# tail docking



## craven.44 (Sep 10, 2008)

I have a friend who wants a dog. I have a foster dog that I think would be a good match. He is an 8 month old Rottie mix named Pogo. The problem is, my friend "doesn't like tails." He is worried about a tail clearing his coffee table. Pogo has a tail. My friend brought up the rubber band method of docking tails. I have no experience with tail docking, I personally do not see why he is insisting on it. What do you guys think? Is the rubber band thing harmful? Is it painful? Is there anything I could tell him to maybe change his mind? Thanks.


----------



## craven.44 (Sep 10, 2008)

This is Pogo when he was at the shelter:


----------



## Max'N'MillersMomma (Nov 27, 2008)

In my eyes it is cruel. It should be done at birth if it is going to be done. Not on a full grown dog. It is also painfull for them.

http://cfhs.ca/athome/ear_cropping_and_tail_docking/

here is a link with more info.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

An adult dog should NEVER have the tail docked unless there is a severe injury that requires an amputation. 

True docking ocurs right after birth (around 3 days old) ONLY and the rubberband method is not generally used because it can cause infection and takes too long.

If your friend attempts this he/she could (and should) be charged with animal cruelty.


----------



## craven.44 (Sep 10, 2008)

OK cool. If I cannot convince him not to do it, he will not only not be getting Pogo, I will not help him get a dog at all. And if he gets a dog without my help and tries it, I have no qualms about reporting it. I am also going to talk to him about adopting a dog from a shelter/rescue who already has his tail docked. Thanks.


----------



## Max'N'MillersMomma (Nov 27, 2008)

As you suggested there are LOTS of dogs in shelters in need of a good home. I'm sure he can find one who is lacking in the tail department.

Or you could suggest a dog that are born without tails

Boston Terriers are generally born with a tiny stub or corkscrew tail. That won't clean off the coffee table.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

I know someone who does it and, when done at two days old or so, the pups don't seem to mind it in the least. Later in life, as noted above, it should only be done, IF IT's DONE, by a vet.


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> True docking ocurs right after birth (around 3 days old) ONLY and the rubberband method is not generally used because it can cause infection and takes too long.


Why is it done at all ?


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

It's done for cosmetic purposes and/or because some believe a dog will break its tail if it is not done. In Europe, it is illegal. I LOVE minpins with full tails and ears. I think they're adorable but I can't find one here.


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

...for cosmetic purposes.....as in to compete in shows ?


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

unclearthur said:


> ...for cosmetic purposes.....as in to compete in shows ?


Yup! The breed standard in America says tails must be docked, ears must be cropped, etc., etc., etc. It's disgusting.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Quite frankly, as a rescue operator, someone commenting to me that they would consider a dog only adoptable if we were willing to amputate one of his appendages would immediately disqualify him/her from adopting from me, period.

I completely understand the preference towards the bobbed or docked breeds (we've had hundreds of both in our home over the years, and certainly the tailless dogs do less damage to the house!) but we don't condone the practice of docking/cropping.

We do our best to educate people, but when someone presents with an idea like attaching a rubber band to a dog's appendage to cut off the blood supply until it essentially dies and hopefully falls off (which it won't, by the way - it will either swell and split or rot, and either way remain attached!) this is obviously an individual who has difficulty with empathy and should perhaps consider a nicely pruned fern rather than a living, breathing creature as a companion.

Sorry for going off, but I have a real peeve about the docking thing - we have a cattle dog/rott X who happens to be black and tan, which is about where her rottweiler looks end... she's four years old, and ever since she was five weeks people have been asking me either why we didn't remove her tail or when we are going to remove it.

I (try to) calmly explain to them that she enjoys ALL the appendages she was born with, although she'd be happy to reconsider the attachment of her tail if the commenter was willing to reconsider the attachment of his or her left eyebrow. After all, it boils down to a device used for communication via body language. I think a tail for an eyebrow sounds fair, don't you?


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

Its a little hard to maintain respect for the AKC, dog show crowd etc if they are still lopping tails and ears off to make dogs fit their definitions. I would have thought they would be the leaders in fighting against things like that.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

unclearthur said:


> Why is it done at all ?


It originated to protect dogs from tail breakage in the field, much like dew claw removal. With the Rotties, they often pulled carts so the tail got in the way. It's mostly done now for the show ring as it's still part of the standards of many breeds in quite a few countries


----------



## craven.44 (Sep 10, 2008)

babysweet- I plan to have a long talk with my friend. I will talk to him about his motives for having a dog with a docked tail beyond the coffee table thing. I honestly think it was ignorance on his part, I do not think he understands the reality of docked tails. I surely did not, that is why I asked here. He is an empathetic person who really does love dogs, and I believe he thought tail docking to be a minor thing. If he insists on a docked tail, I will make sure it is for legit reasons (if he can come up with one) and we will find him a rescue dog that fits his needs. If I get any indication that he will not provide a good home for a dog, I will do everything in my power to prevent him from getting one.


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

> Quite frankly, as a rescue operator, someone commenting to me that they would consider a dog only adoptable if we were willing to amputate one of his appendages would immediately disqualify him/her from adopting from me, period.


That's my thoughts exactly. I wouldn't even consider adopting the dog to him at all, under any circumstances, just because he seemed so adamant about it to begin with. His motives don't sound as though they are in the best interest of the dog at all, and I would continue searching for a better home. One that will accept the dog as it is, tail and all.


----------



## craven.44 (Sep 10, 2008)

In the 2 hours since I created this thread, I have decided that Pogo is not the dog for my friend. I hope to be able to find him a rescue dog with a docked tail, but I am going to need to talk to him more before I am comfortable allowing any dog to live with him. Anyone know someone who wants an 8 month old rottie mix pup? lol


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Of all the stressful things that will happen to a dog during it's life, tail docking *at 3 days or less* is one of the least significant. Snip, yelp, back to suckling. Barely registers on their underdeveloped nervous system. They will routinly experiace more pain in rough play sessions.

The average nail clipping is more stressful for many dogs.

Cropping ears on the other hand is surgery on a dog with a fully developed nervous system and weeks of healing time.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

A breeder I know in Calgary had a dog's ears cropped a bit later in life so she could show him. She couldn't believe the pain the dog went through ! She said never again. I wish more would be like her. It's NOT like docking - it's quite major surgery and causes quite a bit of pain. I hate it.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

KaseyT - I feel the need to point out a very key point that perhaps you have overlooked.

That is, the reason so many of us are vehemently opposed to docking/cropping is not the pain the puppy feels during the procedure but rather the long term potential effects of the amputation (and it IS an amputation, I don't care what age it's done at).

For those of you who practice acupuncture and chiropractic treatments, cropping and docking has serious implications - namely, the effect that a lack of tail has on the balance of an animal that was given a tail for a physiological reason, the removal of several important acupuncture points and the disruption of normal blood flow and therefore the body's energy.

Even for those of you who don't, there is NO denying the inability of a docked dog to properly express itself through body language. Removing the dog's tail is like taking away a portion of your speech - imagine if you were born with the inability to articulate say, every fifth word in the dictionary... and to complicate things further, others around you were not. Oh, and to add to it, you weren't actually AWARE that you were missing those words. When you said something clearly and it came out as gibberish, it would understandably be frustrating when others failed to understand you, no?

This is what docked dogs deal with every day when communicating with both humans and members of their own species. A dog's tail is a HUGE part of their vocabulary - tail carriage alone can determine the difference between a playful and an aggressive movement or action. Docked tails are part of the reason that so many breeds are considered to attack "without warning." Rotts and Dobes are great examples (spaniels as well). The truth is, they are most likely presenting very clear body language (Dobes in particular are at a disadvantage if their ears are altered as well) but lacking the appendage necessary to make that language understandable to those around him/her.

THIS is what many of us (of course, I can't possibly speak for everyone) have an issue with.

Add to that the fact that many of us ALSO believe that pups do indeed feel pain when this surgery is performed without proper pain management techniques including anaesthetic.

From the RSPCA:

"Docking is a surgical amputation, which involves cutting or crushing a puppy's skin, muscles, up to seven pairs of nerves, and bone and cartilage - and is performed without anaesthetic when pups are just three to five days old. At this age they can feel pain, and research indicates they do so at a greater intensity than adult dogs because the ability to suppress pain develops with age and experience."

From the Dolittler Blog of Dr. Patty Khuly, DVM in response to the AVMA taking a stance against docking/cropping:

"As a veterinarian who once practiced ear cropping and occasionally docks tails under certain uncomfortable circumstances, I find myself fully supporting this position statement. If I never docked a tail again in my entire life (except when medically necessary) I would be a happier person for it.

In truth, there’s no good reason for me to continue to dock tails. Once I decided that cropping ears was a horrific practice I could no longer engage in it shouldn’t have taken me so long to arrive at the same conclusion regarding puppy tails. I see them as very similar, unnecessary procedures (though the ear crop is inarguably more painful and risky).

Instead, I required that my clients’ pups receive nerve blocks before tail and dewclaw removals, thereby bumping the price way up beyond what the average breeder would support. But I didn’t put my foot down. Not really. Some breeders still came my way, excited that I would take such an enlightened view on pain control. Sigh. So much for my easy way out.

Now that the AVMA has spoken out in opposition of the practice, it gives me further impetus to finally put an end to my career in cosmetic medicine. Wimpy vets like me can now hide behind the AVMA’s skirts the next time breeders come calling. It’s unethical, I’ll say. I won’t do any more cosmetic surgery. And I should have said so sooner."


We need to go the way of Europe, and ban this barbaric practice outright. Breeders be darned - sorry.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

If this is the case, docking hurts so much, why do the pups barely make a sound then instantly go back to whatever they were doing? There's virtually no bleeding... etc.? Just curious.

I have two dogs with docked tails and I can still see their full range of emotions from their tails because min pins' tails are left with SOME length to them. I'd love to have them have full tails, though... I love the sight of a dog wagging its tail. It's been years since I've had a dog who wagged its whole tail - we're always noticing it on Titan because we haven't seen it in so long. Don't get me wrong, Liz and Zoe can wag those "stubs" really well and show us fear, happiness, annoyance, etc., but it's not the same as an entire tail  

By the way, Titan has his dew claws. I'm not even thinking about getting them removed. He's not going to race through the woods and possibly rip his out


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

I have my own curiosities... like why so many breeders and breed afficienados swear up and down that the puppies "feel no pain" and yet studies like this one: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120743567/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 show clearly that the veterinary community believes strongly to the contrary.

Also, a UK website offers the following:

"The Department of Companion Animals, Queensland , carried out a detailed study of 50 puppies aged between 3-5 days old undergoing docking. The puppies were Doberman, Rottweilers and Bouviers that traditionally have the tail docked very short and so requires a suture to assist healing. The outcome of the report was as follows:

"All pups appeared distressed by the amputation of the tail. Relatively continuous mild vocalisations during the preparation of the tail turned dramatically to repeated and intense shrieking vocalisations at the moment the tail was docked. The intensity of vocalisations decreased slightly (but was still above the intensity made during preparation of the tail) in the period between amputation and placement of the suture (if appropriate). At the moment of piercing the skin for a suture placement, vocalisations again returned to levels comparable with the amputation. Similar intense vocalisations were noticed when pressure was placed on the suture material as the knot was tied. The average number of shrieks made during the amputation of the tail was 24, (range of 5-23.) The average number of whimpers made during the amputation of the tail was 18, (range of 2 -46.) All pups exhibited some degree of bleeding from the stump following docking.""

In addition, the following information is provided:

"Studies have proved that cutting the tail tip of mice increases sensitivity to pain in later life, an effect known as hyperalgesia. In fact puppies do feel pain and sensitivity to pain for many months after docking. Rarely mentioned is the fact that tail docking can have far reaching health issues. Due to the relationship between muscles in the dog's tail and the pelvic area, docking can affect muscle function around the rectum and pelvis thereby carrying a risk of faecal incontinence, acquired urinary incontinence and hernias. The tail is an extension of the dog's spine including various muscles and tendons. An example of this is the rectococcygeus muscle on the hind wall of the dog's rear, near to the anus. This muscle is attached to the base of the tail as well and supports the anal canal and rectum along with the Levator ani muscle. These two muscles also assist in movement of the tail and when the dog has a bowel motion. Docking the tail must obviously affect these muscles, a fact that is backed by studies showing that breeds such as the Boxer have a predisposition to perineal hernia. The females in docked breeds such as Rottweilers, Doberman, and Old English Sheepdogs suffer more from urinary incontinence after docking than undocked dogs."

After looking at the facts as they are available (and there are NO studies that back up the claims that these procedures are painless and do NOT cause long lasting negative effects to the animals they are performed on) there is simply no way to condone docking/cropping.

