Tail Docking

[Canis-Equus]

Im in two minds.

I dont think docking is necessary - certainly not for all dogs of breeds customarily docked.

I think a VERY FEW dogs who actually do work, do benefit from being docked - but by teh same token, i dont see the need for any of them to have the complete dock, where there is barely even a stump.

I dont think docking done properly causes pain - i think though that a lot of vets dont know how to do it properly (its not something they particularly practice at vet school, nor as a working vet, so they dont have a huge amount of experience in it).

Whilst id love to see no dogs with docked tails, this isnt going to happen.

THere will be ways around the ban - the showing ban ONLY covers those shows that charge an entrance fee for the public - the only one that has any real public interest is Crufts, i see no reason why (especially given that the KC have publically stated they will NOT police the ban, ie they will not be checking that dogs are legal or illegal), Crufts could not charge an entrance fee for the trade show only, and let the public see the show rings themselves for free - and thus docked dogs would be legally shown at crufts.

Other shows dont charge, so docked dogs can still show there - if you arent into showing you may not know that there are open and champ shows pretty much every week in the summer months - so plenty of chance to show a docked dog, and of course as i said, the KC dont care if they are legal or illegal.

Personally - id rather have seen a law stating that dogs can ONLY have a maximum of half the length of the tail docked - this would give all docked dogs a sufficient length of tail to wag, to display other emotions etc, whilst still reducing the chances of injury to the tip of the tail.

I reckon if this were the case, most people who dont work their dogs wouldnt bother docking if its only half the tail off - it would look 'odd' on most dogs so they may as well have the full tail.

It would still be hard to police, but people may then think twice about docking an entire litter, and those dogs docked because they MAY work would still have some tail, unlike the poor sods now who dont even have a decent stump to wag.

Em

 

[Archer]

The rule concerning showing docked dogs means that the KC will not accept entries from dogs borns after 1st april 2007 that are docked.Dogs born before then can be docked AND shown.Its not a case of the general public....since this is now the KC ruling people who wish to show dogs born from now on will not have them docked rather than risk being reported to the KC which can have serious consequences

I do it for a nice day out with my dogs among like minded people.Self glorification??? I have shown for 5 years and never so much as won a CC so how is that self glorification.My dogs do OK but are no world beaters but what makes it so hard for you to understand that they can enjoy a day out with other dogs??

Archer - sometimes there's absolutely zero point trying to make a point with someone who's absolutely not interested in hearing another side of the story. They will never see it. I used to show my Dobes too - mostly obedience/agility shows. They totally loved it. But I'm not going to "argue" my point of view on that or my interpretation of my dogs enjoyment. It's simply not worth it

I know what you mean...whats that old saying...'theres none so blind as those who will not see''

 

[Canis-Equus]

Last i heard from the KC - they cannot (not their choice, it is uk law) accept dogs docked after wotever date, IF and ONLY IF its a show where the public pay an entrance fee.

Unless that changed at the last sorting out of the law in the house of wotever, in which case can you show me where it says different?

The KC have publically stated they will NOT police the law, so they wont be asking owners for documentation to prove a dog is legal.

They are not interested in it, they are doing teh absolute bare minimum required of them by law. Personally despite not being pro docking, i can see their point!

 

[raptorrex]

if it is true that the KC will not police the LAW in shows held under their name. effectively saying, they will ignore the law. its no wonder people have no time for them. you may not like a law but it is there to be followed. it also looks like they are saying, ignore the law and we will help, by not checking. all that does is prove the point that they aren't fit to do their job!

well lets hope the animal right get to them and force a prosecution, which would be followed by the same for the KC roll on roll on.

if this is true, they deserve less respect than most criminals imo. and sounds like they think they can act like, the red loonies who hunt foxes.
wonder if a similar organisation from say a council estate in Bradford, would be allowed to act in the same way? ill bet not!

 

[pica_nuttalli]

(a) A dog's tail is not a limb

(B) A dog's tail is not an essential part (for it is patently obvious that a dog can live quite happily without a tail, both physically and emotionally).

