# Docking the tail in older pup



## momof3 (Nov 24, 2007)

Someone I know got a rottie pup today. The person they got it from didn't have the tail docked early,The pup is now approx. 10wks old. I'm trying to find some information for her. Is it even possible to do this late?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Your going to be hard pressed to find a vet to do such a procedure. I would NEVER do it on an older puppy who already has strong neural pathways from tail development.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

Keechak said:


> Your going to be hard pressed to find a vet to do such a procedure. I would NEVER do it on an older puppy who already has strong neural pathways from tail development.


This.
While it's possible to do it is a MUCH harder procedure on the dog once they're older.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

It is a tail amputation at that point and would require general anesthesia.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

momof3 said:


> Someone I know got a rottie pup today. The person they got it from didn't have the tail docked early,The pup is now approx. 10wks old. I'm trying to find some information for her. Is it even possible to do this late?


It can be done. But now it is a surgery versus just a snip. 

I would not do it.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Tell the "person you know" to leave the tail alone.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

momof3 said:


> Someone I know got a rottie pup today. The person they got it from didn't have the tail docked early,The pup is now approx. 10wks old. I'm trying to find some information for her. Is it even possible to do this late?


Once the pup is that old it's no longer a dock, but an amputation that MUST be done under anesthesia and can have complications. Docking MUST be done in hte first week after birth.


----------



## LazyZoe (Apr 8, 2012)

Shell said:


> It is a tail amputation at that point and would require general anesthesia.


I am honestly curious, as I've never had a dog with a docked tail (that I had done)...so they aren't anesthetized at all when done at the appropriate age?


----------



## momof3 (Nov 24, 2007)

I told her that I would just leave it,she thinks it looks weird. While it is different I told her that makes the pup special. She takes the pup in for its shots,etc in the morning and I told her talk to the vet but that not to be surprised if what you guys are saying he doesn't tell her the exact same thing. She isn't showing the pup and once it gets of age she already wants her spayed. I had never heard of doing an older puppy but I figured you guys would have input.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

momof3 said:


> I told her that I would just leave it,she thinks it looks weird. While it is different I told her that makes the pup special. She takes the pup in for its shots,etc in the morning and I told her talk to the vet but that not to be surprised if what you guys are saying he doesn't tell her the exact same thing. She isn't showing the pup and once it gets of age she already wants her spayed. I had never heard of doing an older puppy but I figured you guys would have input.


I agree with the others. I would NOT dock the tail on this pup at this age. There is no reason at this point to do that. Love the pup for who she is, tail and all.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

LazyZoe said:


> I am honestly curious, as I've never had a dog with a docked tail (that I had done)...so they aren't anesthetized at all when done at the appropriate age?


No, they don't have a fully formed nervous system yet.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

LazyZoe said:


> I am honestly curious, as I've never had a dog with a docked tail (that I had done)...so they aren't anesthetized at all when done at the appropriate age?


When done early enough, the puppy is more concerned with being separated from its mother than with the actual procedure. You can look it up on youtube, you'll hear the puppies yelping but they will yelp even without the docking being done, as they're being separated from mum and the litter. As soon as they're put back with the others they quiet down.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Shell said:


> No, they don't have a fully formed nervous system yet.


I don't believe that, and have never seen the science to prove it. 

But, yeah, normally docks on 3-day-old pups are done without anesthetic. Although I understand that some vets use Lidocaine.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I don't believe that, and have never seen the science to prove it.
> 
> But, yeah, normally docks on 3-day-old pups are done without anesthetic. Although I understand that some vets use Lidocaine.


I'll give you that- I'll rephrase that as "the general reasoning is that their nervous systems are not developed enough for the pain to be significant" (Lidocaine sounds like a good choice though)
Some good studies done could be interesting, might lead to changes in practices similar to the change of providing local anesthesia for infant circumcision. Human studies show neonates exhibiting low pain scores compared to older infants but they still can experience pain. I would think it would be similar in dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I don't believe that, and have never seen the science to prove it.
> 
> But, yeah, normally docks on 3-day-old pups are done without anesthetic. Although I understand that some vets use Lidocaine.


You ever seen it done? 

There is no science to prove it does hurt either. 

But on visual cues, it does not cause them any distress. The go right back to suckling.


----------



## momof3 (Nov 24, 2007)

Thanks for your input all dogs I've known had it done when they were first born. And I don't trust lots of junk online but I know you guys are pretty smart and wouldn't give bad information


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, her vet may do it. I would hope not, but then some vets do a lot of things I would hope they wouldn't. But there was someone who posted here recently who had their puppies' tails cut at the same time their ears were cut (I think they were around 10 weeks) so obviously some vets do it.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Willowy said:


> *I don't believe that, and have never seen the science to prove it. *
> 
> But, yeah, normally docks on 3-day-old pups are done without anesthetic. Although I understand that some vets use Lidocaine.


I can believe it. I used to work as a lab technician in a hospital, and part of the job was to take blood tests from newborn babies. In babies you don't get the blood from the arm like you do in adults, you stick the needle into a vein in the back of the hand. This procedure is painful in adults, which is why it's not usually done, but the babies didn't even feel it. The explanation was that their nerves haven't fully formed yet. The babies were more worried about lying on a table with no human contact for a few minutes than about the needle. None of them cared about the needle at all, no crying, no flinching, nothing.

And then there is the test where you get blood out of the heel, which they didn't seem to notice either.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that it's the same for puppies. I've also heard stories about how singleton puppies that aren't handled at all fail to develop a nervous system and thus have very little feeling in their limbs, to the point where they will injure their feet and not even notice.


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

Shell said:


> No, they don't have a fully formed nervous system yet.


This is so often quoted and is scientifically considered wrong. The neural pathways have not been aligned and therefore a pup is very likely to feel more pain and not less, depending upon its own personal pain threshhold. Docking is a layman's term for amputation when the tail is surgically removed - it is still amputation when removed by surgical instruments. http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_4.htm
Dogs are born with tails and have been from their creation so that is the NORM. Those that are born tailless carry a gene which is rare and recessive and causes other effects which are not fully researched.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

ADA said:


> This is so often quoted and is scientifically considered wrong. The neural pathways have not been aligned and therefore a pup is very likely to feel more pain and not less, depending upon its own personal pain threshhold. Docking is a layman's term for amputation when the tail is surgically removed - it is still amputation when removed by surgical instruments. http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_4.htm
> Dogs are born with tails and have been from their creation so that is the NORM. Those that are born tailless carry a gene which is rare and recessive and causes other effects which are not fully researched.


Yeah, but what is the pup's brain doing with that pain? 

I'm a chronic pain patient. Trust me, I know pain. I've done very serious research into pain and how it works. Pain is not an automatic thing, it's a process that's heavily modulated by the brain. In other words, just because a pain signal is being produced doesn't mean the brain is interpreting that signal or signify how the brain is interpreting that signal.

It's not that newborn babies don't have the nerves to feel and transmit pain, it's that they don't have the brain pathways set to interpret pain in a way adults do. So, yes, newborns have the capability to perceive pain, but not the way adults do. That requires brain processing that hasn't developed yet.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ADA said:


> This is so often quoted and is scientifically considered wrong. The neural pathways have not been aligned and therefore a pup is very likely to feel more pain and not less, depending upon its own personal pain threshhold. Docking is a layman's term for amputation when the tail is surgically removed - it is still amputation when removed by surgical instruments. http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_4.htm
> Dogs are born with tails and have been from their creation so that is the NORM. Those that are born tailless carry a gene which is rare and recessive and causes other effects which are not fully researched.


How about posting up some documenation from a source without an agenda? 

Having personally docked a bunch of dogs (I used to do it for a breeder that got squeamish doing it) and having seen a bunch more docked, I have never seen anything to indicate it bothers them at all. 

Oh they fuss.... When you take them away from momma. Most keep fussing until you put them back. But there is no reaction to the docking.


----------



## Rottysrule (Apr 13, 2012)

this topic reminds of a lady yesterday while out walking Nyx at the regular park saying that her kid got her rotty pup tail docked at 12weeks of age and was kind of hinting that i should get Nyx tail done, cause they aren't as cleaning. Meaning the dogs knock things off of coffee tables and what not.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I have never seen a pup not react to a tail docking. I was a vet tech for ten years, and assisted with many, its quite uncomfortable.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Not a big fan of docking myself, personally. It's banned here. Even though I don't agree with it, I believe people should have the choice,.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

juliemule said:


> I have never seen a pup not react to a tail docking. I was a vet tech for ten years, and assisted with many, its quite uncomfortable.


Maybe y'all used a different method. Or the puppies were older.


----------



## momof3 (Nov 24, 2007)

Ok her report back is that the vet would not do it. They said that the procedure is not medically necessary and so at this age they wouldn't do it unless it had to be done. So it looks like her pup will be keeping the tail. He said it was just to stressful to do it and then talked to her about it all.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Your friend should enjoy her rottie, tail and all. There's no reason to amputate a tail on a 10 week old pup...even if she was going to try to put an AKC CH on it. There is one rottweiler out there who has a tail and finished his AKC championship (to the chagrin of many.) She needs to leave well enough alone. 

She's not the type start vet shopping looking for someone who will perform the surgery, is she??


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LazyZoe said:


> I am honestly curious, as I've never had a dog with a docked tail (that I had done)...so they aren't anesthetized at all when done at the appropriate age?


at two or three days, their nervous system isn't developed yet. That said, I do use a vet who uses a bit of lidocane before doing tails and dew claws. It is undoubtably not comfortable, but the puppies are more worried about being on the table and away from littermates than anything else, and when they are returned to the others, they quickly calm down and go to sleep. However, if you wait past the first week of life, the nervous system is fully developed, and it becomes a painful amputation even with full anesthesia. Not something I'd be comfortable doing for cosmetic purposes.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I have never seen a pup not react to a tail docking. I was a vet tech for ten years, and assisted with many, its quite uncomfortable.


Perhaps it is the method your vets use? Or maybe the pups are older? I dock tails on the second day of life.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADA said:


> This is so often quoted and is scientifically considered wrong. The neural pathways have not been aligned and therefore a pup is very likely to feel more pain and not less, depending upon its own personal pain threshhold. Docking is a layman's term for amputation when the tail is surgically removed - it is still amputation when removed by surgical instruments. http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_4.htm
> Dogs are born with tails and have been from their creation so that is the NORM. Those that are born tailless carry a gene which is rare and recessive and causes other effects which are not fully researched.


Puppies frequently cry when they are first born. Maybe we should stuff them back in so they don't have any stress? I wonder if you and the people you quote are equally against spaying and neutering (which are more invasive and painful, with more complications and a long period of recovery)


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

momof3 said:


> I told her that I would just leave it,she thinks it looks weird. While it is different I told her that makes the pup special. She takes the pup in for its shots,etc in the morning and I told her talk to the vet but that not to be surprised if what you guys are saying he doesn't tell her the exact same thing. She isn't showing the pup and once it gets of age she already wants her spayed. I had never heard of doing an older puppy but I figured you guys would have input.


Just tell her that in most of the world, Rotts are not docked. She can look at pictures online to see how it looks on adults. I suspect she'll get used to it, and then docked ones will start to look funny after a while.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

begemot said:


> Just tell her that in most of the world, Rotts are not docked. She can look at pictures online to see how it looks on adults. I suspect she'll get used to it, and then docked ones will start to look funny after a while.


This is very true. It's just a matter of what you're used to. To me, docked and cropped dogs look weird. To my Venezuelan friend, dogs with natural tails and ears look weird.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

I would think that they would feel some pain if you are breaking the skin. I mean you wouldn't cut a pup and think it didn't feel it. I think circumcism must hurt to as even a heel stick for a blood test hurts a newborn. But I don't think it would hurt as much as you having say your toe snipped off. This is not bone at 2 days, it's like cartilage. It would probably hurt about as much as getting your ear pierced. I got my ears pierced at 3 days old! I bet it hurt. But not so much that it was "tramatizing". I had to have my newborns babies have blood test several times in their first few days. They cried, but I nursed them and they settled down. 

My point is that while it probably does hurt, it's probably not that bad. A tail is not like cutting off it's foot since it's cartilage and not bone. I did see a vidoe where they slipped a rubber band around the tails while they nursed and they did not react in the least and neither did mom. The tails go numb and shrivel up and fall off like unbilical cords. Don't know what the infection rate is but I'd think if you kept it clean and dry like a babies belly button, it should fall off and would not hurt.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

How is a tail cartilage and not bone? Just curious.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> How is a tail cartilage and not bone? Just curious.


Lots of stuff that is later "bone" is cartilage in a newborn.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I realize that bones don't fully calcify for awhile (why babies can get misshapen heads). But is it really cartilage? Are the legs bones more calcified so there would be a difference? Is the rest of the spine cartilage too?

Meh, I'm told that cartilage piercings are crazy painful (earlobes are just skin and fat). Not sure that changes anything anyway.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> How is a tail cartilage and not bone? Just curious.


At 2 days it hasn't haddened and developed into bone yet. Some things never do, like ears. Some things do in utero. Lots of a pups development happens outside the womb, like the eyes opeing, etc. At 2 days, their tails are not the rigid bone they will become. The snip doesn't usually even require a stitch.

An older dog is a different story. That would hurt during needing anesthesia of course) and long after and would be tramatizing to be used to swishing your tail and there's nothing there. The incision would necessarily do a lot of damage to get through the bones and the recovery would be painful.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> (why babies can get misshapen heads).


Babies heads are misshapen becuase the rigid bones are plates that are moved around to get out of the birth canal. They eventually connect and fuse. But they are relatively hard bone plates not cartilage.

I think I would pass out if I had my nose pierced. But I would need much sedation and narcotics if I had my nose _broken_ . You see the damage a broken nose does to the surrounding area, like for a nose job, and the recovery time. Granted a docked tail is not like a piercing but it's not as mean as it looks.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Another thing to consider is phantom limb pain. Wikipedia cites research finding that "Approximately 60 to 80% of individuals with an amputation experience phantom sensations in their amputated limb, and the majority of the sensations are painful." That was from adult humans after amputations. I would think that dogs would have similar data, if we could ask them. Of course, it might be different with amputations done in the first days of life. I don't know whether there's any human data out there on that -- I doubt it. (Circumcision is definitely not comparable.) Phantom limb sensations are a big deal, though. They can be debilitating for some individuals, who experience severe chronic pain that can't be effectively treated because the limb is absent.


----------



## momof3 (Nov 24, 2007)

No I don't think she will go looking. Her mom goes to this vet,she has a dog that goes to this vet,kinda the family friend type deal. So no matter what he says it must be the truth,no matter what the situation is.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> Another thing to consider is phantom limb pain.


I would think that might be the case with older dogs, not to mention the spychological trauma or trying to swish a tail that isn't there. I can't see that with a 2 day old pup. If it's nervouse system is not fully developed I think it would continue to develop around the fact of a short tail. But I'm guessing. Yet I don't think anyone has notices that traditionaly docked dogs seem to be in pain.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

begemot said:


> Another thing to consider is phantom limb pain. Wikipedia cites research finding that "Approximately 60 to 80% of individuals with an amputation experience phantom sensations in their amputated limb, and the majority of the sensations are painful." That was from adult humans after amputations. I would think that dogs would have similar data, if we could ask them. Of course, it might be different with amputations done in the first days of life. I don't know whether there's any human data out there on that -- I doubt it. (Circumcision is definitely not comparable.) Phantom limb sensations are a big deal, though. They can be debilitating for some individuals, who experience severe chronic pain that can't be effectively treated because the limb is absent.