As for the dewclaw argument, all of my dogs who were born with dewclaws retained their dewclaws. Even our mixed breed who had front and rear dews. With all the reported dew claw injuries that go on, we have yet to see one, although we have had a dog lose a front toe nail and another one lose a back toe nail. You know, those nails are in danger because they come into contact with the ground all the time, unlike the dewclaws, which, when kept properly trimmed should not only not contact the ground but can easily be shaped so as not to be "catchy"... perhaps I should insist on my next dog having all of his toenails removed when he's born. You know, to avoid any potential injuries as he ages.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Well, BabySweet, minpins' tails are docked at the first or second knuckle and don't require a suture and I've been told by more than one breeder that the pups don't fuss at all so maybe it's breed specific, maybe it's the way it's done, who knows? I still don't think it should be condoned. I know minpin people are trying hard to get full ears accepted in the show ring but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

I will admit that it would be practical to assume that smaller breed dogs, having less tissue and blood vessels to amputate through, would most likely experience less discomfort than larger breeds.

However, even the little dog breeders I know who dock suture their dog's tails. This is an open avenue for bacteria and infection, particularly in a teeny puppy with an immature immune system.

More and more breed clubs are slowly accepting naturally tailed and eared dogs into the show ring. This is mostly due to the fact that in an effort to widen the gene pool imports are becoming more and more popular and Europe is the most logical place to turn to for a lot of these breeds. Also, the banning of ear cropping and tail docking won't happen overnight and I'm all in favour of any step in the right direction. More and more naturally eared dogs are earning their championship thanks in part to younger judges with different ideals than the old boys and girls.

The greatest thing is that their arguments against showing tailed breeds (who knows, this dog may have a corkscrew tail!) have proven completely unfounded. I have yet to see a naturally tailed, normally docked dog with a tail other than what you would picture if you had to imagine that dog with a tail. Some are obviously longer, shorter, thinner, thicker, hairier or balder than others - but there's a simple way around that... keep the standard limited to the base of the tail only. After all, if these tails supposedly have no use, and form is supposed to follow function (or at least that's the argument of the show circuit) then why should it matter what the tail looks like?


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

If he's worried so much about having stuff knocked off the coffee table, any dog may be too much for him. What'll happen when it poops, chews, knocks things over with it's FRONT end, etc?


----------



## BentletheYentle (Oct 6, 2008)

craven.44 said:


> Anyone know someone who wants an 8 month old rottie mix pup? lol


He looks so much like my Bentley! I would love to take him in if I could. Twin pups, hehe.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Jesirose: hear hear!


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

I just don't get why people who love dogs would want to lop of the tail or cut up the ears, even if it is painless or of little consequence (debatable). To get some ribbons? These are the people who are responsible for 'bettering the breed'? LOL.

I think breeders should focus on producing healthy dogs of great temperament, not focused on minute arbitrary physical features which may produce a "champion". The fact that many are still slicing and dicing does not give me a lot of confidence that the industry has its priorities right.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

I love aussies and GSDs.
I've always thought an aussie with its tail would be absolutely beautiful. If I ever purchase an aussie pup rather than adopting, I will not allow its tail to be docked.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

You or your friend can stick a rubber ban on your finger and leave it there until your finger infects and rots off. 

Then let us know if it is painful, harmful, bad, ect. 



unclearthur said:


> ...for cosmetic purposes.....as in to compete in shows ?


No as in people like a certain look so they do it. Some compete in shows, some work, some owners forget their dogs exist and neglect them, others have loved pets with docks/crops. I highly doubt this person is interested in showing a rescue dog more then likely without papers.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

Tofu_pup said:


> I love aussies and GSDs.
> I've always thought an aussie with its tail would be absolutely beautiful. If I ever purchase an aussie pup rather than adopting, I will not allow its tail to be docked.


I always wondered what my Aussies would look like with tails. I googled it once. Oh my goodness they were gorgeous.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Tofu_pup said:


> I love aussies and GSDs.
> I've always thought an aussie with its tail would be absolutely beautiful. If I ever purchase an aussie pup rather than adopting, I will not allow its tail to be docked.


We just added a cattle dog pup to our family who happens to have a wee bit of aussie in her past (about 1/8) and somehow managed to get the beautiful red merle colouring of an aussie as well as the floppy ears (as opposed to the prick ears she should have had - and her littermates had). 

She's about 9 weeks old now and she comes to work with me every day. Everyone who comes in thinks she's an aussie pup (I'm already starting to get the tail docking questions AGAIN - ugh) but of course they're thrown off by the fact that she has a full, beautiful tail. 

I'll get around to getting some photos up eventually...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Tofu_pup said:


> I've always thought an aussie with its tail would be absolutely beautiful. If I ever purchase an aussie pup rather than adopting, I will not allow its tail to be docked.


Then you'll likely have to import. Aussies, like every other docked breed, are docked at 2-4 days of age. You don't get to make the decision of whether or not the dog is docked...the breeder does. The Aussies standard calls for a docked tail, and since you can't tell who the show quality pups are at 4 days, EVERYBODY gets docked.

And I've seen a tailed aussie....looked like a Border Collie >.<


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Xeph said:


> And I've seen a tailed aussie....looked like a Border Collie >.<


Ummmm... actually, I'd say they look more like an aussie - but with a tail.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

well you're welcome to say that....the one I saw looked like a Border Collie. And yes, I'm sure it was an Aussie, because I asked if it was a BC and they said, "No, it's an Aussie."


----------



## Ender (Sep 16, 2008)

myminpins said:


> If this is the case, docking hurts so much, why do the pups barely make a sound then instantly go back to whatever they were doing? There's virtually no bleeding... etc.? Just curious.


Barely make a sound? Apparently you've never seen the procedure done yourself. I volunteer at a vet clinic and had to hold five little yorkie puppies while the vet amputated their tails and dewclaws. They screamed and cried and fought the entire time. I have never felt so much like the scum of the earth in my life. They definitely feel it. I refuse to be in the same room now when I know there's tail docking to be done. But, you can usually still hear them screaming across the clinic. I don't care what your breeder told you, they lied.


----------



## FawkesMom (Jan 14, 2009)

Fawkes' tail has caused us a bit of trouble, its at the same height as our coffee table and often gets dipped in food accidentally. Our solution, a new coffee table! One that's too high for his tail. 

Craven, I think you should be applauded for seeking advice with this issue and for coming to a conclusion that is best for Pogo. I hope that you are able to educate your friend on this issue, hopefully it is just a matter of ignorance. 

I also wanted to add that improperly docked tails can cause a lot of health problems as adults. My friend's cocker spaniel had a tail that had been docked way too short. As the dog got older there was a constant problem of infection in the area. This became an even greater problem when the dog reached old age and grew overweight because of age related health problems. The extra short nub was a constant source of pain and discomfort for this poor dog.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Ender said:


> Barely make a sound? Apparently you've never seen the procedure done yourself. I volunteer at a vet clinic and had to hold five little yorkie puppies while the vet amputated their tails and dewclaws. They screamed and cried and fought the entire time. I have never felt so much like the scum of the earth in my life. They definitely feel it. I refuse to be in the same room now when I know there's tail docking to be done. But, you can usually still hear them screaming across the clinic. I don't care what your breeder told you, they lied.


It wasn't the removal of the dew claws that caused the screaming? It was the tail docking? 

It's possible I was lied to. I have not seen it done.

I wanted to get a min pin once from a breeder. The pups were not born yet. I asked her if she'd please leave her tail alone. I'd pay in full right now. Please leave her tail on. No way. She thinks they look disgusting with tails. Sigh. Really annoyed me.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

I agree with the above posts....perhaps your friend would be better off with a cat. But then again, maybe one who was ALREADY declawed...

Uncle Arthur, I didn't think it would happen - but I totaly agree with you on this one.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

babysweet said:


> We need to go the way of Europe.....


Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Thanks, but no thanks.


Ummm... that's it? Care to elaborate?

As for the aussies with tails, view on...

http://www.theaustralianshepherd.net/info/docking.shtml
http://www.huismans.demon.nl/blitz3yrs.JPG
http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/data/12738smorez.jpg
http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/data/12738smorez.jpg

The last one is particularly beautiful and shows the same tailed dog from many angles. A tailed, working, titled, champion aussie!

Wasn't trying to pick a fight... just pointing out that the two breeds look nothing alike when you get down to it, tail or no tail. The border collie is a sleek, lightly coated, long legged angular dog that is often described as having a bit of a snipey face (thin, with an angled muzzle). The aussie is all square angles, from his face to his rump. He is stocky, short, and has a lower center of gravity. The two move different, have different expressions, and have very different coat textures regardless of colour. People are quick to jump to conclusions because of the tail, I'm sure. 

As I mentioned before, our cattle dog mix pup has the aussie red merle and floppy ears - and out of the hundreds of people who have met her so far, only one guessed that she only had a bit of aussie in her. I commended him on his incredibly trained eye (after all, she's only nine weeks old) and he commented that it was the tail that tipped him off.  Ah, well.

Her structure is getting more ACD every day, so it should be easier to explain to people as she gets older. Right now they look at me like I'm very confused... lol.

One final note in regards to the war going on in households worldwide. I'm speaking of course of tails vs. coffee tables.  We've solved the problem by only putting low center of gravity, heavy items on our coffee table that are impervious to tail swooshes, and adding a long, tall, decorative table *behind* the couch. Guests find it a bit odd to reach behind themselves for their drink, but I assure them it's preferable to slurping it off the floor or picking hairs out of it all night... lol.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

I never liked Aussies with tails. They did look sort of like BCs. 

I always do dewclaws (at around 2 days old) and they never kick up a huge fuss. It's forgotten in a minute or so.


----------



## wabanafcr (Jun 28, 2007)

I'm currently doctoring one of my Flatcoat boys because he wags so hard that he has split open the end of his tail. I can tell you that with that tail wagging and spraying blood all over, our house looked like a crime scene. Fortunately, I've dealt with this type of injury before, and I know how to get it to heal (duct tape and pipe insulation), but these injuries take a long, long time to heal. We're going on 5 weeks now, and he is just starting to grow hair back.

Now, my Flatcoats are supposed to have tails, and I would never, ever advocate docking them, but if they can injure their strong, thick, fur-covered tails by wagging (this isn't an uncommon injury!), I can only imagine how easy it would be to injure long, skinny whippy tails, particularly on a working/hunting breed.

Docking isn't done just for cosmetic purposes. It is highly recommended that shorter hunting dogs and those like German Shortairs, which have the long thin whippy tails, have their tails docked to avoid injuries in the field. I'm okay with docking for reasons like that.

Oh, and just to add, we've always left dew claws on and not had a problem. From what I understand, dogs do use them. Ours have always had very deep-set, tight dews that do not stick out.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Then you'll likely have to import. Aussies, like every other docked breed, are docked at 2-4 days of age. You don't get to make the decision of whether or not the dog is docked...the breeder does. The Aussies standard calls for a docked tail, and since you can't tell who the show quality pups are at 4 days, EVERYBODY gets docked.
> 
> And I've seen a tailed aussie....looked like a Border Collie >.<


I was close to a teacher that is a huge aussie enthusiast. We've talked about health screenings, temperament, the works and I think I'll go through her. I want a red, red merle, or blue merle with a tail. I trust her and I think she'll gladly do as I ask and not dock the tail.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

wabanafcr said:


> I can only imagine how easy it would be to injure long, skinny whippy tails, particularly on a working/hunting breed.
> 
> Docking isn't done just for cosmetic purposes. It is highly recommended that shorter hunting dogs and those like German Shortairs, which have the long thin whippy tails, have their tails docked to avoid injuries in the field. I'm okay with docking for reasons like that.
> 
> Oh, and just to add, we've always left dew claws on and not had a problem. From what I understand, dogs do use them. Ours have always had very deep-set, tight dews that do not stick out.


I thought that it was more likely for the thick-tailed breeds to hurt them. 

I agree, I always thought docking was horrible until I read more about it and learned why it began to be done. I think if the breeder is just doing it for cosmetic reasons it's wrong. If they do it because the dog could later injure itself more traumatically than the docking would do, I think it's okay. I don't like ear cropping in most cases because it's usually done for looks or to help keep the ears clean - well, ears can be cleaned by the owner, I clean Sadie's ears. But I know enough now to say I don't know enough about it to make that call. 

Perhaps the people who hear me say I prefer the natural ears think it's cruel to risk the dog having constant ear infections or tearing its ears off as an adult just because I like the way it looks?

I recently read something about people finding out how dogs use the dewclaws. I'm trying to find more info on that.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Ender said:


> Barely make a sound? Apparently you've never seen the procedure done yourself. I volunteer at a vet clinic and had to hold five little yorkie puppies while the vet amputated their tails and dewclaws. They screamed and cried and fought the entire time. I have never felt so much like the scum of the earth in my life. They definitely feel it. I refuse to be in the same room now when I know there's tail docking to be done. But, you can usually still hear them screaming across the clinic. I don't care what your breeder told you, they lied.


