Woman Jailed Over Tail Dockings

[raptorrex]

1) you forget that "scissors" is a general term that includes everything from nubby little sewing scissors to the powerful kitchen scissors that one uses to cut apart chickens.


2) the puppies were 1 day old when docked, meaning that the docking occurred well before the tails would have finished calcifying and before full development of the nerves


3) the docking was discovered a month after the fact and not due to any medical complications. from the sounds of it, someone merely told the authorities that she had broken the law.


4) punishing the breeder does nothing to alleviate the fact that everyone buying her puppies wanted a docked tail. there really ought to be a companion law that demands people owning docked animals to pay an annual fee. it wouldn't hard to enforce, since docked animals are readily identified and it would be easy enough to create certificates just like those given out with rabies vaccines. it would also generate a continual source of revenue for the government as opposed to the expense associated with putting a 50 yr-old woman in jail.


5) I cannot believe the lack of sympathy that you guys have for an older woman who has just lost all rights to her pets. How many of you were perfect fish-keepers when you first showed up here? Did you realize that neon tetras should live for 10 years or that iridescent sharks grow to be 3 feet long? It's the same principle here. Up until last year, it was considered an acceptable practice to dock puppies. This woman just didn't get the memo. And now she's being excoriated and losing her pets and you can't have one once of sympathy for her?! Most of you even pity hoarders, who by definition cannot take care of their animals and allow them to wallow neglected in filth. Look at that puppy. Except for the missing tail (which is even docked properly), he looks perfectly healthy. Remember, if these puppies were being sold as "working dogs", then these charges would not even have been brought.


6) I support the ban on cosmetic docking. Full stop. But have an ounce of concern for the otherwise loving and caring owners who will inevitably be prosecuted and lose their pets because they didn't understand that your government meant business about this. It's going to take several years for people to understand that docked puppies are not going to be sold any more. Until that understanding permeates even to people buying their very first dog, there's going to be economic pressure on breeders to dock. And there will be breeders caving to that pressure.

Remember, if docking was actually horrific and brutal, then it would be considered animal cruelty in all cases without exception. But it's not. The dangers and pain associated with docking are debatable and little can be proven by either side. The most convincing argument against it is that dogs that have been docked are problematic to socialize with other dogs due to impaired body language. There is little to counter that argument, except to argue safety and worry about potential adult amputation of working dogs' tails (which is actually dangerous and definitely leads to chronic pain). Thus, docking for cosmetic reasons is unjustified and docking for functional reasons is still debatable.

so you see nothing wrong with someone braking the law, just because you think dogs look better that way. geesh .

this is a barbaric practice that is outlawed, except for those who breed the things, who oddly seem to think they are above the law.much like fox hunters, docking only for medical reasons? why does a rottie need its tail docked, what are the medical reasons these idiots use to excuse this pitifully practice.

you say it will take years for dog keepers to realize the government means it with the ban, perhaps it is the intelligence of the keepers we need to look at. if they have that much problem understanding things, perhaps they are not fit to keep dogs, well anything really.

i think the people who do this should be shot. so by your thoughts that would be ok?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

the dude (Bozza) was upset and rightly so, i am not sure how useful it is to start bringing a load of philosophy into it and relating it to his very simple and short post, you really went to town there on someones reply who is just p*ssed of with animal cruelty, You set the thread up to condem the **** who used scissors on a dog, lets focus on that, it doesnt need to become a thread thats gets stuck up its own A$$

Bozza might be upset but he still needs to take responsability for what he says, this thread is here for discussion over the subject of tail docking in general and not just as a repetetive rant thread, i don't mind people ranting but if they say things i disagree with i will still speak my mind, if you want one of those rant threads just go to the betta section of the forum for another 8 page long rant thread about betta's in jars or something.

You don't have the right to tell me what i can and cannot say in my own threads, the mods have that right but you don't.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

so you see nothing wrong with someone braking the law, just because you think dogs look better that way. geesh .

You are completely missing Pica's main points in the thread and never has he indicated or said that he holds his opinion over this news article because he thinks dogs look better with their tails docked- again, he has specifically said he strongly disagree's with tail docking for cosmetic reasons alone.

this is a barbaric practice that is outlawed, except for those who breed the things, who oddly seem to think they are above the law.much like fox hunters, docking only for medical reasons? why does a rottie need its tail docked, what are the medical reasons these idiots use to excuse this pitifully practice.you say it will take years for dog keepers to realize the government means it with the ban, perhaps it is the intelligence of the keepers we need to look at. if they have that much problem understanding things, perhaps they are not fit to keep dogs, well anything really.i think the people who do this should be shot. so by your thoughts that would be ok?