I've had docked dogs for over 30 years. Never seen one who appeared to have pain associated with the dock. I do think it might be different in an older dog who's developed those neural pathways. But at two days? I don't think it's a valid issue.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> Perhaps it is the method your vets use? Or maybe the pups are older? I dock tails on the second day of life.


 
Yep, tw to three days is ideal, the nervous system isn't fully functioning and the blood clotting factors have peaked.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I've had docked dogs for over 30 years. Never seen one who appeared to have pain associated with the dock. I do think it might be different in an older dog who's developed those neural pathways. But at two days? I don't think it's a valid issue.


Actually, research has shown that tail docking _is _painful (Noonan G, Rand J, Blackshaw J, et al. Behavioural observations of puppies undergoing tail docking. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1996;4: 335-342). Possible complications include neuromas, infections, excessive bleeding, necrosis, and occasionally death. It also _may _be associated with an increased risk of urinary incontinence and weakening of the perineal muscles.

Regarding phantom limb pain, I don't think you (or anyone) can know that animals don't experience it. Tail chewing might be a symptom, or it might not be. Or a dog might show no observable symptoms, but still feel it. You just don't know.

There is no scientific support for the idea that puppies "don't feel pain," or haven't developed the neurological ability to process pain. Worldwide, 83-92% of vets think docking is wrong (avma.org). The American Veterinary Medical Association classifies neonatal tail docking as a cosmetic surgery, without evidence of medical benefits. The World Small Animal Veterinary Association, which is a collective association made up of many different national veterinarian professional associations (representing 75,000+ vets worldwide) has taken a strong stand against tail amputation (by a unanimous assembly vote), and recommends that tail amputation be removed from breed standards and made illegal except where medically necessary, as determined and performed by a qualified vet.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

denise3099 said:


> At 2 days it hasn't haddened and developed into bone yet.


No. If you look at x-rays of puppies (like x-rays to count puppies during pregnancy), you can see the tails - which means they are calcified (i.e. bone). And in any case the incision is made (or should be made, anyway) between the bones and not through them so it's a bit irrelevant. 



> An older dog is a different story. That would hurt during needing anesthesia of course) and long after and would be tramatizing to be used to swishing your tail and there's nothing there. The incision would necessarily do a lot of damage to get through the bones and the recovery would be painful.


No... regardess of the age a tail amputation does NOT (or should not, anyway) cut through bone, it cuts through the soft tissues between the bones. Not saying that makes it ok to amputate whenever you want, but cutting through bone has nothing to do with it. (ETA: Just to clarify, I don't advocate docking older puppies' tails, but occasionally a tail will need to be amputated for medical reasons and the technique is to cut through soft tissue between the vertebrae, not cutting through any bones themselves.)


----------



## LazyZoe (Apr 8, 2012)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I can believe it. I used to work as a lab technician in a hospital, and part of the job was to take blood tests from newborn babies. In babies you don't get the blood from the arm like you do in adults, you stick the needle into a vein in the back of the hand.


To be fair, I don't know how true that is either. My son had jaundice as a newborn, and had to have I.V. fluids within a day of being born. They put the I.V. in the back of his hand and I was there when it was removed...he definitely felt discomfort if not full out pain when the catheter was removed. He went from just whimpering when the nurse picked him to full out wails when she touched the I.V. site. Since then I have come to realize that it was definitely a cry of pain, since it is the same sound he made when he got his vaccinations as a baby.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

begemot said:


> Actually, research has shown that tail docking _is _painful (Noonan G, Rand J, Blackshaw J, et al. Behavioural observations of puppies undergoing tail docking. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1996;4: 335-342). Possible complications include neuromas, infections, excessive bleeding, necrosis, and occasionally death. It also _may _be associated with an increased risk of urinary incontinence and weakening of the perineal muscles.
> 
> Regarding phantom limb pain, I don't think you (or anyone) can know that animals don't experience it. Tail chewing might be a symptom, or it might not be. Or a dog might show no observable symptoms, but still feel it. You just don't know.
> 
> There is no scientific support for the idea that puppies "don't feel pain," or haven't developed the neurological ability to process pain. Worldwide, 83-92% of vets think docking is wrong (avma.org). The American Veterinary Medical Association classifies neonatal tail docking as a cosmetic surgery, without evidence of medical benefits. The World Small Animal Veterinary Association, which is a collective association made up of many different national veterinarian professional associations (representing 75,000+ vets worldwide) has taken a strong stand against tail amputation (by a unanimous assembly vote), and recommends that tail amputation be removed from breed standards and made illegal except where medically necessary, as determined and performed by a qualified vet.


Ever known a dog with "happy tail"? Are you in favor of spaying and neutering?


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Ever known a dog with "happy tail"? Are you in favor of spaying and neutering?


 Not who you directed teh question to, but I am against tail docking unless medically necessary, yet FOR spaying and neutering. A contradiction, you say? Not docking almost all dogs doesn't harm them. Few have problems from damaging their tail by smacking it into things. I've had 2 cockers, a breed traditionally docked, that had tails, and never had a problem. But the majority of people are not responsible enough to prevent their unspayed dogs from getting pregnant, or their unneutered males from getting out/and getting to an in heat female. Failure to spay and neuter results in unwanted litters that are euthed by the millions. So the risk of something bad is slim in a dog with an undocked tail, but the risk of unwanted preg is high for most owners of intact dogs. If someone is 100% responsible with their intact dog and has caregivers/friends/relatives that watch the dog who are also responsible, and no kids that accidentally let dog out, then by all means, keep the dog intact.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spotted nikes said:


> Not who you directed teh question to, but I am against tail docking unless medically necessary, yet FOR spaying and neutering. A contradiction, you say? Not docking almost all dogs doesn't harm them. Few have problems from damaging their tail by smacking it into things. I've had 2 cockers, a breed traditionally docked, that had tails, and never had a problem. But the majority of people are not responsible enough to prevent their unspayed dogs from getting pregnant, or their unneutered males from getting out/and getting to an in heat female. Failure to spay and neuter results in unwanted litters that are euthed by the millions. So the risk of something bad is slim in a dog with an undocked tail, but the risk of unwanted preg is high for most owners of intact dogs. If someone is 100% responsible with their intact dog and has caregivers/friends/relatives that watch the dog who are also responsible, and no kids that accidentally let dog out, then by all means, keep the dog intact.


Shrug, s/n is far more invasive and painful, with more complications and a longer recovery period (basically it takes puppies a few minutes to recover from a tail docking). S/N is not necessary except for the convenience of the owner. That's not saying I'm necessarily opposed to s/n. I just think it is hypocritical to be pro s/n and get all het up about tail docking neonates.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Having lived in places where spay/neuter isn't common, seeing the societal and welfare implications when this "convenience" isn't available (or isn't utilized), I can't see it anywhere in the same category.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Having lived in places where spay/neuter isn't common, seeing the societal and welfare implications when this "convenience" isn't available (or isn't utilized), I can't see it anywhere in the same category.


Just because people choose to not use good dog management or be responsible, does not mean that S/N is for any other reason than convenience. 

If someone is irresponsible, there is a good chance they are not going to be responsible enough to neuter their dogs in the first place. 

ANYONE that is reasonably responsible can easily manage an intact dog.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Having lived in places where spay/neuter isn't common, seeing the societal and welfare implications when this "convenience" isn't available (or isn't utilized), I can't see it anywhere in the same category.


Agree with this. Tail docking of neonates is ONLY for cosmetic reasons, whereas spay/neuter isn't. I'll grant you that spay/neuter is more invasive with a longer recovery time and greater risk to the dog. But we don't do it because it offers the dog much of a benefit (though some argue protection against certain cancers, etc.). Rather it benefits the dog's owner(s) and society in tangible ways that have nothing to do with human vanity. Can you imagine the shelter population if s/n wasn't common in the states?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Just because people choose to not use good dog management or be responsible, does not mean that S/N is for any other reason than convenience.
> 
> If someone is irresponsible, there is a good chance they are not going to be responsible enough to neuter their dogs in the first place.
> 
> ANYONE that is reasonably responsible can easily manage an intact dog.


Yeah? I couldn't. I like to think I'm reasonably responsible but my dogs have gotten out on a few occasions. I guess I'm not so responsible after all. I don't know anyone whose dogs haven't gotten out, though. And I know plenty of spayed/neutered free-roaming farm dogs. . .their owners aren't responsible enough to keep them contained but they did have them s/n.

And seeing the terrible situation on the res, then the spaymobile goes through and it's a lot better for a few years. . .I think that if there were vets on the res they might use them. But it's not profitable so there aren't any. If spay/neuter is made available to them they'll use it. 

And the street dog/cat situation in the smaller city we lived in when we were in Japan. If spay/neuter had been more common (it was available but I don't know how many people knew it) maybe there wouldn't have been so many. Most of the street animals were the unwanted offspring of pets.

I really think it's mostly a matter of availability and acceptance.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> ANYONE that is reasonably responsible can easily manage an intact dog.


But should they? I consider myself a reasonably responsible pet owner. My dog has never "gotten out" (not really possible for Kit, as she wouldn't run if she did). But frankly, I have better stuff to worry about than unwanted puppies. I'm sure I COULD manage an intact dog, I just don't want to. So the spay is mainly for my convenience, and I don't see a huge issue here. 

Docking, though, is a different issue entirely. It's not about convenience, or the prevention of unwanted puppies. It's about the dog's appearance only. Not a good reason to do amputate, if you ask me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Agree with this. Tail docking of neonates is ONLY for cosmetic reasons, whereas spay/neuter isn't. I'll grant you that spay/neuter is more invasive with a longer recovery time and greater risk to the dog. But we don't do it because it offers the dog much of a benefit (though some argue protection against certain cancers, etc.). Rather it benefits the dog's owner(s) and society in tangible ways that have nothing to do with human vanity. Can you imagine the shelter population if s/n wasn't common in the states?


Like I said, I'm not anti-S/N. but it's a lot riskier and it IS basically for owner convenience. The health benefit thing doesn't really hold up except in the case of pyo. It's silly to get all upset about tail docking (in neonates) and support routine S/N. Me, I've been known to do both. And support both (though I do think one needs to really look at the s/n health benefit data and figure out which is bogus and which is not.) Shoot. a bad grooming job is probably more painful and upsetting to the dog that tail docking if done at the right age.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> But should they? I consider myself a reasonably responsible pet owner. My dog has never "gotten out" (not really possible for Kit, as she wouldn't run if she did). But frankly, I have better stuff to worry about than unwanted puppies. I'm sure I COULD manage an intact dog, I just don't want to. So the spay is mainly for my convenience, and I don't see a huge issue here.
> 
> Docking, though, is a different issue entirely. It's not about convenience, or the prevention of unwanted puppies. It's about the dog's appearance only. Not a good reason to do amputate, if you ask me.


My management of my intact dogs is exactly the same as my management of my altered dog. 

S/N is convenience. Nothing more. It is an invasive procedure with significant risks. If you keep your dog contained and under control.... Things a responsible owner should be doing...... It will not get pregnant and will not impregnate a bitch. It is nothing to worry about. Nothing that takes a lot of thought. Just responsible ownership.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

And FTR..... I am not anti spay or neuter......

I just find the irony of docking and cropping discussions amusing......

It is funny to me to watch people speak against cropping and docking on one thread and speak for spay and neuter on another. 

All are about convenience. Spay and Neuter are just significantly more invasive.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

There are no societal benefits to cropping or docking. No benefit to the dog and/or potential offspring. I see no irony.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Yeah? I couldn't. I like to think I'm reasonably responsible but my dogs have gotten out on a few occasions. I guess I'm not so responsible after all. I don't know anyone whose dogs haven't gotten out, though. And I know plenty of spayed/neutered free-roaming farm dogs. . .their owners aren't responsible enough to keep them contained but they did have them s/n.
> 
> And seeing the terrible situation on the res, then the spaymobile goes through and it's a lot better for a few years. . .I think that if there were vets on the res they might use them. But it's not profitable so there aren't any. If spay/neuter is made available to them they'll use it.
> 
> ...


I know lots of folks whose dogs don't get out. Including me....

The reservation situation is a different matter. That is a cultural thing.

There are countries in which S/N is illegal (along with docking and cropping) that do not have pet over population problems. It can be done.

In fact there is a growing movement in the UK to make castration of pet dogs and cats illegal. 

I am not advocating ending spay and neuter. It, like cropping and docking, is an elective procedure. The decision of whether or not to get it done is best decided by the owner.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> There are no societal benefits to cropping or docking. No benefit to the dog and/or potential offspring. I see no irony.


There are no societal benefits to spay and neuter....... It is all about dog management.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> There are no societal benefits to spay and neuter....... It is all about dog management.


 A level of dog management that isn't possible for normal people. Can't leave your dog unsupervised in the fenced yard (unless it's fenced like Fort Knox), can't ever have a door that doesn't latch right, can't have kids who leave doors open, can't have farm dogs (not that I think they should be loose, but people do what they want to do, and this is apparently a Fundamental American Right), can't take your dog to the park, have to attain a level of training most people have no idea how/insufficient skills to attain, etc.

It's great that you and all your friends are so special and have such super dog management skills. It's not realistic for average people.

Most (all?) of the countries that do not have overpopulation problems have attained that by enacting incredibly strict dog laws. I don't think you'd want that in the U.S.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> A level of dog management that isn't possible for normal people. Can't leave your dog unsupervised in the fenced yard (unless it's fenced like Fort Knox), can't ever have a door that doesn't latch right, can't have kids who leave doors open, can't have farm dogs (not that I think they should be loose, but people do what they want to do, and this is apparently a Fundamental American Right), can't take your dog to the park, have to attain a level of training most people have no idea how/insufficient skills to attain, etc.
> 
> It's great that you and all your friends are so special and have such super dog management skills. It's not realistic for average people.
> 
> Most (all?) of the countries that do not have overpopulation problems have attained that by enacting incredibly strict dog laws. I don't think you'd want that in the U.S.


Sure you can leave your dog in your fenced yard. Sure you can take your dog to the park. Sure you can have farm dogs. If your door doesn't latch then you have other issues. There are really only about two weeks a year a bitch can get pregnant. 

I think you need to go back and research European Countries that do not have dog overpopulation problems. Most are very dog friendly. Norway is ( I did a ton of research on Norway because I had a Job offer over there in 2008.) 

The U.S. is the only industrialized first world country that has completely hung its hat on S/N as a solution to unwanted dogs and cats. Some would say we are not doing well. 

I am not saying scrap the idea of spay and neuter. But that is not the bulk of the problem. Public education would take great strides. It is not instant gratification but it will work. 

My dogs getting pregnant or impregnating a bitch are really low on my list when it comes to dog management. 

My concerns are:
1) I don't want my dogs to get hit by a car.
2) I don't want my dogs to wander off and get lost or stolen
3) I don't want my dogs to get loose and bite someone 
4) I don't want my dogs to get picked up by animal control

If I manage for those four things, I never have to think about my dogs breeding with someone elses dog. They never get the opportunity. 

I do have to manage my dogs internally for six weeks of the year. My bitch is only in standing heat for about two weeks. But her heat cycle is three weeks each time. My intact dog will pester her for most of that time. 

My previous wife had a son. He was five when she moved in with me and 14 when we divorced. I had two or three dogs the entire time. My stepson came in and out all the time. I never went looking for a dog. Never had a dog run out. 


All the reasons you mentioned are just excuses to not be responsible with your dogs. 

Again....I am not saying scrap S/N.... In fact I think it has its place.... Nearly every dog that has gone through my hands as a rescue has been S/N. And will continue to be. 
Not because I think it is impossible or unrealistic to manage an intact dog. But because these dogs get placed with people I do not know. I don't assume they are going to be responsible. 