This is the bit i disagree with
Who decided it wasnt an esential part
If it wasnt supposed to be there it wouldnt be there and just because they can manage without it it doesnt give anyone the right to cut it off

Indeed- with modern medicine, very few parts of the body are *essential*- legs, arms, genitals, some body organs... all available to be removed with the amputee living 'quite happily without a (insert body part), both physically and emotionally'. Hey, look at Mike the Headless Chicken- heads are obviously overrated

feeshy, that arguement (while obviously facetious ) is also fallacious. amputees almost invariably suffer from "phantom limbs" where the subconcious is convinced that not only is the limb still present but frequently believes the missing limb to be in pain. you know the old joke: a man wakes up after a car accident and screams "I can't feel my legs" to which the doctor replies "of course not, you've lost your arms."

puppies are docked at a very early age before their bodies are fully developed, i.e. before "phantom limbs" can become a problem. thus your argument (except for the removal of the head ;lol is inherently flawed. a better comparison would be between docked puppies and individuals who lose limbs while in the womb. however, most people who are born without various limbs do tend to indicate that they live "quite happily" without whatever body part they are missing (although I'm sure that not every day is a picnic in the park). the reason for this general satisfaction is intimately related to the fact that they have no previous standard of comparison, concious or unconcious. (although several interesting studies indicate that most amputees do in fact adjust to their state, even with various pain responses and difficulties of mobility, because people are adaptable and want to be happy. i can find you a link if you want.)

KathyM, could you please specify some examples of the types of behavioral issues resulting from tail docking? i respect your wide range of experiences with dogs and i would be very interested to hear your viewpoints on the subject.

as for the statue up for debate, if it is not a blanket ban and allows for working dogs to be docked, then i have no problem with it. i hope that it does ultimately lead to the cessation of docking for cosmetic purposes. as for the supposed protection from adult amputation of tails, i'm certain that if tail amputation does in fact become a chronic problem for traditionally docked breeds, the statue will ultimately be altered in order to protect those breeds.

--EDIT--
My God, you're belligerent boboboy!! Could you at least pretend to post a rational response instead of accusing KC members of being criminals and sadists? Seriously, you've flamed several people and entities in this thread--chill.

 

[Canis-Equus]

Cant agree with you Boboboy,,,, the KC have said they wont police it, they havent said 'please, show your illegally docked dogs'.
If someone suspects a dog is illegal then they can make a complaint either to the police or they can complain to the show organisers and thats dealt with like any other complaint about the way a show is run.

Lets not forget this is only for shows where public pay to enter, which is VERY FEW shows at all!

THe KC are well within their rights to say that they will not police the law, its not THEIR law, nor is it their job to police UK law, thats the job for the POLICE, amazingly enough.

Whilst i dont agree that as many dogs need docking as are docked, i certainly dont think it calls for the likes of animal rights nutters - and pray, how will THEY tell which dogs are legal and which illegal?

 

[KathyM]

KathyM, could you please specify some examples of the types of behavioral issues resulting from tail docking? i respect your wide range of experiences with dogs and i would be very interested to hear your viewpoints on the subject.

My experience of it is in Boxers in particular. Our first, Ruby, had other dogs "go" for her on many an occasion. They're a hard breed for other dogs to "read" as it is, with their stance and all, and my thoughts were (and are still) that if they had their tail, other dogs would be able to read them better. For example - Ruby, although friendly with other dogs, used to stand like most Boxers do - forward and proud. This could be read by other dogs as her being a bit pushy (which she wasn't, quite the opposite) and her lack of tail meant that couldn't be clarified so to speak. If she'd had her tail, she'd have still stood proud, but would've been able to display her low, calm wag better. Without it, she would be read purely on how she looked otherwise.