Medical reasons would include things like when the dog keeps repetedly whacking its tail against stuff and ends up damaging it, this is a common medical reason for dogs to have their tails docked to help prevent the dog causing itself further injury. This sort of medical reason can be applied to many breeds of dogs, dogs like springer spaniels which are full of manic energy can cause these sorts of injuries to their tails too, it is not an unheard of problem to happen.

I think that every dog that is docked should be microchipped, and the registered owner has proof that the dog has had its tail docked due to legitimate reasons only or is currently an active working dog. like i said i dont agree with it but i do undertsand why for the correct reasons why its done, some dogs in the uk need to have to be registered by the owner due to the breed, this kind of thing could be used for the docking issue. not that my word is gunna change the world ofcourse

I think thats actually a really good idea about microchipping tail docked dogs, i could see that working .

 

[raptorrex]

so you see nothing wrong with someone braking the law, just because you think dogs look better that way. geesh .

You are completely missing Pica's main points in the thread and never has he indicated or said that he holds his opinion over this news article because he thinks dogs look better with their tails dogs- again, he has specifically said i strongly disagree's with tail docking for cosmetic reasons alone.

this is a barbaric practice that is outlawed, except for those who breed the things, who oddly seem to think they are above the law.much like fox hunters, docking only for medical reasons? why does a rottie need its tail docked, what are the medical reasons these idiots use to excuse this pitifully practice.you say it will take years for dog keepers to realize the government means it with the ban, perhaps it is the intelligence of the keepers we need to look at. if they have that much problem understanding things, perhaps they are not fit to keep dogs, well anything really.i think the people who do this should be shot. so by your thoughts that would be ok?

Medical reasons would include things like when the dog keeps repetedly whacking its tail against stuff and ends up damaging it, this is a common medical reason for dogs to have their tails docked to help prevent the dog causing itself further injury. This sort of medical reason can be applied to many breeds of dogs, dogs like springer spaniels which are full of manic energy can cause these sorts of injuries to their tails too, it is not an unheard of problem to happen.

I think that every dog that is docked should be microchipped, and the registered owner has proof that the dog has had its tail docked due to legitimate reasons only or is currently an active working dog. like i said i dont agree with it but i do undertsand why for the correct reasons why its done, some dogs in the uk need to have to be registered by the owner due to the breed, this kind of thing could be used for the docking issue. not that my word is gunna change the world ofcourse

I think thats actually a really good idea about microchipping tail docked dogs, i could see that working .

no i dont think i did miss the point, from my view. we don't remove the appendix, from human children just because it may get infected in later life! why should we do it to dogs just incase? this also answers the second point you made.

it is an indefeasible act, indeed illegal! and however you look at it, its done for looks, even if legally done!

i feel there is no reason to chip the dogs, because the docking should not be done! just incase is not a defense in any court. personally i dont see why it should do for animals!

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

no i dont think i did miss the point, from my view. we don't remove the appendix, from human children just because it may get infected in later life! why should we do it to dogs just incase? this also answers the second point you made.

it is an indefeasible act, indeed illegal! and however you look at it, its done for looks, even if legally done!

i feel there is no reason to chip the dogs, because the docking should not be done! just incase is not a defense in any court. personally i dont see why it should do for animals!

So if someone had an excitable dog which kept on whacking its tail against stuff and damaging it, causing the dog a lot of pain, and so the owner decided to have the dogs tail docked because the dog wouldn't stop damaging its tail, you would believe the owner was just doing it for the appearance of a docked tail and not to stop their dog suffering in pain over a problem/habit it couldn't control?

I think you are narrow-minded on this subject if you honestly believe the only reasons why someone would get their dogs tail docked is for appearances sake.

 

[raptorrex]

perhaps so. but as i said, just in case is not good enough. if as you say, the dog is causing problems with its tail, perhaps that may be worth the op. but just because the dog might do it, is not good enough.

and it is silly, in my view, to say that all dogs with docked tails, have it done to protect them. the truth is, dogs have their tails docked, because that is the way the breeder wants it to look. their excuse is, they may, and the term is may. hurt them selfs later.

as i said an indefeasible practice, born of nothing more than the vanity of the owner/breeder.

and to suggest that someone who does this at home without proper medical practice or training, deserves some sympathy from anyone is, in my view, pathetic! if you take that stand, it is simpler to condone this barbaric practice throughout the dog breeding community.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

perhaps so. but as i said, just in case is not good enough. if as you say, the dog is causing problems with its tail, perhaps that may be worth the op. but just because the dog might do it, is not good enough.

and it is silly, in my view, to say that all dogs with docked tails, have it done to protect them. the truth is, dogs have their tails docked, because that is the way the breeder wants it to look. their excuse is, they may, and the term is may. hurt them selfs later.

