, I guess the personal preference for a dog with behaviour that fits in more with my life could be seen as wrong? My daughter certainly wasnt pleased with me at getting it done, some women and men mutilate their own bodies with piercings and tattoos.
> *I am new to dogs, but it seems most dog trends come from the Kennel Club.*


Ok, so the KC gets blamed for a lot of things, but ear cropping and docking!!! 

What makes you think the KC are to blame?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> He's Australian and asleep! I think it was a UK moderator who removed the girl who said it was horrific to crop ears, saying she can't moan about what other countries allow (hello, free speech!) and the American Op then banged on about how she loves her dogs so much, she has the choice to do this to them etc. I confess I was shocked.


I'm pretty sure it's banned in Australia too. And that old 'I love my dogs so anything I do to them is ok' excuse


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Very weird state of affairs!! There were some cases where dogs ears were cropped for a reason and some were for cosmetic reasons. Rather like tails some for a reason others purely for appearance! It amuses me slighty that cutting off one bit of a dog is okay but another bit is not? Having a previously docked breed I can remember the outcry when the docking ban was brought in, same outcry when Northern Ireland brought it in, then when Ireland brought it in. Strange how quickly we forget that not to long ago we chopped bits off dogs usually in the home too. People here too defended it with it was their choice! Ivory towers and all that.... FYI am anti docking & cropping! No longer even like the look of my breed docked, some breeds look awful with tails and did really bad in the tail selection stakes  I love the look of Dobes and a few other breeds with cropped ears but am against it and wouldn't import a dog with cropped ears, but would not judge those that do! Hope the USA and other countries follow suit and ban docking and cropping!


It ends up being a little more complicated than just banning the practice.

There are already fewer and fewer vets who will crop at all, for die hard show croppers that means long drives to find a vet who will crop, for others that means not getting cropped at all, and for other dogs that means getting cropped at home - which already IS illegal. Clearly illegality is not much of a deterrent for those folks.

So one sense just letting it continue to fall out of favor as the trend is showing might be better for dogs in the long run. 
I really dont know though. Ill just continue to parade my beautiful non cropped bitch around and hope her dazzling good looks inspire others to keep their danes ears natural


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> Ok, so the KC gets blamed for a lot of things, but ear cropping and docking!!!
> 
> What makes you think the KC are to blame?





cheekymonkey68 said:


> One of my friends breeds and shows Dogo Argentino in Brasil. They crop the ears. I asked him why, as they look much better with their ears and he said it's their Kennel Club standard for showing.





mrs phas said:


> dogs who are both cropped and docked purely for aesthetic reasons and/or to 'hide' poor standard conformation of the head and hind.


Perhap they are wrong? But I am just skimming this thread.


----------



## pickle (Mar 24, 2008)

El Cid said:


> My collie has just been spayed, I guess the personal preference for a dog with behaviour that fits in more with my life could be seen as wrong? My daughter certainly wasnt pleased with me at getting it done, some women and men mutilate their own bodies with piercings and tattoos.
> I am new to dogs, but it seems most dog trends come from the Kennel Club.


The KC does not start "trends" in dogs. It is a regulatory and registration body. The breed standards (is that what you mean by trends?) are developed within the breeds by the breed clubs, the KC is merely the custodian of them.

It takes many generations to "create a breed" the KC have no involvement with this, until such time as the creators want the breed recognised by the KC. (Sorry I am aware I am telling most people on here how to suck eggs!!!)


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2014)

AKC breed standards for Dogos allows cropped and natural. 
I believe that is true of all AKC breeds.

But not all cropped breeds are AKC breeds - like APBTs

And as already said, organizations like the AKC and KC don&#8217;t set the breed standard, the parent club does that.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> It ends up being a little more complicated than just banning the practice.
> 
> There are already fewer and fewer vets who will crop at all, for die hard show croppers that means long drives to find a vet who will crop, for others that means not getting cropped at all, and for other dogs that means getting cropped at home - which already IS illegal. Clearly illegality is not much of a deterrent for those folks.
> 
> ...


It's the same as docking though, people still do it no matter that it is illegal. Imported dogs rarely got placed in shows before our ban, then when the ban got put in place still found docked dogs getting placed higher, then dogs with shocking tails were placed as most judges seem to forget whole dog meant tail too, we struggled with Cian at Irish shows with Irish judges with his tail as it wasn't banned over here then. Oddly nearly 7 years down the line a tail has only just been introduced to the standard KC always been part of FCI... All that debate to take the exact standard that most FCI countries use. It will be tough going changing it because I doubt many of them who crop have any idea of their lines natural ear set, and I sure like our tails their will be some shocked people who see their lines natural ear set! It is a reason even though Europe have some outstanding dogs people won't use them.

Can hand on heart say if docking was god forbid allowed again I'd never have another docked Rottweiler!


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2014)

Meezey said:


> It's the same as docking though, people still do it no matter that it is illegal. Imported dogs rarely got placed in shows before our ban, then when the ban got put in place still found docked dogs getting placed higher, then dogs with shocking tails were placed as most judges seem to forget whole dog meant tail too, we struggled with Cian at Irish shows with Irish judges with his tail as it wasn't banned over here then. Oddly nearly 7 years down the line a tail has only just been introduced to the standard KC always been part of FCI... All that debate to take the exact standard that most FCI countries use. *It will be tough going changing it because I doubt many of them who crop have any idea of their lines natural ear set,* and I sure like our tails their will be some shocked people who see their lines natural ear set! It is a reason even though Europe have some outstanding dogs people won't use them.
> 
> Can hand on heart say if docking was god forbid allowed again I'd never have another docked Rottweiler!


Oh definitely to the bolded. That thicker ear leather that stands nicely when cropped doesnt do so well at folding over nicely. And gawd forbid you tape or weight a catywompus natural ear for a few weeks to help it fold, youre as bad as a cropper then


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> AKC breed standards for Dogos allows cropped and natural.
> I believe that is true of all AKC breeds.
> 
> But not all cropped breeds are AKC breeds - like APBTs
> ...


A UK uncropped briard took the breed last year and I've seen a natural russian black terrier do it so I assume it's possible in all of them. But some people, especially dobe people I've noticed, are so fixated on that look.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2014)

kare said:


> America still has declawing which if you truly research it is horrifically disabling for the cat. In short they are a very backward country.
> 
> *I mentioned before hearing of a man who was attacked for walking a docked dog, a dobe I believe. Two guys cut HIS ears with a knife.*


I cant really tell if youre advocating this sort of treatment or not, but I will say I just dont understand this mentality. If you hate the practice of cropping and find it barbaric, why would you attempt to remedy that by doing the same to another being? It really makes no sense to me... Speaking of being backward, an eye for an eye is IMHO a very backward mentality. Revenge and vindictiveness serves no good purpose that I can see.

A friend of mine has a cropped dane. She is a rescue, my friend took her on after she had already been cropped. Should my friend have her ears chopped off for taking on a dane who didnt have a home and happened to be cropped?


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Meezey said:


> It's the same as docking though, people still do it no matter that it is illegal. Imported dogs rarely got placed in shows before our ban, then when the ban got put in place still found docked dogs getting placed higher, then dogs with shocking tails were placed as most judges seem to forget whole dog meant tail too, we struggled with Cian at Irish shows with Irish judges with his tail as it wasn't banned over here then. Oddly nearly 7 years down the line a tail has only just been introduced to the standard KC always been part of FCI... All that debate to take the exact standard that most FCI countries use. It will be tough going changing it because I doubt many of them who crop have any idea of their lines natural ear set, and I sure like our tails their will be some shocked people who see their lines natural ear set! It is a reason even though Europe have some outstanding dogs people won't use them.
> 
> Can hand on heart say if docking was god forbid allowed again I'd never have another docked Rottweiler!


Yeah apparently if you take an australian shepherd from europe to USA for some shows he will always be faulted for having a tail  the breed standard over there states that the tail is to be no longer than 4 inches NBT or docked. If the tail is longer it gets faulted so if there were 2 identical dogs competing in the ring but one had a natural long tail and the other one was docked, the docked would win as he would meet the standard much better:glare:


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

It's a barbaric, pointless mutilation. I'm still on the fence on whether I agree with the docking of working dogs, but I dislike any cosmetic mutilations being performed on animals.

In my opinion if you can't love a breed in its natural state, you can't really call yourself a lover of that breed. Saw a USA Dobe owner on an all breed FB group call UK Dobes "hound-eared curly tailed monstrosities". Makes me wonder how many people who crop have chosen their breed based on looks over temperament...
I don't think the same about people who rehome or rescue cropped dogs, btw. 

Pro-croppers talk about wanting freedom of choice to crop if they want to; what about what the dog wants? I wouldn't want to have my ears cut up and then taped above my head for 6 months!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

It's bloody cruel, and where the breed has comparatively long, soft ears, it isn't just a matter of snipping them off and then they stand upright - breeds such as danes and dobermans have to have their ears rolled and splinted - the ear has to be rolled and bandaged around a tube and splinted upright - until the cartilage has hardened. This takes something like 6-8 weeks, from what I remember, and the dressings have to be changed and re-applied every day, and the ears kept clean to stop infection setting in. It is a long and painful process, and it carried out purely for reasons of sheer stupidity.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

El Cid said:


> My collie has just been spayed, I guess the personal preference for a dog with behaviour that fits in more with my life could be seen as wrong? My daughter certainly wasnt pleased with me at getting it done, some women and men mutilate their own bodies with piercings and tattoos.
> I am new to dogs, but it seems most dog trends come from the Kennel Club.


Totally different: would you rather risk a pyo? As said already, the breed clubs decide the standard, not the KC. Perhaps you should do a bit of research.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I am a member on American Doberman forum. Most on there were pro-cropping last time I visited. Those who showed their dogs said it was much harder for uncropped dogs to do to well in the ring as most judges prefer the cropped ear  The only way to stop dogs suffering is an outright ban.

I found this excellent article on the subject > https://www.animallaw.info/article/...-and-role-law-preventing-unnecessary-cosmetic

_ Anti-cruelty statutes must be changed to specifically include cosmetic ear cropping and tail docking. Because laws generally reflect societal attitudes, current anti-cruelty statutes have no "teeth," where ear cropping and tail docking are concerned. The practice must be removed from the mainstream and popular culture in order to affect change. Animal rights activists have been successful in the past, as in anti-fur campaigns, and there is every reason to believe that American society is ready to accept this change.

First, the most influential group, the American Veterinary Medical Association must take a stand against cosmetic cropping and docking. In addition, animal rights groups such as the Humane Society must make this issue a priority to bring about public awareness. Finally, the AKC and other breed-specific organizations must change breed-standards in favor or natural ears and tails, but also disqualify "competitors" with cropped ears or docked tails. Federal and State Congresspersons with animal rights interests must continue to introduce bills that would prohibit cropping and docking.

Until social changes occur, however, it is possible to make progress under existing laws. Even if courts are reluctant to create policy, or engage in what they may feel is judicial activism, courts can uphold cruelty convictions under existing statutes. First, as in Hammer or Elisea , the courts may construe terms (such as maim, mutilate, or torture) to include ear cropping and tail docking. Moreover, if a particular statute contains a "justification" clause, courts may hold that "breed standards" are not justification for mutilation of dogs
_



cbcdesign said:


> They don't exactly help themselves with the continued existence of awful places like SeaWorld.


The USA lags way behind most western countries when it comes to animal welfare - even India, a developing nation, is more progressive than the US on animal welfare policies.

Thanks to the backlash that seaworld have received after the Blackfish documentary was released though - attitudes are changing towards Seaworld. And the unrelenting, mass campaigning is now having an affect on SeaWorld profits.

Campaigning is the only way to force change on most issues - including mutilation of dogs. So lets hope enough people protest against this cruel act until it is unacceptable & outlawed.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

JRTs were always docked.......I still find it odd to see one with a tail but now you don't see them docked any more cos its illegal.

I have only ever seen 1 ear cropped dog which was a Great Dane imported from USA. Probably cos it was unusual, but having cropped ears drew a lot of attention to this dog...which had been imported as part of a breeding programme.

We had JRTs about the place years ago to keep vermin down and they were always docked cos it was before the time it was illegal......so I am neither for nor against docking. have seen it done on a couple of litters of JRTs with no on going problems.

I saw a vet taking back dew claws off day old Great dane puppies....and was told by the breeder this had to be done to ensure the pups could possibly go on to showing homes and also cos back dew claws can cause problems in older dogs getting ripped off etc.....don't know if its true or not.

I don't like the look of ear cropping at all and can only imagine how painful it must be and messing about for weeks taping a pups ears....no thanx, not for me.

I used to have a rottie with a docked tail so it still seems strange to me to see one with a tail.....but it would be just as strange to me to see a dane docked as a rottie not docked.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> JRTs were always docked.......I still find it odd to see one with a tail but now you don't see them docked any more cos its illegal.
> 
> I have only ever seen 1 ear cropped dog which was a Great Dane imported from USA. Probably cos it was unusual, but having cropped ears drew a lot of attention to this dog...which had been imported as part of a breeding programme.
> 
> ...


Rear dew claws are considered a fault in some breeds hence their removal for dogs who would be shown! Was suprised when the docking ban was brought in to Ireland that they also banned the removal or rear dew claws too.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I am a member on American Doberman forum. Most on there were pro-cropping last time I visited. Those who showed their dogs said it was much harder for uncropped dogs to do to well in the ring as most judges prefer the cropped ear  The only way to stop dogs suffering is an outright ban.
> 
> I found this excellent article on the subject > https://www.animallaw.info/article/...-and-role-law-preventing-unnecessary-cosmetic
> 
> ...