That hound I found early in the year, that I placed with my friend went intact. I could care less if he neuters the dog. Because he is a good owner.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

In Norway it is actually still illegal to desex dogs unless there are medical reasons.

Yet there is no over-population, and I guess it's because people can't desex their dogs so they've learnt to be more responsible. But then Norwegians are generally very logical and responsible as a people (I would know, I'm Norwegian).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

lil_fuzzy said:


> In Norway it is actually still illegal to desex dogs unless there are medical reasons.
> 
> Yet there is no over-population, and *I guess it's because people can't desex their dogs so they've learnt to be more responsible*. But then Norwegians are generally very logical and responsible as a people (I would know, I'm Norwegian).


Maybe that worked there but even before spay/neuter was available, Americans didn't learn to be more responsible. They just drowned an awful lot of puppies. . .

And, sure, it's dandy if you have your life so perfect that nothing unexpected ever happens. That you can have people wandering through and your dog never gets out. I don't think that's usual. A male can always impregnate a female. Maybe a female is easier to handle in that regard since it's only a few weeks a year you have to worry about her. But you can't have an intact male farm dog without him wandering off to see the neighbor's female. You can't leave him in the fenced yard because a female in heat might show up. You can't take him to the park--you have no way of knowing where there will be a female in heat.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Just go on CL for any city and look at how many "OOPS' pregnancies there are. Go look at any shelter and see how many dogs and puppies there are.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Maybe that worked there but even before spay/neuter was available, Americans didn't learn to be more responsible. They just drowned an awful lot of puppies. . .
> 
> And, sure, it's dandy if you have your life so perfect that nothing unexpected ever happens. That you can have people wandering through and your dog never gets out. I don't think that's usual. A male can always impregnate a female. Maybe a female is easier to handle in that regard since it's only a few weeks a year you have to worry about her. But you can't have an intact male farm dog without him wandering off to see the neighbor's female. You can't leave him in the fenced yard because a female in heat might show up. You can't take him to the park--you have no way of knowing where there will be a female in heat.


Don't tell my boys that. I take them to parks, (not dog parks) I leave them in my fenced yard and they never ever wander around the neighborhood, even with a bitch in heat 2 houses down. It is called training and maintenance and it can be done. I just isn't in most cases. Some people are lazy and irresponsible. Sadly, most are.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

So what if most people S/N for convenience, anyway? Convenience isn't a dirty sin. I don't really understand that argument at all, it's just a deflection. Dock/crop and S/N are completely different procedures done for completely different purposes, so why wouldn't someone have completely different reasons for being for/against them? It's called... context. AMAZING.


ETA: And I find arguments based on what people _should_ do or be capable of doing instead of what they _actually_ do to be... somewhat unrealistic. In addition to the fact that my opinion on S/N has nothing to do with my opinion on crop/dock.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Maybe that worked there but even before spay/neuter was available, Americans didn't learn to be more responsible. They just drowned an awful lot of puppies. . .
> 
> And, sure, it's dandy if you have your life so perfect that nothing unexpected ever happens. That you can have people wandering through and your dog never gets out. I don't think that's usual. A male can always impregnate a female. Maybe a female is easier to handle in that regard since it's only a few weeks a year you have to worry about her. But you can't have an intact male farm dog without him wandering off to see the neighbor's female. You can't leave him in the fenced yard because a female in heat might show up. You can't take him to the park--you have no way of knowing where there will be a female in heat.


Willowy, I don't know where you keep getting you can't let intact dogs out, can't take them to a park. 

Male dogs have to do more than just look at the bitch to impregnate her. They need to couple and tie. It takes more than a few seconds. 

No reason you can't take your intact dog to a park. So what if a bitch in heat is there. You are there. 

The fenced yard thing is completely off the wall. I suppose you are referring to the urban legend about dog actually breeding through a fence. Well you hear stories, you talk to people that know someone that knows someone, that knows someone, whose cousin had a dog that it happened to. But I have never run down anyone that ACTUALLY has seen it happen. I doubt it is physically possible in most cases. Even if the bitch backed right up to the fence, the male would have to have a double jointed spine to pull off that trick. 

Growing up, we kenneled Pointers right next to each other. We did not move a bitch when she came in heat. There might be an intact male in the run on each side of her. I have done the same with hounds. 

This business about you can't take an intact dog here, can't take it there, can't do this, can't do that, is just not valid. 

I have taken intact dogs everywhere with me for over 30 years. Merlin gets out and goes more places than MOST dogs. If he stays home two days a week, it is a lot. Same with Bandit before him, Doc, Catcher, Bronson, Spanky, Tank, Laddie. etc

Accidental breedings happen because people push dogs out the back door and forget about them. If an owner uses just a little care and common sense, it is not some difficult or mysterious task. 

And if a dog should happen to slip out past the kids or get out of the fence so what... There is not a bitch in heat behind every tree. And even if there is one near by, that bitch actually has to be out, in standing heat, and your dog has to get to her before you find him. 
You are talking about some very long odds there.
If your dogs are getting out on a regular basis, then that person needs to look at their dog management practices for reasons other than the chance of an accidental litter.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> So what if most people S/N for convenience, anyway? Convenience isn't a dirty sin. I don't really understand that argument at all, it's just a deflection. Dock/crop and S/N are completely different procedures done for completely different purposes, so why wouldn't someone have completely different reasons for being for/against them? It's called... context. AMAZING.
> 
> 
> ETA: And I find arguments based on what people _should_ do or be capable of doing instead of what they _actually_ do to be... somewhat unrealistic. In addition to the fact that my opinion on S/N has nothing to do with my opinion on crop/dock.


 Sas.... I have no issue with it being a convenience. And it is not a deflection but an irony. If people are so concerned about doing crops and docks which are both minor, they ought to be flipping their wigs about s/n. The reason most often cited that they don't want to cause the dog un neccessary pain or put them through a surgery. Well it is the same thing


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Sas.... I have no issue with it being a convenience. And it is not a deflection but an irony. If people are so concerned about doing crops and docks which are both minor, they ought to be flipping their wigs about s/n. The reason most often cited that they don't want to cause the dog un neccessary pain or put them through a surgery. Well it is the same thing


No, it's not the same thing at all. Because S/N has benefits that go beyond the individual that weigh into the decision, and crop/dock do not. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. CONTEXT.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> No... regardess of the age a tail amputation does NOT (or should not, anyway) cut through bone, it cuts through the soft tissues between the bones. Not saying that makes it ok to amputate whenever you want, but cutting through bone has nothing to do with it.


Of course you're right--what was I thinking. The cut is made between the vertebre and through the material in between--which at two days is thin and soft and the nervous system is not fully what it will be in a few weeks or days more. Whereas the bones and discs will be much firmer and thicker later on. Still I do think it would hurt but not in a way I would consider torture. 

And i do think that babies getting shots and taking blood definitely hurt, but also not in a torutourous way. Not every level of pain is equal. I'm sure getting ears pierced at 3 days old hurt me, but I wouldn't consider it cruel.

S/N is done under anesthesia, so while there is a recovery, I wouldn't consider it cruel. And it's not just societal benefits but has many health and convenience benefits for the dogs. Some would say it's cruel to allow your dogs to go into heat and withold sex from them and that it's kinder to remove that urge so your dogs don't go nuts during cycles. But I can see how somoen might say that plastic surgery on a dog is absurd whereas birth control is not. I'm not against either as long as it's done humanely in a way that doesn't cross the line between a pinch and a nightmare.


----------



## Fuzzy Pants (Jul 31, 2010)

lil_fuzzy said:


> In Norway it is actually still illegal to desex dogs unless there are medical reasons.
> 
> Yet there is no over-population, and I guess it's because people can't desex their dogs so they've learnt to be more responsible. But then Norwegians are generally very logical and responsible as a people (I would know, I'm Norwegian).


Well it helps that there are very few Norwegians (very homogeneous population of less than 5 million) and even fewer Norwegians that actually own dogs. When I lived in Norway I only had one neighbor that had a dog and very, very rarely saw dogs in public. As I'm sure you know, Norway is an extremely expensive country to live in so dog ownership is almost a luxury that only the well-paid can afford. So right off the bat the ones that own dogs are obviously well educated and from a higher income bracket. People like my Norwegian friend that worked at a Barnehagen that went vegetarian because meat is so expensive there certainly weren't going to go out and get a meat eating dog when they felt that meat was too expensive for themselves. I'm much more impressed by Germany and how they care for their dogs and take them everywhere in public including inside malls.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Willowy, I don't know where you keep getting you can't let intact dogs out, can't take them to a park.
> 
> Male dogs have to do more than just look at the bitch to impregnate her. They need to couple and tie. It takes more than a few seconds.
> 
> ...


Exactly...Lars is intact and will stay intact unless something medically comes up where I would need to neuter him (like cancer.) 

He has been around females in season plenty of times. A couple of weeks back he showed in obedience off leash and got a high in trial in a building full of bitches in season in the breed rings 15' away. He didn't become some sex crazed dog. He's not a pig and he is completely manageable around females in season (to the point where I wouldn't even know if there were females in season around him.) Intact males can be owned and taken out in public by people...maybe not all people...but they can be handled, managed, and owned successfully by people.

(How the h*** did this go from tail docking to whether or not intact dogs are appropriate?)


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Inga said:


> Don't tell my boys that. I take them to parks, (not dog parks) I leave them in my fenced yard and they never ever wander around the neighborhood, even with a bitch in heat 2 houses down. It is called training and maintenance and it can be done. I just isn't in most cases.  Some people are lazy and irresponsible. Sadly, most are.


Once again....exactly.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Wrong thread.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> There are no societal benefits to spay and neuter....... It is all about dog management.


What is the point of arguing about a world that we don't live in? Yeah, it's about dog management -- and most Americans (and many other people worldwide) do *NOT *manage their dogs well enough to prevent accidental pregnancies in intact dogs. What's your solution? At this moment in time, S/N is the best we've got. It prevents horrendous suffering. Do you believe the same can be said for docking?



MrsBoats said:


> (How the h*** did this go from tail docking to whether or not intact dogs are appropriate?)


Some people either think they are comparable, or else are facetiously making that argument to deflect from the real issue -- a totally cosmetic surgery that IS painful and CAN have (potentially fatal) complications.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Ever known a dog with "happy tail"? Are you in favor of spaying and neutering?


Um, yes, many. That would fall under the category of a medically necessary amputation, if the vet decided that was the best course.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The reason why you shouldn't leave an intact male dog in the yard is because some dogs jump/scale fences. Maybe not YOUR dog, maybe it's the female. One time I looked outside and there was another dog in my fenced yard, just hanging out with my dogs. A perfectly secure fence, which my dogs have never gotten out of (since I padlocked the gates anyway). But this dog just jumped/climbed right over like it was nothing. Now that dog was a male (intact of course), but what if he had been a female in heat? I'm sure fence-jumping is not a gender-specific skill. Keeping an intact male and not keeping eyes on him every second (when he's not in a completely secure area) requires not caring whether your dog gets anyone pregnant, as long as it's not "your fault". And I care. I would not be able to live with myself if that happened, no matter whose fault it is. 

And I have known people who had their dog on leash in a public area (like a park), started chatting with their friend, turned around and found their dog tied with another! Most people are not constantly hypervigilant.

As for doors not latching, and that being a "bigger problem". . .I don't know anyone who keeps their door locked while people are home/awake. The door is usually open, and screen doors frequently have weak latches. You have to remember that not everyone lives in an area where you have to keep your house locked up like a fortress, with bars and deadbolts and screen doors that look like prisons.

And in some places there ARE intact females tied to every tree. Not all of them are in standing heat at all times, obviously, but the chances are not so slim if spaying is rare in the region. Otherwise how are there so many unwanted puppies? Again, it would require not caring what your male did, because it's up to the female's owner to keep her safe! My grandpa's Lab got slapped with a "paternity suit" once. He didn't get out very often. They made every effort to keep him in so he wouldn't get picked up by AC. But he still slipped by now and then. And once is enough.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

begemot said:


> What is the point of arguing about a world that we don't live in? Yeah, it's about dog management -- and most Americans (and many other people worldwide) do *NOT *manage their dogs well enough to prevent accidental pregnancies in intact dogs. What's your solution? At this moment in time, S/N is the best we've got. It prevents horrendous suffering. Do you believe the same can be said for docking?
> 
> 
> 
> Some people either think they are comparable, or else are facetiously making that argument to deflect from the real issue -- a totally cosmetic surgery that IS painful and CAN have (potentially fatal) complications.


Ever hear of a dog dying from a dock or crop? I haven't. 
Ever hear of a dog dying from a S/N? I have...

The two are most definately comparable. When it comes to pain/ recovery, risk on completely elective surgeries. 

Discussions of other places are valid to bring in other thought processes. Even more so since we are talking docking and cropping. Docking and Cropping are illegal in most of Western Europe. And if you went there and started talking about S/N they would look at you sideways. Because it is often consider cruel there. 

We do not know that S/N is the best we have.... The movement started around the same time that leash laws, pet containment laws, etc, started coming about in many places. People that are heavily pro S/N like to let the reduction in shelter populations ride completely on S/N. But the fact is they do not know that it is S/N that has had the most significant impact. I am sure it has had some impact. But the reduction in pet dogs that are allowed to roam has had an impact as well.



sassafras said:


> No, it's not the same thing at all. Because S/N has benefits that go beyond the individual that weigh into the decision, and crop/dock do not. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. CONTEXT.


Well I can see your point to a degree Sas.
But as this thread developed the discussion was about the pain, seriousness, long term affects of docking a dog. In that respect there is a direct comparison between docking and cropping and S/N.
The whole impact on society thing was brought up by someone that is against crop/dock but pro S/N. So it got taken a bit out of context but not by me. Yes I defended the social side of it because that is where the conversation went. 

But speaking of the affects of S/N on society. It kind of amazes me that someone would put that in front of the care and treatment of their own dog. As a pet owner, one's first responsibility is to their own animal.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

MrsBoats said:


> (How the h*** did this go from tail docking to whether or not intact dogs are appropriate?)


Because it was brought to the table to highlight the supposed hypocrisy of people who object to cropping and docking. I don't even really object to cropping and docking and I find it a silly argument. 



begemot said:


> What is the point of arguing about a world that we don't live in? Yeah, it's about dog management -- and most Americans (and many other people worldwide) do *NOT *manage their dogs well enough to prevent accidental pregnancies in intact dogs. What's your solution? At this moment in time, S/N is the best we've got. It prevents horrendous suffering. Do you believe the same can be said for docking?


Exactly. In Hypothetical Land, everyone manages their dogs perfectly and no dog needs to be spayed or neutered for anyone's convenience. Unfortunately, we don't live there, we live in Real World where people behave as they behave, not always as they _should_ behave. Until we all move to Hypothetical Land, S/N certainly does help prevent litters here in Real World that results from people behaving irresponsibly as people sometimes do. Thus, the contribution of a larger issue at stake contributing to decision making and opinions for individual dogs, _unlike_ crop/dock. 

Anyone who can and wants to manage an intact dog, great, go for it. But don't pretend the majority of people are willing or able to because it suits your purposes of trying to make cropping and docking less objectionable to those who object to it. Topic after topic after topic here denigrates the population in general of being ignorant, irresponsible dog owners, why is this magically different?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

begemot said:


> Um, yes, many. That would fall under the category of a medically necessary amputation, if the vet decided that was the best course.