It depends on the risk factor. If you had a dog, and there was a high or very high risk of it injuring its tail (like in the example i gave beforehand) and causing a lot of pain to itself, would you just wait for this inevitability to happen and let your dog suffer (knowing that you could have prevented the problem via a simple proceedure)?
Or would you have its tail docked (which although the tail is a handy tool for the dog to have, is not a vital organ or anything like that) and be safe in the knowledge that it will never suffer pain again from its tail?



I think you desparately want to believe this "truth" that every owner who has docked their dogs tails is because of cosmetic appearances because it makes you feel better or more secure about your own opinions, IMHO, the fact of the matter that issues like this are never black and white, even if a lot of cases may be one particular way. I want you to admit that there may be instances where docking dogs tails is acceptable because it is done for the benefet of the dogs health/welbeing etc.

as i said an indefeasible practice, born of nothing more than the vanity of the owner/breeder.

and to suggest that someone who does this at home without proper medical practice or training, deserves some sympathy from anyone is, in my view, pathetic! if you take that stand, it is simpler to condone this barbaric practice throughout the dog breeding community.

Who are you aiming this comment at? Because i haven't sympthathised for the woman at any point in this thread.

 

[Amunet]

Anywho....

I think it's about time the US gets in on this no docking action. Also no declawing would be nice as well.

I don't understand what it means by working dogs? What do uh.. working dogs do and why would they need to get their tails docked?


As for this woman. She should be banned for life. If she cared about her pets she would have NEVER done that to those puppies considering the high risk of infection since she obviously didn't know what she was doing. That right there just proves that this woman was only in all of this for the money. If she had actually cared about her pets, she would've tryed getting a vet to do it.

If people want a dog with no tail, go out and find a breed that are born without tails (or little cute knubs).. such as french bulldogs (mentally hugs her Ciddy bear). Or a boston terrier or something. Some are born with longer tails though so *shrugs* I dunno where I was going with that heh

 

[raptorrex]

5) I cannot believe the lack of sympathy that you guys have for an older woman who has just lost all rights to her pets. How many of you were perfect fish-keepers when you first showed up here? Did you realize that neon tetras should live for 10 years or that iridescent sharks grow to be 3 feet long? It's the same principle here. Up until last year, it was considered an acceptable practice to dock puppies. This woman just didn't get the memo. And now she's being excoriated and losing her pets and you can't have one once of sympathy for her?! Most of you even pity hoarders, who by definition cannot take care of their animals and allow them to wallow neglected in filth. Look at that puppy. Except for the missing tail (which is even docked properly), he looks perfectly healthy. Remember, if these puppies were being sold as "working dogs", then these charges would not even have been brought.

indeed it was not you that said that, however Pica's post was the subject of that post.

whilst i agree the excuse for docking, is the welfare of the dog. i maintain that docking is done just for looks. a talk to two people thinking of getting a Rotti, you would have to be deaf not to hear the reason. nobody considers the dog, just its looks.

i would make a point that sums up my thoughts. it seems odd to me, that if an owner can not give the dog a safe place to live, where it is not hurt in its normal day to day activity's, perhaps it is the owner that should be sanctioned. can you think of another animal that we can chop bits off just because their environment is not safe? if the dog can hurt itself in its living area or the home, the home is not safe and therefor not fit to keep that dog. suggesting that cutting something off will solve the problem is as barbaric as the practice.

we also have 4none docked Rotties living around here, not one has had any trouble with hurting its tail, some live in quite small houses. however their owners must ensure their dogs are safe, because none have been hurt. i have an 18 month old now, he is daft as a brush, charging round, bouncing, and generally being a puppy.

if docking is to be continued i suggest the Frankinstien club. sorry kennel club, and their allies should prove the point. not just tell us they are the experts, and therefore right.

thankfully more and more dogs are going un docked. i took the liberty of asking my local vet, because of this thread, if they had noticed any increase in tail problems, their answer was in the negative, though they would not be drawn for more detailed answers.

 

[starrynightxxi]

I don't understand what it means by working dogs? What do uh.. working dogs do and why would they need to get their tails docked?

i believe by working dogs, they mean hunting dogs, guard dogs, and the like. It's to avoid injury and to prevent giving someone an advantage over the dog. Their back ends are really vulnerable, and i think tails are hard to treat. It seems like most of the tail injuries on the vet shows end in docking.


A bit off topic, but personally, I think cropped ears are far worse than docked tails.

 

[modaz]

the idea that a person shouldnt have a dog if the environment isnt right for it is a somewhat BIZZARE thing to say (regarding this topics issues ofcourse). so as for springers (example) so what would you do to protect it from damaging its tail? add padding to the walls and furniture?