I discussed things with my trainer, who said she sees a lot of dogs who take a dislike to docked dogs specifically (not just Boxers), and she sees docked dogs who have been bullied and go on to have behavioural issues from that (best form of defence and all that). I spoke to a couple of other trainers who reported similar. I've also spoken to other Boxer owners, some of whom have undocked Boxers, who said it seems to be the lack of tail coupled with their stance, but that those with a tail don't seem to have the problem as much.

 

[OohFeeshy]

feeshy, that arguement (while obviously facetious ) is also fallacious.

I know, I was merely pointing out that technical definitions often have no relation to fact. Words are bendable creatures.

 

[~T~]

KathyM, could you please specify some examples of the types of behavioral issues resulting from tail docking? i respect your wide range of experiences with dogs and i would be very interested to hear your viewpoints on the subject.

My experience of it is in Boxers in particular. Our first, Ruby, had other dogs "go" for her on many an occasion. They're a hard breed for other dogs to "read" as it is, with their stance and all, and my thoughts were (and are still) that if they had their tail, other dogs would be able to read them better. For example - Ruby, although friendly with other dogs, used to stand like most Boxers do - forward and proud. This could be read by other dogs as her being a bit pushy (which she wasn't, quite the opposite) and her lack of tail meant that couldn't be clarified so to speak. If she'd had her tail, she'd have still stood proud, but would've been able to display her low, calm wag better. Without it, she would be read purely on how she looked otherwise.

I discussed things with my trainer, who said she sees a lot of dogs who take a dislike to docked dogs specifically (not just Boxers), and she sees docked dogs who have been bullied and go on to have behavioural issues from that (best form of defence and all that). I spoke to a couple of other trainers who reported similar. I've also spoken to other Boxer owners, some of whom have undocked Boxers, who said it seems to be the lack of tail coupled with their stance, but that those with a tail don't seem to have the problem as much.

Exactly, dog use their tails to signify their emotions as well as balance.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Just a passing thought... surely the legislation will encourage breeding for better tails on breeds traditionally docked? People have mentioned things like boxers have thin tails which are easily damaged- over time that could be rectified.

 

[pica_nuttalli]

Just a passing thought... surely the legislation will encourage breeding for better tails on breeds traditionally docked? People have mentioned things like boxers have thin tails which are easily damaged- over time that could be rectified.

you know, human nature being what it is, i wouldn't be shocked if it sparked off a trend in the reverse: people selectively breeding for even thinner, more delicate tails.

 

[Danno]

I don't really have an opinion to this argument really, more or less a 3rd party view from it all. People dock dogs because of cultural traditions and preferences. There is no negetive or possitive argument to this. It doesn't hurt the dog, and it doesn't hurt society. Its one of those things that are just done. Think of it this way....Why do you put up a Lighted Tree durning Christmas? Why? There isnt a reason. Things don't have to make sence to have an existance (no im not saying it is bad or even good).

Docking other animals like sheep, there are some HUGE advantages.

Everything in this world is based on peoples preference to aethetics. no?

 

[angelmouse]

my undocked springer is a working gun dog, she`s always in the brambles, and yes sometimes she does catch her tail and it might bleed, but she also cuts her paws on flints and gets sratches on other parts of her body, we all have accidents but would not amputate the offending part.. She just loves to wag her tail she uses it to express herself, it`s her way of smiling.
I can understand with a working dog why people dock them, but not on a pet, seems cruel to do it just cause it looks better.
My springer has just had puppies and just could not bring myself to have them docked, but i seem to have had more people interested in them because they are undocked.
Angelmouse

 

[~T~]

I don't really have an opinion to this argument really, more or less a 3rd party view from it all. People dock dogs because of cultural traditions and preferences. There is no negetive or possitive argument to this. It doesn't hurt the dog, and it doesn't hurt society. Its one of those things that are just done. Think of it this way....Why do you put up a Lighted Tree durning Christmas? Why? There isnt a reason. Things don't have to make sence to have an existance (no im not saying it is bad or even good).

Docking other animals like sheep, there are some HUGE advantages.

Everything in this world is based on peoples preference to aethetics. no?

 

[Danno]

What is the " " for?
Say what you feel. lol