It is not for the vet to decide what is the best course. That responsibility falls to the owner. A vet has the role of advisor.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> The reason why you shouldn't leave an intact male dog in the yard is because some dogs jump/scale fences. Maybe not YOUR dog, maybe it's the female. One time I looked outside and there was another dog in my fenced yard, just hanging out with my dogs. A perfectly secure fence, which my dogs have never gotten out of (since I padlocked the gates anyway). But this dog just jumped/climbed right over like it was nothing.
> 
> You have to remember that not everyone lives in an area where you have to keep your house locked up like a fortress, with bars and deadbolts and screen doors that look like prisons.
> 
> .


If a dog came over the fence it was not perfectly secure.... Far from it in fact. 

I did not grow up in a place where you have to lock up your house like a prison. I don't live in such a place now.


The rest of your examples and your entire argument simply empower people not to think... That is the bottom line. 

As I said in a post some time back and have said many times, I am not anti S/N. Far from it. 

But I cannot get away from the fact of the hypocracy that some folks are so much in favor of S/N and so much against Crop Dock. It is downright entertaining...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If you find it entertaining, super. It's ridiculous to even compare the procedures. I find it entertainng to see people trying to justify what they like by comparing it to something with far wider-ranging benefits.

I'm not sure what kind of fence would be necessary to keep a fence-jumper/climber out. 8 feet? 10 feet? Razor wire? LOL.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

I guess it all goes back to that discussion that keeps popping up around here...risks we're all willing to take and not willing to take with our dogs. I see it's back in another thread that is active on here. 

After 40 years of being on this planet...I know one thing. I cannot control other people or control the actions they take. I can control my own. I control my own dogs and myself (more so than it's been stated that the average dog owner is willing or able to do) because I cannot trust the actions others choose to make with their dogs. I really don't give two craps what the average dog owner does or doesn't do with their dogs as long as it a) injure or kill my dogs, or b) isn't so stupid that it may someday take away my right to own rottweilers (BSL.)

You're right...most threads do degenerate into a topic of who's the better dog owner. There's a good number of "right fighters" in this community...those right fighters seem to be the most closed minded about what they consider to be appropriate dog ownership. I don't lump myself into the right fighters...because at the end of the day, if you want to do what you do with your dog...knock yourself out. Just don't put me or my dogs in danger.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I have had males attempt to dig under fences, climb fences, had a female who would chew through chain link to escape, and a wooden door. My place is now ft. Knox lol.

I agree the problem is management, though no one here in the country seems to think loose dogs are a problem. 

If spay or neuter will prevent unwanted litters, I'm all for it. I'm not in favor of cosmetic issues like docking or ear clips. 

Some of my females are spayed, since they can't be deployed if intact. Altough males can. Talk about making a lot of people mad, lol, show up at a seminar or certification with a female in heat! They need to be left at home, even though IMO the males should also be trained for that distraction. 

I have seen a dog die getting his ears trimmed. It was a four month old dobe, and probably died from anesthesia though it was a freak thing. I have seen nasty infections from poor tail docks, but if done properly its not likely. 

Just have finished treating Libby for an infected dewclaw removal. She is 9 months old, and I didn't like to have them removed at this age. I did it though, as the likelihood of her tearing them off on a rubble pile, where good vet care would be limited outweighed the risk of surgical removal. They used glue, and it didn't hold. She didn't seem to have much pain after the surgery, but she is extremely stoic. Had it been Greta, she would have limped and not eaten for a week.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> But I cannot get away from the fact of the hypocracy that some folks are so much in favor of S/N and so much against Crop Dock. It is downright entertaining...


Probably almost as entertaining as I find your stubborn insistence that people who put thought into their decisions about different procedures instead of equating them all are hypocritical.

ETA: And again, to clarify, I'm not really against dock/crop. I don't even much care if any one individual decides to keep their dog intact if they can handle it. What I'm against is specious arguments.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Fuzzy Pants said:


> Well it helps that there are very few Norwegians (very homogeneous population of less than 5 million) and even fewer Norwegians that actually own dogs. When I lived in Norway I only had one neighbor that had a dog and very, very rarely saw dogs in public. As I'm sure you know, Norway is an extremely expensive country to live in so dog ownership is almost a luxury that only the well-paid can afford. So right off the bat the ones that own dogs are obviously well educated and from a higher income bracket. People like my Norwegian friend that worked at a Barnehagen that went vegetarian because meat is so expensive there certainly weren't going to go out and get a meat eating dog when they felt that meat was too expensive for themselves. I'm much more impressed by Germany and how they care for their dogs and take them everywhere in public including inside malls.


Didn't know the economic situation in Norway was difficult like that! We get taught that Norway is one of the most (if not THE most) stable and independent country in Europe, economy wise. Lol, my best friend who lives in Sweden told me Norwegians are generally rich people who own holiday houses in Sweden  Guess that's not true at all. (and talk about generalizations ) 

Germany's situation sounds like how it is at ours. With the exception of this 'Gefährliche Hunde' thing they got going on. (BSL)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Probably almost as entertaining as I find your stubborn insistence that people who put thought into their decisions about different procedures instead of equating them all are hypocritical.
> 
> ETA: And again, to clarify, I'm not really against dock/crop. I don't even much care if any one individual decides to keep their dog intact if they can handle it. What I'm against is specious arguments.



I am stubborn...... Just think how much fun it would be if I was one of your clients..... 

I am not against either as well. We have that in common.

What gets me is those that treat S/N as if it was a savior. And Crop/Dock as if it was the devil. All are elective.... Beyond social, responsibility reasons, they are all still elective. And S/N is far more invasive...

The thing is, I am not big on tail less dogs. I had a Rottie, and I missed his tail. I used to joke that I paid for a whole dog and only got 3/4. As for ears, I like prick ears. I prefer natural. But I like the ears as long as they stand up. I passed on a Beauceron because the thought of posting puppy ears sounds less than enjoyable to me. 

Bottom line.... It is the owners choice and those that do not like it do not have to do it. But they should not be able to impose their will on others.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Bottom line.... It is the owners choice and those that do not like it do not have to do it. But they should not be able to impose their will on others.


Well I don't think anyone's really said that in this thread, unless I missed it through my frothy rage.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Just have finished treating Libby for an infected dewclaw removal. She is 9 months old, and I didn't like to have them removed at this age. I did it though, as the likelihood of her tearing them off on a rubble pile, where good vet care would be limited outweighed the risk of surgical removal. They used glue, and it didn't hold. She didn't seem to have much pain after the surgery, but she is extremely stoic. Had it been Greta, she would have limped and not eaten for a week.


My puppies got their dewclaws done same time as tails (second day) Never had one get infected (tail either). I do think that if I have any future litters (unlikely) I may leave the dew claws on, since dogs actually do get some use for them. Not tails though. Not in my breed.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Discussions of other places are valid to bring in other thought processes. Even more so since we are talking docking and cropping. Docking and Cropping are illegal in most of Western Europe. And if you went there and started talking about S/N they would look at you sideways. Because it is often consider cruel there.


Very true. 
Though there are still people who silently wish that cropping and docking was still legal. And the people who just can't stand the look of a dog that isn't cropped and/or docked, import them from countries like the USA, or take the dog to another European country where there are no bans on the procedures. Once saw a cropped and docked Dobermann walking around and did a double take, the dog looked horrible imo. Then again, it was also weirdly angulated and walked funny.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It's also considered terribly cruel to keep cats indoors in a lot of those countries. And I know how JohnnyBandit feels about that!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It's also considered terribly cruel to keep cats indoors in a lot of those countries. And I know how JohnnyBandit feels about that!


No outdoor cats dangit!!! 

:doh:


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Well I don't think anyone's really said that in this thread, unless I missed it through my frothy rage.


Look at Europe. And Australia where people proudly proclaim that such procedures are banned in their country. It all started with people making wrong assumptions about how "painful" and "dangerous" a simple and minimally invasive procedure is. I suspect that the AR whiners will get similar law passed here. It's only a matter of time. But I also think that the average or above average owner is a better person to decide what they want done with their dogs than the legislature.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> My puppies got their dewclaws done same time as tails (second day) Never had one get infected (tail either). I do think that if I have any future litters (unlikely) I may leave the dew claws on, since dogs actually do get some use for them. Not tails though. Not in my breed.


I have my litters done on the second day, never a problem with them that small. I leave the front dewclaws, only remove the rear. What use do they get from rear dewclaws?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I have my litters done on the second day, never a problem with them that small. I leave the front dewclaws, only remove the rear. What use do they get from rear dewclaws?


You did not mention that they were rear ones in the previous post. Point being - much easier and less painful to remove them early.


----------



## LazyZoe (Apr 8, 2012)

I guess since my question sort of started this discussion that I will jump in with my opinion. I am in favor of S/N dogs, but I cannot wrap my brain around how tail docking is acceptable. It seems unnecessary. I also was under the impression that S/N is not just done for the owners' convenience, but at least with female dogs, for their health as well. I would rather get my dog spayed than have her at risk for mammary or uterine cancers. And on the heels of that, I suppose it is done for our convenience because it is more "convenient" to have Zoe spayed than deal with an unwanted pregnancy and the financial responsibility that comes with that. I feel that makes me a responsible pet owner, not a lazy one. Plus, we have an unfenced yard, and when Zoe is outside she is on a lead (although she is supervised). Our subdivision is littered (no pun intended) with intact male and female dogs. I don't want to take the chance that those intact males find Zoe when she's in heat and we happen to not be watching for a moment.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LazyZoe said:


> I guess since my question sort of started this discussion that I will jump in with my opinion. I am in favor of S/N dogs, but I cannot wrap my brain around how tail docking is acceptable. It seems unnecessary.
> .


Sooooo.... if you don't find tail docking acceptable, don't do it. But don't try to tell others what they should consider acceptable. I bet you've never even seen tails docked. Would I be correct? I have, numberous times.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

My puppy, Ocean, had double rear dews that were removed when his tail was docked at three days old. I wholeheartedly agree with them being removed as they were a bloody mess of torn dew claws waiting to happen with what I do with my dogs.

As for the docking of rottweiler tails being unnecessary...rottweilers are a WORKING breed. The tails were originally docked to keep tails from being damaged while the dogs were working cattle and working as draft dogs. Rottweilers are still a working breed...therefore, in my personal opinion, should be docked as stated in the breed standard. There are rottweilers who are working cattle and sheep today (and I don't mean in a show environment either.) I, as a rottweiler enthusiast, personally do not care for the look of an undocked rottweiler. I'm willing to bet that the average dog owner who is against docking tails wouldn't have a clue of what the rottweiler's original purpose was. Form follows function.

Obviously, we all have our ideas of what is right and wrong with dogs. I have my reasons for keeping my male rottweilers intact. Some of related to health and career longevity and others are that they will be used back into my breeder's breeding program. But, I am also working my *** off to prove that my rottweilers are worthy of being bred and that are dogs that will better the rottweiler gene pool. I will be the first one to say, if your dog will not better its breed by reproducing...then alter your dog. If you have a mutt or a "designer breed", alter your dog. If your dog has a crappy temperament, alter your dog. If someone thinks that I am being irresponsible by leaving my dogs intact and that's their sole reasoning that they are intact, that's their opinion. I think the spay and neuter/rescue or die crowd tends to go after the people they need to worry the least about...the COE breeders and the dog sport/show people like Johnny Bandit, Pawzk9, or myself. We aren't the ones you need to "educate." People who have been in their breeds for years, they typically have a clue about unwanted puppies or BYBs because they are ruining the breeds they're passionate for. Again, I think it goes back to that feeling of "who's the better dog owner" that these threads start the downward spiral into. I spent many years in rottweiler rescue as a volunteer coordinator for my state. I know the problem that lies with unwanted dogs and puppies...not one of the dogs that came through North East Rottweiler and Referral ever came from a COE breeder or an owner like I mentioned above. The members that start the "OMG, MY DOG IS HAVING PUPPYS! WHAT DO I DO!" threads are those who need the "education." The people who go buy the puppies from the pet store are those who need the education.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> Sooooo.... if you don't find tail docking acceptable, don't do it. But don't try to tell others what they should consider acceptable. I bet you've never even seen tails docked. Would I be correct? I have, numberous times.


Hhhmm . . . I don't know that that's a valid argument. If you think it is unnescessarily cruel to a puppy then you really can't sit back and not at least voice your opinion and it is valid to try to prevent others from engaging in the act. It's not enough to say that I don't approve of animal torture so I won't engage in it. It's not ok to look the other way and say that ppl who abuse their animals have every right to do so as they are bought and paid for--you would expect someoen to make a call and report abuse. If you really feel that amputating a puppy tail is cruel and unnescesary, then certainly voicing your opinion is the least you should do.

I personally think there's nothing at all wrong with cosmetically altering your dog as long as it doesn't suffer unduly, but I'm just saying . . .


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Cosmetic procedures done to animals, purely for looks ARE cruel. And in the VAST majority of cases, tail docking is done just for looks. I know there are a few dogs that have injured their tails, so they need to be docked, but those are few and far between. Look at Labs, Great danes and other breeds that are large and have long tails. You can't tell me that a Dobe's tail is more dangerous healthwise to them, than those other breeds. 
S/N does save lives because it prevents unwanted litters. There are also some health benefits later in life.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It's also considered terribly cruel to keep cats indoors in a lot of those countries. And I know how JohnnyBandit feels about that!


By those countries, you mean western Europe? 
If so, well, where I live it's not really considered cruel... it's just unheard of.  Lol, sorry about that. But yeah, very few people keep their cats indoors. Most of the people who do, own purebred cats. And I have to admit that the cats I grew up with have always had access to outside and I've always considered it normal. Until I joined dog forums and I got a dog myself who hated cats but loved cat poo. And... outdoor cats generally don't do their business at home in a litter box. 
Are cats generally kept indoors in America?


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

I think invisible fences are cruel...plenty of people use them and are fine with using electricity to contain or train their dogs. I'm just saying....


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Avie said:


> Are cats generally kept indoors in America?


At least in the city they usually are. The risk of getting hit by a car or otherwise harmed is just way too high. And some people keep them inside because of ecological concerns, since outdoor cats will kill birds, etc. It's not terribly unusual to have outdoor-indoor cats though. I know I see my neighbor's cat roaming about all the time and it scares me half to death. He likes to sleep under parked cars...I'd hate to see someone back out and run him over.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> At least in the city they usually are. The risk of getting hit by a car or otherwise harmed is just way too high. And some people keep them inside because of ecological concerns, since outdoor cats will kill birds, etc. It's not terribly unusual to have outdoor-indoor cats though. I know I see my neighbor's cat roaming about all the time and it scares me half to death. He likes to sleep under parked cars...I'd hate to see someone back out and run him over.


While I'm sure that traffic here is less intense and hectic than in American cities, I agree that being run over by cars is an ever present risk for outdoor cats. It's part of the reason that if I ever get a cat, it'll be an indoor cat that if possible, has access to a cat-proof yard  



LazyZoe said:


> I also was under the impression that S/N is not just done for the owners' convenience, but at least with female dogs, for their health as well. I would rather get my dog spayed than have her at risk for mammary or uterine cancers.


This is being put forward as the most important reason for spaying females in my area. But honestly, we're also being told that we, women, have a high probability of developing breast and ovary cancers. And while I'm sure that surgically removing my breasts and castrating myself will prevent me from getting those cancers... I'm not going to do that.  