Im no expert on the reasons of docking and most of my responses have been from searches so as not to post incorrect info but i would possibly think that the docking of breeds has been approved over the recent years due to medical research and indepth debate to what is the way forward to reduce the risk factor to these dogs.

 

[GobyMaster]

WERE DOGS BORN WITH TAILS? YES! SO WHY SHOULD HUMANS BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE WAY DOGS LOOK? WE CHANGE ALOT OF THINGS IN THE WORLD AND WE HAVE MADE MAYBE 5% OF THOSE CHANGES FOR GOOD. AS A WHOLE, THE WORLD WOULD OF BEEN A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT HUMANS.


Sorry for the caps, but people piss me off sometimes

Urgh...


So you hate your own existance as a human being because you believe the world would be a better place without us?

Yes, the world probably would be better off without the human race, but we are here, and it looks like we are here to stay for a long time yet.

No offense, but I highly disagree. I believe people are so stupid, we'll drive ourselves into extinction with 350 years. 500 tops.
Dinosaurs were around for along time (over 100 million years). We probably won't as we're too thick to get along with eachother and not kill our planet.
That's my opinion, and I agree with Bozza.
Cheers,
GobyMaster

 

[OohFeeshy]

the idea that a person shouldnt have a dog if the environment isnt right for it is a somewhat BIZZARE thing to say (regarding this topics issues ofcourse). so as for springers (example) so what would you do to protect it from damaging its tail? add padding to the walls and furniture?

Bit of an extreme remedy, but there's nothing 'bizzare' about adapting your home if you get a pet. If you get a rabbit, you rabbit proof the house or garden (oh what a lot of fun *that* is...). If you have a baby (lol, not a pet, but still) you child-proof your house. Likewise for cats, ferrets, birds... So why not for dogs?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

No offense, but I highly disagree. I believe people are so stupid, we'll drive ourselves into extinction with 350 years. 500 tops.Dinosaurs were around for along time (over 100 million years). We probably won't as we're too thick to get along with eachother and not kill our planet.That's my opinion, and I agree with Bozza.Cheers,GobyMaster

People have been talking about the end of the human race since the medievil times and before.
There's no reason why we would drive ourselves to extinction (and anyway, wasn't what you just said quite contradictory i.e. basically "i believe we'll drive ourseleves to extinction but on the other hand i believe we won't)? On the other hand though, you just human beings were thick/stupid (which would thus include yourself, with you being a human being and all)...

God...What is it with all of these "i hate and insult my own existance of other people's existances as human beings" brigades of recent?

I don't understand what it means by working dogs? What do uh.. working dogs do and why would they need to get their tails docked?

i believe by working dogs, they mean hunting dogs, guard dogs, and the like. It's to avoid injury and to prevent giving someone an advantage over the dog. Their back ends are really vulnerable, and i think tails are hard to treat. It seems like most of the tail injuries on the vet shows end in docking.A bit off topic, but personally, I think cropped ears are far worse than docked tails.

Yes i agree, i think cropped ears are a lot worse than docked tails- as far as i am aware cropped ears really serve no purpose other than to make the dog look meaner or something stupid like that.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

the idea that a person shouldnt have a dog if the environment isnt right for it is a somewhat BIZZARE thing to say (regarding this topics issues ofcourse). so as for springers (example) so what would you do to protect it from damaging its tail? add padding to the walls and furniture?

Bit of an extreme remedy, but there's nothing 'bizzare' about adapting your home if you get a pet. If you get a rabbit, you rabbit proof the house or garden (oh what a lot of fun *that* is...). If you have a baby (lol, not a pet, but still) you child-proof your house. Likewise for cats, ferrets, birds... So why not for dogs?

Of course its always wise to adapt your home to your pet, but some dogs really do have problems. My aunt had a springer spaniel which acted like it was on speed or something 24/7, it never sat still for a moment (even though she walked the dog for hours and hours every day).
I remember the dog sustained some pretty nasty injuries (sores, bruises and wounds and stuff) on its tail from constantly wagging its tail all the time and ending up accidentally whacking its tail on stuff (like chairs). It had to see the vet numerous times, for weeks at a time its tail would be covered in bandages to stop it opening up its wounds. I don't know if the dog got its tail docked in the end (i'm pretty sure it did though), i unfortunately lost contact with my aunt after that.

Now my aunt lived in a BIG house at the time. It was hardly like it was some crampt city flat with no space to stretch. It was the dog which couldn't help the problem, not her. What would you have had her do, take out all the chairs and tables in her house? Ban the dog to live in a dog pen 24/7 with nothing in it so it couldn't hurt its tail etc?