The article youre citing is over 10 years old and a little disingenuous as far as the AVMA goes.
The AVMA already has a very clear stance against cropping and docking:
_"The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards._
AVMA has been vocally anti-cropping and docking since 1976:
_"the American Veterinary Medical Association recommend to the American Kennel Club and appropriate breed associations that action be taken to delete mention of cropped or trimmed ears from breed standards for dogs and to prohibit the showing of dogs with cropped or trimmed ears if such animals were born after some reasonable future date."_


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Uncropped ears are mentioned as preffered in the AKC AmStaff standard.

https://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/breed_standard.cfm


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Totally different: would you rather risk a pyo? As said already, *the breed clubs decide the standard, not the KC*. Perhaps you should do a bit of research.


Hmmm.

Not entirely sure that is entirely accurate, either. The KC isn't JUST a breed registry. It is a regulatory body also. If there WERE just a breed registry they wouldn't have the ABS, they wouldn't stipulate how many litters can be registered from one bitch, etc, etc.

Full disclosure - I am NOT a fan of the KC. The damage to dogs under their supposed stewardship and in the name of preserving "breed integrity" is beyond the pale.

If that organsiation had an ounce, a molecule, of integrity they would have simply not have allowed a cropped or docked dog to be placed in the showring. Simple as that.

Cropped ears were always a pointless mutilation. Docked tails on hunting dogs made at least SOME sort of sense prior to the advent of easily available, efficacious antibiotics and competent veterinary care. There is no excuse for them now. It is NOT necessary to cut a puppy's tail off.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> JRTs were always docked.......I still find it odd to see one with a tail but now you don't see them docked any more cos its illegal.
> 
> I have only ever seen 1 ear cropped dog which was a Great Dane imported from USA. Probably cos it was unusual, but having cropped ears drew a lot of attention to this dog...which had been imported as part of a breeding programme.
> 
> ...


I think front dews should be done, certainly, having seen an adult dog get one caught and almost ripped off - I will never forget the scream!. I didn't know dogs had back dews - hang on (_*checks dogs*_). My westie hasn't - is it particular breeds or do they get taken off as standard.

I do think dew claws are a slightly different matter, because if caught they can cause a horrible injury, but at the same time it is like cutting a baby's thumb off - and I can only imagine the distress of the mother dog, getting her crying puppies back all bloody and hurt. Really don't know which side of the fence I'm on here. It they used anaesthetic I suppose it is a good thing, but do they? A lot of these procedures are carried out 'au naturelle", as I understand it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Docked tails on hunting dogs made at least SOME sort of sense prior to the advent of easily available, efficacious antibiotics and competent veterinary care. There is no excuse for them now. It is NOT necessary to cut a puppy's tail off.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever dealt with a persistent tail injury? Have you ever had to have an adult dogs tail amputated?

Im not asking as a pro-docking statement, just wondering if maybe you know something about tail injuries that the rest of us who have dealt with them dont. 
IME, they can be real boogers to heal even with the most diligent care, the most competent vet, and the best modern medicines.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Not entirely sure that is entirely accurate, either. The KC isn't JUST a breed registry. It is a regulatory body also. If there WERE just a breed registry they wouldn't have the ABS, they wouldn't stipulate how many litters can be registered from one bitch, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


The breed clubs define the standard, the KC don't. In the event of a new breed being added, they will use the existing standard from the breeds country if origin, as they did with my breed. They do have the ability to modify standards, which they negotiate with the breed clubs.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2014)

lostbear said:


> I think front dews should be done, certainly, having seen an adult dog get one caught and almost ripped off - I will never forget the scream!. I didn't know dogs had back dews - hang on (_*checks dogs*_). My westie hasn't - is it particular breeds or do they get taken off as standard.
> 
> I do think dew claws are a slightly different matter, because if caught they can cause a horrible injury, but at the same time it is like cutting a baby's thumb off - and I can only imagine the distress of the mother dog, getting her crying puppies back all bloody and hurt. Really don't know which side of the fence I'm on here. It they used anaesthetic I suppose it is a good thing, but do they? A lot of these procedures are carried out 'au naturelle", as I understand it.


Im on the fence on dew claws. I had a dog get very seriously injured ripping on off, it was near a vein and he lost a lot of blood. It was awful.

However, now looking at more recent research, I see how much dogs do actually use their front dew claws, so Im kind of torn on the whole thing... (LOL @ the pun.)

I think I would always remove the dangly type dew claws that dont seem to be attached to anything internally - the rear ones can be like that. But the front ones that you can feel attach to the leg, IDK anymore.... My current two both have dew claws that they routinely injure, but they are totally attached so taking them off is not an option in my mind.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Not entirely sure that is entirely accurate, either. The KC isn't JUST a breed registry. It is a regulatory body also. If there WERE just a breed registry they wouldn't have the ABS, they wouldn't stipulate how many litters can be registered from one bitch, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah KC broke our pedigree dogs. ... Short and sweet response? BS...

Ummmm no cropped breeds are allowed at KC shows since well forever! Docked breeds also can't be shown at most?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Blah blah blah KC broke our pedigree dogs. ... Short and sweet response? BS...
> 
> Ummmm no cropped breeds are allowed at KC shows since well forever! Docked breeds also can't be shown at most?


Oh dear..are you messing things up with those silly facts and truths again Meezy???

Lets just face it and admit that the KC are the reason for everything wrong with our dogs..not the people breeding them to the extreme, not the judges for rewarding extreme dogs, not the people that want to chop bits off their animals...nup, that are completely faultless....Bit like the DVLA are at fault for all the crappy drivers out on the roads


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Not entirely sure that is entirely accurate, either.
> 
> ...


It good to have strong opinions but better if they are based on fact, otherwise they appear foolish.

Oh, and as for disclosure - I am no fan of the KC either, nor am I a fan of showing and the exaggerations that have crept into some breeds, however, I am far more aware of the facts than you seem to be and it is not as you seem to think.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I've never understood the point to the argument about dog's injuring their tails as adults, so therefore it's best to dock them anyway. Don't get me wrong, IF tail injuries are a recurring theme throughout the adult dog's life than by all means, as a way of treating the issue, docking is a given. But as a preventative measure, I see it as rather dramatic. There are so many injuries our dogs could sustain. For example, there are many dogs who suffer recurring ear haematoma's that when the dog shakes it's head, burst, spraying blood everywhere and causing huge discomfort to the dog. But yet, understandably, no one suggests amputating the ear to prevent such issues. 

Tyler has a very long, thin, whip like tail. I can attest to just how painful that is when it whips you across the shins! But yet, he's never had a tail injury, despite knocking it against pretty much all sorts over the years. However, I DO recognize how long tail injuries can be to treat, and they can be extremely persistent too.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> It good to have strong opinions but better if they are based on fact, otherwise they appear foolish.
> 
> Oh, and as for disclosure - I am no fan of the KC either, nor am I a fan of showing and the exaggerations that have crept into some breeds, however, I am far more aware of the facts than you seem to be and it is not as you seem to think.


rocco33, I would greatly appreciate it if you could formulate a reply that it at least notionally conforms to civilized human interaction between adults. Whether or not you agree with the actual content - and I fully respect the fact that you disagree.

Do you think this is feasible?

However incorrect you feel my premise is, are you able to convey your opinion less dismissively and obnoxiously? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> I've never understood the point to the argument about dog's injuring their tails as adults, so therefore it's best to dock them anyway. Don't get me wrong, IF tail injuries are a recurring theme throughout the adult dog's life than by all means, as a way of treating the issue, docking is a given. But as a preventative measure, I see it as rather dramatic. There are so many injuries our dogs could sustain. For example, there are many dogs who suffer recurring ear haematoma's that when the dog shakes it's head, burst, spraying blood everywhere and causing huge discomfort to the dog. But yet, understandably, no one suggests amputating the ear to prevent such issues.
> 
> Tyler has a very long, thin, whip like tail. I can attest to just how painful that is when it whips you across the shins! But yet, he's never had a tail injury, despite knocking it against pretty much all sorts over the years. However, I DO recognize how long tail injuries can be to treat, and they can be extremely persistent too.


I think its weighing the risk of injury against the hardship to the dog of recovering from an amputation vs. a docking as a puppy.

From what I can tell, docking is minimally bothersome to a puppy and easy to recover from (not saying it is not painful), whereas amputation of an adult dog is much more painful and the recovery is far more difficult. 
Im not saying this justifies docking BTW, just saying where the reasoning comes from.

Id like to know what percentage of working dogs with full tails get them injured. If every single full tailed working dog ends up with an injury, then thats a completely different story than one in 100 will end up with an injured tail.

Its kind of like neutering I guess. For the average pet owner Im going to recommend neutering because of how high the odds of that dog not being properly managed and contributing to the pet overpopulation crisis. However, that doesnt mean I think all dogs should be neutered. IOW, its a complicated issue


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Just out of curiosity, have you ever dealt with a persistent tail injury? Have you ever had to have an adult dogs tail amputated?
> 
> Im not asking as a pro-docking statement, just wondering if maybe you know something about tail injuries that the rest of us who have dealt with them dont.
> IME, they can be real boogers to heal even with the most diligent care, the most competent vet, and the best modern medicines.


Yes.

2 x personally, 1 x a friend. Dogs were 1x Labrador, 1x Bernese and 1 Border Collie cross. Rufus ( BC cross) had to have 4 " amputated, the others were injuries ( hard tail thumping with the Lab, getting caught on something in the forest on the Bernese).

It is true that tail injuries are tricky. But so are cruciate tears, ear haematomas, skin issues,mgut issues and a whole bunch of other things.

NOTHING justifies docking a tail as a prophylactic measure to counteract something which may never happen. Nothing.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *I have to admit i like the look of cropped ears. Having said that, i am totally against it being done.*


I like the look of a Briard with cropped ears, but I agree it's totaly wrong.

Appearance of the Briard


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I got my rottie many years ago aged 5 months from a showing home. When she came to us, she was docked and dew claws removed by a vet or so I was told.Don't know if she had back ones or not, didn't think at the time to ask.

She had a small stump of a front dew claw left that I thought would just shrivel and go away. It didn't but wasn't too much of a problem until she got to about 18 months old and she kept catching it or scratching us with it cos it stuck out at 90degrees and so did become a problem.It did seem attached to the bone though by this time but hadn't seemed to when she was much younger.

When I went to have her spayed, vet mentioned this dew claw and said it would be better coming off so we had it done at the same time so only 1 GA.

She recovered from spaying within a day or so but this now removed dew claw was very painful and I ended up back at the vets for more painkillers for her.

Jury is out re removal of dew claws....wouldn't want to have to have another dog in so much pain as the rottie was when hers was done.

Cropped ears don't do anything for me....don't have a problem with tail docking on certain breeds.

I was told that docking terriers was more of a safety issue re vermin control and mainly ratting.Don't really know about dogs used for other hunting.

My saluki x greyhound was bred for hunting deer....can't see a deer ever grabbing her by the tail.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Just out of curiosity, have you ever dealt with a persistent tail injury? Have you ever had to have an adult dog's tail amputated?
> 
> I'm not asking as a pro-docking statement, just wondering if maybe you know something about tail injuries that the rest of us who have dealt with them don't.
> IME, they can be real boogers to heal even with the most diligent care, the most competent vet, and the best modern medicines.


A girl I used to meet on walks had her dalmation's tail shortened (on vetinary advice) because he kept wagging it again walls and furniture, and splitting it at the end. Apparently there was blood all over her walls before she had his tail shortened, because it never got a chance to heal properly before he wagged and split it again.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> rocco33, I would greatly appreciate it if you could formulate a reply that it at least notionally conforms to civilized human interaction between adults. Whether or not you agree with the actual content - and I fully respect the fact that you disagree.
> 
> Do you think this is feasible?
> 
> However incorrect you feel my premise is, are you able to convey your opinion less dismissively and obnoxiously? Thanks in advance.


mmmm..... the words pot, kettle and black spring to mind 

but who knows, maybe one day I will try - stranger things have happened


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> I got my rottie many years ago aged 5 months from a showing home. When she came to us, she was docked and dew claws removed by a vet or so I was told.Don't know if she had back ones or not, didn't think at the time to ask.
> 
> She had a small stump of a front dew claw left that I thought would just shrivel and go away. It didn't but wasn't too much of a problem until she got to about 18 months old and she kept catching it or scratching us with it cos it stuck out at 90degrees and so did become a problem.It did seem attached to the bone though by this time but hadn't seemed to when she was much younger.
> 
> ...


None of my Rottweiler's have been born with rear dew claws, they all had front dew claws as do most breeds! I do not agree with rear dew claw removal for cosmetic reasons. Front dew claws tend not to be removed at birth and neither should they, millions upon millions of dogs get through life without an issue, no reason to remove a dew claw unless there is a problem with it.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

I think the docking issue really depends on the dog to some extent and certainly on the life of the dog. 

I saw a Springer a month or so ago with a tail and he was forever damaging it squeezing under brambles and the odd fence. He wasn't a working dog but his sheer nosiness caused constant trauma to his tail. His owner had not had him docked as a pup as he wasn't a working dog but its causing a lot of problems. Is that really good for the animals welfare? I don't think it is to be honest.