Btw, I'm not against spay/neuter. But I am against routine spay/neuter that is done for no reason other than that it is the 'normal' thing to do. I am also against crop/dock. Because I feel that mutilating an animal so that its appearance suits your needs is not right. And I'm secretly glad that in my country, people don't get to choose to have their dog cropped or docked. Cropping has been banned since 1996, and docking since 2001.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

On the cat forum, a lot of the non-American/Canadian members think it's simply awful to keep cats indoors. The discussions can get very much like this one (or more like the dog park discussions, I guess) . Of course not all Americans keep their cats in, but it's generally considered the "responsible" thing to do. A lot of shelters/rescues won't adopt to you if you plan to let the cat out unsupervised. The European cat forum members say that in their countries, a lot of shelters/rescues won't adopt to you if you plan to keep the cat indoors all the time? LOL, it's opposite.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> Cosmetic procedures done to animals, purely for looks ARE cruel.


How so? I mean this sounds like you don't like the thought of it. Is it cruel b/c it's painful, b/c lots of things are painful. Is it cruel b/c it's unnecessarily painful? Is it the level of discomfort, like maybe it's cruel to brush teeth when you could just feed raw bones. You'd have to define cruel before you say that anything purely cosmetic is cruel. What about a haircut?

If the animal doesn't suffer, or suffers minimally like a shot or pinch, then why is it cruel just b/c it's cosmetic. You don't have to get your dog chipped if you keep tags on him at all times. Is peircing a baby's ears cruel?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> The European cat forum members say that in their countries, a lot of shelters/rescues won't adopt to you if you plan to keep the cat indoors all the time? LOL, it's opposite.


It says so in lots of the cats' descriptions on our national shelter websites (we got two national websites that display all animals currently put up for adoption. I suppose they're like your petfinder?) One of the sites says that of the 973 cats currently looking for a home, 569 cats must be able to go outside. That tells me that what those cat forum members say is at least true in my country


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Do any countries have "Laws" about Declawing Cats? (I think thats very cruel)....
Or Bullfighting...(I really hate that)

Docking the tail of a Rottie in todays world is purely for cosmetic reasons only (unless you are a meat merchant that uses a dog to pull a cart ..).
That being said...
People do a lot of things for Cosmetic Reasons Only .. Hair Implants , Breast implants, Face lifts..etc etc.
are these procedures against the Law in any countries?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Roloni said:


> Do any countries have "Laws" about Declawing Cats? (I think thats very cruel)....
> Or Bullfighting...(I really hate that)
> 
> Docking the tail of a Rottie in todays world is purely for cosmetic reasons only (unless you are a meat merchant that uses a dog to pull a cart ..).
> ...


 Yes, de-clawing is illegal pretty much everywhere but the U.S. and Canada. Even if not illegal in that particular country, most vets will refuse to do it. It's almost purely an American vanity. I think bullfighting is illegal in most places and I heard it might become illegal in Spain at some point.

I don't think human cosmetic procedures are illegal anywhere, because they're adults who make their own adult decisions. It would be awfully patronizing to tell them they can't do whatever they want to themselves. If someone wants to do it to their kid, there are rules about that, though.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

spotted nikes said:


> Cosmetic procedures done to animals, purely for looks ARE cruel. .



This is what gets me going.... Statements like this....

You cannot qualify a procedure based on your perceived benefit before deciding if it is cruel. 

The procedures we are discussing are docking, cropping, spay and neuter. 
All involve the surgical removal of body parts or portions there of. 

In making your statement you are saying it is okay to be cruel as long as YOU see some social or other type of benefit. 

IF the procedure is cruel, it is cruel regardless of any benefit that occurs afterwards. 

The fact is... Spay and neuter are more invasive procedures with longer recovery times as compared to crops and ESPECIALLY docks. 

So if docks and crops are cruel then Spay and Neuter are most definately cruel.

This is the hypocracy and amusement I find in these discussions.



Willowy said:


> Yes, de-clawing is illegal pretty much everywhere but the U.S. and Canada. Even if not illegal in that particular country, most vets will refuse to do it. It's almost purely an American vanity. I think bullfighting is illegal in most places and I heard it might become illegal in Spain at some point.
> 
> I don't think human cosmetic procedures are illegal anywhere, because they're adults who make their own adult decisions. It would be awfully patronizing to tell them they can't do whatever they want to themselves. If someone wants to do it to their kid, there are rules about that, though.


Don't get me started..... I have a de clawing delima right now.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I have never seen a crop done or managed one afterwards, but I have seen a handful of docks done. Honestly, FWIW, when they are very very wee the puppies truly do not even seem to notice. The only time I witnessed a litter being docked that seemed at all distressed was by someone who wasn't that experienced at it with puppies who were probably a bit too old. 

Tail amputations in older puppies or adults aren't awesome, though. I actually think they can be a bit worse than a routine neuter depending on the size of the dog and the thickness of the tail.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> I have never seen a crop done or managed one afterwards, but I have seen a handful of docks done. Honestly, FWIW, when they are very very wee the puppies truly do not even seem to notice. The only time I witnessed a litter being docked that seemed at all distressed was by someone who wasn't that experienced at it with puppies who were probably a bit too old.
> 
> Tail amputations in older puppies or adults aren't awesome, though. I actually think they can be a bit worse than a routine neuter depending on the size of the dog and the thickness of the tail.


I don't disagree there... When Bandit my previous ACD damaged the end of his tail and we had to remove about four inches, it took a few weeks of recovery. But he was was a five year old dog..... Man that was a B Grade horror film. I never did get the blood stains out of the seats on that truck. Had it professionally cleaned several times. Ended up using one of those crime scene cleanup companies. The stains remained. Ended up trading the truck in.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I would only dock little puppies.... After a week it is a tailed dog as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> On the cat forum, a lot of the non-American/Canadian members think it's simply awful to keep cats indoors. The discussions can get very much like this one (or more like the dog park discussions, I guess) . Of course not all Americans keep their cats in, but it's generally considered the "responsible" thing to do. A lot of shelters/rescues won't adopt to you if you plan to let the cat out unsupervised. The European cat forum members say that in their countries, a lot of shelters/rescues won't adopt to you if you plan to keep the cat indoors all the time? LOL, it's opposite.


My cats don't get to roam. I live a block from a majorly busy street. We also have a fair number of roaming dogs and a very high incidence of FIV, FeLeuk (had to put a stray kitten down for it a couple of years ago). However, my cats do have a largish (5'x7 foot tall by about 15 foot long) outdoor enclosed area, with ramps that go between shelves all the way to the top. They might like roaming better but it does allow them to bask in the sun and watch birds and goings on.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spotted nikes said:


> Cosmetic procedures done to animals, purely for looks ARE cruel. And in the VAST majority of cases, tail docking is done just for looks. I know there are a few dogs that have injured their tails, so they need to be docked, but those are few and far between. Look at Labs, Great danes and other breeds that are large and have long tails. You can't tell me that a Dobe's tail is more dangerous healthwise to them, than those other breeds.
> S/N does save lives because it prevents unwanted litters. There are also some health benefits later in life.


So, you disapprove of the way they trim poodles? In order to be cruel, tail docking would have to be unusually unpleasant or painful. It's no worse than giving a shot or accidently quicking a nail if you do it young. I would agree that it is cruel to do it (except in the case of injury like happy tail) to an older dog. Have you ever actually watched a tail docking on neonates? I held them for my vet. It's one less thing to pick up burrs in the brush, and not likely to get broken by being shut in a gate when penning stock. And, like "responsible breeders" are supposed to, I respect and follow my breed's breed standard.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

denise3099 said:


> Hhhmm . . . I don't know that that's a valid argument. If you think it is unnescessarily cruel to a puppy then you really can't sit back and not at least voice your opinion and it is valid to try to prevent others from engaging in the act. It's not enough to say that I don't approve of animal torture so I won't engage in it. It's not ok to look the other way and say that ppl who abuse their animals have every right to do so as they are bought and paid for--you would expect someoen to make a call and report abuse. If you really feel that amputating a puppy tail is cruel and unnescesary, then certainly voicing your opinion is the least you should do.
> 
> I personally think there's nothing at all wrong with cosmetically altering your dog as long as it doesn't suffer unduly, but I'm just saying . . .


But tail docking a neonate is NOT abuse or torture. (those things ARE illegal) And I'm betting the people who are the shrillest about it have only what they read on the internet to go by. I honestly don't want people like that making laws about my dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I have had males attempt to dig under fences, climb fences, had a female who would chew through chain link to escape, and a wooden door. My place is now ft. Knox lol.
> 
> I agree the problem is management, though no one here in the country seems to think loose dogs are a problem.
> 
> ...


I have had a dog die from anesthesia for a non-elective surgery. I've known of dogs who died from anesthesia when getting their teeth clean, or being put under for xrays. I've nver had an infected tail dock. and it does not require general anesthesia.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

i hate these debates because they just go in circles. all im going to say is that while everyone has their own opinion on what cruel means or is, im going to avoid that word. i personally think its stupid to dock and crop for non medical reasons. why? whats the point? there is none. its a bunch of unnecessary risks for no reason at all. i dont care if the risk of infection is minimal on a dock, its still a risk for nothing. i do admit i like the look of croped ears on danes, but i wont do it. its not worth it. theres NO POINT. i could crop a danes ears and have to tape them up for upwards of a year sometimes, and may not have them even stay. so now i did all that work to have a doofy looking dog. please.... theyre even showing more danes now with natural ears. if i had my dog hunting wild bore, i would crop their ears, but theyre not! its all cosmetic and stupid to me. if its for health reasons, i can understand. if not, i really frown upon it. and yes, i have seen crops and docks done. no thank you. im not doing that to my dog. its not worth it. as far as spaying/neutering goes, this is a whole really different subject than crops and docks. this is done to try to help control the population, avoid health risks, etc. does cropping or docking have any benefits? nope. not unless youre actually utilizing it to keep the dog safe (ex. hunting).


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

GreatDaneMom said:


> i hate these debates because they just go in circles. all im going to say is that while everyone has their own opinion on what cruel means or is, im going to avoid that word. i personally think its stupid to dock and crop for non medical reasons. why? whats the point? there is none. its a bunch of unnecessary risks for no reason at all. i dont care if the risk of infection is minimal on a dock, its still a risk for nothing. i do admit i like the look of croped ears on danes, but i wont do it. its not worth it. theres NO POINT. i could crop a danes ears and have to tape them up for upwards of a year sometimes, and may not have them even stay. so now i did all that work to have a doofy looking dog. please.... theyre even showing more danes now with natural ears. if i had my dog hunting wild bore, i would crop their ears, but theyre not! its all cosmetic and stupid to me. if its for health reasons, i can understand. if not, i really frown upon it. and yes, i have seen crops and docks done. no thank you. im not doing that to my dog. its not worth it. as far as spaying/neutering goes, this is a whole really different subject than crops and docks. this is done to try to help control the population, avoid health risks, etc. does cropping or docking have any benefits? nope. not unless youre actually utilizing it to keep the dog safe (ex. hunting).


Just an aside...... We always left the ears on our Catch dogs natural. The guys I now hunt with still do. Of course we always used and still use pits. But the ear offers a LITTLE bit of protection. As the dog and hog are jostling for position. As the hog is twisting and pushing it is raking its head up and down. The idea is that the tusk gets the ear instead of the side of the head or neck. Does it work? Sometimes maybe.... 

The other thing folks don't think about is if the dog gets its head smashed in the ground (happens) the ear can keep dirt and mud from packed in the ear canal.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Also some hog guys dock their catch dogs.... Thinking it saves from tail injuries. But watching a 45 pound dog go toe to toe with 250 pounds of cheesed off piney woods rooter, they USE their tail. I swear it helps them keep on their feert at times.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> IF the procedure is cruel, it is cruel regardless of any benefit that occurs afterwards.


Agree--but what about perceived benefit to the dog? 



> The fact is... Spay and neuter are more invasive procedures with longer recovery times as compared to crops and ESPECIALLY docks.


Being more invasive with a longer recovery doesn't necesarily make it cruel if it is for the dog's ultimate benefit.


> So if docks and crops are cruel then Spay and Neuter are most definately cruel.


Generally tail docking is for the owner or the breed standard, whereas so many would argue that having your dog suffer heats with no access to sex is cruel and that s/n is to the ultimate health and temperment benefit of the dog.

Honestly though, I'm just bringing up a few points, I don't care either way. Docking a 2 day old pup may pinch but it hardly comes to the level of torture. What I meant before was that IF someone thinks it's cruel or torture then it's not a valid argument to say, just don't participate in what you think is morally reprehensible. If I truly believed you were torturing your dog, I'd have to speak out against it. (I don't though)


----------



## LazyZoe (Apr 8, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> Sooooo.... if you don't find tail docking acceptable, don't do it. But don't try to tell others what they should consider acceptable. I bet you've never even seen tails docked. Would I be correct? I have, numberous times.


What does having seen tails docked have to do with anything? I've never seen female circumcision and I'm opposed to that. I have never seen a cat declawed, and I am opposed to that. Are you implying that I can't have an opinion on something unless I have seen it done? I personally feel that tail docking is unnecessary. And I don't do it.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Just an aside...... We always left the ears on our Catch dogs natural. The guys I now hunt with still do. Of course we always used and still use pits. But the ear offers a LITTLE bit of protection. As the dog and hog are jostling for position. As the hog is twisting and pushing it is raking its head up and down. The idea is that the tusk gets the ear instead of the side of the head or neck. Does it work? Sometimes maybe....
> 
> The other thing folks don't think about is if the dog gets its head smashed in the ground (happens) the ear can keep dirt and mud from packed in the ear canal.


i was just speaking as the history of why danes ears were cropped. i dont hunt boar... nor do i think i want to.... but it does taste good! lol



LazyZoe said:


> What does having seen tails docked have to do with anything? I've never seen female circumcision and I'm opposed to that. I have never seen a cat declawed, and I am opposed to that. Are you implying that I can't have an opinion on something unless I have seen it done? I personally feel that tail docking is unnecessary. And I don't do it.


 this is a good point.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I have had a dog die from anesthesia for a non-elective surgery. I've known of dogs who died from anesthesia when getting their teeth clean, or being put under for xrays. I've nver had an infected tail dock. and it does not require general anesthesia.


The clinics I work for would definitely use general anesthesia on a tail dock on older puppies.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> What does having seen tails docked have to do with anything? I've never seen female circumcision and I'm opposed to that. I have never seen a cat declawed, and I am opposed to that. Are you implying that I can't have an opinion on something unless I have seen it done? I personally feel that tail docking is unnecessary. And I don't do it.


I believe the point is that many ppl believe it is cruel because the animal suffers enormously when it's tail is cut off. However, if you saw a tail being docked on a 2 day old pup and saw that it barely flinches if at all, or saw a rubber band being put on while it nursed with mother and pup not even reacting and the tail just dries up like an unbilical cord on a baby, well then you might still consider it unnecessary but you would hardly consider it cruel.

You may personally be opposed to it for other reasons and it is gross when you first see it done, with a strong argument that it's unnecessary, but I have a hard time seeing it as "cruel" when it just a pinch, last a sec, and doesn't require a stitch, and heals without notice. My infants suffered more than that having a routine heel stick for genetic disorders done. Necessary or not, it's hardly torture.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

juliemule said:


> The clinics I work for would definitely use general anesthesia on a tail dock on older puppies.


That is not a dock, it's an amputation. The nerve netwok has formed by then and the chances for infection have dramatically increased. When DOCKING is done is before 1 week of age (preferably at two to three days) and it's safe and gives the pup very little if any pain. The chances for infection, due to the mothers antibodies and cleaning is extreamely low and the cut is healed in three or four days. The tail amputations I've seen take weeks to completely heal and we all know the longer it takes to heal the higher the risk of infection.