 
Then the person doing the procedure wasn't very good at it. I've been present for numerous dockings and Dewclaw removals on Dobes, Rotties, Yorkies and Poodles and the pups barely yelped, they certainly didn't 'scream'. The only time I've seen a pup show any pain was when the person doing the docking didn't get between the joints and cut the vertebrae instead (it was an intern).


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Once again, I prefer to refer to studies regarding the issue, rather than personal accounts - although for the record, cases of "happy tail" are generally caused by crates and not by working conditions, which is the argument used for tail docking.

Study after study shows that even docked tails are prone to injury, and that undocked tails pose such a small threat to dogs that the potential for harm by docking far outweighs any potential for benefit by removing the tail. After all, my husband is constantly banging his shins on everything in sight - but we wouldn't remove his shins...

I compare it to doing ear canal procedures on infection-prone dogs at birth. Sure, it would render them hearing impaired, but it would severely reduce the incidence of infection. And yet it's not considered - because the average person looks at this as an extreme measure. How is amputating the tail any less extreme!?

A study in Denmark in 1996 looked at 10 clinics and over 76000 dogs. Tail injuries accounted for only 26 visits (0.037 percent)

A study done at the Edinburgh Veterinary School in 1985 had the following results: 

9513 undocked dogs = 39 injuries (0.4%)
2616 docked dogs = 8 injuries (0.31%)

I would also like to point your attention to this incredibly well written article:
http://www.gungahlinvet.com.au/papers/Tail_Docking_of_Puppies_99.pdf

The fact is that the science of the argument is on the side of the anti-docking legislators. The bans in Europe and elsewhere abroad are not the result of animal welfare petitioning (although they certainly had a part in funding the campaign, there's no argument there) but rather the admittance by the RVC that they could no longer defend the position of tail docking given the current available information.

Even the AVMA has come forward in the past year and spoken out against docking and cropping, and one can only expect that its stance will continue to strengthen as it gets support from its members (which it most certainly is). Once the AVMA comes forward and completely denounces the practice, or even discourages veterinarians from performing these procedures, it is my opinion that the ban seen in Europe is not far off.

There are many un-docked working breeds who have the same structure as those are docked - it's time to admit that it comes down to cosmetics, and nothing more. Dewclaws are another story, as they do have a potential to be injured, but in my opinion this is generally because they are allowed to grow out of control - they easily grow into a hook-shaped appendage if not cared for properly because they are not worn naturally like the other nails. Regardless, my dogs will always have their tails and their dewclaws. It should be noted that the dewclaw covers an important acupuncture point as well, and the scar that results from removal (in the view of many acupuncturists) causes long term effects.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

Thanks for that PDF, that was pretty good. 

A bit off-topic but we were talking about this at work yesterday - is the only difference between a pembroke and a cardigan corgi the tail? We couldn't figure out if there were other subtle differences maybe?


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

jesirose said:


> Thanks for that PDF, that was pretty good.
> 
> A bit off-topic but we were talking about this at work yesterday - is the only difference between a pembroke and a cardigan corgi the tail? We couldn't figure out if there were other subtle differences maybe?


There are several other differences - the two are actually separate breeds. Their ear shape and carriage is different, they differ in size and temperament... although admittedly it does take an experienced eye to pick out one from the other at first. Once you are aware of the differences, it's like telling a Lab from a Flatcoat.  Ok, so maybe not that obvious... like telling an aussie from a border collie.  

A pembroke corgi:









A cardigan:


----------



## Ender (Sep 16, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> Then the person doing the procedure wasn't very good at it. I've been present for numerous dockings and Dewclaw removals on Dobes, Rotties, Yorkies and Poodles and the pups barely yelped, they certainly didn't 'scream'. The only time I've seen a pup show any pain was when the person doing the docking didn't get between the joints and cut the vertebrae instead (it was an intern).


This was an actual vet who's been in the business many many years. So, I just assume he knows what he's doing. And there was a lot of screaming. Both for the tail docking (which he did first) and the declaw removal.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

babysweet said:


> There are several other differences - the two are actually separate breeds. Their ear shape and carriage is different, they differ in size and temperament... although admittedly it does take an experienced eye to pick out one from the other at first. Once you are aware of the differences, it's like telling a Lab from a Flatcoat.  Ok, so maybe not that obvious... like telling an aussie from a border collie.



Do they both come in the same colors?


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

myminpins said:


> Yup! The breed standard in America says tails must be docked, ears must be cropped, etc., etc., etc. It's disgusting.


The breed standard is for a reason. they docked/cropped for a reason on working dogs. so since the dogs were bred to work and have docked tails and or ears, that is why the need to be shown as that in the ring. you dont have to do it, but you most likley wont win int he show ring.

Nothing disgusting about a good crop or dock if done correctly.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Tankstar said:


> The breed standard is for a reason. they docked/cropped for a reason on working dogs. so since the dogs were bred to work and have docked tails and or ears, that is why the need to be shown as that in the ring. you dont have to do it, but you most likley wont win int he show ring.
> 
> Nothing disgusting about a good crop or dock if done correctly.


On miniature pinschers, I find it disgusting. They are gorgeous if left intact and there is no need to crop or dock a min pin. It is now being done for appearances only. I'm only talking about miniature pinschers here.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

On the Pem vs Cardi issue: No, they do not. Pems are red, sable, or tri. Cardis also come in brindle and blue merle (merles other than blue are not allowed). Pems can have natural bobtails of varying lengths, which usually get docked for uniformity. 

One thing I dislike about the European Pems right now is that the lack of description of a 'proper' Pem tail has resulted in a lot of breeders breeding for a low, sweeping tail like a Cardi, which is patently incorrect. The natural tail carraige and rear assembly of a Pem is different and it should REMAIN different, docked or not. 

(More ranting once I get to work.)

I like many breeds undocked, and I would like it if show standards were changed to allow undocked (and uncropped) dogs to compete in every breed. But I will support 100% the right of the breeders to make that decision!


----------



## sw_df27 (Feb 22, 2008)

> The breed standard is for a reason. they docked/cropped for a reason on working dogs. so since the dogs were bred to work and have docked tails and or ears, that is why the need to be shown as that in the ring. you dont have to do it, but you most likley wont win int he show ring.
> 
> Nothing disgusting about a good crop or dock if done correctly.


good post tanster and of course spicy!!!!


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Tankstar said:


> The breed standard is for a reason. they docked/cropped for a reason on working dogs. so since the dogs were bred to work and have docked tails and or ears, that is why the need to be shown as that in the ring. you dont have to do it, but you most likley wont win int he show ring.
> 
> Nothing disgusting about a good crop or dock if done correctly.


In reality, dogs today are so far removed from their original working form (see bulldogs, bull terriers, pugs, pekingese, shepherds, collies, etc) that they have come to represent an exaggerated version of the "standard." 

The original premise was that form follows function, and instead we've created millions of dogs whose looks follow some inane standard and yet are useless in the job they were bred to do - not to mention to genetic defects perpetuated in the quest for the perfect head or muzzle or topline...

Additionally, there is evidence that the original crops done on field dogs were actually to prevent them from catching the live birds (notice that cropped field dogs are generally flushing dogs) because it impeded their ability to steer, allowing the bird to get away and take flight - otherwise the hunter doesn't get to shoot the bird, which is the whole point of the exercise.

In regards to ear cropping, today's ear crop doesn't even resemble a working crop. Pit Bulls and breeds such as Cane Corsos are the only breeds who still retain a working crop, which involved REMOVING the ear. It wasn't until the show ring and the eventual exaggeration of the standard that breeders began to extend the length of the ear to the point where it required weeks of extensive taping and propping to stand correctly.

I'm sorry, but the "working dog" argument doesn't hold water. Border collies, aussies and ACDs all have the same job, and yet aussies are the only ones who are docked "to prevent injury." The reality is that aussies with tails are likely to be far more agile than those without, which could explain why the herding dog of choice on ranches across north america tends to lean towards the ACD or BC, or mixes of either.

For every terrier who is docked, there is one with a tail, for every working dog with a tail, there is one who is docked... the same goes for herding dogs, toy breeds, etc, etc. 

Given the evolution of breeds thanks to the show ring (or de-evolution...) you can't argue historical significance. After all, historically, pugs and pekes could breath, collies could see, dobermans didn't bleed to death, 1/4 of all dalmations weren't born deaf (and all of them weren't unable to stop over producing uric acid) and shepherds could walk...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

You're welcome to your opinion, but I personally feel that those that don't show or breed shouldn't have any say in what is done in terms of docking and cropping for those of us that DO show and breed.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Xeph said:


> You're welcome to your opinion, but I personally feel that those that don't show or breed shouldn't have any say in what is done in terms of docking and cropping for those of us that DO show and breed.


Then we'll simply have to agree to disagree... because I don't think that those that show and breed have the right to mutilate dogs at their whim without any scientific data to back up the practice. 

It comes down to a matter of animal welfare, and I don't care what sport or event you are involved in, it matters.

It's difficult to defend the show circuit when overall their quest for beauty is responsible for the mutilation and degeneration of many of the previously most magnificent breeds on the planet. 

I see that you own a shepherd... does the severe angulation, ligament issues, hip/elbow dysplasia, and reduction of their gait from a strong, capable, do-it-all working/herding dog to a wobbling, hobbling, virtual cripple not bother you at all? And for what, to obtain some "standard?" Form is supposed to follow function - not destroy it. 

You'll forgive me if the canine beauty pageant circuit doesn't inspire great awe or confidence in me.

Those of you who haven't viewed this already should (although I doubt there's many of you out there):
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevanc...7hl_pedigree-dogs-exposed-part-1-of-6_animals

The links to the other five parts are available there.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

It might surprise you to learn that those 'deformed' show collies produce most of the working collies SDs in the country. 

Did you know that COLLIES have more dual champions than any other breed in the herding group? (This surprised me, I figured it'd be one of the belgian breeds. They DO have a higher percentage of OTCH/CH and MACH/CH, but not CH/HC)


----------



## Binkalette (Dec 16, 2008)

Oh. My. God.

IMO if you don't like tails then don't get a dog.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Dogstar said:


> It might surprise you to learn that those 'deformed' show collies produce most of the working collies SDs in the country.
> 
> Did you know that COLLIES have more dual champions than any other breed in the herding group? (This surprised me, I figured it'd be one of the belgian breeds. They DO have a higher percentage of OTCH/CH and MACH/CH, but not CH/HC)


It does surprise me, I'll be the first to admit it. I would have thought it would be Goldens...

It may surprise you to know that collies are among the most inbred of all dogs and suffer from one of the longest lists of genetic defects. A study in the UK found that from a sampling of 12,000 dogs, the genetic variability found was comparable to a group of 50 unrelated dogs, making it almost assured that breeding without genetic testing will result in enough inbreeding to be of concern from a geneticists point of view.

In addition, judges actually fault a collie for looking like the working original was bred to look. These dogs were never meant to look this way, and when the standard was written, it was written to describe some imaginary dog - not a compilation of the best parts available. I'm sure the author of the standard had no idea that it would be taken to such an extreme. In fact, I'm sure the authors of many standards are turning over in their graves at what's been done to their beloved breeds - the list is far too long to spell out here.

Collies suffer from a myriad of diseases - here's a great compilation

http://izebug.syr.edu/~gsbisco/cbhealth.html


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I see that you own a shepherd... does the severe angulation, ligament issues, hip/elbow dysplasia, and reduction of their gait from a strong, capable, do-it-all working/herding dog to a wobbling, hobbling, virtual cripple not bother you at all?


Of course...why do you think I have a cross line dog (3/4 West German) 

I also show an American dog that is very sound and doesn't gait or walk on his hocks. Heck, his worst movement feature is that he toes in a little on the go around.

I've got an old veteran male that's a half and half dog...extremely moderate animal.

It was a good try though.

And people think show people are elitist


----------



## wabanafcr (Jun 28, 2007)

babysweet said:


> It does surprise me, I'll be the first to admit it. I would have thought it would be Goldens...


Goldens aren't a herding breed, so they wouldn't be in the herding group.

And Flatcoats have more CH/MH than Labs or Goldens, which is quite something considering the number of each breed that is registered every year. I believe that the only Retriever with more is the Chessie. Flatcoats go from the field to the show ring and back again, and we work very hard to keep it that way. 

There are some things about dog shows and Flatcoats that do drive me insane, but not most of that is characterized by the extreme grooming done in Europe and Australia, and not in the US or England, where we keep the dogs much more true to original type. The trend in Europe and Australia is to trim all of the coat from the front of the neck, somewhat like a setter. This is detrimental to a working Flatcoat, as that ruff in front helps to protect the dog when working in heavy cover. Drives me nuts to see it cut off. 