Like many things with dogs, its not a straight forward issue in all cases.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> mmmm..... the words pot, kettle and black spring to mind
> 
> but who knows, maybe one day I will try - stranger things have happened


Go on - be daring. Try it, you might like it 

Give it a whirl. Say "TOTALLY have to disagree with you here, and here are the 1000 reasons why"

It won't hurt or anything. Honest.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> I think the docking issue really depends on the dog to some extent and certainly on the life of the dog.
> 
> I saw a Springer a month or so ago with a tail and he was forever damaging it squeezing under brambles and the odd fence. He wasn't a working dog but his sheer nosiness caused constant trauma to his tail. His owner had not had him docked as a pup as he wasn't a working dog but its causing a lot of problems. Is that really good for the animals welfare? I don't think it is to be honest.
> 
> Like many things with dogs, its not a straight forward issue in all cases.


But the same can be said for any breed? There is a Rottweiler in Fife Rescue who has had his tail amputated due to on going trauma to the tail! Also had a GSD who had a tail amputation?Didn't we have a member on here who's dog ate its own tail due to on going trauma! So should we allow all breeds to be docked just in case? This is why I am still against certain breeds being docked when others aren't! I should start a petition to get Rottweiler's docked again( over my dead body) as their tails are a danger to themselves and others! For every working dog who suffers with tail trauma I know you would be able to find a pet dog not one of the docked working breeds with tail trauma! That argument doesn't stand for me until someone does some independent research in to working and non work dogs and all different breeds to give us proper stats!! Until then there is no justification for docking!


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2014)

lostbear said:


> A girl I used to meet on walks had her dalmation's tail shortened (on vetinary advice) because he kept wagging it again walls and furniture, and splitting it at the end. Apparently there was blood all over her walls before she had his tail shortened, because it never got a chance to heal properly before he wagged and split it again.


This is why I say its more complicated than just there is no excuse.

My personal beef is not with the procedures themselves so much as with the reasoning - or more accurately lack there of that is used to justify the procedures. 
Equally, there is an alarming lack of reasoning that happens on the anti side as well as we have seen on some posts here.

People get all dramatic over these issues without really understanding the procedure or taking the time to have a genuine conversation with someone who chooses to do this to their dog. Im not a fan of docking, but I can sit down and have a reasonable chat with a breeder who docks - about docking, without calling them a sadistic puppy mutilator.
The reality is much more mundane. This person probably cares deeply about their dogs, and doesnt want the dog to go through the pain and discomfort of a tail injury with the months of wrapping and taping and amputations only to have to go back and have more taken off and all the hardships that dealing with a tail injury can include.

The truth is we all do all sorts of things to our dogs all the time that can be viewed as painful, unnecessary, and just plain weird. 
A few months ago OH and I restrained one of our dogs and clipped a bleeding dew claw that had a huge chunk of quick exposed. We cut the exposed quick off. I know it had to hurt like hell, and I hated doing it, but the way I figured it, she was better off with one quick moment of a painful cut than days of an exposed quick slowly dying off and possibly getting infected.

So while Im not a fan of cropping, docking, and all sorts of other accepted things people do to their dogs all the time, Im not going to hop on to my high horse any time soon over any of it. Seek to understand first n all that....


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> But the same can be said for any breed? There is a Rottweiler in Fife Rescue who has had his tail amputated due to on going trauma to the tail! Also had a GSD who had a tail amputation?Didn't we have a member on here who's dog ate its own tail due to on going trauma! So should we allow all breeds to be docked just in case? This is why I am still against certain breeds being docked when others aren't! I should start a petition to get Rottweiler's docked again( over my dead body) as their tails are a danger to themselves and others! For every working dog who suffers with tail trauma I know you would be able to find a pet dog not one of the docked working breeds with tail trauma! That argument doesn't stand for me until someone does some independent research in to working and non work dogs and all different breeds to give us proper stats!! Until then there is no justification for docking!


I see your point and yes, I tend to agree that breed specific docking simply for the sake of it is not justified!

I guess it depends on what you think your Dog is likely to be doing in its everyday life though as far as the procedure itself is concerned. A dog you know will be out working its way through brush, brambles and fences retrieving game is better off being docked I would say.

The owner of the Springer allowed her dog to do just, although it was exploring rather than retrieving game. It was though still subjecting its tail to regular trauma as a result which would not have been an issue if it was docked. Of course there is an argument that says perhaps she should be more careful where she allows her dog to explore too.


----------



## kare (Sep 8, 2014)

Dewclaw removal is not a good thing in many cases. I have working lines retrievers who use their claws frequently for climbing banks and especially exiting rivers. I would hazard to say their day to day activity is aided by their dew claws.

I am not a fan of docking. The shorter the cut the more I am repulsed by it. I have personal reasons though, I am phobic of amputation of anything, the look of an amputated tail causes me anxiety, I could never face touching such a tail.

There was a report of a period of one years tail injuries in Denmark or somewhere who lead the way in banning docking. I recall the injuries reported were majority in non traditionally docked breeds, with sight hounds way in front, and if the breeds that would have been docked which there were very few, one at least was on the stump of a docked dog...so it is not 100% safety guarantee anyway.

I never understood those docked and those not. Why spaniels, but not say a toller. Why a HPR but not a lab?

I also don't understand why remove a not unattractive tail so short as to leave the anus on full view. Why would anyone want to look at anus?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

lostbear said:


> I think front dews should be done, certainly, having seen an adult dog get one caught and almost ripped off - I will never forget the scream!. I didn't know dogs had back dews - hang on (_*checks dogs*_). My westie hasn't - is it particular breeds or do they get taken off as standard.
> 
> I do think dew claws are a slightly different matter, because if caught they can cause a horrible injury, but at the same time it is like cutting a baby's thumb off - and I can only imagine the distress of the mother dog, getting her crying puppies back all bloody and hurt. Really don't know which side of the fence I'm on here. It they used anaesthetic I suppose it is a good thing, but do they? A lot of these procedures are carried out 'au naturelle", as I understand it.


Back dew claws are normally only attached by skin and they can so easily get damaged as they do not sit flush with the leg so I do think they should be removed.
Front ones I am torn over . I really hate the poodles having them as it makes clipping the feet quite difficult. I had a litter of standard poodles and I did get the dew claws off but vets nowadays (this was about 16 years ago) are not used to doing it and messed up so a lot of them grew back in some form or other and it was worse than having them there in the first place.
They really did not show real signs of distress with it though.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

kare said:


> Dewclaw removal is not a good thing in many cases. I have working lines retrievers who use their claws frequently for climbing banks and especially exiting rivers. I would hazard to say their day to day activity is aided by their dew claws.
> 
> I am not a fan of docking. The shorter the cut the more I am repulsed by it. I have personal reasons though, I am phobic of amputation of anything, the look of an amputated tail causes me anxiety, I could never face touching such a tail.
> 
> ...


Because the likes of Labs work entirely differently to Spaniels and HPR's. When you watch a Spaniel or HPR pushing through cover hunting with tail wagging a mile a minute you'll see why.....Labs are used primarily for picking up (retrieval).


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

kare said:


> There was a report of a period of one years tail injuries in Denmark or somewhere who lead the way in banning docking. I recall the injuries reported were majority in non traditionally docked breeds, with sight hounds way in front, and if the breeds that would have been docked which there were very few, one at least was on the stump of a docked dog...so it is not 100% safety guarantee anyway.
> 
> I never understood those docked and those not. Why spaniels, but not say a toller. *Why a HPR but not a lab?*


*
*

Exactly. Thank you.

Why a working Springer or Cocker Spaniel but NOT an English/ Irish/Gordon Setter? Why a German Pointer but not a working Retriever or Muensterlaender?

Either way one looks at it, it is non-sensical. Why cut the tail off some dogs working in the SAME environment, but not the others? Since there is no plausible explanation that a tail injury on a Setter heals any faster than on a Spaniel.

My main bone of contention with it is the gargantuan hypocrisy surrounding it. Docking a tail on a working dog running through thicket and brush made sense a 100 years ago. If the dog injured his tail, it was out for the shooting season and if the wound got infected and spread to the spinal cord, the dog was out, fullstop. Out as in "dead". These dogs were not pets, antibiotics and routine veterinary were not readily availabe the dog HAD to be fit for their intended purpose.

But we are not living a hundred years ago. There is NO justifiable rationale for it NOW.

I actually have no issue with people who prefer a docked tail because a certain breed looks "wrong" to them. I don't share or support their stance but I can respect it. Because at least it is honest and shows some backbone of the person.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> [/B]
> 
> Exactly. Thank you.
> 
> ...


Actually environment can and does differ quite dramatically depending on the game being hunted.

The breeds you've mentioned also work in entirely different ways. Why would we have various gundog breeds if they all perform an identical function? because they don't. Comparing working Cockers/Springers to Setters is like apples and oranges, likewise with the GSP and the Retriever. The functionality and mindset of these breeds are not alike in any way.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Back dew claws are normally only attached by skin and they can so easily get damaged as they do not sit flush with the leg so I do think they should be removed.
> Front ones I am torn over . I really hate the poodles having them as it makes clipping the feet quite difficult. I had a litter of standard poodles and I did get the dew claws off but vets nowadays (this was about 16 years ago) are not used to doing it and messed up so a lot of them grew back in some form or other and it was worse than having them there in the first place.
> They really did not show real signs of distress with it though.


I think this is what happened to my Rottie years ago and then the offending front dew claw did become a problem whereas if they had been left well alone, would probably not have caused any trouble.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

labradrk said:


> Actually environment can and does differ quite dramatically depending on the game being hunted.
> 
> The breeds you've mentioned also work in entirely different ways. Why would we have various gundog breeds if they all perform an identical function? because they don't. Comparing working Cockers/Springers to Setters is like apples and oranges, likewise with the GSP and the Retriever. The functionality and mindset of these breeds are not alike in any way.




My family hunts and fishes and shoots. Both here and abroad. This isn't about terrain or breed specifics.

This is about whether there is a valid rationale in cutting off a hunting dog's tail - or ANY dog's tail - as a prophylactic measure to prevent injury.

IMO, there is not. Regardless of breed. Ask my SIL and she will give you a different answer. We both believe we are right. She will never have an ESS without a docked tail and I will never again have one with one. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and petition for what you believe in and stand for.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2014)

kare said:


> Dewclaw removal is not a good thing in many cases. I have working lines retrievers who use their claws frequently for climbing banks and especially exiting rivers. I would hazard to say their day to day activity is aided by their dew claws.
> 
> I am not a fan of docking. The shorter the cut the more I am repulsed by it. I have personal reasons though, I am phobic of amputation of anything, the look of an amputated tail causes me anxiety, I could never face touching such a tail.
> 
> ...


Whatever reasons we present for or against docking, surely they should be based on what is best for the dog, not what is at the pleasure of human aesthetics?

Many breeds naturally hold their tails high so with or without docking their anus would be in full view. Capricious human needs to not see a dog anus (though one assumes you handle what comes out of that anus as a responsible dog owner), is not a valid argument against docking any more than saying I just like how it looks is a valid argument for docking.

This is what I mean seeking to understand and gain knowledge before jumping to harsh judgements.

I may not like that working dogs are docked, but I respect that the reason for it is based on the welfare of the dog. 
I may not like dewclaw removal, but I respect that the reasoning is based on the dogs welfare. 
I may not like castration, but I have respect for the reasoning behind it as a means of preventing adding to the dog overpopulation crisis.

What kind of reasoning is it to say I dont like looking at dog anuses? Where is dog welfare in that kind of statement?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Munsterlanders are often docked with the thinnest part of the tail taken off. Although this is less frequent now the ban has come in. I thought setters, although they do a similar job, worked in different terrain to most of the german dogs?

Docking is a much slower recovery in an adult dog than a puppy. If the puppies are intended for a life working where they could damage their tails then I can see why it's done.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Munsterlanders are often docked with the thinnest part of the tail taken off. Although this is less frequent now the ban has come in. I thought setters, although they do a similar job, worked in different terrain to most of the german dogs?
> 
> Docking is a much slower recovery in an adult dog than a puppy. If the puppies are intended for a life working where they could damage their tails then I can see why it's done.


But is there any research to show that a say working springer has a higher chance of tail damage than a pet springer who spends 2/3 walks a day 7 days a week crashing in and out of the same environment in play as the working springer?

Or a dog who manages to hit walls and furniture rupturing it's tail?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

labradrk said:


> Because the likes of Labs work entirely differently to Spaniels and HPR's. When you watch a Spaniel or HPR pushing through cover hunting with tail wagging a mile a minute you'll see why.....Labs are used primarily for picking up (retrieval).


My Missy regularly runs through thick overgrowth, tail held high....no injuries here. In that respect she's doing nothing different to the Spaniels.



Meezey said:


> But is there any research to show that a say working springer has a higher chance of tail damage than a pet springer who spends 2/3 walks a day 7 days a week crashing in and out of the same environment in play as the working springer?
> 
> Or a dog who manages to hit walls and furniture rupturing it's tail?


I would love to see some study and evidence of injuries to working dogs to that of pets alone. I would like to see whether there is indeed a very real need to dock working dogs, or whether it's actually ( as I suspect ) a rare occurrence on the whole, when viewing the bigger picture. Until such evidence is presented, I'm with you, and find it unjustifiable.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> Docking is a much slower recovery in an adult dog than a puppy. If the puppies are intended for a life working where they could damage their tails then I can see why it's done.


Except...the stats I've seen (I can't find them now) are that 50% of working dogs injure their tails, and I don't even know how many of those were serious or ongoing. So 50% don't anyway and that doesn't include any sold as pets after being docked (because obviously at the age it's done nobody knows which ones will end up in pet homes) or any that are supposed to be workers and fail at it.