The ONLY time I've seen any complications from a dock is if the dock is done incorrectly and the bone is hit (it does happen) for that reason I would NOT allow an amatuer to dock, be that person a a vet or not.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

denise3099 said:


> I believe the point is that many ppl believe it is cruel because the animal suffers enormously when it's tail is cut off. However, if you saw a tail being docked on a 2 day old pup and saw that it barely flinches if at all, or saw a rubber band being put on while it nursed with mother and pup not even reacting and the tail just dries up like an unbilical cord on a baby, well then you might still consider it unnecessary but you would hardly consider it cruel.
> 
> You may personally be opposed to it for other reasons and it is gross when you first see it done, with a strong argument that it's unnecessary, but I have a hard time seeing it as "cruel" when it just a pinch, last a sec, and doesn't require a stitch, and heals without notice. My infants suffered more than that having a routine heel stick for genetic disorders done. Necessary or not, it's hardly torture.


 Tail dockings must be done differently here, as they are stitched. Do they glue them ?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> That is not a dock, it's an amputation. The nerve netwok has formed by then and the chances for infection have dramatically increased. When DOCKING is done is before 1 week of age (preferably at two to three days) and it's safe and gives the pup very little if any pain. The chances for infection, due to the mothers antibodies and cleaning is extreamely low and the cut is healed in three or four days. The tail amputations I've seen take weeks to completely heal and we all know the longer it takes to heal the higher the risk of infection.
> 
> The ONLY time I've seen any complications from a dock is if the dock is done incorrectly and the bone is hit (it does happen) for that reason I would NOT allow an amatuer to dock, be that person a a vet or not.


 Which is what would be done with the OP dog in question.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

juliemule said:


> Tail dockings must be done differently here, as they are stitched. Do they glue them ?


Done at the correct age, there is no need to stitch or to glue, the wound closes quickly and you can't tell it's been done.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Done at the correct age, there is no need to stitch or to glue, the wound closes quickly and you can't tell it's been done.


 That's interesting, as the hundreds I have seen were stitched. Good to know they heal without scarring, since that was the reasoning behind them suturing. Does it depend on breed, like tail lengths, or all are.done without? Also I have heard of many vets using lidocaine, and here they don't either.


----------



## Moxie (Sep 9, 2010)

Does removing a dog's tail or ears reduce its ability to communicate? I mean, if dogs use their tails and ears to communicate or indicate current emotional status, wouldn't removing them eliminate one or more of their methods of communication? I know they still have other methods, but are cropping and docking a reduction of those methods? I'm actually asking.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I know I have told this story here before but I did once have an adult Rottweiler docked. He was full tail when I got him and I was fine with that. He was a rescue and his tail looked much like a Labrador's tail. He injured his tail severely a few times and the vet kept telling me to dock it. I thought he was nuts as it would cause the dog all sorts of pain. When he started his tail on fire by a campfire, we finally conceded and had his tail docked. I prepared for the worst and was met with a dog post surgically that didn't seem to notice any difference at all. He never whimpered, whined, even looked at his back end. That dog obviously had nerve issues as he laid there with his tail on fire and never moved for it. If we hadn't smelled the gross smell of burning hair, who knows how bad that could have been. All that said, I still wouldn't have an older puppy or adult dog done unless you had to because of something like that. The same dog had "happy tail" and was forever knocking his tail into things and then flinging blood all over the place.

While volunteering at the shelter, we ran into several "happy tail" dogs that also had to be docked as adults and none of them seemed any worse for the wear. They still had happy tails, they were just shorter and not hurting from banging into things.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> Done at the correct age, there is no need to stitch or to glue, the wound closes quickly and you can't tell it's been done.


I've seen them on youtube just apply pressure and a little lidocain and read that if its still bleeding they may get a stitch but usually not. Also, it depends on what it's done with b/c if tey use a rubber band it just dries up and falls off like a newborns belly button. You have to keep the belly clean and dry and then it falls off.


> Does removing a dog's tail or ears reduce its ability to communicate?


My spanish water dog wags her little stump like a labrador. She wags her whole butt. She lifts it or puts it down like it would be between her legs depending on her mood. She doesn't seem to notice that it's not long. She uses her whole body to speak.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LazyZoe said:


> What does having seen tails docked have to do with anything? I've never seen female circumcision and I'm opposed to that. I have never seen a cat declawed, and I am opposed to that. Are you implying that I can't have an opinion on something unless I have seen it done? I personally feel that tail docking is unnecessary. And I don't do it.


People certainly are allowed to have uninformed opinions. They do it all the time. However, it's much better to have an opinion based on actual knowledge than based what you read on the internet and what you imagine. If you'd seen puppies have their tails docked, you'd know that they generally make a fuss when removed from their nice warm littermates, and when the procedure is finished, they snuggle back down and go to sleep. It's a quick procedure with a clean cut and minimal bleeding. It doesn't require anesthesia, though my vet does use lidocane. But you don't know that, do you? It's fine if you don't want to have tails docked. I do. And I know what is involved because I've assisted numerous times. My opinion is informed.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Moxie said:


> Does removing a dog's tail or ears reduce its ability to communicate? I mean, if dogs use their tails and ears to communicate or indicate current emotional status, wouldn't removing them eliminate one or more of their methods of communication? I know they still have other methods, but are cropping and docking a reduction of those methods? I'm actually asking.


Not really. Dogs are subtle and have many signals they give with their bodies. A docked dog can still "wag". A dog with cropped ears can still perk them forward or lay them back. What always amuses me is the people who think if the tail is wagging the dog is happy and safe. You have to, as Brenda Aloff says, look at the whole sentence (what is the rest of the body doing?) instead of just a single word if you are going to make sense of it. Dogs know that. People frequently do not.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> The clinics I work for would definitely use general anesthesia on a tail dock on older puppies.


I don't "dock" older puppies. Past a week of age (or preferrable within a day or two of birth) it's no longer a simple and relatively painless procedure. Which is why most of us (I know I did) suggested that the older puppy be left with his tail intact unless the tail is causing him a problem - like happy tail.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

you give me a REASON to have something done, i will do it. if there is no REASON to crop or dock, then sorry, you dont have a leg to stand on with me.....


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

denise3099 said:


> Generally tail docking is for the owner or the breed standard, whereas


Oh, gawd forbid we should pay attention to the breed standard! It is amusing that so many people are ready to shrill BYB or puppymill at anyone who isn't paying close attention to the breed standard and trying to breed dogs who conform to it. Then turn about and demean producing dogs who meet their standard if the standard contains something they don't approve of (like tail docking). The fact is, in Aussies, you can have a litter with a full tail, a perfect natural bob, a couple of half tails and a quarter tail. (I've done so) In Europe and other countries ruled by AR, good and talented dogs get disqualified in shows for having a tail that is kinked or shortened. I think it's far more harmful to the breed to eliminate these good dogs with hinky tails (especially in countries with an already limited gene pool) than it is just to dock and have dogs who meet the standard.



GreatDaneMom said:


> you give me a REASON to have something done, i will do it. if there is no REASON to crop or dock, then sorry, you dont have a leg to stand on with me.....


But that doesn't make it cruel.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> In Europe and other countries ruled by AR, good and talented dogs get disqualified in shows for having a tail that is kinked or shortened. I think it's far more harmful to the breed to eliminate these good dogs with hinky tails (especially in countries with an already limited gene pool) than it is just to dock and have dogs who meet the standard.


Seeing that this argument is also used by pro-dock/crop people on Dutch forums, I'm gonna say what's being said to them: Why not breed for good, strong tails? Though I get your argument about limiting the gene pool even farther when they are already small. 

It's more of a hypothetical discussion over there, since it's no longer optional for breeders in my country anymore. They have no other choice than to select for good tails, seeing that they can't hide kinks by docking. But it is an interesting thing to ask here on this forum, because people here oftentimes come from places where they do have the option to dock. 

So, if good tails are so important that dogs get disqualified for it in shows, why not breed for good tails? 

And thinking of a solution; If good and talented dogs get disqualified for it because it's such a serious fault, maybe whoever's in charge of the shows should consider that many breeds have been docked for over a century so they were bred with no consideration for tail shape, and that dogs that are otherwise perfect conformation and character wise, should be condoned for a tail that's not perfect. Or is that such a strange thought?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Avie said:


> Seeing that this argument is also used by pro-dock/crop people on Dutch forums, I'm gonna say what's being said to them: Why not breed for good, strong tails? Though I get your argument about limiting the gene pool even farther when they are already small.
> 
> It's more of a hypothetical discussion over there, since it's no longer optional for breeders in my country anymore. They have no other choice than to select for good tails, seeing that they can't hide kinks by docking. But it is an interesting thing to ask here on this forum, because people here oftentimes come from places where they do have the option to dock.
> 
> ...


Your "solution" is one I could approve of. As far as breeding for good tails? In a breed with a significant percentage of foundation dogs having a NBT gene, breeding for a nice smooth long tail that's carried in a specific way is going to eliminate a lot of dogs who could bring to the gene pool good structure, good temperament, good instincts and good health. Is it worth it? I don't see how it would be. Especially since most of Europe doesn't have a lot of Aussies and in the country of origin (USA) tails are not an issue.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Your "solution" is one I could approve of. As far as breeding for good tails? In a breed with a significant percentage of foundation dogs having a NBT gene, breeding for a nice smooth long tail that's carried in a specific way is going to eliminate a lot of dogs who could bring to the gene pool good structure, good temperament, good instincts and good health. Is it worth it? I don't see how it would be. Especially since most of Europe doesn't have a lot of Aussies and in the country of origin (USA) tails are not an issue.


Then, if the issue is that that the gene pool would become too small, why not import dogs or use studs from, say, the USA?

Edit: The ASCA (australian shepherd club of America) is your breed club, right? And they register Australian shepherds in the USA? (don't think I understand how that system works) But I checked the Dutch Australian shepherd club and they say that you can't use ASCA registered Aussies because the AKC and FCI do not recognize those dogs. So I guess using American Aussies is not an option.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Avie said:


> Then, if the issue is that that the gene pool would become too small, why not import dogs or use studs from, say, the USA?
> 
> Edit: The ASCA (australian shepherd club of America) is your breed club, right? And they register Australian shepherds in the USA? (don't think I understand how that system works) But I checked the Dutch Australian shepherd club and they say that you can't use ASCA registered Aussies because the AKC and FCI do not recognize those dogs. So I guess using American Aussies is not an option.


Well, there are plenty of AKC registered Aussies (although I wouldn't buy one not at least also registered with ASCA, as the way the AKC brought in the breed left a lot of holes and a lot of questionable choices. ASCA Aussies are the true Aussies, with a knowable pedigree). And shame on FCI for not recognizing that glaringly obvious fact. But, as far as bringing in dogs from the US? We don't breed for purty tails here. We just breed for good dogs and have consistent tails (docked or NBT) according to the breed standard. And that's not likely to change here until the AR looneys get docking banned. Which will probably happen at some point, because otherwise not-looney people somehow listen to them.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, there are plenty of AKC registered Aussies (although I wouldn't buy one not at least also registered with ASCA, as the way the AKC brought in the breed left a lot of holes and a lot of questionable choices. ASCA Aussies are the true Aussies, with a knowable pedigree). And shame on FCI for not recognizing that glaringly obvious fact.


It struck me as odd as well. 
Seeing that the Australian shepherd is an American breed, logically the American breed club should make the calls. But I guess the FCI isn't willing to cooperate as much because the USA aren't affiliated with them. So the FCI only made some agreements with the AKC, establishing that AKC registered dogs are in their eyes recognized as purebred as well. Some registry... And the FCI is supposed to be a worldwide register. I find this a very strange matter.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> People certainly are allowed to have uninformed opinions. They do it all the time. However, it's much better to have an opinion based on actual knowledge than based what you read on the internet and what you imagine. If you'd seen puppies have their tails docked, you'd know that they generally make a fuss when removed from their nice warm littermates, and when the procedure is finished, they snuggle back down and go to sleep. It's a quick procedure with a clean cut and minimal bleeding. It doesn't require anesthesia, though my vet does use lidocane. But you don't know that, do you? It's fine if you don't want to have tails docked. I do. And I know what is involved because I've assisted numerous times. My opinion is informed.


Its comforting to hear that tail docking doesnt cause any pain to a puppy when done at the right age.
A lot of people think dogs like Rotties and Corgis are born with tiny tails..Then they find out that someone actually removed
the tail off their puppy!!! The Horror!!!....Did they use a Rusty Hatchet?

In my opinion tail docking is purely for cosmetic reasons only , and if you like that look..and if its painless then why not do it.

However , I have a question about the purpose of a dogs tail.
There must be a reason why dogs and most animals have tails...???


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

There were reasons to leave the tails on some breeds and remove tails from others. In the case of the Rottie, the tails would often get broken doing their primary job (pulling a cart) causing a painful injury. Thus breeders started removing the tails shortly after birth. The Doberman had the tail removed and ears cropped due to being a combat dog, other breeds that worked in heavy brush had the tail docked to prevent injury. I think it's the same with many dogs used to work stock. Basically if the dog was at high risk of injury to tail or ears, they would be cropped/docked to reduce the chance of injury. If they needed the tail for one reason or another they were left natural.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> There were reasons to leave the tails on some breeds and remove tails from others. In the case of the Rottie, the tails would often get broken doing their primary job (pulling a cart) causing a painful injury. Thus breeders started removing the tails shortly after birth. The Doberman had the tail removed and ears cropped due to being a combat dog, other breeds that worked in heavy brush had the tail docked to prevent injury. I think it's the same with many dogs used to work stock. Basically if the dog was at high risk of injury to tail or ears, they would be cropped/docked to reduce the chance of injury. If they needed the tail for one reason or another they were left natural.


From what I have seen , Dogs seem to use their tails in different ways... and..Not just for wagging.
When they swim it kinda acts like a rudder...and when they run it acts like a counter balance..when they are frightened they tuck the tail behind them and use the tail to protect their hind quarters...
There is a reason why dogs have tails...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I know that one old wives' tale was that biting the tail off a puppy would prevent it from getting rabies later in life. . .and this seems to be the reason some breeds are docked. I don't think tradition and superstition are good reasons to continue doing unnecessary things.

I agree with Roloni that a lot of people who own docked breeds don't know their dogs were docked! It's especially fun to argue with a Toy Poodle or Yorkie owner on the subject .

Dang! I Googled the rabies thing and found this Boxer site which says that anesthesia isn't used when docking puppies up to 14 weeks old! That's horrible! http://www.allboxerinfo.com/Tails_-_To_Dock_or_Not.html


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

Did you all know that sheep's tails are docked? I didn't. Those little stubby lamb tails would be long unruly messes covered in grass stains and sheep poo. You'd think they'd serve some purpose than just being trampled by the herd.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

denise3099 said:


> Did you all know that sheep's tails are docked?


Yes. And they do the same to piglets, plus snap their teeth off. They castrate them without painkillers, dig the horns out of calves' and goats' heads without painkillers, cut the beaks off chicks or throw them live into a meat grinder, etc. It's all rather depressing .


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yes. And they do the same to piglets, plus snap their teeth off. They castrate them without painkillers, dig the horns out of calves' and goats' heads without painkillers, cut the beaks off chicks or throw them live into a meat grinder, etc. It's all rather depressing .


Yes it is..
but I have no idea what that has to do with having cosmetic surgery.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Roloni said:


> Yes it is..
> but I have no idea what that has to do with having cosmetic surgery.


 Nothing . Just that denise3099 mentioned it so I added on. I suppose it's relevant to the history of tail docking in general. Some dairy cows and some horses are also docked.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> killers, dig the horns out of calves' and goats' heads without painkillers,.