There are several breeds in the sporting group that can work and show, including most of the pointing breeds, some of the setters (even with that long hair) and many of the spaniels.


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

babysweet said:


> It does surprise me, I'll be the first to admit it. I would have thought it would be Goldens...


Why would you think goldens? they are not a herding breed.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Of course...why do you think I have a cross line dog (3/4 West German)
> 
> I also show an American dog that is very sound and doesn't gait or walk on his hocks. Heck, his worst movement feature is that he toes in a little on the go around.
> 
> ...



And I notice your tag line is function, not flash... but the reality of the situation is that you couldn't show a dog without that severe rear angulation and get very far. You may be able to title him, but the top dogs, the dogs in real demand, are those hobbly-wobbly shepherds.

I have a friend who breeds shepherds (Czech imports) for the RCMP and she stopped showing about a decade ago. She titles her dogs and uses her own judgement regarding conformation. After all, form truly does follow function, and a dog with a serious fault is not going to be able to perform the job it was meant to do. At least not at a competition level. 

My point was that the people at the top of the show circuit, those who are truly influential, those who affect decisions, are the same people who are promoting these deformed dogs with no conscience regarding the dog's welfare or long term health. If I can't trust them not to intentionally breed a dog who can barely walk, how can I trust them to make an animal welfare based decision that affects the cosmetics of their beauty contestants?

Your shepherd is beautiful, btw.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

But is influence measured in big wins on champion-only dogs, or by depth of multi-talented dogs? 

I mean, that's a little bit like measuring the quality of musicians in the united states by the commercial success of Pink. She's great in and of herself, but not necessarily representative of every genre of music everywhere in the world, and to say that because YOU think she has no talent, that all US musicians are crap.


----------



## Ginny01OT (Dec 3, 2006)

I have two standard poodles from the same breeder, the second (younger) one did not have her tail docked--although as a pup I thought it was "cute"--now that she is maturing and groomed professionally her undocked tail drives me crazy

With that being said, there is no reason except for aesthetics that I would ever consider docking her tail and although it drives me crazy I will not dock it

You would think someone would love to see their dog's tail wag, I love it--a dog's tail tells a lot about how they are feeling at a particular moment, it is a great sign---

with that being said, I wish my second poodles tail had been docked but I love her, her personality and she is the cutest thing so we will keep her, tail and all!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

I couldn't imagine cutting off a dog's tail.

It just seems like it would be taking away something that makes a dog...a dog.

It would be like someone I met that somehow trained his dog NOT to sniff. Just seems weird.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Dogstar said:


> But is influence measured in big wins on champion-only dogs, or by depth of multi-talented dogs?
> 
> I mean, that's a little bit like measuring the quality of musicians in the united states by the commercial success of Pink. She's great in and of herself, but not necessarily representative of every genre of music everywhere in the world, and to say that because YOU think she has no talent, that all US musicians are crap.


That comparison isn't at all suitable to this situation - there isn't a written standard somewhere for US music.

And influence in the *show ring* which is what we were discussing, is in fact measured by big wins, period. I only wish that more of the top show dogs were in fact truly multi-talented.



Tankstar said:


> Why would you think goldens? they are not a herding breed.


My error for trying to read several posts on several threads at the same time...

If the category was herding breeds and not overall, then I'm not that surprised, given their popularity.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

KBLover said:


> I couldn't imagine cutting off a dog's tail.
> 
> It just seems like it would be taking away something that makes a dog...a dog.
> 
> It would be like someone I met that somehow trained his dog NOT to sniff. Just seems weird.


but what about dogs that don't have tails?...does not having a tail make them less of a dog ?


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

babysweet said:


> My point was that the people at the top of the show circuit, those who are truly influential, those who affect decisions, are the same people who are promoting these deformed dogs with no conscience regarding the dog's welfare or long term health. If I can't trust them not to intentionally breed a dog who can barely walk, how can I trust them to make an animal welfare based decision that affects the cosmetics of their beauty contestants?


Well my trust level has fallen from minimal to zero, just based on Babysweet's comments.

There's another thread here where many people said they felt that no one not involved in showing animals should breed dogs, as the show people are the ones 'bettering the breed'. LOL Maybe people involved in showing dogs should be banned from breeding. 

Has anyone ever done a study of who produces more healthy (not "attractive", but healthy) dogs - i) breeders breeding for show or ii) typical back yard occasional breeder (not puppy mill) of iii) random uncontrolled breeding ?


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

pugmom said:


> but what about dogs that don't have tails?...does not having a tail make them less of a dog ?


No, it makes them a mutation. And a very small percentage of dogs overall have natural bobtails.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wabanafcr said:


> There are several breeds in the sporting group that can work and show, including most of the pointing breeds, some of the setters (even with that long hair) and many of the spaniels.


Certain sporting breeds have features that few hunters would ever want to see. Springers are one breed that have a pretty dramatic split between field and show types. The field bred Springers that are highly sought after by hunters would probably be kicked out of bench shows for being mixed breed dogs. The show type Springer that one gent hunts with has been nicknamed "the pony" by his wiseacre friends. Same deal with English Setters. The typical "Grouse Champion" ESs almost look like a different breed from the show dogs. The size difference is the first thing one notices.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I am sure I won't make any Brownie points here but, I love docked tails on a dog. If they are properly docked (many of which are NOT) and on the appropriate breeds. As far as loving to see my dogs tail wag? I do. They wag like crazy, they are just shorter. I don't have to wear any knee guards to protect them from the baseball bat size Rottweiler tails. I am sure it is mostly because I have not had a tailed dog (other then friends or training dogs) in 30 years. I am just so used to NOT having tails that I think it seems odd to have one. I hear my friends all the time complaining that they have stepped on their dogs tail. When I used to work with service dogs people in the wheelchairs were forever catching the dogs tail. Not having a tail is just convenient, I guess. I do believe it needs to be done by 3 days of age though or if the dog is prone to injuries but NOT by a byb or farmer that thinks tossing a band on the tail and waiting for it to fall off is OK. That is just sick. IMO


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

unclearthur said:


> Well my trust level has fallen from minimal to zero, just based on Babysweet's comments.
> 
> There's another thread here where many people said they felt that no one not involved in showing animals should breed dogs, as the show people are the ones 'bettering the breed'. LOL Maybe people involved in showing dogs should be banned from breeding.
> 
> Has anyone ever done a study of who produces more healthy (not "attractive", but healthy) dogs - i) breeders breeding for show or ii) typical back yard occasional breeder (not puppy mill) of iii) random uncontrolled breeding ?


There are breeders out there who do NOT show their dogs but breed for what they believe is most important - herding, etc. A lot of police dogs are bred from breeders who breed them for function, not form. I know there are some other types of dogs where breeders "show" them in agility and other such "sports" and that is their "credentials" that they are breeding good dogs. These guys do health testing, breed for form not function and, IMO, produce lovely dogs. They just don't have "ch" titles on them like dogs from a show ring do. I personally don't have a problem with a breeder like this but you have to do a lot of research to ensure that breeder IS doing it correctly and is health testing, etc. I think it's great. I wish more would do it


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> My point was that the people at the top of the show circuit, those who are truly influential, those who affect decisions, are the same people who are promoting these deformed dogs with no conscience regarding the dog's welfare or long term health.


That I won't deny.

I am not well enough known yet to be able to influence anything. I'm barely listened to. I think the GSD that Jimmy Moses is currently showing is ATROCIOUS. However, there ARE some top ranked GSDs that are very VERY nice and that can actually DO things.

I'd check out the Caisson dogs...they're fantastic !
http://www.caissonkennels.com/


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Inga said:


> I am sure I won't make any Brownie points here but, I love docked tails on a dog. If they are properly docked (many of which are NOT) and on the appropriate breeds. As far as loving to see my dogs tail wag? I do. They wag like crazy, they are just shorter. I don't have to wear any knee guards to protect them from the baseball bat size Rottweiler tails. I am sure it is mostly because I have not had a tailed dog (other then friends or training dogs) in 30 years. I am just so used to NOT having tails that I think it seems odd to have one. I hear my friends all the time complaining that they have stepped on their dogs tail. When I used to work with service dogs people in the wheelchairs were forever catching the dogs tail. Not having a tail is just convenient, I guess. I do believe it needs to be done by 3 days of age though or if the dog is prone to injuries but NOT by a byb or farmer that thinks tossing a band on the tail and waiting for it to fall off is OK. That is just sick. IMO


Yeah, in min pins, their tail is supposed to be docked at the second "knuckle". Zoe's is done on the first. I've seen dogs done on the third. Liz's is done on the second. It does make a difference. Liz's tail wags like mad and is much more obvious than Zoe's. I am enjoying Titan's tail, though... been awhile since I saw one


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

Xeph said:


> That I won't deny.
> 
> I am not well enough known yet to be able to influence anything. I'm barely listened to. I think the GSD that Jimmy Moses is currently showing is ATROCIOUS. However, there ARE some top ranked GSDs that are very VERY nice and that can actually DO things.
> 
> ...


Wait isn't your point here that not all the GSDs have such bad sloping backs? 










I don't know anything about GSD but that looks very weird to me, isn't the thing people complain about that they are like THAT?


----------



## LeRoymydog (Feb 25, 2007)

Dogs with or without tails... who cares? My past english Bulldog had an inverted tail. He had such a big tail pocket. The vet said it was almost touching his spine. I loved his "panda butt".

LeRoy has a long, muscular tail. I love him for it.

Someone cut off China's tail. But her whole butt wiggles. Absolutely the cutest thing I have ever saw. The vet thinks someone did it inhumanely. I can tell when she's happy or sad. Even without a tail.

A tail doesn't make the dog... the dog makes the dog.


----------



## Ginny01OT (Dec 3, 2006)

Just because I don't know where this OP and replies are going..

I had a cat "Kitty" that got her tail run over by a car and had to have her tail amputated, she still was a helluva cat.....


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

unclearthur said:


> Well my trust level has fallen from minimal to zero, just based on Babysweet's comments.
> 
> There's another thread here where many people said they felt that no one not involved in showing animals should breed dogs, as the show people are the ones 'bettering the breed'. LOL Maybe people involved in showing dogs should be banned from breeding.
> 
> Has anyone ever done a study of who produces more healthy (not "attractive", but healthy) dogs - i) breeders breeding for show or ii) typical back yard occasional breeder (not puppy mill) of iii) random uncontrolled breeding ?


There are no other choices? What about breeders like our shepherd breeder here who participate in shows but breed for functionality and working ability (and hopefully health, temperament and longevity).

Not all of those who show are "breeding for show." Rather, they are breeders who happen to show their dogs, as part of a well-rounded breeding program. Unfortunately, too many of them are farther and farther away from the breed "ideal" - again shepherds are a great example - take a look at a working line shepherd's rear end and compare it to the sad examples we have here in North America gracing the specialty show winners circles.

I'm not saying that judging the proper conformation of a dog is a bad idea, but sacrificing the dog's health and wellbeing to achieve an arbitrary standard that has little to do with the dog's original state of being or reason for being is disastrous. As the owner of a pug, you of all people should be sympathetic to the cause of your breed. Wouldn't you rather be able to purchase a pug from 30 years ago - one who could breath without choking on its own spit, run around outside without passing out from oxygen deprivation, give birth and mate without assistance, jump off the couch without slipping a kneecap, or simply exist without suffering yeast and bacterial infections from his exaggerated facial folds?

These are breeds that are suffering because of these beauty pageants. These are breeds that may, in fact, be ruined already - be on their way to extinction if something isn't done to correct the problem. 

It's these issues that have made these ridiculous puppy mill "designer breeds" like puggles and pug-chis and juggles so popular. While rescue is ALWAYS my first recommendation, when people insist on purchasing, I would love to be able to steer them towards a reputable breeder - unfortunately, these are also becoming extinct - and part of it is because of these breed standards that those who truly love the breed and see what is becoming of them refuse to take part. Speaking out simply gets them ostracized, and showing dogs that are their take on the "ideal" simply gets them sent home without a ribbon. So they stop breeding, or they breed quietly, perhaps even outside of the kennel club. 

It's a travesty, really.

A note about the flatcoats - I know an amazing flatcoat breeder, and in fact I don't know that I've met one I would consider a BYB. This is mainly due to the fact that they are still relatively an unknown breed (lucky them, hopefully they stay this way!) and while they suffer from their own myriad of diseases, it's the kind of list that comes with being a registered purebred, not the kind that comes from being "bred for show." The flatcoat is one of those few breeds that is generally dual titled, although as their number increase, their story is sure to follow the same path as every other breed's rise to notoriety - fewer and fewer titles, more and more coat, less focus on health and more focus on tail carriage and head shape... <sigh>

There's a reason the border collie folks fought so hard to try to keep the BC out of the kennel club.