Also, while people say puppies recover quicker...anecdotally there are Rottie breeders who say that they noticed a significant weight difference between docked and undocked puppies, that docked puppies don't grow as quickly.

If it is 50% of dogs that actually work, I don't think docking whole litters instead of just injured dogs is justified tbh.


----------



## kare (Sep 8, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Whatever reasons we present for or against docking, surely they should be based on what is best for the dog, not what is at the pleasure of human aesthetics?
> 
> Many breeds naturally hold their tails high so with or without docking their anus would be in full view. Capricious human needs to not see a dog anus (though one assumes you handle what comes out of that anus as a responsible dog owner), is not a valid argument against docking any more than saying I just like how it looks is a valid argument for docking.
> 
> ...


What a ridiculous thing to say. No welfare is served by cutting off a rottie tail. They are commonly held in those I have seen a sickle shape. Often covering its butt with the lower end of the curve.

You cut it off for aesthetics and I wonder who finds beauty in an anus. If you do, shout up.

You seriously make so little sense saying that not cutting off part of a dog because how it was born looks better than I can make it look is the same coin as cutting and chopping it because I brought a dog I don't like the look of undoctored


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Interesting (and readable) study on tail docking of working dogs in Scotland: http://theses.gla.ac.uk/5629/1/2014lederermvm.pdf


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Found them...

This is the bit that bothers me 'To prevent one tail injury in one shooting season, between two and 18 spaniels or HPRs would need to be docked as puppies.'

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/early/2014/03/27/vr.102041

and 'To prevent one tail amputation in spaniels, 320 spaniel puppies would need to be docked.'

The prevalence of tail injuries in working and non-working breed dogs visiting veterinary practices in Scotland -- Cameron et al. -- Veterinary Record


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

And this one cited here

Bristol University | News | 2010: Department of Clinical Veterinary Science

And here

Study helps clarify tail injuries in dogs

States that:

"
Key findings from the report include:

*Tail injuries requiring veterinary treatment were rare (prevalence of tail injuries was 0.23 per cent, one in 435 dogs*).
English Springer Spaniels, Cocker Spaniels, Greyhounds, Lurchers and Whippets were at significantly higher risk when compared with Labradors and other Retrievers.
The study, also found that, as expected, dogs with docked tails are significantly less likely to receive an injury. *Essentially, approximately 500 dogs (unadjusted for breed) would need to be docked in order to prevent one tail injury.*

Professor Sheila Crispin, co-investigator, from the University of Bristols Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, commented: While it is obvious that injury to the tail is impossible if the tail has been removed, the dog may have also lost an important means of balance and communication.

We can all trade research and published papers all day long. I can cite studies from Sweden and all over the place. And at the end of it it boils down to this - is is morally and medically justifiable to cut off the tail of a newborn dog? Do the advantages - if they exist - outweigh the fact that the animal is entitled to maintain full integrity of all his body parts?

And lastly, when its all said and done....could YOU do it? Could you amputate the tails of a pup and hear it squeal for the remainder of the day? Because I am prepared to bet that ANYONE saying that it isn't painful never actually witnessed it.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kare said:


> What a ridiculous thing to say. No welfare is served by cutting off a rottie tail. They are commonly held in those I have seen a sickle shape. Often covering its butt with the lower end of the curve.
> 
> You cut it off for aesthetics and I wonder who finds beauty in an anus. If you do, shout up.
> 
> You seriously make so little sense saying that not cutting off part of a dog because how it was born looks better than I can make it look is the same coin as cutting and chopping it because I brought a dog I don't like the look of undoctored


Not sure what commonly held means? Not a term I know in relation to tail carriage?

I actually used to love the Rottweiler's bum before the docking ban came in, ask most owners and they will tell you the same...m I can tell you from vast experience even with tails if you are stood behind a Rottweiler it will be winking at you......oh and FYI you have utterly missed the point of Ouesi's post


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Regarding the statistic of 1 in 435 dogs suffering tail injury, what does that mean? Is that 1 in 435 dogs including ordinary household pets or 1 in 435 working dogs? Have I missed something or it the statistic not that clearly defined?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

"Undocked spaniels and hunt point retrievers (HPRs) were at greatest risk of tail injury with 56.6 per cent of undocked spaniels and 38.5 per cent of undocked HPRs sustaining at least one tail injury during the season!"

I guess the 1 in 435 is across all spectrums including non working household pets since the above was specifically for working dogs.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I think that the potential view of an anus is not even on the list for reasons why dogs should not be routinely docked.
I'm sorry but that just lowers the level of the debate...if you (general you) are that worried about seeing a bum then I suggest that animals are not for you (again general)!
If you have a pet, or have any dealings with animals then inevitably you WILL see a bum several times throughout their lives :shocked:




FWIW I loves tails, I do understand the need for docking certain dogs tho.
Having grown up with docked JR's (working dogs) I get both sides of the 'camp' I guess.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> I think that the potential view of an anus is not even on the list for reasons why dogs should not be routinely docked.
> I'm sorry but that just lowers the level of the debate...if you (general you) are that worried about seeing a bum then I suggest that animals are not for you (again general)!
> If you have a pet, or have any dealings with animals then inevitably you WILL see a bum several times throughout their lives :shocked:
> 
> ...


Wasn't there someone on here had their dog neutered because it looked untidy? :001_huh:. I agree though it's a ridiculous argument especially with a docked breed that now carries their tail up over the back like dobermanns. And I'm fairly sure Ouesi said that was a ridiculous argument for docking


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> And this one cited here
> 
> Bristol University | News | 2010: Department of Clinical Veterinary Science
> 
> ...


Where is the actual study? those are just websites with an overview. Are the study subjects pets or actual working dogs? because the study I posted says something very different.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

I have a dobe, all natural of course including dewclaws, and there is no argument for cropping I've not heard. And still not one that holds water. 

Rather than go into how pathetic the procedure is, as I see we're mostly on the same page on that anyway, I'll just leave this quote someone on a dobe forum said to defend cropping. I have a screenshot somewhere if wanted:

"Life is too short to live with ugly dogs".

They don't deserve animals.


----------



## zedder (Aug 21, 2013)

the way i see it there's no reason a pet dog should be docked or cropped it's just way over the top working dog's and i mean actually working in certain situations i can see the need still doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

zedder said:


> the way i see it there's no reason a pet dog should be docked or cropped it's just way over the top working dog's and i mean actually working in certain situations i can see the need still doesn't sit right with me.


The thing is a cocker litter bred to work could go on to do agility, flyball or even just a pet. As it is done at a few days old there's no way to know the future.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Shadowrat said:


> I have a dobe, all natural of course including dewclaws, and there is no argument for cropping I've not heard. And still not one that holds water.
> 
> Rather than go into how pathetic the procedure is, as I see we're mostly on the same page on that anyway, I'll just leave this quote someone on a dobe forum said to defend cropping. I have a screenshot somewhere if wanted:
> 
> ...


That's disgusting.

I still wonder to this day why those wanting a cropped Doberman are drawn to them in the first place. I mean, why choose a breed that you physically want to alter because you find it 'ugly' or otherwise unappealing? Just doesn't make sense. Just go with a breed that does appeal to you in it's natural state.....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

labradrk said:


> Interesting (and readable) study on tail docking of working dogs in Scotland: http://theses.gla.ac.uk/5629/1/2014lederermvm.pdf


On working dogs okay get that but where is the study that shows that there is more risk for working dogs and pet dogs of the same breed who do or don't damage their tails?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

kare said:


> Dewclaw removal is not a good thing in many cases. *I have working lines retrievers who use their claws frequently for climbing banks and especially exiting rivers. I would hazard to say their day to day activity is aided by their dew claws.*
> 
> I hadn't realised that dew claws actually served a useful purpose - I had thought they were sort of vestigial. Thanks for this info.
> 
> ...


TOTALLY agree here!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sorry to lower the tone but tailed Rottweilers who's tails are not docked! Rottweilers who have the correct tail carriage.... All winking at you  So sorry docked or not you will see an anus?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Shadowrat said:


> I have a dobe, all natural of course including dewclaws, and there is no argument for cropping I've not heard. And still not one that holds water.
> 
> Rather than go into how pathetic the procedure is, as I see we're mostly on the same page on that anyway, I'll just leave this quote someone on a dobe forum said to defend cropping. I have a screenshot somewhere if wanted:
> 
> ...


There are ugly dogs: there are ugly babies.

But you know - it doesn't matter because ugly or not, they are all BEAUTIFUL.

'Ugly is as ugly does' - you are right Rattie - they don't deserve animals.

(And I wonder how well a lot of them would do in the human beauty stakes)


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

I've known pet and working dogs damage their tails... if you think about it, a Spaniel that gets regular woodland walks is also likely to damage their tail. Obviously I 100% support the docking of working dogs. I also know people who's Spaniel's tails were docked, but not short enough and they've had to be amputated further. 

Cropped ears, not legal in the UK so not really something I've thought much about, but I do think it looks unsightly and not really sure why people consider it necessary, I can't see a practical reason.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

dandogman said:


> I've known pet and working dogs damage their tails... if you think about it, a Spaniel that gets regular woodland walks is also likely to damage their tail. Obviously I 100% support the docking of working dogs. I also know people who's Spaniel's tails were docked, but not short enough and they've had to be amputated further.
> 
> Cropped ears, not legal in the UK so not really something I've thought much about, but I do think it looks unsightly and not really sure why people consider it necessary, I can't see a practical reason.


So why do you 100% support it for working dogs?


----------



## zedder (Aug 21, 2013)

Meezey said:


> So why do you 100% support it for working dogs?


 i think it's because in the field if their in and out of bushes their tails get ripped open piss blood everywhere then you've got a real problem and from personal experience tail injuries take an age too heal as they keep reopening i think it's just a practicality thing tbh.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Meezey said:


> So why do you 100% support it for working dogs?


Many, if not most undocked working hunting dogs will damage their tails at some stage of their working life. Tail injuries are notoriously difficult to treat as they tend to occur over and over again.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

dandogman said:


> Many, if not most undocked working hunting dogs will damage their tails at some stage of their working life. Tail injuries are notoriously difficult to treat as they tend to occur over and over again.


I am well aware of the difficulty tail injuries present. My question is directed more to the fact you have just said that both pet and working dogs sustain injuries the so called argument for docking working dogs is the tail injuries they get which seemingly pet dogs are immune to? Surely is both pet and working dogs sustain these injuries the ban should be all or none? Or are pet dogs not worthy of being afforded the same level of welfare concerns?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 148121
> 
> 
> View attachment 148122
> ...


I shall just have to keep my eyes above the plimsoll line! LOL :laugh:


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

labradrk said:


> Where is the actual study? those are just websites with an overview. Are the study subjects pets or actual working dogs? because the study I posted says something very different.


With respect......but that ain't much of a "study" either.

That's someones submitted coursework to either get an MA or, at best, a thesis for a PhD. Mine was a seminal work on gender differences in courtesy towards strangers. Pointless and boring in equal measure. But equally long and with impressive bar charts and an awesome statistical analysis. Oh, and equally meaningless to the world at large.

What other study are you referring to? The Swedish one by Lagerstedt et al which is so often cited by the pro-docking fans? In case it was, the Swedish government rejected the findings outright and the docking ban still stands. As far as I know. Few years since I dealt with the topic in depth.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

dandogman said:


> Many, if not most undocked working hunting dogs will damage their tails at some stage of their working life. Tail injuries are notoriously difficult to treat as they tend to occur over and over again.


But statistics don't show that many if not all undocked working dogs will damage their tails do they? Where are the stats for pet dogs?


----------



## zedder (Aug 21, 2013)

Meezey said:


> I am well aware of the difficulty tail injuries present. My question is directed more to the fact you have just said that both pet and working dogs sustain injuries the so called argument for docking working dogs is the tail injuries they get which seemingly pet dogs are immune to? Surely is both pet and working dogs sustain these injuries the ban should be all or none? Or are pet dogs not worthy of being afforded the same level of welfare concerns?


 it's like saying why do riot police need shields more than a civilian tbh because they are doing that job day in day out the probability of the injury is magnified ten fold over a pet dog.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 148121
> 
> 
> View attachment 148122
> ...




As I said...it's inevitable


----------



## adamantis (Mar 14, 2014)

On the subject of working breeds suffering from tail damage, given that hounds will merrily cavort through anything and everything in pursuit of their quarry, there appears to be relatively little stern damage! I know a foxhound who has a shortened tail due to worrying it, but your beagle/foxhound-types would look flipping odd without that glorious flag standing proud! That, and you would be hard pressed to find the little so-and-sos without their white-tipped sterns emerging above the brush


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Meezey said:


> I am well aware of the difficulty tail injuries present. My question is directed more to the fact you have just said that both pet and working dogs sustain injuries the so called argument for docking working dogs is the tail injuries they get which seemingly pet dogs are immune to? Surely is both pet and working dogs sustain these injuries the ban should be all or none? Or are pet dogs not worthy of being afforded the same level of welfare concerns?


The issue is, most pet dogs probably won't get their tails injured as most don't walk in these high risk areas for as long or as often as working dogs. Whereas most working dogs will. There's nothing stopping someone buying a docked dog from working stock as a pet if they think their new pet is at risk of tail injuries.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I love it when Io carries her tail up high - love the tan marking on her butt


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Meezey said:


> But statistics don't show that many if not all undocked working dogs will damage their tails do they? Where are the stats for pet dogs?