The calves and goats I've been around have their horn buds cauterized. Not dug out. I'm a city girl, but I have a lot of country friends.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LazyZoe said:


> I disagree with it because it's unnecessary. .


So is painting a dog's toenails or trimming a poodle so it has little pom pons on its butt. I assume you are ignorant of the actual process of tail docking because you admit that your opinion is not based on ANY personal experience. I don't think a person has to be an ignorant or stupid person to have an ignorant opinion or two.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Roloni said:


> A lot of people think dogs like Rotties and Corgis are born with tiny tails..?


Actually Pembroke corgis have a NBT gene. In fact, when a fancier/geneticist saw the writing on the wall and wanted to continue to be able to own short tailed Boxers, he bred corgi in and then selected for the NBT gene.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

denise3099 said:


> Did you all know that sheep's tails are docked? I didn't. Those little stubby lamb tails would be long unruly messes covered in grass stains and sheep poo. You'd think they'd serve some purpose than just being trampled by the herd.


And maggots. On woolies the tail can be very unsanitary. I've been present at the banding of lambs. It appears to give them about 20 seconds of pain. Then they jump up and frolic on their way. I suspect its mostly pain from them banding the testes.


----------



## LazyZoe (Apr 8, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> So is painting a dog's toenails or trimming a poodle so it has little pom pons on its butt. I assume you are ignorant of the actual process of tail docking because you admit that your opinion is not based on ANY personal experience. I don't think a person has to be an ignorant or stupid person to have an ignorant opinion or two.


I'm not quite sure how to clarify this any more than I already have. Actually I think painting a dogs toenails is silly and a waste of time, but whatever floats their owner's boat. And a hair cut isn't cutting off a piece of your anatomy simply for cosmetic reasons. I already stated that I don't care whether the dog feels any pain or not...unless it is for MEDICAL reasons I don't support it. So how does that make me ignorant?


----------



## osdbmom (Feb 15, 2011)

My yorkies tail was docked before we got her. If we'd have had the choice, we would not have asked for that to be done. She's a house pet, not for any showing at all, and I just can't see the point. Its kind of sad when she gets really excited, she wags her little stub of a tail and it only goes one way. (right, center, right, center). 
Worse, my aunt loved my yorkie so much she got one of her own in December. At that time, it was about 2 months old. She decided that she wanted its tail to be docked so that it looked like mine, and bc she wants it to look like a show dog. 
Last week, the vet actually did it. This dog is like 7 months old. She had to go through actual surgery, was in very obvious pain afterward, had to stay in the vet hospital for two days. 
I think that is sad. 
Personally, I think the long, plumey tails are pretty. My other dog has a long tail and we keep it brushed, its pretty.


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

Rotties with long tails are fine! We only have Rottweilers with long tails, and they're great. That docking stuff has no functional reason whatsoever. If they were meant to not have a tail, they'd be born without it... besides the fact that it really is not necessary...

I should add that we've had docked Rottweilers in the past before they stopped doing it everywhere. I just prefer keepin' that tail there.


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

I didn't mean to get so off topic re sheep, it's just that somoen mentioned that ppl actually think the dogs are born with short tails and don't even realize that tails are docked. and someone else said the tail must serve a function or it wouldn't be there. and it reminded me of how much we don't know and of the sheep. That we are a long way from the natural world and these animals have been bred over centuries without regard to tail strenth and function since it was such a simple procedure to remove it, that now for some animals the tail is more trouble than it's worth. like an appendix. I bet if that was a simple procedure OBs would snip off the appendix right before handing you your baby.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Luna'sOwner said:


> Rotties with long tails are fine! We only have Rottweilers with long tails, and they're great. That docking stuff has no functional reason whatsoever. If they were meant to not have a tail, they'd be born without it... besides the fact that it really is not necessary...
> 
> I should add that we've had docked Rottweilers in the past before they stopped doing it everywhere. I just prefer keepin' that tail there.


Is it illegal to dock there? I have seen many working rottweilers with full tails, especially imports.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

*If they were meant to not have a tail, they'd be born without it... besides the fact that it really is not necessary...*
Luna I am not picking on you personally. I have seen similar comments as the one in bold on the last couple of pages. 

It goes back to the irony I find in these arguments. 
Many of the same folks that are against dock/crops are pro S/N. 
The same argument you just used to not dock a dog applies to S/N. Dogs were born with testicles, ovaries, etc. They serve a purpose (Other than breeding). 

Some folks are more than willing to use arguments to support their point of view. Then throw that same argument out, or ignore it all together on a different matter. 

Case in point..... Statements......

Docking and Cropping are Cruel.... .. If that is the case, Spay and Neuter are even more cruel. Someone that is against docking and cropping on the basis of cruelty but is pro spay/neuter, is saying they are okay with cruelty as long as it serves their purpose. 

Likewise..... Someone that is against docking and cropping on the basis that the dogs were born with dails and full ears so they need them and they serve a purpose, but is pro spay/neuter, is being out right hypocritical........


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm neutral on the docking issue and don't think it's a big deal if done at a very young age...but I wanted to add that it's true that some breeds (Aussies and Pembroke Corgis come to mind, but there are others) carry the NBT (natural bobtail) gene, meaning that many (but not all) individuals in these breeds ARE born without tails. Those that are born with tails are docked (if the breeder wants to adhere to the breed standard). The NBT gene was introduced to Boxers as well because anti-docking legislation in Europe (as Pawzk9 noted). In many other short-tailed breeds (e.g. some gun dogs), docking is the only way because these breeds don't carry the NBT gene. So whether the dog is born without a tail varies from breed to breed and varies by dog within the breeds that do carry the NBT gene.

I wanted to point out, however, that the NBT gene isn't any kind of panacea. Personally, I don't think it's better than docking, and anti-docking legislation has backfired in some ways. The reason is that like the merle gene, NBT is a "lethal semi-dominant" gene, meaning that if the individual carries one copy of the gene, it's born with a natural bobtail, but if it carries two copies it often (if not always) has fatal birth birth defects (things like spinal defects and being born without an anus). As a result, if two dogs with natural bobtails are bred, the statistical result will be 25% tailed dogs, 50% natural bobtail dogs, and 25% fatal defects. Like the merle gene, NBT requires careful management and responsible breeding. The Border Wars blog has a good amout of information about this, e.g. http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2011/11/without-a-tail-to-sit-on.html


----------



## Fuzzy Pants (Jul 31, 2010)

This thread is either a great example of circular reasoning or schoolyard debating. 
"I'm right." 
"No, I'm right." 
"Nuh-unh!"
"Uh-huh!"


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

juliemule said:


> Is it illegal to dock there? I have seen many working rottweilers with full tails, especially imports.


In the Netherlands it is now not allowed to dock the tails anymore, indeed, neither in South Africa... I don't care what people choose to do, I just prefer not to have it done myself.


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> *If they were meant to not have a tail, they'd be born without it... besides the fact that it really is not necessary...*
> Luna I am not picking on you personally. I have seen similar comments as the one in bold on the last couple of pages.
> 
> It goes back to the irony I find in these arguments.
> ...


I am not telling anyone what they should be doing with their Rottweiler - by all means, dock the tail. If I were to enforce my opinion upon every other person it'd be pretty tiring. I simply do not feel the need to dock the tail. I like to see the dog's emotions, and I've seen that they 1. look more natural 2. the hips stay more flexible (all our docked tail Rotties had issues at earlier ages as opposed to the long tailed) and 3. I've seen the balance it offers them and how much they use their tails. Not to say that they need it - they obviously do not. I am not here to argue anything. I just prefer not to dock the tail simply because I prefer keeping things natural, and if it does not add any significant difference I will not dock the tail. That is it.

Neutering and spaying dogs may be one way to settle a dog's hormones as not all humans want their dog to have that urge and compulsion to breed. This can really frustrate a dog and drive them to a verge of frustration that can only be harmful to a dog. If dogs were to all be allowed to run free, they'd be able to breed and therefore wouldn't have that irrevocable urge to breed. I agree with what you say - it is definitely not natural, but I think the world 'cruel' can be defined in only the worst situations. As far as I am concerned, I will not spay or neuter a dog unless their behavior seems to become intolerable for themselves to handle.

p.s just as a side-note: if dogs in South Africa at the SPCA did not get neutered or spayed, the situation would be even worse than it already is. Sad as it may be, dogs and their care and lack thereof has been the responsibility of humans for a few decades now. As much as I'd like this world to be purely natural, in South Africa it is paramount to have dogs neutered or spayed due to the tremendously overwhelming population of dogs. And not just any dogs - abused, neglected and abandoned dogs. I think it is difficult for a person to truly grasp the nature and enormity of these living conditions unless you have experienced this first hand. And I can tell you as an SPCA volunteer, that working for the Equine department is one thing - and working for the Canine department is truly another. Thousands of dogs are euthanized a year. Not just dogs that have been abused or so badly neglected or tortured that they cannot live anymore; perfectly healthy, friendly dogs not unlike your own that have been rehabilitated but cannot find a home.

If they have to spay or neuter dogs to try and decrease these situations, I cannot say I disagree with them. I am not saying it is natural or that it is okay to do so. I am saying that humans have driven things to such extent that some sort of action has to be taken. And unless someone has a better solution, I will continue to not dock my own dogs because I try to keep things as natural as possible. I can't change or perfect the whole world - but I can try with my own.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hamandeggs said:


> I'm neutral on the docking issue and don't think it's a big deal if done at a very young age...but I wanted to add that it's true that some breeds (Aussies and Pembroke Corgis come to mind, but there are others) carry the NBT (natural bobtail) gene, meaning that many (but not all) individuals in these breeds ARE born without tails. Those that are born with tails are docked (if the breeder wants to adhere to the breed standard). The NBT gene was introduced to Boxers as well because anti-docking legislation in Europe (as Pawzk9 noted). In many other short-tailed breeds (e.g. some gun dogs), docking is the only way because these breeds don't carry the NBT gene. So whether the dog is born without a tail varies from breed to breed and varies by dog within the breeds that do carry the NBT gene.
> 
> I wanted to point out, however, that the NBT gene isn't any kind of panacea. Personally, I don't think it's better than docking, and anti-docking legislation has backfired in some ways. The reason is that like the merle gene, NBT is a "lethal semi-dominant" gene, meaning that if the individual carries one copy of the gene, it's born with a natural bobtail, but if it carries two copies it often (if not always) has fatal birth birth defects (things like spinal defects and being born without an anus). As a result, if two dogs with natural bobtails are bred, the statistical result will be 25% tailed dogs, 50% natural bobtail dogs, and 25% fatal defects. Like the merle gene, NBT requires careful management and responsible breeding. The Border Wars blog has a good amout of information about this, e.g. http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2011/11/without-a-tail-to-sit-on.html


http://www.imgnr.com/nbt_study.htm. Your 50%/25%/25% would be correct for merle inheritance. It is not correct for inheritance of NBT. The fact is, Aussies (and corgis) from NBT lines don't tend to have more birth defects than dogs from lines with only full tails. They are NOT manx cats.


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> http://www.imgnr.com/nbt_study.htm. Your 50%/25%/25% would be correct for merle inheritance. It is not correct for inheritance of NBT. The fact is, Aussies (and corgis) from NBT lines don't tend to have more birth defects than dogs from lines with only full tails. They are NOT manx cats.


My understanding was that homozygous NBT is "more deadly" than homozygous merle, so it causes fetal death. Therefore, the lethal homozygous NBT gene manifests as smaller litter sizes (i.e. lethal homozygous in utero), as opposed to liveborn pups with birth defects (as is more often, but not always, the case with MM). This shows up (and is noted) in the study you linked as well. 

Not going to get into a fight about this! It's a hot topic, I get it! Reasonable minds can differ!


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

hamandeggs said:


> Not going to get into a fight about this! It's a hot topic, I get it! Reasonable minds can differ!


Good point, it's good to stay reasonable  some people fight a whole war online trying to prove their 'right', whilst every person is going to think they are right in their own way :wink: it's perhaps the wisest thing to be interested, not competitive  you may learn something new that way


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Is it illegal to dock there? I have seen many working rottweilers with full tails, especially imports.


Yeah it's illegal here, just like in most of western Europe. In the Netherlands, docking was banned in 2001, cropping in 1996.




Luna'sOwner said:


> In the Netherlands it is now not allowed to dock the tails anymore, indeed, neither in South Africa... I don't care what people choose to do, I just prefer not to have it done myself.


It's not really 'preferring not to have it done', seeing you don't have the choice anymore. Though I'm sure there are still people who do prefer seeing it done... and find a not-so-legal way. Reminds me of an episode of Undercover in Nederland sometime ago.


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

Avie said:


> It's not really 'preferring not to have it done', seeing you don't have the choice anymore. Though I'm sure there are still people who do prefer seeing it done... and find a not-so-legal way. Reminds me of an episode of Undercover in Nederland sometime ago.


Yeah. Sadly, we live in a world where not everyone follows the law. In South Africa many people disregard this law of not docking. We prefer to not support this notion - unless the dog is in desperate need of rehoming.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

In my country ..the USA.. its okay to dock tails...(and it seems to be painless to the puppy).
In other countries..some people eat dogs (I really dont like that...)
but if we got together.. and we sent the docked tails from our dogs to countries that eat dogs .
We could agree that no more eating of dogs , just eat the tails and reproductive organs we send you.!
Rottweiler tails have a lotta meat on them...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Haha! And just think about the virility boost they could get from dog testicles! We have plenty. . .


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Haha! And just think about the virility boost they could get from dog testicles! We have plenty. . .


McDoggies...
Customer :I would like to order 2 Rottweiler happy tail meals ...and 20 Corgi McNuggets..


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Roloni said:


> In my country ..the USA.. its okay to dock tails...(and it seems to be painless to the puppy).
> In other countries..some people eat dogs (I really dont like that...)
> but if we got together.. and we sent the docked tails from our dogs to countries that eat dogs .
> We could agree that no more eating of dogs , just eat the tails and reproductive organs we send you.!
> Rottweiler tails have a lotta meat on them...


Oh my goodness that is quite the thought. Then intstead of killiing horses for meat we could just fix all of them too. That would be a lot of testicles being shipped over seas. ha ha
Oh, but teenie tiny Rottweiler puppy tails are about the size of a large earth worm. Not a lot of meat there.


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

Pain - ask your Veterinary SURGEON what they know about pain pathways in neonates. 
Pain is subjective but the current scientific position is that pain is greater in a neonate http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_4.htm.
What does a child do when ill or hurt? Normally it rushes to its mother for succour and comfort. Sleep is a way of coping with pain. Also it is likely that suckling probably gives comfort to soothe pain as with giving a child a dummy/comforter.
Legs are injured more than other parts of the body.
The tailless gene is limiting and narrows the gene pool even more.
Mongrels/crossbreeds described as working dogs are being docked but working breeds such as Labradors, Retrievers, Hounds and English Pointers are not commonly docked.


----------



## grab (Sep 26, 2009)

Done at the proper age, I have no issue with it. I do think young beings...be it humans or dogs...DO feel pain. I see dockings all the time working at a veterinary hospital and the cry when their tails are docked/dews done is different than the cry when they're simply picked up/fiddled with. I don't take their returning to suckling/sleeping/etc as a sign that they don't feel pain, as many times these are calming actions. Now, this does not mean I feel they'll be traumatized for life, but I do think they do feel pain.

In humans, they often have you nurse your child to calm them after procedures, etc for the same reasons. I have a child and he certainly felt his toe sticks as a newborn.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

As I said, I'm neutral on docking. I was wondering if someone could explain the process of cropping to me? To me that does look very painful but I know looks can be deceiving..