----------



## emily445455 (Apr 8, 2008)

craven.44 said:


> I have a friend who wants a dog. I have a foster dog that I think would be a good match. He is an 8 month old Rottie mix named Pogo. The problem is, my friend "doesn't like tails." He is worried about a tail clearing his coffee table. Pogo has a tail. My friend brought up the rubber band method of docking tails. I have no experience with tail docking, I personally do not see why he is insisting on it. What do you guys think? Is the rubber band thing harmful? Is it painful? Is there anything I could tell him to maybe change his mind? Thanks.


Sorry, can someone explain to me what this "rubberband method" is?

I'm guessing it's where you tie a rubberband around the tail to cut off the blood circulation then you cut off the tail....? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm confused.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

LeRoymydog said:


> Dogs with or without tails... who cares? My past english Bulldog had an inverted tail. He had such a big tail pocket. The vet said it was almost touching his spine. I loved his "panda butt".
> 
> LeRoy has a long, muscular tail. I love him for it.
> 
> ...


Those of us who are opposed to docking are not suggesting that a dog without a tail is any less valuable than a dog with a tail. In my eyes, they are all priceless. 

However, loving an animal lacking a tail and cutting off an animals tail are two entirely separate issues. Loving a dog with three legs or a blind dog doesn't make it a good idea to go around cutting puppies legs off or breeding for blind dogs.

How about this... anyone wanting a dog with cropped ears/docked tail has to be there and hold the puppy while the appendages are removed. How many calls do you think you will be getting for docked dogs then?


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

No, it's putting a rubber band TIGHTLY around the tail and leaving it there until the tail falls off on its own.


----------



## emily445455 (Apr 8, 2008)

myminpins said:


> No, it's putting a rubber band TIGHTLY around the tail and leaving it there until the tail falls off on its own.


What?!?!? That is just sick!

I'd tell that jerk to use the rubberband method on one of his fingers and see how he likes it!!!

Some people....ugh!

I can understand doing docking and cropping *IF *the dog will be a hunting or something dog. Constantly out in the woods, etc. IMO it would be less painful to have his tail and ears cut than get his ear caught on a branch and have it ripped in half.

But I think it is wrong for cosmetic reasons, especialy when the dog is older!


----------



## craven.44 (Sep 10, 2008)

My original question was purely out of ignorance. I had a friend who asked about rubber banding a dog's tail. I honestly did not know for sure if that was a terrible thing. Maybe that sounds stupid, but I have no experience with docking. I know now that docking a dog's tail at 8 months, even if done "correctly" and by a vet, is still harmful. The dog in question will not be having his tail docked and the friend in question is going to have to prove that he will be a good dog owner, tail or no tail, before I help him get a dog.

I have to admit, the docking debate is interesting. The extent of my knowledge on the subject is when a friend of mine bred her boxer. I was there the night they were born and the fawn ones had the cutest little white tips on the ends of their tails. The next day the tails were docked and it was kind of sad. I liked their cute little puppy tails.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

jesirose said:


> Wait isn't your point here that not all the GSDs have such bad sloping backs?
> 
> I don't know anything about GSD but that looks very weird to me, isn't the thing people complain about that they are like THAT?



The sad truth is, the dog in the picture has a mild to moderate slope. Believe me, it gets MUCH worse. Although I would not consider the pictured dog sound by any means. To illustrate my point here are a few truly working shepherds (all are multi-titled... none in the show ring):




























As further illustration, take a look at the winners dog (BOB) of the national specialty 2008.











Come on now... you can't still say that working dogs like the police dogs shown above and show dogs like this guy here are able to do the same jobs. This guy would never be able to perform as well as his "square" cousin, and his cuz would be laughed out of the show ring. 

If form follows function, and that's the point of dog shows... just why is this the case?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Wait isn't your point here that not all the GSDs have such bad sloping backs


No. My point is that some are more moderate than others. By the way, before this turns into a GSD thread, I point you all here

And here



> If form follows function, and that's the point of dog shows... just why is this the case?


Different interpretations of the standard

I love the first and third dog...that second dog is severely lacking in breed type, which should be just as severely penalized as a dog that is unable to work. By the way, Winner's Dog is NOT the same as BOB! That is also a TERRIBLE picture of him x.x You can make a dog look fantastic or hideous depending on how they're stacked

This is the SAME dog...presents a much nicer picture:


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Well to be fair, some of that slope is the way they are standing. One leg way under them and one stretched out in back. Makes them drop down in the rear.

As far as docking. I think that banding should be outlawed. I think the reason for it is because it is cheap and anyone can do it. I don't know any breeders that do that but I am sure there are still some out there. I have had a few rescue dogs who's tails were not docked properly. Some by what I would guess were really abusive manners based on the scaring. The dogs that I have owned who's tails were properly docked at 3 days old have had no issues with their tails. They were not overly sensitive on them nor did it seem to hinder their movement in any way.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

By the way, the point with the Caisson dogs (especially that bitch you posted) is to look at all the TITLES she as behind her, as well as in front! More than just a Ch!


----------



## DogPerson (Jan 22, 2009)

This is my first post on these forums and i find this debate interesting.I have 2 Dobermans(both with docked tails)My view opinion on it is....
Alot of people say even if done at the young age of 3ish days old it is painful and "god" made the dogs look the way they do but what about human baby boys that are circumsized?Why is it not ok to dock a puppies tail for fear it "may" hurt and ok to ciscumsize a child?
I know my spelling is off but i am sure you all get the point....


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

pugmom said:


> but what about dogs that don't have tails?...does not having a tail make them less of a dog ?



Was the tail cut off?

If not - then how is it the same as chopping off something and just being bred without it?

And there's a dog with zero tail? Just the smooth round rump and nothing sticking out past it? Not even a stub or "handle" as it's sometimes called for terriers?


----------



## deege39 (Dec 29, 2008)

Binkalette said:


> Oh. My. God.
> 
> IMO if you don't like tails then don't get a dog.


I know you probably didn't intend for that comment that to be funny, but I laughed.

In my personal opinion, which I'm entitled to, regardless of the fact if I show dogs or not; I honestly can't say that it really bothers me to see a Dobie prancing around with it's ears cropped and tail docked. I think they're beautiful creatures and even more magnificent when cropped/docked. However, I -_personally_- could never bring myself to do it any dog I own... It's a procedure, wither painless or not (_because unless we have our ears cropped and tails we don't have docked, we'll never really know_.) that they only go through -once- in their lifetime. Do you think an eight year old Dobie wakes up every morning and says, "_Well damn, my ears still hurt and I wish I had my tail back_." Of course not! 

Like I said, I personally can't bring myself to do, even though it's a procedure done once in their life, I still can't bring myself to put them through unnecessary pain, no matter how brief.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

DogPerson said:


> This is my first post on these forums and i find this debate interesting.I have 2 Dobermans(both with docked tails)My view opinion on it is....
> Alot of people say even if done at the young age of 3ish days old it is painful and "god" made the dogs look the way they do but what about human baby boys that are circumsized?Why is it not ok to dock a puppies tail for fear it "may" hurt and ok to ciscumsize a child?
> I know my spelling is off but i am sure you all get the point....



First, there have been studies done that have shown definitive health benefits to circumcision. 

Secondly, here is a wonderfully written article by a pediatrician explaining that local anesthetic is strongly advised for circumcision surgery. Not only that, but recent studies have shown that the effects from the shock/pain of circumcision do not dissipate entirely within 24 hours as was once thought, but in fact have very long lasting negative effects - just how long is the only part not fully understood.

So here we have a procedure that has been proven to be medically beneficial, which is now performed with extensive anesthetic and in some cases nerve blockers. And still, many parents refuse to put their child through this trauma.

Another great comparison is the piercing of baby's ears. As many of you may know, piercing of dog and cat ears (and other body parts - ugh) has become all the rage as of late. Not only are some people disgusted at the thought of piercing a baby's ears, they are thoroughly disgusted by the idea of piercing a dog or cats ears... and yet hacking them in half seems perfectly acceptable? Or hacking of an appendage entirely?

It should also be noted that as babies mature, they don't use their foreskin as a communication tool (well... they shouldn't be, anyways!). In addition, there are no muscle tendons and no vertebrae in the foreskin, so comparing a circumcision to a tail dock is really not even. Also, the foreskin doesn't affect the surrounding muscles the way the tail does (read previously referred articles and posts in regards to anal musculature and fistulas). Foreskin also doesn't affect mobility the way a tail does... (although I'm now laughing about that line from Blades of Glory "when I was ten my father had me circumcised to reduce wind resistance"). 



KBLover said:


> Was the tail cut off?
> 
> If not - then how is it the same as chopping off something and just being bred without it?
> 
> And there's a dog with zero tail? Just the smooth round rump and nothing sticking out past it? Not even a stub or "handle" as it's sometimes called for terriers?


A few breeds are born with a stub or bob tail, and some are born with simply shorter than normal tails which are then docked to ensure uniformity. Some aussies are supposedly born with bob tails (although it's my experience that the ability to crop the tail has greatly reduced the number of natural bobs out there as it's no longer a trait that needs to be considered in a breeding program), stumpy tail cattle dogs are also born without a full tail. Corgi tail lengths vary, as was mentioned previously...

The entire list of natural bobtails and occurring bobtails can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_bobtail

Interesting to point out the beginning of the page, which notes that a geneticist and boxer breeder in England has successfully petitioned the Kennel Club to allow him to outcross his boxers to bobtail corgis and then breed them back to boxers to introduce the bobtail gene into his line. Apparently he's had some success, as the article mentions that several progeny have already been exported. 

This could be a lifesaver for many breeds, not only to spare them from the trauma of docking, but also to introduce new blood into the lines. Obviously it poses its own issues (potentially introducing NEW genetic disorders into the boxer lines) but I have much more faith knowing that the breeder in question is a geneticist. 

However, I still believe that with the exception of those breeds that already naturally are bobtail... dogs are meant to have tails for both communication and mobility. Well, really I believe that ALL dogs are meant to have tails, but I can at least accept the historic argument in breeds that already have a naturally occurring bobtail. I'm not completely without compromise


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

DogPerson said:


> ?Why is it not ok to dock a puppies tail for fear it "may" hurt and ok to ciscumsize a child?
> I know my spelling is off but i am sure you all get the point....


I think you bring up an excellent point. There is no reason to circumcise (spelling is probably off) anymore. There are no added health benefits. It's an unnecessary and painful procedure. The cons outlist the pros. And more and more studies are are coming out against circumcising. If people did their research more carefully, they'd see the issue more fully. 

The debate over circumcision has raged on for years. Currently the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend non-medical circumcision except for religious circumcisions.

There may be medical reasons why circumcision were necessary such as using the foreskin as a skin graft to another location on your baby's body. This is very rare and the circumcision would not be done at birth.

Many insurances no longer cover the costs of circumcision. Their reasoning is that, unless there are medical reasons, it is a cosmetic surgery. This means that parents must pay for the circumcision out of their own pockets. Be sure to check with your insurance company on what you would pay out of pocket should you decide on this surgery for your son.

Some parents wonder about news articles stating that a circumcision can prevent all sorts of aliments. The AAP found these studies to be medically flawed. 

My mom's career field is midwifery, so I *do* happen to know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I was going to bring up the circumcision thing, but that's controversial in it's own right.



babysweet said:


> ...recent studies have shown that the effects from the shock/pain of circumcision do not dissipate entirely within 24 hours as was once thought, but in fact have very long lasting negative effects - just how long is the only part not fully understood.


Whatever the "very long lasting negstive effects" may be (IMO insignificant) it's nothing compared to the effects of an adult man having to have the procedure done. I've known a couple and they were not happy campers.


----------



## Ginny01OT (Dec 3, 2006)

I am a female and have my ears pierced, really it is not painful--like a beeg sting--my father, believe it or not, who is now 85, was circumsized at the age of 18 when in the Marines---
you cannot compare a dog to a human--with men (I think, I am a heterosexual woman) if you are in the locker room with a bunch of circumsized men and you are not, you will feel out of place in THIS country--dogs don't know the difference and there are no health benefits (there are benefits for human men)


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

Well since other people brought it up first, I feel okay posting about that now! I agree with txcollies. None of the men I know who didn't have that elective procedure done as babies have any health issues, actually have some benefits which might be a bit TOO much to go into on here, and don't feel compelled to compare themselves to other men in locker rooms (afaik). Many of us women prefer natural men and natural dog ears 

When other cultures cut off parts of women we call it barbaric yet still argue it's okay to do it to men. Some think it's okay to dock/crop and others call it disgusting. 