The stats are likely to be biased if that is the case...


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> That's disgusting.
> 
> I still wonder to this day why those wanting a cropped Doberman are drawn to them in the first place. I mean, why choose a breed that you physically want to alter because you find it 'ugly' or otherwise unappealing? Just doesn't make sense. Just go with a breed that does appeal to you in it's natural state.....


I think it may depend on what and where you were brought up. For me, JRTs were always docked and now to see one with a tail is odd.

as for cropping......it makes the whole dog look totally different with sticky up ears than not.

why do we choose the breeds we choose? Is it for looks, temperament or do they do a job for us...what?

Also, unless people have seen or gone through the tail docking/cropping process they may not really know what is involved. Plenty dogs are born with naturally heavy coats and we clip them to a design that we find peasing to the eye. I would think that for many people, being pleasing to the eye is what having a dog is all about.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

zedder said:


> it's like saying why do riot police need shields more than a civilian tbh because they are doing that job day in day out the probability of the injury is magnified ten fold over a pet dog.


Zedder each dog thinks it is doing a job day in day out.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

dandogman said:


> The stats are likely to be biased if that is the case...


Why are they?


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Why are they?


If we didn't need to dock dogs, then we wouldn't make the extra cost.

I would say with 95% certainty that if I bought a hard hunting, cover bashing spaniel with a tail, and took it beating in heavy woodland, bramble cover etc it would have damage to it's tail and probably end up needing amputation to avoid further injury.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> [/B]
> 
> Exactly. Thank you.
> 
> ...





Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> My family hunts and fishes and shoots. Both here and abroad. This isn't about terrain or breed specifics.
> 
> This is about whether there is a valid rationale in cutting off a hunting dog's tail - or ANY dog's tail - as a prophylactic measure to prevent injury.
> 
> IMO, there is not. Regardless of breed. Ask my SIL and she will give you a different answer. We both believe we are right. She will never have an ESS without a docked tail and I will never again have one with one. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and petition for what you believe in and stand for.


Of course it's about terrain and breed specifics, different dogs work in different ways, in different environments and their tail acts in different ways. If it wasnt about breed specifics then why did you compare several breeds yourself? People who asks questions such as why is a GSP docked and not a retriever show very little knowledge of each breed.



Dogloverlou said:


> *My Missy regularly runs through thick overgrowth, tail held high....no injuries here. In that respect she's doing nothing different to the Spaniels. *
> 
> I would love to see some study and evidence of injuries to working dogs to that of pets alone. I would like to see whether there is indeed a very real need to dock working dogs, or whether it's actually ( as I suspect ) a rare occurrence on the whole, when viewing the bigger picture. Until such evidence is presented, I'm with you, and find it unjustifiable.


She is doing something very different to spaniels - she is holding her tail high which in effect is holding it out of the way. Spaniels and HPR's hold their tails very low when they are hunting, and they wag them extremely fast, this is why they get injuries.

Again, a comparison from somebody who appears to have very little knowledge of the specifics.

I am a pro docker, I have no issue with people who are against docking, but it really does irk me when people start comparing, as Labradrk said, oranges to apples (or was it apples to oranges?)


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

dandogman said:


> If we didn't need to dock dogs, then we wouldn't make the extra cost.
> 
> I would say with 95% certainty that if I bought a hard hunting, cover bashing spaniel with a tail, and took it beating in heavy woodland, bramble cover etc it would have damage to it's tail and probably end up needing amputation to avoid further injury.


And if I brought a hard hunting cover bashing spaniel and took it walking heavy woodland bramble cover etc it would damage it's tail I can say that with the same certainty as you so why is one allowed to be docked and the other not?


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Meezey said:


> And if I brought a hard hunting cover bashing spaniel and took it walking heavy woodland bramble cover etc it would damage it's tail I can say that with the same certainty as you so why is one allowed to be docked and the other not?


Most likely... BUT there's nothing stopping a pet owner buying a docked working bred pup.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I can't abide cosmetic surgery for dogs; frankly I find it disgraceful behaviour to put an animal through a painful procedure, with the risk of complications or infections, in order to look better for our own twisted ideals? That's seriously messed up imo.

I know virtually nothing about the working spaniels etc so I can't say I object to tail docking in those circumstances, I'm simply too ignorant to comment with any real conviction. Docking of other breeds however is purely aesthetic, no mater what poor excuses people have come up with. Poodles and OES for example supposedly docked for "hygiene" reasons, I've even heard it helps prevent flystrike. I'm sorry but if your dog is kept in such poor condition that its at risk of fly strike the RSPCA should be getting involved. There are plenty of other long or fluffy coated breeds that are not docked.

Same with cropping ears. Where livestock guarding breeds are still being used for their original purpose, protecting flocks from predators that may include wolves, bears, etc I can appreciate taking the ears full off.

But aide from that very specific scenario there is no good reason whatsoever. Especially when yu look at the ridiculous show crops. Removing the pinna to prevent injury (where there is genuine risk) is one thing, but you can't tell me that those ridiculously long upright ears that have been taped for weeks to stand do anything other than making a dog look'ard.

And that is yet another one of my objections. If it wasn't bad enough mutilating dogs for our own kicks, in todays society trying to make a dog look macho and scary is downright stupid. There is enough anti-dog feeling as it is, especially aimed at the "scary breeds". Making breeds like pit bulls, dobies etc look even more intimidating is just asking for trouble imo.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

dandogman said:


> If we didn't need to dock dogs, then we wouldn't make the extra cost.
> 
> I would say with 95% certainty that if I bought a hard hunting, cover bashing spaniel with a tail, and took it beating in heavy woodland, bramble cover etc it would have damage to it's tail and probably end up needing amputation to avoid further injury.


What is your 95% confidence interval based on?

Since your dog(s) is/are likely docked, how would you know what injuries they would or wouldn't sustain?

I don't mean it as confrontational as it sounds - but I just don't get the certainty with which people make those statements. If someone tells me that they keep 10 undocked working spaniels and 10 docked working spaniels and the undocked ones sustain never ending tail injuries, I'd say the premise has some merit.

But suchnpeople don't exist. It invariably amounts to Chinese whispers and people knowing someone who knkws someone else whose dog's tail needed amputating.

I know a dog whose tail required partial amputation. A non working adult BC cross. Wasn't his greatest day but not half as dramatic, or invasive, or expensive, or necessitating a fraction of the recovery period as addressing his cruciate rupture.

We can't cut off all body parts which MAY sustain injury. Which makes a cogent argument to leave the dog's tail alone.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> With respect......but that ain't much of a "study" either.
> 
> *That's someones submitted coursework to either get an MA or, at best, a thesis for a PhD.* Mine was a seminal work on gender differences in courtesy towards strangers. Pointless and boring in equal measure. But equally long and with impressive bar charts and an awesome statistical analysis. Oh, and equally meaningless to the world at large.
> 
> What other study are you referring to? The Swedish one by Lagerstedt et al which is so often cited by the pro-docking fans? In case it was, the Swedish government rejected the findings outright and the docking ban still stands. As far as I know. Few years since I dealt with the topic in depth.


Actually if you read the authors credentials, she is a vet and has PhD already  most studies are meaningless to the world at large, but in the context of this discussion, I'd say the information is pretty relevant.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

labradrk said:


> Actually if you read the authors credentials, she is a vet and has PhD already  most studies are meaningless to the world at large, but in the context of this discussion, I'd say the information is pretty relevant.


Granted.

But her subject pool was hardly random and unbiased. Come on!


----------



## zedder (Aug 21, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Zedder each dog thinks it is doing a job day in day out.


 But the fact is their not they will pick up significantly more injuries I'm not pro docking just realistic about the situation.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

dandogman said:


> Most likely... BUT there's nothing stopping a pet owner buying a docked working bred pup.


You are utterly missing the point and really not doing pro docking people any favors! It smacks of not caring about the welfare of dogs as a whole and a "cheer jack I am alright" smugness that some gundog people have! So you have shown in your comments there is no reason one should be docked over the other and tough if one dog suffers over another!


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> What is your 95% confidence interval based on?
> 
> Since your dog(s) is/are likely docked, how would you know what injuries they would or wouldn't sustain?
> 
> ...


I work at a gundog training kennel so I have lots of first hand contact with lots of dogs. 
One of my boss' spaniels, a field trial winning dog, had to have her docked tail amputated at around 1 year old, she had hardly started proper work yet she damaged her already docked tail. I also know of other cases of the same thing - docked tails needing amputation. 
I could say the same for spaying bitches... we shouldn't put a bitch under major GA, cut her open to remove her insides, on the basis that she MAY develop Pyo...


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Meezey said:


> And if I brought a hard hunting cover bashing spaniel and took it walking heavy woodland bramble cover etc it would damage it's tail I can say that with the same certainty as you so why is one allowed to be docked and the other not?


My neighbours pet lab/springer cross has damaged her tail several times as she has a tendency to go through rather then round bushes and scrub. She may look like a small black lab, but her rear end is all springer and never stop a wagging.
Another dog, this time a lab/foxhound cross was always tearing her tail.
I'm sure those two weren't the only pet dogs damaging their tails.
One of my retrievers was always tearing her ears going through scrub, glad it wasnt tradition to crop their ears.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Meezey said:


> You are utterly missing the point and really not doing pro docking people any favors! It smacks of not caring about the welfare of dogs as a whole and a "cheer jack I am alright" smugness that some gundog people have! So you have shown in your comments there is no reason one should be docked over the other and tough if one dog suffers over another!


I don't have the answer, only that working dogs are much more likely to damage their tails, which means the prevention is worth the cure, if ALL pet dogs were docked, I'd only think a small number would damage their tails as a lot would rarely be in similar conditions to working dogs.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

dandogman said:


> I work at a gundog training kennel so I have lots of first hand contact with lots of dogs.
> One of my boss' spaniels, a field trial winning dog, had to have her docked tail amputated at around 1 year old, she had hardly started proper work yet she damaged her already docked tail. I also know of other cases of the same thing - docked tails needing amputation.
> I could say the same for spaying bitches... we shouldn't put a bitch under major GA, cut her open to remove her insides, on the basis that she MAY develop Pyo...


How long have you worked there? One kennel and you can speak for all the dogs? I am impressed! Something that is a threat to a dogs life is no comparison!!


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

dandogman said:


> I work at a gundog training kennel so I have lots of first hand contact with lots of dogs.
> One of my boss' spaniels, a field trial winning dog, had to have her docked tail amputated at around 1 year old, she had hardly started proper work yet she damaged her already docked tail. I also know of other cases of the same thing - docked tails needing amputation.
> I could say the same for spaying bitches... we shouldn't put a bitch under major GA, cut her open to remove her insides, on the basis that she MAY develop Pyo...


I'm rather confused by your argumentation.

As the dogs already HAD a docked tail...what are you saying?

If anything it says that docking doesn't prevent injury either.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

One dobe people told me she liked that the crop gave dobes a more 'serious' look, necessary for a guardian breed. Then she also complained about the breeds unfair reputation for being aggressive..............but she wanted a crop specifically for that reason. 

When I dared express a dislike for cropping on an american dobe forum, I was told I wasn't cut out to be a dobe owner and perhaps I should 'try poodles instead'.

Sadly, there does exist a certain amount of people in dobes, particularly in the USA, whose whole sense of worth is tied up in having a 'tough' dog.
And certainly dobes are, they have to be to do their job, but some of these people talk about their dogs like people talk about having an expensive sports car, not like you'd talk about a family member.....if you get me. 
When I dared say I liked my boy's natural ears because it expressed the loving, gentle, affectionate side of dobes, which is far more accurate for me, and I was told to get a cat or a poodle instead, not a dobe. 
The attitude was because I was happy to admit my dog was gentle and loving I didn't deserve a dobe because I didn't truly understand the breed.

Its the same BS attitude where they don't think anyone else is good enough to own a dobe but them, no-one else would be able to handle their dog, dobes are too much for everyone but them, just this horrible attitude toward these dogs as if they're somehow so vastly different to any other being on earth and only strong, hard, tough people can control them.
Its beyond pathetic.

There is a guy on youtube who goes to seems like every single video featuring a natural dobe, and leaves a comment about them being hounds, not real dobermanns. 
My dobermann is, apparently, not a 'real' doberman because he's natural, and I must not understand the breed to dislike cropping and docking. 
SIGH.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I'm rather confused by your argumentation.
> 
> As the dogs already HAD a docked tail...what are you saying?
> 
> If anything it says that docking doesn't prevent injury either.


Was just thinking the same! So docking doesn't protect them either....


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

adamantis said:


> On the subject of working breeds suffering from tail damage, given that hounds will merrily cavort through anything and everything in pursuit of their quarry, there appears to be relatively little stern damage! I know a foxhound who has a shortened tail due to worrying it, but your beagle/foxhound-types would look flipping odd without that glorious flag standing proud! That, and you would be hard pressed to find the little so-and-sos without their white-tipped sterns emerging above the brush


If you compare spaniels and hounds working you will see why.



> Originally Posted by Dogloverlou View Post
> My Missy regularly runs through thick overgrowth, tail held high....no injuries here. In that respect she's doing nothing different to the Spaniels


I can understand people's dislike of docking - I do too, however, I also understand the damage done in the working field. There is a big difference between a pet spaniel running through cover and a spaniel working cover. A spaniels tail goes round like helicopter blades while hunting cover and the tip is very vulnerable to injury. I have seen many pet spaniels running through cover but they do not have the intensity of a dog working.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> One dobe people told me she liked that the crop gave dobes a more 'serious' look, necessary for a guardian breed. Then she also complained about the breeds unfair reputation for being aggressive..............but she wanted a crop specifically for that reason.
> 
> When I dared express a dislike for cropping on an american dobe forum, I was told I wasn't cut out to be a dobe owner and perhaps I should 'try poodles instead'.
> 
> ...


I thought american dobermanns, well the show ones anyway, had been bred very soft these days? :001_huh: Penis extension idiots are fun whatever breed they have


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

dandogman said:


> I work at a gundog training kennel so I have lots of first hand contact with lots of dogs.
> One of my boss' spaniels, a field trial winning dog, had to have her docked tail amputated at around 1 year old, she had hardly started proper work yet she damaged her already docked tail. I also know of other cases of the same thing - docked tails needing amputation.
> I could say the same for spaying bitches...* we shouldn't put a bitch under major GA, cut her open to remove her insides, on the basis that she MAY develop Pyo...*


What is a major GA? anaesthetics are incredibly safe in this day and age, more so with very short procedures such as spaying.

Pyo is statistically a very real risk for mature entire bitches. Why do you think most breeders spay when the bitches have finished producing litters?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Shadowrat said:


> One dobe people told me she liked that the crop gave dobes a more 'serious' look, necessary for a guardian breed. Then she also complained about the breeds unfair reputation for being aggressive..............but she wanted a crop specifically for that reason.
> 
> When I dared express a dislike for cropping on an american dobe forum, I was told I wasn't cut out to be a dobe owner and perhaps I should 'try poodles instead'.
> 
> ...


That about sums up the encounters I've had with those pro cropping in Dobes too


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Rather than chopping bits off dogs we don't like, or that inconvenience us, perhaps a better idea would be breeder's breeding for a natural bobbed Spaniel? Now there's an idea! After all the tail is very obviously a hindrance to the breed and it's original purpose.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Can't people use tail protectors/guards if they're worried about their dog damaging their tail when they're working?


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> There is a big difference between a pet spaniel running through cover and a spaniel working cover. A spaniels tail goes round like helicopter blades while hunting cover and the tip is very vulnerable to injury. I have seen many pet spaniels running through cover but they do not have the intensity of a dog working.


That is absolutely true but here is the thing where it gets problematic with the docking issue ( at least for me)

The reason pro-docking owners of smooth/short- haired hunting dogs ( Pointers, Vizlas,etc) often cite is that the dogs tail is especially vulnerable because, unlike Retrievers and Setters, it is pretty naked, whippy and without feathering. A dog with feathering is more protected, they say, because if the tail gets stuck in the brambles it will simply rip out a clump of tail feathering.

But Spaniels with undocked tails are a) not short haired and b) have plenty of tail feathering.

So which one is it?

And if the docking protects the dog's residual stump of a tail why does danthedogman know a couple of young dogs whose already amputated tail required re- amputation? There is only so much of a dog's tail that can be cut off before it doesn't have ANY tail and you snipping into his spine.

What am I missing? I realise it may not appear as such - but I aim to be objective. IF there is an indisputed, irrefutable benefit to docking we should listen.

But I can't see it...and never have.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2014)

kare said:


> What a ridiculous thing to say. No welfare is served by cutting off a rottie tail. They are commonly held in those I have seen a sickle shape. Often covering its butt with the lower end of the curve.
> 
> You cut it off for aesthetics and I wonder who finds beauty in an anus. If you do, shout up.
> 
> You seriously make so little sense saying that not cutting off part of a dog because how it was born looks better than I can make it look is the same coin as cutting and chopping it because I brought a dog I don't like the look of undoctored


I think if you go back and read my post youll see that Im not at all arguing for docking. Im simply saying that the dogs welfare should be the motivation, not capricious aesthetics like not having to look at an anus. 
And for many people who choose to dock, it has absolutely nothing to do with aesthetics, its about the welfare of the dog.

Frankly, I have more respect for a savvy owner who chooses to dock to prevent their dog pain and suffering down the road than an owner who chooses not to dock lest they be offended by the sight of a dog butthole.

And this is exactly where I part ways with the absolutists - on either side, in any argument, from training styles to medical procedures.

Im all for a conversation to try to understand each others motivations, to seek out new knowledge, and use that combined information to continually make the lives of our dogs better. 
I am not at all interested in petty arguments trying to figure out which one is righter, ego stroking based on moral high ground. Bah.... 
There is no right in these situations, there is only what is best for that dog, in that situation, based on actual knowledge and understanding.



dandogman said:


> Cropped ears, not legal in the UK so not really something I've thought much about, but I do think it looks unsightly and not really sure why people consider it necessary, I can't see a practical reason.


So, speaking of sharing knowledge, yes, cropping in the vast majority of cases is for aesthetics, no practical reason at all. 
There are a few breeds though where cropping is for the welfare of the dog. Some of the LGDs who are expected to fight off predators are cropped, very close to the head, to protect their ears should they get in to a scuffle with a predator.

Again it has to do with the type of work the dog is bred to do. The LGDs most people are familiar with bond with the livestock and stay with the herd. However there are also some harder breeds who are bred as perimeter guardians and tend to stake out a territory and guard everything within that area. The perimeter guardians are the ones traditionally cropped. A livestock farmer with a lot of land to cover will usually employ both perimeter guardians and herd bonders.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Arthur my pointer damages his tail every so often - he is not a working dog as such although we do take him to the type of areas he would go if he were working and so he is frequently in dense undergrowth/brambles/woodland and he really beats his tail quite vigorously. The damage has never been significant though thankfully



My GSP would rather like his tail back


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I'm rather confused by your argumentation.
> 
> As the dogs already HAD a docked tail...what are you saying?
> 
> If anything it says that docking doesn't prevent injury either.


Sometimes the dock is too long, that's what I am saying, if a docked tail is damaged think of how more often a long tail would be damaged.


----------



## pickle (Mar 24, 2008)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Not entirely sure that is entirely accurate, either. The KC isn't JUST a breed registry. It is a regulatory body also. If there WERE just a breed registry they wouldn't have the ABS, they wouldn't stipulate how many litters can be registered from one bitch, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


Dogs with cropped ears are not allowed to compete in the show ring in the U.K.

Apologies this point has been made several times, my fault for ""skimming" to try to catch up!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Anything done to dogs that necessitates chopping bits off them for whatever reason (other than to repair injury) is cruel and barbaric and should be against the law.

What makes me smile - or would do if it were not so serious - is that some people fall over backwards to try to justify mutilation for reasons they like, whilst at the same time deploring it for reasons they don't like.

How people can - at the same time - justify chopping off a tail *just so that a dog can do something a human wants it to do* (eg hunt/retrieve animals), and yet at the same time deplore cropping ears just *just so the dog can do something a human wants to do* (ie show in a country where cropping is allowed) is beyond me. Talk about don't do as I do, do as I say!

The excuses people come up with to justify ear cropping are as riidiculous and unsound as the reaons people come up with to justify tail docking. BOTH are wrong; BOTH are muilating dogs for the sake of a human's past-time; BOTH should be banned.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Anything done to dogs that necessitates chopping bits off them for whatever reason (other than to repair injury) is cruel and barbaric and should be against the law.
> 
> What makes me smile - or would do if it were not so serious - is that some people fall over backwards to try to justify mutilation for reasons they like, whilst at the same time deploring it for reasons they don't like.
> 
> ...


In your opinion of course. I was going to type out alot more but cant really think how to put it into words and i'm off to take my docked dog out a walk in a minute so dont have much time, but the way you have worded the above comes across very strongly that you are right and no differing opinion can possibly be right too.

Of course, you can choose not to buy into any justifications for docking or cropping but to dismiss them totally is short sighted IMO.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Anything done to dogs that necessitates chopping bits off them for whatever reason (other than to repair injury) is cruel and barbaric and should be against the law.
> 
> What makes me smile - or would do if it were not so serious - is that some people fall over backwards to try to justify mutilation for reasons they like, whilst at the same time deploring it for reasons they don't like.
> 
> ...


Does this, in your opinion, apply to neutering too?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Leanne77 said:


> In your opinion of course. I was going to type out alot more but cant really think how to put it into words and i'm off to take my docked dog out a walk in a minute so dont have much time, but the way you have worded the above comes across very strongly that you are right and no differing opinion can possibly be right too.
> 
> Of course, you can choose not to buy into any justifications for docking or cropping but to dismiss them totally is short sighted IMO.


Of course it's my opinion - that's what forums are about, stating your opinion. Just as you stated you are pro-docking and don't mind cropping, I am stating that I am against both. If it comes across very strongly that I think I am right, then it is because I feel very strongly that I am right. Sorry if that irks you. Actually, no I'm not sorry. There is nothing wrong in ANYONE feeling strongly, or expressing strong feelings. I feel that I am right - but then so do you, and that's fine by me.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lexiedhb said:


> Does this, in your opinion, apply to neutering too?


Yes - you'll find posts of mine on this forum which advocate that neutering should not be done unless for a medical reason. This is all in my opinion, of course. (Just thought I'd add that last bit as some people seem to need that phrase in writing).


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I think the difference for me regarding neutering is that it does have some pretty big health benefits, it's not a pointless and/or purely cosmetic procedure, especially more so for bitches. There may be an argument to how 'needed' it is for male dogs, but that's a whole other subject . Docking may have some health and welfare benefits in a dog that is suffering from reoccurring tail injuries throughout it's life, in which case as a way of treating such a condition I'd agree that amputation would be the best long term alternative. However, I don't agree with docking in puppies just because it 'might' happen. I can see no benefits to cropping, nothing that benefits the dog itself anyway. So that is totally unjustifiable IMO. 

That's the way I see it anyway.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

dandogman said:


> Sometimes the dock is too long, that's what I am saying, if a docked tail is damaged think of how more often a long tail would be damaged.


I understand.

The following has got nothing to do with the post above...but I wanted to say "thanks" to you and Labradark for explaining your stance. Despite overwhelming opposition you did so without loosing your cool and staying rational, polite and reasonable. Not always easy.

Whilst I don't support routine docking...not even in hunting dogs...that doesn't mean I can't respect those who do and who take the time to explain why they do what they do.

Thus, thanks and all the best


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes - you'll find posts of mine on this forum which advocate that neutering should not be done unless for a medical reason. This is all in my opinion, of course. (Just thought I'd add that last bit as some people seem to need that phrase in writing).


Yeah was just curious. There is probably more arguement for neutering, what with the rescue crisis the way it is, folks dogs getting "caught" because they are not responsible enough, and health implications especially in bitches.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yeah was just curious. There is probably more arguement for neutering, what with the rescue crisis the way it is, folks dogs getting "caught" because they are not responsible enough, and health implications especially in bitches.


The other difference is that with neutering, you're deciding what is best for the individual dog, my issue with docking is that a whole litter has their tail docked when only some of that litter will end up working and only half or less of those will injure their tails.

If it was a case of this puppy absolutely will work and then there's a 50% chance of _serious_ tail injuries...I can see a case for it, but that's not how it works.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yeah was just curious. There is probably more arguement for neutering, what with the rescue crisis the way it is, folks dogs getting "caught" because they are not responsible enough, and health implications especially in bitches.


I'm not convinced about the health implications. I've read arguments for and arguments against, and in all my years of owning dogs (I'm 60 next birthday and have had them all my life) I have had one bitch who had pyo and one dog who had testicular cancer. Both were operated on and both were fine. That's two necessary operations instead of a hell of a lot of unnecessary operations which would all have carried the inherent risks of a GA. Why put a dog through that just in case something happens down the line? Why not let them live as nature intended and only operate IF something happens?

As for the rescue situation and the risk of bitches getting caught - I can see why someone would advocate neutering as a solution but I don't agree with it. Neutering for these reasons is merrely another method of surgically altering dogs for the convenience of humans, not for the good of the dog.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> I'm not convinced about the health implications. I've read arguments for and arguments against, and in all my years of owning dogs (I'm 60 next birthday and have had them all my life) I have had one bitch who had pyo and one dog who had testicular cancer.


I am afraid the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would disagree with your assessment and they have a much larger source of data on which to draw conclusions than we dog owners do.

Dogs die from Pyometra and 1 in 4 unneutered Bitches suffer from this potentially life threatening disease. That's a huge risk to take in my opinion and I don't like those odds versus 1 in 400 who are neutered without complication.


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Of course it's my opinion - that's what forums are about, stating your opinion. Just as you stated you are pro-docking and don't mind cropping, I am stating that I am against both. If it comes across very strongly that I think I am right, then it is because I feel very strongly that I am right. Sorry if that irks you. Actually, no I'm not sorry. There is nothing wrong in ANYONE feeling strongly, or expressing strong feelings. *I feel that I am right - but then so do you*, and that's fine by me.


Actually, I dont believe I am right, I have not stated that anything is wrong or right, I just have an opinion. My opinion is right for me, doesnt make it universally correct.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I'm not convinced about the health implications. I've read arguments for and arguments against, and in all my years of owning dogs (I'm 60 next birthday and have had them all my life) I have had one bitch who had pyo and one dog who had testicular cancer. Both were operated on and both were fine. That's two necessary operations instead of a hell of a lot of unnecessary operations which would all have carried the inherent risks of a GA. Why put a dog through that just in case something happens down the line? Why not let them live as nature intended and only operate IF something happens?
> 
> As for the rescue situation and the risk of bitches getting caught - I can see why someone would advocate neutering as a solution but I don't agree with it. Neutering for these reasons is merrely another method of surgically altering dogs for the convenience of humans, *not for the good of the dog.*


Um, surely that is subjective given that all dogs are individuals? what about bitches that suffer terribly with their seasons? or dogs that respond badly to bitches in season to the point it affects their lives negatively? it is the heath pro's and con's that are most debated over, but there ARE convincing behavioural reasons to spay and neuter and these should be taken on a case-by-case basis. A blanket it is "not for the good of the dog" is simply untrue as you cannot speak for all dogs or owners.