Oh and I have my ears pierced as well as navel and have had three tattoos (one that took 8 hours). The ears was the worst. But I got to pick all of those things. The difference with us is we eventually get to a point where we can decide for ourselves, whether it works out in the end or not, but WE decide. Our dogs never can. We have to make that decision for them and do what we think is best for them, when it comes to EVERYTHING - dock/crop, spay/neuter, vacinations, diet, EVERYTHING.


----------



## Binkalette (Dec 16, 2008)

jesirose said:


> Well since other people brought it up first, I feel okay posting about that now! I agree with txcollies. None of the men I know who didn't have that elective procedure done as babies have any health issues, actually have some benefits which might be a bit TOO much to go into on here, and don't feel compelled to compare themselves to other men in locker rooms (afaik). Many of us women prefer natural men and natural dog ears
> 
> When other cultures cut off parts of women we call it barbaric yet still argue it's okay to do it to men. Some think it's okay to dock/crop and others call it disgusting.
> 
> Oh and I have my ears pierced as well as navel and have had three tattoos (one that took 8 hours). The ears was the worst. But I got to pick all of those things. The difference with us is we eventually get to a point where we can decide for ourselves, whether it works out in the end or not, but WE decide. Our dogs never can. We have to make that decision for them and do what we think is best for them, when it comes to EVERYTHING - dock/crop, spay/neuter, vacinations, diet, EVERYTHING.



It is a completely different thing to remove a part of the male body that is known to cause possible health problems, or to choose pierce and tattoo your own body, than it is to remove a dogs tail. The dog gains nothing from the loss of it's tail, and has no choice in the matter. I find it completely..one hundred and ten percent cruel. Dogs use their tails to communicate with people and other dogs via body language. They also use their tails to some extent for balance (as cats do).. And as with any medical procedure there are a number of things that could go wrong.. It's beyond me why any dog lover would do this to their beloved pet.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Actually, there was a fairly large study done in (I *think*) South Africa two years ago that showed a significantly lower risk of STD transmission in circumcised men. 

Regardless, though, we're talking about dogs, not people.

To bring this back to dogs......

Yes, there are breeds that people have screwed up. Frankly, I think there is WAY too much emphasis on heads in collies. 

A balanced dog though, has a title on both ends. Ideally, a dog is working AND beautiful. And to say that showing is inherently bad because there are extremists is severely problematic. For the toy breeds, especially- there ARE no working trials for toy breeds; beauty has always BEEN a large part of how they were considered. 

A championship is not a be all and end all. But if that dog isn't ACTIVELY working- and I do not mean 'living on a farm or in a game preserve or with a policeman' but actually HUNTING or HERDING or FINDING CRIMINALS/DRUGS/LOST HIKERS (or whatever), that breeder had better be out there proving their dogs with a (theoretically, at least) objective judge and peers.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

babysweet said:


> No, it makes them a mutation. And a very small percentage of dogs overall have natural bobtails.


Well I happen to have one.....and I happen to like my mutation of a dog than you ....so I wont take you comment as an insult.....and I don't think it makes him any less of a dog by not having a tail


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Dogstar said:


> Yes, there are breeds that people have screwed up. Frankly, I think there is WAY too much emphasis on heads in collies.
> 
> A balanced dog though, has a title on both ends. Ideally, a dog is working AND beautiful. And to say that showing is inherently bad because there are extremists is severely problematic. For the toy breeds, especially- there ARE no working trials for toy breeds; beauty has always BEEN a large part of how they were considered.
> 
> A championship is not a be all and end all. But if that dog isn't ACTIVELY working- and I do not mean 'living on a farm or in a game preserve or with a policeman' but actually HUNTING or HERDING or FINDING CRIMINALS/DRUGS/LOST HIKERS (or whatever), that breeder had better be out there proving their dogs with a (theoretically, at least) objective judge and peers.


First, I agree with you completely... the collie would be far better off if more emphasis was placed on ensuring healthy stock rather than the perfect head shape. I've seen dogs place who had terrible back ends, but beautiful (according to the "standard" - certainly not in my eyes) heads, and I think its a travesty - and it's only going to get worse as the length becomes more extreme.

Secondly, while ideally a dog is working AND beautiful, I'll take a non-championed working titled dog over a championed, non-working dog any day. Sadly, too many dogs are "bred for show" and titled as an afterthought. It used to be that a herding dog would have a HCh title and perhaps an OTCh... now the trend seems to be as many basic titles as possible (CD, TD, HT, CGC). To the uninformed consumer, the latter looks more impressive, when in reality the former is FAR more difficult and requires FAR more training and dedication, as well as ability and skill on part of both the dog and the trainer.

As for Toy breeds, I'm getting really tired of hearing toy breeders take the easy way out. While they may have been bred as companions, how does an Obedience title or an Agility title not show that they are not only intelligent enough, stable enough, sound enough to achieve those titles... and thus prove that they are better stock than a dog of the same breed that simply has a Ch title. I'll take a toy breed whose breeder has taken the time to prove that their dogs are capable of doing those "big dog" things and perhaps only has its Ch over a dog who has come directly from a Westminster Champion with no working titles. Toy breed or not! Try telling all those toy dogs who serve as hearing assistance dogs, agility/flyball competitors, obedience champions, tracking dogs, etc, etc that they're only there to look pretty. 

My peke would be horrified to even consider the thought.... lol

We're also forgetting the health clearances for each breed. In my opinion, the AKC/KC/CKC would be doing themselves a great service by providing a list for each breed of the tests that should be performed on every dog being considered for breeding stock, the details of the testing, the preferred results, how often the testing should be done (few people know, for example, that CERF is not for life or that PennHip is greatly more accurate than OFA). Particularly when genetic tests are available... the Cavalier springs to mind, thanks to Pedigree Dogs Exposed - and these results should all be available via database, with full pedigrees, a la the OFA.

The recent changes to the Kennel Club (for those of you who have been following the situation) have been a huge wake up call to breeders the world over. They have changed breed standards, codes of ethics, recommendations to breeders, allowances for inbreeding coefficients... I still don't think it's enough (they should be maintaining a public database on these things and requiring mandatory health testing specific to each breed) but it's a HUGE leap in the right direction. 

At least in the UK, "he's got papers" will finally mean a little bit of something, anyways. Provided those papers aren't phony, anyways... 



pugmom said:


> Well I happen to have one.....and I happen to like my mutation of a dog than you ....so I wont take you comment as an insult.....and I don't think it makes him any less of a dog by not having a tail


As I said before, loving a dog without a tail and hacking the tail off of a dog who was born with one are two very different things.

And no, I didn't mean it as an insult. It's a fact. In fact, most of our dogs are mutations. Got a wire-coat dog? Mutation! Curly coat? Mutation! Hair breed? Mutation! Short-legged dog? Mutation!

Some are more harmful than others. For example, the dwarfism that causes the short legs in the Basset has been exaggerated to the point where it is now a detrimental defect instead of a potentially beneficial (from a working standpoint) mutation.

In comparison, the bobtail seems relatively harmless...


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

babysweet said:


> I see that you own a shepherd... does the severe angulation, ligament issues, hip/elbow dysplasia, and reduction of their gait from a strong, capable, do-it-all working/herding dog to a wobbling, hobbling, virtual cripple not bother you at all? And for what, to obtain some "standard?" Form is supposed to follow function - not destroy it.


I have seen VERY few Champion shepards that have any of these problems, especially those that are dual show/working Shepards (which would be the ONLY dogs I'd consider a pup from)

However Shepards, and the above named health and conformation problems have nothing to do with cropping OR docking (though I know a few that have needed their ears posted to stand correctly) as they recive neither. Instead this seems to be an attack on the persons breed of choice.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> I have seen VERY few Champion shepards that have any of these problems, especially those that are dual show/working Shepards (which would be the ONLY dogs I'd consider a pup from)
> 
> However Shepards, and the above named health and conformation problems have nothing to do with cropping OR docking (though I know a few that have needed their ears posted to stand correctly) as they recive neither. Instead this seems to be an attack on the persons breed of choice.



I'm not sure what shepherds you have been looking at... a quick view of the Specialties, Westminster or Crufts (take a look at Pedigree Dogs Exposed to get an orthopedic vet's point of view) but this is an inarguable point. It's difficult to defend the current shape of the Shepherd - no one looking for a true working dog will even consider using a North American specimen these days.

As for this being an attack on anyone's breed of choice, had you read the entire thread you would have seen that my point was that the show standard does not always do the dogs justice. Also in this thread have been mentioned Cavaliers, Pekes, Pugs, Cockers, English Setters, Springer Spaniels, and many other breeds. 

My reason for bringing up the Shepherd was the individual I was conversing with happened to own a Shepherd - who happens to be a classic example of all things wrong with the show ring, leading to the near destruction of a formerly magnificent breed. 

In addition, the owner of the dog in question (and the recipient of that post) agreed that the severe angulation is a detriment to the breed - and even has a european import dog, choosing herself not to go with American stock.

The biggest part of the cropping/docking argument is that it conforms to the breed standard, the history of the breed... when in fact many of today's dogs look little like the dogs of history - most to their detriment. The setter/spaniel example is a great one - hunters wouldn't waste a dime on the "show ring" version of these dogs, as they seem like different breeds compared to the working variety of the same dog. 

My point was that the breed standard/breed history argument holds little water. Dobe ear crops are a great example too... the original crop was similar to a pit bull crop - the ear was removed to prevent the intruder from controlling the dog by the ears - in essence, removing nature's "handles." Today's crop provides the opposite! Standing, easy to grab handles that would be a detriment to a working Dobe, not a benefit.

Today's cropped Dobe:










Doberman from WWI era sporting the original crop style (which incidentally required NO taping):


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

That's a pit bull crop. The "modern" one is more of a min pin crop. Very different. Are you sure that's the original crop for a dobe?

I didn't see any attacking going on in this thread????


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

myminpins said:


> That's a pit bull crop. The "modern" one is more of a min pin crop. Very different. Are you sure that's the original crop for a dobe?
> 
> I didn't see any attacking going on in this thread????


That is, in fact, the original crop for the dobe, the boxer and the great dane. 

The original purpose, as stated above, was to remove nature's "handles" so that there was nothing the intruder/assailant could grab onto to control the dog with. Much like the pit bull crop is used to prevent the other dog from grabbing the ear and causing injury (please note that I am NOT condoning this, simply pointing out the purpose behind the method).

When these breeds were created and originally used, do you think that ranchers spent time taping and propping up puppy ears? What purpose would that possible serve? It certainly does nothing to improve hearing - a conical ear shape such as that found on a Papillon, a natural Min Pin, a Corgi, etc, is the most efficient ear shape (those most similar to a cat). The half-ear that cropped dogs are left with serve no purpose other than cosmetic, and even worse - actually impede the breed in performing the job they were meant to do.

As for attacking, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own interpretation... but that was certainly not my intention and I don't believe that other poster in question felt this way either. In fact, this has been the most civil discussion on the subject I think I've ever seen on any forum, and I find it odd that a moderator would be the first one to try and fire things up...

Here are some more photos from the era to further illustrate:

A postcard:










A dobe from WWII:










Another WWII dobe:










Original boxer crop, photo taken the day after WWII was declared:


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

babysweet said:


> Today's cropped Dobe:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, that top Dobe isn't cropped, just posted, the bells of the ears are a dead give away as are the edges of the ears (no scar tissue) Look at my girls ears, hers are a Medium crop (though the crop and post weren't done properly, but that's how she was at 6 months when I got her)










Do you see the edges of the ear and the bell (bottom) of the ear? A longer crop would have even LESS bell than that. 

The bottom picture is a VERY poor example of a working crop, even the original dobes weren't supposed to be that short and the bell is too narrow for the crop.

Proper show crop, see how the ear sweeps in? How much less bell there is?
http://www.puppysites.com/deluxe/ljkyedobermans.jpg

Medium crop, see how much more bell nad how much more pronounced the sweep is?
http://legard.homestead.com/mediumcrop4.jpg

Short or Military crop, the shortest a Dobes ears should EVER be!
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dobermanclub.org/Buying_Puppy/ears_files/image003.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dobermanclub.org/Buying_Puppy/ears.html&usg=__A0qZLEpOwt28aT62dePSSg6qUJ8=&h=130&w=179&sz=17&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=niaZ9R53PxMntM:&tbnh=73&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMilitary%2BCrop%2BDoberman%2527s%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4DKUS_enUS252US252%26sa%3DN

The crop you show is too short and more suited to an old Neo or Pit crop, which was done to prevent damage during a fight. It's also been posted causing the ears to to lean inwards instead of standing straight. Can't help what the WWII vtes did to mutilate a dogs ears, they were hacks.