You don't agree with docking, but those breeders who actually work dogs and see the fallout of working gundogs with full tails obviously think differently for good reason.

Of course, you are entitled to be as outraged as you wish, but I'd rather see a fit, docked working gundog over obese dogs that are a dime a dozen, dogs that are riddled with health problems, dogs so disfigured that they cannot breath, dogs that are so poor structurally they cannot walk properly etc etc. Now if you want to talk suffering....


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cbcdesign said:


> I am afraid the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would disagree with your assessment and they have a much larger source of data on which to draw conclusions than we dog owners do.
> 
> Dogs die from Pyometra and 1 in 4 unneutered Bitches suffer from this potentially life threatening disease. That's a huge risk to take in my opinion and I don't like those odds versus 1 in 400 who are neutered without complication.


Bitches also survive pyo. Who was it who said that there are lies, damn lies and sattistics? Is the 1 in 4 that you quote supposed to be bitches who contract pyo, or bitches who die from pyo? (It's hard to tell when you just pluck figures out of the air without references to back them up).

You see, despite what statistics say, since I was a child we have had 26 unspayed bitches in the family, and one case of pyo - a dog of mine who was operated on and has since lived a long and healthy life and is at present two years older than the breed average age. That's 25 bitches who would have been operated on unnecessarily if they had been owned by you.

And that's only my own dogs - being in the show community I know a large number of unspayed bitches and can't remember the last time I heard of a case of pyo.

But even if your figure of 1 in 4 *is* accurate, that is *still* 3 in 4 dogs that you would prefer to put through an unnecessary operation.

However, that figure of 1 in 4 is not entirely accurate, is it? The latest studies have shown that different breeds are at different risks:

Breed Variations in the Incidence of Pyometra and Mammary Tumours in Swedish Dogs - Jitpean - 2012 - Reproduction in Domestic Animals - Wiley Online Library

http://www.tanuvas.ac.in/tnjvas/tnjvas/vol7(5)/252_253.pdf


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Leanne77 said:


> Actually, I dont believe I am right, I have not stated that anything is wrong or right, I just have an opinion. My opinion is right for me, doesnt make it universally correct.


So you have an opinion that you don't believe is right?

How strange.



labradrk said:


> Um, surely that is subjective given that all dogs are individuals? what about bitches that suffer terribly with their seasons? or dogs that respond badly to bitches in season to the point it affects their lives negatively? it is the heath pro's and con's that are most debated over, but there ARE convincing behavioural reasons to spay and neuter and these should be taken on a case-by-case basis. A blanket it is "not for the good of the dog" is simply untrue as you cannot speak for all dogs or owners.


If you read my posts properly instead of merely highlighting bits, you will see that I was not advocating a blanket about it not being good for all. I was replying to a post and writing about two specific instances: neutering to alleviate the rescue situation and neutering so that "accidents" didn't happen to owners who don't look after their dogs properly. It was those *two specific* cases where I said that neutering is done for the good of humans, not for the good of dogs.

If surgery is needed for medical reasons that is an entirely different case. People are fixated on pyo but there are several instances other than pyo where surgery could be needed. But if we advocate surgery for pyo "just in case", or chopping of dogs' tails "just in case", or cropping ears "just in case", then why don't we advocate surgery for the conditions above that you mention "just in case"?



labradrk said:


> You don't agree with docking, but those breeders who actually work dogs and see the fallout of working gundogs with full tails obviously think differently for good reason.
> 
> Of course, you are entitled to be as outraged as you wish, but I'd rather see a fit, docked working gundog over obese dogs that are a dime a dozen, dogs that are riddled with health problems, dogs so disfigured that they cannot breath, dogs that are so poor structurally they cannot walk properly etc etc. Now if you want to talk suffering....


And here you describe perfectly the attitude I mentioned in my first post on this thread. Two wrongs don't make a right. Overweight dogs or dogs that cannot breathe or walk properly are not acceptable and responsible breeders are breeding away from those kinds of traits. Irresponsible breeders are, quite rightly, held to account for not doing so. However, there does not seem to be a corresponding attitude in the working community. They still feel that it is ok to mutilate dogs rather than breed towards a dog that is actually fit for the function that humans want it to undertake. If working dogs need short tails, then it's time that responsible working breeders started breeding towards short tails, just as responsible non-working breeders are breeding towards healthier dogs. And working breeders who don't do this deserve to be held in the same sort of contempt as non-working breeders who produce dogs who can't breathe or walk properly.

IMO a dog that has to have surgery so that it is fit for function is not really fit for function at all.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Wouldn't breeding for shorter tails limit the gene pool and risk breeding more serious issues into the dogs?

Wouldn't it be better to research an acceptable and effective way of protecting the dogs' tails instead?

The Swedish link only included dogs up to 10 years old, isn't that a bit young?

Other than that, totally agree Spellweaver. Two wrongs don't make a right, nor does trying to excuse something by saying worse things happen. :frown2:


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Elles said:


> Wouldn't breeding for shorter tails limit the gene pool and risk breeding more serious issues into the dogs?


Well not short tails, as natural bobtailed breeds do have a few inherent issues there. It might be possible to breed for thicker stronger tails, but there is a relationship between tail thickness, and general thickness of the other extremities, i.e legs. And that is also linked to body size as well. So in other words, breeding for thick robust tails would have an impact on the length and thickness of the legs and spinal column. Which might mean, a strong tail could make the rest of the dog unsuited to the job in other ways.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I'm not convinced about the health implications. I've read arguments for and arguments against, and in all my years of owning dogs (I'm 60 next birthday and have had them all my life) I have had one bitch who had pyo and one dog who had testicular cancer. Both were operated on and both were fine. That's two necessary operations instead of a hell of a lot of unnecessary operations which would all have carried the inherent risks of a GA. Why put a dog through that just in case something happens down the line? Why not let them live as nature intended and only operate IF something happens?
> 
> As for the rescue situation and the risk of bitches getting caught - I can see why someone would advocate neutering as a solution but I don't agree with it. Neutering for these reasons is merrely another method of surgically altering dogs for the convenience of humans, not for the good of the dog.


Depends which dog you are talking about. Not neutering a bitch who ends up baving several unwanted litters ultimately means those litters could end up being pts. So for the sake of speying one dog, others lives "saved". Sadly we wont ever change the humans.......


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I don't really see a direct comparison between the neutering of dogs and the cropping of ears and docking of tails.

Domesticated dogs don't live in their natural state where they would be having repeated pregnancies, births, nursing litters, etc.

I believe that there is some evidence to suggest that pregnancy can reduce a woman's risk of certain diseases - so perhaps the same applies to dogs.

Aside from the obvious practical elements, preventing a dog from a lifetime of seasons and the risk of unwanted pregnancies, coupled with eliminating the potential for large numbers of unwanted puppies and certain diseases that can lead to death is quite different to cutting off bits of ears and tails for reasons of fashion or possible potential risk of damage. IMO

I doubt there are many instances of dogs having to be pts because their ears were the wrong shape, or their tail was injured.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> How people can - at the same time - justify chopping off a tail *just so that a dog can do something a human wants it to do* (eg hunt/retrieve animals),


Try telling a country bred Jack Russell that he is hunting because humans taught him how and I think he might bark his little socks off.

Jack Russells hunt whether we humans want them to or not. They will disappear for a couple of hours, leaving home as white as the driven snow and returning like little chimney sweeps (but smelling worse). Can they injure their tails (if long)? Yes. Their tails move so fast when close on a scent (down a tight rabbit hole) that they can rub them raw. It was why Jacks were automatically docked.

I don't agree with automatic docking now however, mostly because nowadays the closest many bred for purpose dogs get to the thrill of working is watching nature programmes whilst sitting on the settee with their owners. Times have changed. Thus the rules have changed, too.

Ear cropping was always lost on me however.

J


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Anything done to dogs that necessitates chopping bits off them for whatever reason (other than to repair injury) is cruel and barbaric and should be against the law.
> 
> What makes me smile - or would do if it were not so serious - is that some people fall over backwards to try to justify mutilation for reasons they like, whilst at the same time deploring it for reasons they don't like.
> 
> ...


This is exactly the way I see it:thumbup1:

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Try telling a country bred Jack Russell that he is hunting because humans taught him how and I think he might bark his little socks off.
> 
> Jack Russells hunt whether we humans want them to or not. They will disappear for a couple of hours, leaving home as white as the driven snow and returning like little chimney sweeps (but smelling worse). Can they injure their tails (if long)? Yes. Their tails move so fast when close on a scent (down a tight rabbit hole) that they can rub them raw. It was why Jacks were automatically docked.
> 
> ...


Its said that even Parson Jack Russell himself didn't mutilate his terriers in any way - neither by ear cropping nor docking. And these early dogs were developed solely for hunting.

.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Its said that even Parson Jack Russell himself didn't mutilate his terriers in any way - neither by ear cropping nor docking. And these early dogs were developed solely for hunting.
> .


I doubt he did. They expected their wee feisty hunters to come back a bit bloodied back then. We're a lot softer now.

J


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Bitches also survive pyo. Who was it who said that there are lies, damn lies and sattistics? Is the 1 in 4 that you quote supposed to be bitches who contract pyo, or bitches who die from pyo? (It's hard to tell when you just pluck figures out of the air without references to back them up).
> 
> You see, despite what statistics say, since I was a child we have had 26 unspayed bitches in the family, and one case of pyo - a dog of mine who was operated on and has since lived a long and healthy life and is at present two years older than the breed average age. That's 25 bitches who would have been operated on unnecessarily if they had been owned by you.
> 
> ...


I am the same age as you and though our family dogs were spayed it was not as common as it is now. When I started out as a veterinary nurse we were treating lots of pyos. Operating on them regularly and none actually died but they were pretty sick and all at risk.
We did a very interesting and not very scientific theory. Every bitch that came in for pyo had been on ovarid to stop seasons at some time in its life. I warned a friend who was putting a young bitch on ovarid who she later wanted to breed from. She ignored me and the bitch had to be spayed a few months later. My sister had a bitch for breeding and had it injected to stop a season before she had bred a litter. She would not listen to me and the bitch got pyo and was never able to be bred from.

I go on the premise that however easy it is to keep the bitch so she will not get pregnant there is a high risk of pyo and mammary tumours (another condition that in my early career was very very common). Bitches were made to have seasons and to breed regularly. They were not made to have seasons, not be mated, go through a distressing false pregnancy in many cases then have a couple of months grace before starting the whole cycle again. To me it is a no brainer but I respect other people's informed decision to keep their bitch entire.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I doubt he did. They expected their wee feisty hunters to come back a bit bloodied back then. We're a lot softer now.
> 
> J


I don't think theres anything soft about chopping bits off dogs tbh. My FIL had racing whippets with their long whippy tails tail injuries are not uncommon - And I suspect injuries are far more common than in an undocked JRT. However, the whippet men didn't go cutting the tails off just incase. If they happened to get injured they were then treated accordingly.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> How people can - at the same time - justify chopping off a tail *just so that a dog can do something a human wants it to do* (eg hunt/retrieve animals), and yet at the same time deplore cropping ears just *just so the dog can do something a human wants to do* (ie show in a country where cropping is allowed) is beyond me. Talk about don't do as I do, do as I say!
> 
> The excuses people come up with to justify ear cropping are as riidiculous and unsound as the reaons people come up with to justify tail docking. BOTH are wrong; BOTH are muilating dogs *for the sake of a human's past-tim*e; BOTH should be banned.


Whilst I am firmly with you on the anti-docking stance, I think you are taking this a bit too far ( with your opinion and according to my opinion)

If you've ever watched a hunting dog work - witnessed their joy, their focus, their sense of purpose and eagerness - it's impossible to state that they do so to fulfil the desire of a human's past time. They love it - it's what they were born to do. Literally.

To deny them this isn't kind, but depriving them of something. I'd love to have another ESS or a Flatcoat. I think they are phenomenal dogs. Not entirely convinced they make phenomenal PETS without a "job" of some sort. Half of the ones I know are totally neurotic and I swear the reason is because they aren't kept in a breed appropriate way. Conversely,I don't know a single neurotic working dog who works in what they were bred for.

But I still think they ought to keep their tails as nature intended.

In my opinion ( in case this needs stating these days)


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> So you have an opinion that you don't believe is right?
> 
> How strange.


My opinion is right for me, doesnt make it right full stop 

I dont believe in God, other people do, but who is right and who is wrong? Nobody at the end of the day.

I'm done with this thread now because tail docking and ear cropping, or 'mutilation' as some people like to term it is just one of those arguments that goes round and round.


----------



## Margelli (Jun 23, 2014)

Er, I'm going to ask a naive question here.

If docking or cropping is needed/desired, can't we breed dogs with them traits?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Margelli said:


> Er, I'm going to ask a naive question here.
> 
> If docking or cropping is needed/desired, can't we breed dogs with them traits?