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

Babysweet,
Your comments have been very interesting on this thread. For the uninformed like myself, , do you have a list of the different "titles" (show and working) along with a realistic assessment of what each means to the dog buyer? ie no B.S.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

While the boxer's ears may look long, what's important to note is their shape and angulation. They are a far cry from the pointy, spindly, extreme crop of today. They required no taping, and they were always still short, or angled enough to prevent grabbing - the crop served a function. They also believed that the upright ears increased their hearing ability. While that was never proven or disproven, the ear shape of the dog in the bottom photo at least certainly seems physically better suited to capturing sound.

In regards to the long show crop, regardless of the amount of bell remaining on the ear, or what the standard calls for in regards to minimum crop... no one can provide a single reason why the original crop evolved into the severe, exaggerated show crop requiring lengthy posting and taping and serving NO functional purpose other than to improve the cosmetic appearance.

In response to the question regarding the title list, several such lists are available online. You can find one here:

http://www.angelfire.com/wi/gsdpedigrees/americangsdtitles.html

This is not a complete list, and lots of breeds have titles that apply to them and them alone (coonhounds, terriers, carting dogs, schutzhund dogs, etc). As for what they mean to the buyer, well it depends on what you're looking for. I love to see an agility title on a dog (it requires a dog to be responsive, fit, sound, obedient, dog and human friendly, etc). I'll take an agility title over an obedience title any day, in fact... obedience trials are descriminatory against some breeds who were simply never bred to have that kind of focus (ask those trying to OTCh a greyhound, pug or bulldog). Not to say it can't be done, but it's generally not fun for the dog doing it, whereas agility is fun for any breed (with the exception of snub nosed breeds on summer days) and still shows those same abilities. 

I also love to see when breeders keep track of their progeny's achievements, particularly as they age. I LOVE to see a senior dog still competing in agility, flyball, obedience, tracking, etc. It shows dogs of sound mind and body. It's one thing to title a two or three year old in the prime of life, but to still be running an agility trial when your age is in the double digits - that's better proof of health to me than genetic screenings. After all, while a good recipe is key, the proof is in the pudding!


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

babysweet, that crop DOES require posting, as does any crop that doesn't cut the ears off completely. The posting time is REDUCED with shorter crops, but it's NOT eliminated. Shorter crops are also more prone to be overposted, thus causing the leaning in you show on the Dobe crops which is caused by 'pockets' forming in the ears (which my girls has) from not being properly stretched.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Babysweet, you realize that the HC (herding championship) in AKC Has been around for I think about 15 years?


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Dogstar said:


> Babysweet, you realize that the HC (herding championship) in AKC Has been around for I think about 15 years?


I'm sorry, I'm afraid I've missed your point...


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

My point is that dual champions have NEVER been common- not in any breed. 

Titles on both end have also never been the norm- but there are breeds in whic hthey nearly are (Belgians!) and others where they wax and wane in how common they are. 

One of the other big problems I percieve in collies is that there are very few people INTERESTED in competing with them. The collie fancy as a whole really seems to be an older one- I know this is true of dog shows in general, but it's more noticable in collies than in Cardis (my first breed). TexSun Collies and I are pretty much the youngest members at collie club meetings locally, and it's by a pretty fair amount. I don't think this is entirely a breeder problem- I think it's a lack-of-visability problem, frankly. Collies were a popular obedience breed in the 50s and 60s when they were so popular overall, but these days, i'ts unusual to see many at trials, but many people woh are getting into perofrmance events pass them up for a faster, more 'up' BC or Aussie, which is a real shame, because collies are SO easy to train overall.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

I never claimed that dual champions were commonplace - my point was that when you saw dog with more than one title, it was generally a Ch and then the dog was focused on acheiving the highest possible level in one area. They may then move on and take on another area, attempting to again achieve the highest level they can. Instead, these days dogs have basic titles (such as HT or Herding Tested) because the average layperson has no idea what these acronyms mean - they're just impressed by all the letters after the dog's name.

As for your suggestion that dual titled dogs are rare, I would disagree. Many breeds, particularly the truly working breeds, are multiple title holders. A look at the Golden Retriever Club of America's website which tracks their national specialty winners (Breed, Open and High In Trial) back to 1941 (HIT didn't begin until 1950) lists a total of 92 winners. The list can be found here: http://www.grca.org/events/specialties/spec_winners.html and as you can see, there are numerous dogs with obedience and field titles. Several FC dogs don't always have their Ch yet, but with a win at the specialty, one must assume the Ch came soon after.

Now, the closer you get to present day, the greater the gap. The HIT (and later on the agility) winners are OTCh with numerous other working and agility titles, but with no Ch title, and very few of the show winners have any titles at all.

If anything, this clearly illustrates a gap between "working lines" and "bred for show."

Looking at the Collie Club of Canada (the American Club does not have the information readily available), there is only ONE dual titled dog listed as a specialty winner since 1986 (includes BISS and BOB other coat type).

The Bearded Collie Club, on the other hand, has quite a few dual titled dogs in its specialty past, beginning in 1979. The results can be viewed here: http://beardie.net/bcca/spec_past/pastspec.shtml

Keep in mind that many dual titled dogs focus mainly on their working titles and get their Ch simply to prove that their dogs conform to the standard. To see that number of dual titled dogs as specialty winners is doubly impressive. Of course, again, you don't see that today. You'll notice that many OTCh have their Ch, but very few BOB or BISS winners have anything more impressive than a CDX.

This just serves to illustrate what we've been saying - that there IS a difference between those dogs bred to work, and those dogs bred for the show ring. The fact is that in breeding for show, head shape, gait and ear carriage will always take precedence over natural working ability and sadly, sometimes even health. 

My main point was the increasing illusion of dual purpose dogs - when in fact, many of the herding breeds being bred today have never seen a farm animal, retriever breeders no longer care if their dogs will even fetch a ball, let alone a duck, terriers who have never gone to ground, hounds who have never chased prey, flushing spaniels who have never seen a field... and to me, personally, in my opinion, this is an absolute travesty. How can you claim to be breeding for the "betterment of the breed" when testing their ability to do what they were created to do is not even a part of your breeding program?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

one little correction for you guys.


historically, there is no *pit bull crop*

Fighting dogs were not typically cropped. The *pit bull crop* is a modern thing and serves just as little purpose on a pit now as it would have back in the day had it actually been a commonplace thing.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> one little correction for you guys.
> 
> 
> historically, there is no *pit bull crop*
> ...


Actually, the references I have found all point to the pit bull always being a cropped dog, with few exceptions (about as many as the doberman, on average).

Case in point, this advertising poster from WWI:










I can't really argue this one because on this point I'm not sure... more research is necessary before taking an absolute stand one way or the other. However, what I've found so far leans towards cropped pits.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

I call it a pit bull crop just to differentiate it from a min pin/dobe crop  Just FYI 


Some info:



> *History of docking and cropping*
> 
> Historically, *tail docking *was thought to prevent rabies, strengthen the back, increase the animal's speed and prevent injuries when ratting, fighting and baiting. In early Georgian times in the United Kingdom, tax was levied upon working dogs with tails and so many types of dogs were docked to avoid this tax. The tax was repealed in 1796 but that did not stop the practice from persisting.
> 
> ...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

http://www.riospitbull.com/famous_apbts.htm

http://www.colbypitbull.com/
On this site go to the Photos page and click on old photos. 

There is much much more but I don't have time right now

iFive years of pit bull historical research says that cropping was NOT THE NORM.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> http://www.riospitbull.com/famous_apbts.htm
> 
> http://www.colbypitbull.com/
> On this site go to the Photos page and click on old photos.
> ...


The first link is not working for me ..it wont let me click on anything!!


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> http://www.riospitbull.com/famous_apbts.htm
> 
> http://www.colbypitbull.com/
> On this site go to the Photos page and click on old photos.
> ...


The information that I can find says that while cropping was indeed not the norm (at least not until WWI) when the Pit Bull was cropped, it was the same crop as the one you see on the breed today - that is, the removal of the ear.

Also, I second MyMinPins sentiment - the reason we refer to it as the Pit Bull Crop is simply because it's the crop worn by pit bulls. I suppose it would more accurately be referred to as the Molosser crop to cover all the bull/mastiff type breeds that sport it. However, if I said "Molosser crop" few people would likely know what I was referring to. 

For the record, I don't advocate the crop in fighting dogs either. As a matter of fact, while researching your ear query I did discover multiple interviews with dog fighters from the last two centuries who preferred their dogs with a full ear, preferring the strong ear leather to be grabbed which allowed the bitten dog the maneuverability to retaliate - whereas the cropped ear, while more difficult to grasp, when clamped onto made a very sturdy handle high on the head and caused the grabbed dog to be at quite the disadvantage. One breeder/fighter claimed "all the better to slam him against the boards with!"

So even the fighting breed people really can't defend the practice of cropping...

Thanks for the eye opener!

Umm... for the record, on your second link of "old photos" two of the four dogs pictured are cropped, one from 1895, one from 1910. That would make the average, from the examples provided, 50%, not "rare" as suggested.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

for the record I did note that I wasn't finished posting.

that is two crops out of some several hundred photos.

I don't have time but I will be back later to finish.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

For those who say that the neonates "can't feel pain" (which I think is total nonsense anyway), I submit that they DO feel just as much pain as an adult dog would....but they can't do anything about it. I mean, what are they going to do? Chew on it (can't---they don't have the mobility)? Scream for an hour and miss out on eating? You could cut their legs off or do major abdominal surgery and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it, you could say "it doesn't bother them". 

I'm against cosmetic surgery on animals. I think it's all part of the larger picture of animal welfare. If you can cut a pup's tail off without any kind of painkiller, you can drown them, or starve them, or dump them in a ditch....what's the difference? I have actually heard this argument used. And, if dog haters were cutting tails off of puppies without painkillers, you can bet there'd be a huge uproar in the dog fancier's community. But dog "fanciers" can do any horrible thing they want to dogs and it's all right.......


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

But it being "horrible" is a matter of opinion Willowy.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

babysweet said:


> The original purpose, as stated above, was to remove nature's "handles" so that there was nothing the intruder/assailant could grab onto to control the dog with. _Much like the pit bull crop is used to prevent the other dog from grabbing the ear and causing injury_ (please note that I am NOT condoning this, simply pointing out the purpose behind the method).


Not true in the least. I'm not sure how not having an ear would prevent injury.  The dogs head would instead be grabbed, an ear sucker will still go for his/her usual spot. You can't fool a head dog by the opponent not having ears. They're still going to bite and shred the head instead of hang onto the ears. The dog who's being held by the ear would more then likely have a better advantage then a dog being controlled by the head. They have more reach if another dog has their ear. The dogs which were cropped seem to be those of the same lines bred by a few breeders who continued the cropping on down line. An example would be several of the OFRN dogs from Wallace to Hemphill to Wilder. It should be noted that its been said Jake Wilder didn't do much of anything with his dogs anyway. Just kept the line going and bred off the reputation before him. Yet some of those dogs were cropped. Others were those owned by a few individuals who would appear to crop more often, such as many of Tudor's dogs had crops. 

Just as it is now personal preference whether they be pets or pull dogs, so it was then. I see no point to crop then nor now. Only for cosmetic reasons unlike other breeds. In the beginning some of the earlier breeders and dogs were cropped just the same as their terrier ancestors, so that is a likely reason for why it was even done in the first place. The breeders continued on with that look of a cropped dog. As well not only terriers but photos show some bulldogs and the like ears were cropped too. 

As for any relation to fighting in the rare occasion that the ear was torn off or ripped good then the owner might choose to crop. This was after the fact and not done for prevention. It would seldom happen, most Pits seem to have tough ears but I'm sure some are thin (I know as one was cropped as an adult because he got tangled in a thorny bush and ripped his ears all up). So even if it isn't typical it could happen. In a few old photos I've actually seen that some were just left, like with a part out of the ear and the other ear still intact. So even then those particular owners just left them natural after an injury. 

I understand what minpin's meant by "pit bull crop" and "min pin crop" just a way to describe it. I just wanted to add that there is really no standard pit bull crop. Their ears are cropped differently (with or without bell preserved for instance) and different lengths (right down to no ear or quite a bit longer). Depending on the reason for the crop, pet simply for looks (can be a wide range), show dog, hunting dog, give them a tough look (some crop short say it makes them look tougher for whatever reason and its cool, ok whatever). If I had to label it as related to any other breed I'd say something similar to how a Presa Canario is normally cropped. Or perhaps even some Cane Corsos, some are left like that and with the point, others are cut a tad shorter and more blunt. Mine has the nice floppy ears! Molossers even vary on crops, my Caucasian Ovcharka has hardly any ear left and other CO's I've seen and felt have no outer ear left what so ever. 

As for the other stuff. I enjoyed seeing the photos you've posted and been told the same of Dobie's and seen the old photos (also seen historic Dane photos). Also heard (and its been proven they say) that a Dobe (or any dog) with cropped ears can hear better. They have more sensitive hearing which is useful to hear intruders, being a war/police dog and doing SAR.


----------



## wabanafcr (Jun 28, 2007)

I don't know about anyone else's newborn (1-5 day old or so) puppies, but mine can and will sometimes scream bloody murder and struggle like nobody's business if I take them away from mom for very long, even just to trim their toenails or weigh them...and it has nothing to do with pain.

Just an observation.


----------



## EnglishBulldogCuties (Jan 18, 2009)

*I feel like if the dog doesnt get it done at a few days old, then it does not need to be done. Would you want a piece of you taken off to meet what other people want it to look like? Uh, no. I'm sure it hurts them, its surgery. If people dont like the tails and want them docked then either get a puppy that has had that done already or get a dog with a short tail!*


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

wabanafcr said:


> I don't know about anyone else's newborn (1-5 day old or so) puppies, but mine can and will sometimes scream bloody murder and struggle like nobody's business if I take them away from mom for very long, even just to trim their toenails or weigh them...and it has nothing to do with pain.
> 
> Just an observation.


Heck, Titan does this every time you bring out the towel to clean his feet!!!! He's TICKED!!! No pain involved.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Willowy said:


> If you can cut a pup's tail off without any kind of painkiller, you can drown them, or starve them, or dump them in a ditch....what's the difference? I have actually heard this argument used. And, if dog haters were cutting tails off of puppies without painkillers, you can bet there'd be a huge uproar in the dog fancier's community. But dog "fanciers" can do any horrible thing they want to dogs and it's all right.......


Holy-Exaggeration-Batman! Seriously, this is all a matter of opinion. I love my docked boxers...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Holy-Exaggeration-Batman! Seriously, this is all a matter of opinion. *I love my docked boxers...*


I have a Rott, with a docked tail. I did not buy him, as I could not in good conscience support that. But I love him anyway. I would love him the same if he had a tail, and I wouldn't think gruesome thoughts every time I looked at his tail......

I have heard that particular argument (in response to my objections to throwing live unwanted puppies in the burn barrel). People like to justify their cruelty in any way possible. Good for you if you live somewhere more sheltered. 

As for the second part of that quote, yes, "horrible" is subjective. My point is that if somebody came here and said "OMG, I hate dog's tails, they annoy me soooo much, my mom's dog knocks all the stuff off her coffee table and I just think we should cut her tail off, so now that she had pups we're definitely having their tails cut off....etc.", everybody would jump all over that person. But, if a Dobe lover came on and said "I love Dobes, but, wow, they look sooo bad with ears and tails, like freaky hounds (I've heard that on several forums), in fact I think it's cruelty to let them keep their ears and tails, I mean, who wants to go through life looking so ugly", people would respond with "Hey, I love Dobes, too. Welcome to the forum. P.S. I also think they look terrible with ears and tails". I mean, the hypocrisy is staggering sometimes.


----------



## Spunkerella (Jan 25, 2009)

I think tail docking should be done for medical reasons only. Tail banding should only be done around 3 days. Any older and I think a vet should be doing it.

We've docked the puppies tails because there mom suffered from severe happy tail, broken in a few places and a thick strip of blood around the walls all over the house. We had good reason to. Someone who wants to dock a tail just 'cause they dont like tails should not get a dog. An untrained dog is just as likley to be jumping on top of the coffee table, or nosing things off, so just might as well not get a dog if that's the big concern lol.

For the most part I just leave docking standards alone. For people that use there dog for the intended reason the breed was created for, then by all means dock what you must but the average person should not. I consider it kind of like circumcision. There are so many 'tests' and 'theories' on it, it's really hard to know what the correct side is. If should be done then do it, otherwise leave it alone.


----------



## Chevy16 (Sep 16, 2009)

I have a 9 wk old boxer pup and he came with a docked tail. where i am from (new brunswick cananda) vets are no londer alowed to dock tails or dew claws. The breeders will do it if they feel they can. and the breeder i got my pup from has been a breeder for a long time and she has done it before so chevy did come docked.

I also heard that boxers tails have no nerve endings in them up to were they dock the tail at? I wasnt sure if this was true of not. i know its for the look to .. my opinion i would never get ears cropped or never dock a tail if he wasnt just born. I wouldnt even get a cats claws removed .


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

I am completely against it. No reasons AT ALL to do it nowadays. Apparently a lot of boys are still Circumcised these days as well  

One day, we will wake up. Voice your opinions, and don't support what you don't believe.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

bully said:


> No reasons AT ALL to do it nowadays.


whats the difference that made it acceptable "Back then" but not "Nowadays"?


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Keechak said:


> whats the difference that made it acceptable "Back then" but not "Nowadays"?


I didn't say it was ever acceptable.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

bully said:


> I didn't say it was ever acceptable.


ok sorry I misunderstood your post


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

bully said:


> I didn't say it was ever acceptable.




Then you fail to understand thepurpose of it, which is injury prevention. Yes, it is still needed for dogs who are still doing their jobs. Since you can't tell who the workers will be at 3 days old (the preferred age for having the procedure done) then you need to dock the whole litter. It's far easier and has fewer drawbacks than an amputation of the tail once the dog is full grown.



Chevy16 said:


> I also heard that boxers tails have no nerve endings in them up to were they dock the tail at? I wasnt sure if this was true of not. i know its for the look to .. my opinion i would never get ears cropped or never dock a tail if he wasnt just born. I wouldnt even get a cats claws removed .


that is true not only in Boxers, but in other docked breeds as well, I think it was Inga that had a Rottie who caught it's (undocked) tail on fire and didn't feel it because it had no nerve endings in the tail. The tail of that dog had to be amputated due to the severity of the injury.


----------



## Billiie (Jan 16, 2008)

Just like to add.. someone earlier in the thread stated that dogs with docked tails cannot communicate well because their tail has been docked.. that is BS. What about all the dogs that have natural short/bobbed tails? My Boston naturally has a stumpy tail, and he does quite well communicating with other dogs.

And I am in the minority, but I LOVE docked tails.. When my Boxer was alive, he would wiggle that thing like crazy! AND he wiggled his whole butt! Nothing cuter than a dog wiggling their whole body. And I even like the cropped look.. would I do it to my own dogs? No, but that is because I wouldn't want to do all the work in keeping them clean, etc. A good crop and dock is lovely to me.

Now, I have an AB, and I'm getting used to his tail.. he even has his dew claws.. It doesn't bother much anymore, but he would be cute with a nubby

BTW - my friend works with vets and tail docking.. they pups hardly make a sound.. people can say whatever they want, but honestly, it's not like the dog is going to remember when they were 3 days old their tail got snipped off.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

I REALLY wish someone would have docked my gsp/weims tail! She's having a very hard time with it now at almost 2 years of age  She wacks that long, STRONG weapon HARD against things & has split the tip of her tail open & bleeding several times. There's nothing we can do at this point except surgery to remove a few inches, then probably a few more inches ...


----------



## luvntzus (Mar 16, 2007)

When I worked at an animal hospital, I helped assist with docking a litter of Min Pins. I held each puppy upside down while the vet cut off the tail. I can tell you that those puppies certainly did feel the pain! I will never, ever forget those puppies screams and looking over to see perfectly good puppy tails on a metal tray. It's a disgusting practice IMO.


----------



## Ty_Tyler (Sep 17, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Then you'll likely have to import. Aussies, like every other docked breed, are docked at 2-4 days of age. You don't get to make the decision of whether or not the dog is docked...the breeder does. The Aussies standard calls for a docked tail, and since you can't tell who the show quality pups are at 4 days, EVERYBODY gets docked.
> 
> And I've seen a tailed aussie....looked like a Border Collie >.<


I have two aussies. The one I've had since a pup, the breeder said he was born without a tail. So not all of them are docked. I don't know about my other aussie as she came from aussie rescue. I am not advocating this procedure, just sharing that some are born without tails.

Also, someone wrote about dogs without tails having the inability to show emotion. I imagine there are some truths to this. As far as my dogs, they shake their bums when they are happy/excited.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Ty_Tyler said:


> I have two aussies. The one I've had since a pup, the breeder said he was born without a tail. So not all of them are docked. I don't know about my other aussie as she came from aussie rescue. I am not advocating this procedure, just sharing that some are born without tails.
> 
> Also, someone wrote about dogs without tails having the inability to show emotion. I imagine there are some truths to this. As far as my dogs, they shake their bums when they are happy/excited.


My Aussie Hawkeye is a natural bob tail but his was also docked to be alittle shorter, I would have MUCH prefered to leave it the way it was which would have been about 5 to 6 inches long now it's a half and inch long.

Any puppies that I would possiably breed in the far future will likely be keeping their tails as well, But I am not aginst it as a whole, I just wont do it.

non of my dogs have trouble comunicating eather. I have seen Kechara tell off other dogs before without needing to put a tail up in the air


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Anyone that says a dog should never have a docked tail has most likely never dealt with a seriously injured tail in an adult dog. 

It can make a B grade horror film look like a saturday morning cartoon. 


Also.... If anyone has been a party to puppies being docked and the pups showed a big reaction, something is wrong. Either the person doing the docking does not know what they are doing, the puppies are too old, etc. You might hear a small yelp but that should be about it. If it is done right and at the right age is should be no worse of a reaction than pulling a pup off its momma's teat.


----------



## HersheyBear (Dec 13, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Anyone that says a dog should never have a docked tail has most likely never dealt with a seriously injured tail in an adult dog.


I don't buy that excuse at all. I've seen dogs with seriously injured legs - should we just cut off limbs to prevent future injuries that may or may not happen? That's such a ridiculous excuse, I'm sorry.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Ty_Tyler said:


> Also, someone wrote about dogs without tails having the inability to show emotion. I imagine there are some truths to this. As far as my dogs, they shake their bums when they are happy/excited.


 
I assure you, dogs without tails can show emotion JUST FINE. EVERY docked breed I've ever owned/been around can wag, they just wag the WHOLE back end. Their tails also go up when on 'alert' and 'tuck' when scared. Those who don't think docked breeds can't communicate are sadly mistaken, dog communication uses the WHOLE body, not JUST the tail.



HersheyBear said:


> I don't buy that excuse at all. I've seen dogs with seriously injured legs - should we just cut off limbs to prevent future injuries that may or may not happen? That's such a ridiculous excuse, I'm sorry.


That's just silly, the tail is not an essential part of the dogs body. 

Is your dog dew-clawed? It's no difference between early docking and having the dew claws removed.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Also.... If anyone has been a party to puppies being docked and the pups showed a big reaction, something is wrong. Either the person doing the docking does not know what they are doing, the puppies are too old, etc. You might hear a small yelp but that should be about it. If it is done right and at the right age is should be no worse of a reaction than pulling a pup off its momma's teat.


That is absolutely correct, the only pups I've seen having a severe reaction was because an inexperienced vet intern hit the bone and was too high up.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Anyone that says a dog should never have a docked tail has most likely never dealt with a seriously injured tail in an adult dog.
> 
> It can make a B grade horror film look like a saturday morning cartoon.


I absolutely agree!
Thats exactly what I'm facing with my dog right now & it's awful! The tip of her tail gets swollen & plain ole raw. 
Other than amputating, at this point, my only recourse is to "protect" it by wrapping it, using sticky tape & hard plastic things than serve as very deadly weapon to any pet or person within range.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

HersheyBear said:


> I don't buy that excuse at all. I've seen dogs with seriously injured legs - should we just cut off limbs to prevent future injuries that may or may not happen? That's such a ridiculous excuse, I'm sorry.



I really don't care if you buy it or not. It is the way it is. A dog's tail is very different than an arm or leg. Tails get stepped on, crushed, caught in gates etc.

A tail also lacks the strength muscle and bone structure of an arm or leg. 

So if we are talking about rediculous, well your comparison is......

I am not an owner of a docked tail. My breed of favor happens to have a stocky, muscular tail. I still have dealt with a tail injury. Bandit my prevous ACD got the end of his tail damaged in a gate. He ended up losing about three inches of tail. I ended up with a pick up truck cab that could not be cleaned of blood. I spent a total of over a bunch of money cleaning my truck cab from the ride to the vet. The last guy that worked on it, was a guy that cleaned up crime scenes. Still there was still some stains when I traded the truck in.

All that being said.... My current and future ACD's have/will have full tails. Bandit was a fluke. 

But IF I ever get back into quail hunting, I won't have a tailed pointing breed ever again. I have worked on more pointer tails than I care to remember. 
Tail issues was one of two major reasons my family moved from Pointers to GSPs for birds.


----------