That is a good question. Cropping has not been done in this country for at least a hundred years so not really relevant to the UK. Docking was done as normal until very recently. It was not considered cruel or something you would not want to do therefore dogs were bred for their working ability not for their tails. I am sure it would somehow be possible to breed for shorter tails but I think it might be at the expense of the breed (s) as we know them now.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Blitz said:


> That is a good question. Cropping has not been done in this country for at least a hundred years so not really relevant to the UK. Docking was done as normal until very recently. It was not considered cruel or something you would not want to do therefore dogs were bred for their working ability not for their tails.


And, to expand on the above, I came across:

"In England in the early 1700's, a tax had to be paid on working dogs with tails and so many breeds of dogs were docked to avoid paying this tax

The tax was repealed in 1796 - but that did not stop the practice of docking dogd' tails. "

No idea whether the above is accurate, I am not a Historian specializing in 18th century British History. But if it is true, it would explain how docking came to be - and across so many vastly different breeds with different coats - in the first place.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Whilst I am firmly with you on the anti-docking stance, I think you are taking this a bit too far ( with your opinion and according to my opinion)
> 
> I*f you've ever watched a hunting dog work - witnessed their joy, their focus, their sense of purpose and eagerness - it's impossible to state that they do so to fulfil the desire of a human's past time. They love it - it's what they were born to do. Literally*
> 
> ...


I have no doubt that working dogs love doing what they do and agree totally that and they were born to do it. They were born to do it because humans bred them to be that way. Now, do you suppose humans bred them to be that way just so they could enjoy themselves? No, of course they didn't. Humans bred them to be that way so that they could fulfil a task that humans wanted them to do.

So it's actually quite accurate to state that working dogs are the way they are to fulfil humans' pasttimes. And surely the humans should breed them to be that way *safely* - ie not bred them to be that way with a body that needs surgery in order to allow them to do something that is in their very blood?

In my opinion (must get that bit in ) there is no difference between breeding a working dog that needs surgery in order to work (ie doing something humans want it to do) and breeding a toy dog that needs surgery in order to breathe (ie having a flat face because that's what humans find cute). Both have been bred that way by humans who have put their own needs/wants/wishes above the welfare of the dogs. Both need surgery in order to fulfil thir function properly.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

In the above example, the working dog is given surgery because he may or may not be able to do a job, he still functions as a dog and can live his life without the surgery. The jury is still out as to whether an individual dog or breed need their tails docking anyway.

The dog that needs surgery to be able to breathe, can't breathe properly without it, doesn't function as a dog and needs the surgery to make his life comfortable. Essential surgery.

Rather like a cancer sufferer might need breast surgery to survive, but boob jobs are for self esteem, money, etc. you're not going to die if you don't get a boob job.

Creating a breed of dog that can't breathe properly without surgery is nothing like breeding a healthy working dog that might need it's tail chopped off to avoid injuring itself. imho.

and I don't even agree with docking. 

One alternative to docking is maybe not working dogs at all, or leaving their tails on and waiting to see what happens. The only alternative to breeding breeds of dog that suffer breathing problems is to not breed them in the first place.

There's all this supposed evidence that working dogs damage themselves unless their tails are cut off, how many working dogs are there who don't have their tails cut off and how many hurt themselves?

What more damage can we do by limiting the dogs we breed from, choosing only those who already have the desired traits, then adding the need for a short tail, or an upright ear.  Pack it in.

In my opinion...


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Elles said:


> In the above example, the working dog is given surgery because he may or may not be able to do a job, he still functions as a dog and can live his life without the surgery. The jury is still out as to whether an individual dog or breed need their tails docking anyway.
> 
> The dog that needs surgery to be able to breathe, can't breathe properly without it, doesn't function as a dog and needs the surgery to make his life comfortable. Essential surgery.
> 
> ...


I don't think there is sufficient evidence, just anecdotal. I don't agree with docking but I've seen enough spaniels with bandages around their tails to see the point in docking them. Thankfully I don't own a breed that is docked and I'm not sure I could dock them if I did.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Already posted this a fair bit (credit to SL)


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

?

On its own it doesn't make sense. Where is it from?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Survey done in Scotland I believe. It's just a snapshot of docked v non docked. I'm not using it to prove or disprove anything.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Elles said:


> In the above example, the working dog is given surgery because he may or may not be able to do a job, he still functions as a dog and can live his life without the surgery. The jury is still out as to whether an individual dog or breed need their tails docking anyway.
> 
> The dog that needs surgery to be able to breathe, can't breathe properly without it, doesn't function as a dog and needs the surgery to make his life comfortable. Essential surgery.
> 
> Rather like a cancer sufferer might need breast surgery to survive, *but boob jobs are for self esteem, money, etc. you're not going to die if you don't get a boob job.*


You have probably haven't seen a girl who is 5ft tall struggle through life with her DD and bigger ones then. Suffering the constant back pain, bad posture and so called minor issue of self esteem.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Breast reduction surgery to relieve back pain, reduce the chance of injury and improve posture would be classed in the same way as opening a dogs' nostrils so he can breathe better imo. 

I'm sure you know I'm talking about the kind of boob jobs that improve certain job prospects and are more likely to be detrimental to health than improve it.

I wouldn't call a mastectomy for cancer a boob job, nor would I call essential breast surgery, or cosmetic enhancement following injury, infection etc. a boob job, but maybe that's just me.

I do class life enhancing breast enhancement surgery for self esteem (eg I'm ugly and worthless if I don't have a C+ cup) as less important than life saving surgery for cancer though. I think people have to be very careful about trying to improve their self esteem through cosmetic surgery, it's addictive and can lead to a slippery slope. You may not agree. 

Apologies.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Elles said:


> Breast reduction surgery to relieve back pain, reduce the chance of injury and improve posture would be classed in the same way as opening a dogs' nostrils so he can breathe better imo.


Alleviation of discomfort and suffering - yes, I agree.
But human beings "mate" by random chance. That is a lot different to breeding animals together that have a high likelihood of producing offspring that may need surgery to correct their issues.

We happen to know quite a lot of people in the locality with epilepsy. I have often talked dogs with them, and at first I felt uncomfortable saying that certain breeds/lines I'd avoid because of the epilepsy risk. It made me feel I was saying I felt epilepsy was somehow dirty or offensive.

When in fact, what I really meant was that I won't/can't condone any breeder who deliberately breeds dogs that could go on to develop it.... and I wouldn't want to own an epileptic dog.

Purely because, in humans it occurs by random chance, and is unavoidable in that context.

But it is avoidable in dogs to a certain degree - and most of the human epileptics I've met have wished they hadn't been born with their disability, if they'd had that choice.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Yup.

My point is that I'd rather have (or breed) a dog that is perfectly healthy, but may need his tail chopping off, than one deliberately bred with the full knowledge that there's a good chance he'll need surgery just to be able to breathe. I don't think the two are comparable.

Just as a human being, I'd rather be bred with nothing wrong with me and the choice to elect for none essential plastic surgery to earn more money (bits chopped off me for work?), than discover I have cancer.

I don't think breeding spaniels with short, or bob tails is the answer personally, given what often happens when people start breeding for things like that. We end up with a couple of dogs being inbred to fix a trait, a popular sire and all that sort of thing. I can see it now, Mr Bob, the short tailed spaniel being in all lines of working dogs and hey ho, what a shame along with his short tail came a multitude of sins, but never mind we can operate on them. Tail docking, ooh no, horror of horrors, but spine operations, hind limb operations, brain surgery, that's fine, the dog is ill he needs it and how else were we to get a spangle with a short tail?

I don't like tail docking, but I like breeding illness and deformity into dogs even less.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

SpringerHusky said:


> I have heard some of the guarding herding breeds like caucasians take their ears basically off as they get destroyed by the coyotes(or something similar, I dare say maybe wolves? or some form of wild canine) and it's done to protect them but i'm still not 100% sure on this.


We all know why these animals have their ears and tails removed and it isn't to protect them from injury whilst confronting predators.:angry:

I have advantage more than most of being on the front line with both the Sar' and the C/O and know that of all those specimens who are put to work for a living, some Wolf catchers extraordinaire, none have ever lost or suffered injuries to tails or ears in confrontation.

They all posses a great deal of protection around that delicate area.

A veritable Lion's mane. :001_smile:

People have often stopped to ask me where Oscar's ears are or did he indeed have any at all? They are well hidden and this can be a great disadvantage when it comes to cleaning them especially when the animal is fairly reluctant to allow you to do so.

They tend to tuck them even closer to their heads making the exercise somewhat difficult and tedious.:001_rolleyes:


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> And, to expand on the above, I came across:
> 
> "In England in the early 1700's, a tax had to be paid on working dogs with tails and so many breeds of dogs were docked to avoid paying this tax
> 
> ...


That's interesting - a sort of canine equivalent of the window tax.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I have no doubt that working dogs love doing what they do and agree totally that and they were born to do it. They were born to do it because humans bred them to be that way. Now, do you suppose humans bred them to be that way just so they could enjoy themselves? No, of course they didn't. Humans bred them to be that way so that they could fulfil a task that humans wanted them to do.
> 
> So it's actually quite accurate to state that working dogs are the way they are to fulfil humans' pasttimes. And surely the humans should breed them to be that way *safely* - ie not bred them to be that way with a body that needs surgery in order to allow them to do something that is in their very blood?
> 
> *In my opinion (must get that bit in ) there is no difference between breeding a working dog that needs surgery in order to work (ie doing something humans want it to do) and breeding a toy dog that needs surgery in order to breathe (ie having a flat face because that's what humans find cute).* *Both have been bred that way by humans who have put their own needs/wants/wishes above the welfare of the dogs*. Both need surgery in order to fulfil thir function properly.


Have to disagree - there's a HELL of a difference.

But as you say, it comes down to the function the dog was bred for. Working dogs may "need" to be docked, but in general they are bred to be healthy - what good is a working dog that can't breath, or whose joints are stiff, or whose eyes are obscured by folds of flesh or damaged by ingrowing eyelashes? None whatsoever - so a working dog is bred to be physically as sound as possible.

It's when we start to breed to a silly standard of beauty that the problems come - as you say - lap dogs whose faces are so flat that they can't breath, or "utility" dogs with heads so ridiculously large that a caesarian is almost inevitable when they whelp.

You are dead right when you say that human requirements supersede the dogs' needs, but to breed something that can't breathe is infinitely worse IMO than to breed something that has a waggy tail. The dog can lead a happy life with a long tail, but not if it is choking for every breath. Surgery then becomes necessary as opposed to cosmetic.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Already posted this a fair bit (credit to SL)


This is one of these graphs that seems to show more than it does. I think that we can probably all agree that a long tail is more _likely_ to be injured than a short one - but if a dog hasn't got an appreciable length tail, how likely is it to get hurt under any circumstances? If I have had my fingers cut off, I can't catch them in a door, can I?

We have no information relating to any of the data. We know these dogs were spaniels, but not which variety, whether they were all working dogs or the circumstances in which their tails were injured, or how series the injuries were. We have a dog with a tail in excess of 20" - he's a great dane - and there have been a lot of injuries connected with it. However, they have been exclusively to us, as he wags it with such enthusiasm that he lashes us unmercifully. Being wagged by a dane is like being lashed with a bicycle chain!

And how can this vague data be used to justify cutting a tail off? It's like saying that men with testicles are vulnerable to being kicked in the gonads - really, we should castrate the lot of them as a preventative measure* for their own safety.

(* or maybe that's just me . . .)

However, I know that people going to staff remote research stations in the arctic etc, usually have their appendectomies before they go, because appendicitis where there is little medical care is life-threatening. I am prepared to concede that docking _may_ be appropriate if a working dog's life would be severely affected/threatened by tail injuries incurred in its duties - but as so few working dogs have tails, we will never get any figures.

However, for pet and show docking isn't necessary at all as far as I can see, As long as judges penalise dogs with tails in the show ring, we won't get away from docking.

BTW - I am not picking on you or your graph CT - I know you put it in for what it was worth and are not calming that it proves anything either way.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Already posted this a fair bit (credit to SL)


Yes, this has been posted a fair bit - but as a study it's more or less useless and tells nothing. Why? Becasue it's a study of only 160 spaniels. In 2013, registration figures were:
263 American Cockers
247 clumber spaniels
22,943 cockers
11,316 English springers
29 field spaniels
101 Irish water spaniels
66 Sussex spaniels
353 Welsh springers

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/128962/quarterly_breed_stats_gundogs.pdf

ie a total of 35,318 registered spaniels. I would say that figure would be much, much higher when you think that a lot of working spaniels will not be KC registered.

So trying to say that a survery of 160 spaniels is representatiove of what happens to spaniels is naive at best and just plain stupid at worst.

Nonsensical and meaningless surveys like this one do nothing to add to the truth - they only muddy the facts. Only someone who was trying in vain to prove that they were justified in docking their dogs could believe statistics like these.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lostbear said:


> Have to disagree - there's a HELL of a difference.
> 
> But as you say, it comes down to the function the dog was bred for. Working dogs may "need" to be docked, but in general they are bred to be healthy - what good is a working dog that can't breath, or whose joints are stiff, or whose eyes are obscured by folds of flesh or damaged by ingrowing eyelashes? None whatsoever - so a working dog is bred to be physically as sound as possible.
> 
> ...


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. For me, any breeding that necessitates a dog having to have surgery in order to do what man wants it to do is wrong. IMO, breeders of working dogs don't get a "by" on that because their dogs _look_ more healthy than brachy breeds.

I'm sure there as many owners of brachy breeds who will be able to come on here and tell how their dogs live long, healthy and happy lives without the need for srugery as there are working owners who will be able to come on here and say their dog "needed" surgery *just in case* it damaged its tail.


----------