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Cropping is done undersedation as they are taking aprt of the very thin ear leather (dog breeds with thick ear leather are NOT cropped) and then the ear is stitched to heal. Once healed the posting phase is started to get the ears to stand upright. It has health benefits as well as reducing the chance of an ear getting torn while working. Upright ears are FAR less prone to ear infections due to increased air flow and some believe upright ears recieve sound better as well. Of course most modern crops are very elegant looking and less functional than the original working crops, they also have a MUCH longer posting period and are easier to mess up due to the fact more bell (base of the ear) is taken out to increase the length of the ear.


Miliary style crop:
http://www.k9-4u.com/images/military-ears.jpg

This is a good example of a shorter, functional, but attractive crop. 
http://legard.homestead.com/files/1_ferro_Felix_v._Huas_Weisengarten_SIRE.jpg

A nice Med/long crop
http://www.dogchannel.com/images/articles/doberman-side-view-200px.jpg

Show Crop:
http://www.millstonepetdoc.com/sites/site-2528/albums/79e2fae9-7f00-0001-493d-6da8455f6ec3.jpg


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> Cropping is done undersedation as they are taking aprt of the very thin ear leather (dog breeds with thick ear leather are NOT cropped) and then the ear is stitched to heal. Once healed the posting phase is started to get the ears to stand upright. It has health benefits as well as reducing the chance of an ear getting torn while working. Upright ears are FAR less prone to ear infections due to increased air flow and some believe upright ears recieve sound better as well. Of course most modern crops are very elegant looking and less functional than the original working crops, they also have a MUCH longer posting period and are easier to mess up due to the fact more bell (base of the ear) is taken out to increase the length of the ear.
> 
> 
> Miliary style crop:
> ...


Thanks Carla, really helpful!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I wouldn't say that dogs with thick ear leather aren't cropped. Pit bulls don't seem to have thin ear leather to me. I didn't think my grandpa's Mini Schnauzer had thin ear leather either--I couldn't tell any difference between his ears and the Lab's ears. The only breeds I know of with really thin ear leather are hounds, and they aren't commonly cropped. I guess I'll need to pay attention to the thickness of the dog's ear leather the next time I meet a Dobe or Dane.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy, the ear leathers on Danes and Dobes, left natural are about the same as many hounds, however Hounds aren't used in combat situations, and very few are used to battle wild animals (as Danes originally were). Down ears have advantages in gathering scent (the reason for developing down ears) and keeping wet weather put of the ear. Pits were cropped for differnt reasons (pit fighting) but that was a RECENT development as originally they weren't (to my understanding). Breeds such as the Cane and Presa were because they were used to hunt and corner fugitives.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I wouldn't say that dogs with thick ear leather aren't cropped. Pit bulls don't seem to have thin ear leather to me. I didn't think my grandpa's Mini Schnauzer had thin ear leather either--I couldn't tell any difference between his ears and the Lab's ears. The only breeds I know of with really thin ear leather are hounds, and they aren't commonly cropped. I guess I'll need to pay attention to the thickness of the dog's ear leather the next time I meet a Dobe or Dane.


Pits were not traditionally cropped. The old school dog men would be rolling over in their graves if they saw the cropped pits today. In the fighting pit, if the dog has natural ears, its opponent grabs the ear.... IF the ear is cropped, the opponent gets the side of the head.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Cropping is done undersedation as they are taking aprt of the very thin ear leather (dog breeds with thick ear leather are NOT cropped) and then the ear is stitched to heal. Once healed the posting phase is started to get the ears to stand upright. It has health benefits as well as reducing the chance of an ear getting torn while working. Upright ears are FAR less prone to ear infections due to increased air flow and some believe upright ears recieve sound better as well. Of course most modern crops are very elegant looking and less functional than the original working crops, they also have a MUCH longer posting period and are easier to mess up due to the fact more bell (base of the ear) is taken out to increase the length of the ear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A Doberman is really the only dog that I feel MUST have a cropped ear. All other dogs to me, look just as good with natural ears. I like the look of a good show crop when the ears stand but many flop or are lazy ears. If I just had a pet, I would go with the medium to long crop which is easier for them to hold up, it seems. Also has much to do with how well they are cared for after the crop and how well they are set, not to mention the genetics... thin hear leather and ear set.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I like the med/long crop.... I do not like the show crop...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADA said:


> Pain is subjective but the current scientific position is that pain is greater in a neonate http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_4.htm.
> The tailless gene is limiting and narrows the gene pool even more.
> .


Anti-docking alliance, indeed. Perhaps if you looked hard you could find information from a less biased source? If it is true, that is.
The natural bobtail gene would only be limiting and narrow the gene pool IF A) you select for it because docking is not allowed and you love the traditional look of your breed or B) you select against it because you live in a country that doesn't allow tail docking but penalizes dogs without a full length, straight tail. I don't know any Aussie breeders who breed specifically for all NBT though some lines carry it more strongly than others.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hamandeggs said:


> My understanding was that homozygous NBT is "more deadly" than homozygous merle, so it causes fetal death. Therefore, the lethal homozygous NBT gene manifests as smaller litter sizes (i.e. lethal homozygous in utero), as opposed to liveborn pups with birth defects (as is more often, but not always, the case with MM). This shows up (and is noted) in the study you linked as well.
> 
> Not going to get into a fight about this! It's a hot topic, I get it! Reasonable minds can differ!


Not a Doggie "Birther" My litter that had multiple length tails was one puppy less than the largest litter I had.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I like the med/long crop.... I do not like the show crop...


I also prefer the Med/long crop, one SOME dogs I like the show crop as they have the head/neck to carry it off and great ear leather (such as Fifi, the #1 Dobe in the country AKA the Dobe that got robbed at Westminster and PatchworkRobots Dreizen)


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> I also prefer the Med/long crop, one SOME dogs I like the show crop as they have the head/neck to carry it off and great ear leather (such as Fifi, the #1 Dobe in the country AKA the Dobe that got robbed at Westminster and PatchworkRobots Dreizen)


D'awe shucks, this is the best email I've gotten all day.


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> There are countries in which S/N is illegal (along with docking and cropping) that do not have pet over population problems. It can be done.
> 
> In fact there is a growing movement in the UK to make castration of pet dogs and cats illegal.


I think it would be useful to have listed which ones. 
I cannot think of any country which does not have a rescue problem due to dog over population resulting from those who deliberately breed anything dog in the hope of making money out of it and/or are irresponsible owners.

I don't know of any "growing" movement in the UK to make castration of dogs/cats illegal and I am sure those having to deal with the MASSIVE problem of dog/cat rescue would have announced it on their websites if this were the case! If society were perfect and everyone kept their animals for their lifespan and didn't let their animals breed randomly then spay/castration would not be needed and we could all put our donations to help rescues back in our pockets and they could close down.
There is nothing more annoying than taking one's dog for a walk off leash to hear someone shout that their dog is being walked at some point in the female's "season" as many don't understand the female's cycle anyway.
I do think that some countries are doing the spay/castration at far too young an age but then young dogs are more likely to be escape artists.
Relating to tail docking - neuromas are fairly common and the stump can often get re-injured because of the stretched skin that has been pulled and stitched to cover the amputation.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I don't feel any breed MUST be cropped (or docked). Though I admit that cropped Dobermanns have a certain air over them, I prefer this over a cropped/docked dog anytime: 










I'm sure fans of cropped/docked Dobermanns think the dog looks like a hound  One of my best friends laughed out loud when I showed her what Dobermanns look like here, didn't believe it was a Dobermann, hahaha! But that's okay with me, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ADA said:


> I think it would be useful to have listed which ones.
> I cannot think of any country which does not have a rescue problem due to dog over population resulting from those who deliberately breed anything dog in the hope of making money out of it and/or are irresponsible owners.


Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland that I know of, All ban ANY form of surgical alteration unless medically needed (due to injury or illness).


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland that I know of, All ban ANY form of surgical alteration unless medically needed (due to injury or illness).


True for the Netherlands. But there is an exception for neutering and spaying. (maybe more exceptions, I could look it up)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADA said:


> Relating to tail docking - neuromas are fairly common and the stump can often get re-injured because of the stretched skin that has been pulled and stitched to cover the amputation.


Documentation? (In neonate docking)


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Documentation? (In neonate docking)


http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_17.htm
http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_20.htm


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADA said:


> http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_17.htm
> http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_20.htm


Sorry that's not a reliable and unbiased source. I wonder if those were docking done by a competent vet. If they were, they wouldn't look like that.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ADA said:


> http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_17.htm
> http://anti-dockingalliance.com/page_20.htm


Those are not sources.... Those are websites with an agenda....

And you can screw up a dock or a crop and do injury....

And in the second photo..... The dog appear to be wagging its tail. If the tail is doing anything to affect balance it would be throwing it off...


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Pits were cropped for different reasons (pit fighting) but that was a RECENT development as originally they weren't (to my understanding). .


Pits were never a cropped breed until just recently. They were never cropped in the fight ring, and if you look at older photos of top pit dogs, all had natural ears. Cropping seemed to pop up out of no where and now is standard in the UKC and AKC rings even though it's sort of frowned upon in the ADBA ring. It's one of those things where "it makes the dog look more aggressive, so lets do it". I'd personally never do it to any of my Pits or my future pits. Now hand me a Doberman, and you bet that dog will be cropped and docked.

I'm now running full tilt out of this ring. All I can say is Johnny, I hear ya and agree.


----------



## Nev Allen (Feb 17, 2010)

WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DOCK A DOGS TAIL . Sorry I had to shout that but in Australia, in all but 1 state docking is banned.
The tail actually does have a use. Look at any dog doing weave poles at speed and that tail acts as a rudder. 
So what if for generations the breed standard has been to dock ( Dobs, Rotties, Australian Shepards, Australian Cattle Dogs, terriers, etc) Docking is just cosmetic surgery and is totally non essential. STOP DOCKING.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Nev Allen said:


> WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DOCK A DOGS TAIL . Sorry I had to shout that but in Australia, in all but 1 state docking is banned.
> The tail actually does have a use. Look at any dog doing weave poles at speed and that tail acts as a rudder.
> So what if for generations the breed standard has been to dock ( Dobs, Rotties, Australian Shepards, Australian Cattle Dogs, terriers, etc) Docking is just cosmetic surgery and is totally non essential. STOP DOCKING.


Excuse me but my male Aussie is a natural bob so whether he is docked or not is a moot point his tail was naturally shorter AT BIRTH! And he is one of the best weaving dogs I have ever had the pleasure to know.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Nev Allen said:


> WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DOCK A DOGS TAIL . Sorry I had to shout that but in Australia, in all but 1 state docking is banned.
> The tail actually does have a use. Look at any dog doing weave poles at speed and that tail acts as a rudder.
> So what if for generations the breed standard has been to dock ( Dobs, Rotties, Australian Shepards, Australian Cattle Dogs, terriers, etc) Docking is just cosmetic surgery and is totally non essential. STOP DOCKING.


So you think a docked dog can't weave or turn on a dime? Let me assure you THEY CAN and THEY DO, even beating NATURAL AUSSIES!!!!! The woman I want my next Dobe from has WORKING DOGS docked, cropped and natural that do agilty and excel at it. SHe's a working Euro breeder out of FLA (Do'Urdan)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Nev Allen said:


> WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DOCK A DOGS TAIL . Sorry I had to shout that but in Australia, in all but 1 state docking is banned.
> The tail actually does have a use. Look at any dog doing weave poles at speed and that tail acts as a rudder.
> So what if for generations the breed standard has been to dock ( Dobs, Rotties, Australian Shepards, Australian Cattle Dogs, terriers, etc) Docking is just cosmetic surgery and is totally non essential. STOP DOCKING.


Just because your country has bowed to pressure from animal rights looneys doesn't mean you get to demand what other people do. In the US we still have a choice. I pray that it remains that way. (and it's ShepHERD, not shepard.)


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Nev Allen- ACDs are NOT supposed to be docked. Ever.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Nev Allen said:


> WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DOCK A DOGS TAIL . Sorry I had to shout that but in Australia, in all but 1 state docking is banned.
> The tail actually does have a use. Look at any dog doing weave poles at speed and that tail acts as a rudder.
> So what if for generations the breed standard has been to dock ( Dobs, Rotties, Australian Shepards, Australian Cattle Dogs, terriers, etc) Docking is just cosmetic surgery and is totally non essential. STOP DOCKING.



Several things.... 

Terriers It is vital to dock the tail in the small game terriers. ... If a terrier goes to ground and has a tail, there is a good chance it might not be able to turn around in the hole. It dies.... No way I would own one of the small game terriers without a docked tail. Even if I had no intention of hunting it. There are too many holes, to many tight spaces that are going to grab that dog's attention. 

Australian ShepHERDS - A percentage are natural bobs.... Someone like Keechack can tell you better what percentage that might be.... AS for the tailed ones, EVER seen one with a tail herd? They are REALLY REALLY crappy at keeping their tails down. Gay tails abound (by the way based on other mis information, I think I should let you know that "gay tail" is a common term in dogs.) When they run around with that tail up it can work the stock up and keep them on edge. Makes it more dangerous for everyone. Dogs and people alike. They also get their tails in the way. 

Other herding breeds, ACDs, Border Collies, etc tend to be MUCH better at minding their tails. 

ACD's - It is not in the standard of any country or kennel club to dock ACD's. You being in Australia, if you are seeing a bunch of dogs that look like docked ACD's, You are actually looking at Stumpy Tailed Cattle Dogs. A second breed that came out of the development of the ACD. Same Genetics for the most part but a natural bob..... 


In any case.... .To your STOP DOCKING,........ I give you a resounding NO!!! and give you a STOP NEUTERING!!!!!! You are just doing it for your personal convenience....


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

I have nothing further to add than what I already did pages back...but I will comment that I can't believe this thread is still going strong. OMG...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Tofu_pup said:


> Nev Allen- ACDs are NOT supposed to be docked. Ever.


I actually had one that got a tail injury. Looked like a B Grade horror film, never got the blood stains out of the truck even after I ended up spending 500 bucks to have a crime scene cleanup company to clean it. 

It was an expensive surgury on a five year old dog. Long recovery, it was painful and sensitive for about six months. 

But.... That was a fluke.... One ACD I have ever known with a tail injury.


----------



## rotten (Mar 13, 2012)

Im a rottie owner, in an enlilghtened country where tail/ear docking is illegal. This is a cosmetic thing only. And Rotties dont swim well without their tails. 

Its a barbaric practice, and seriously, your friend should look to theirselves with shame, that they would mutilate a dog, cutting off most of its communication pathways to other dogs. For what? appearance? The tail carriage avoids lots of trouble in socialising pups as it sends multiple messages.

My dogs have been working dogs, and never have i had a problem with their tails in bushland. 
Makes me want to weep, that humans can be so disgustingly cruel for their own vanity.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

rotten said:


> Im a rottie owner, in an enlilghtened country where tail/ear docking is illegal. This is a cosmetic thing only. And Rotties dont swim well without their tails.
> 
> Its a barbaric practice, and seriously, your friend should look to theirselves with shame, that they would mutilate a dog, cutting off most of its communication pathways to other dogs. For what? appearance? The tail carriage avoids lots of trouble in socialising pups as it sends multiple messages.
> 
> ...


Interesting that my natural bob dog has never had ANY problem communicating with other dogs.


----------



## rotten (Mar 13, 2012)

its not a rottweiler, different type of dog. Dog aggression is very common in this breed. Perhaps less so in your natural bob dog?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

rotten said:


> Im a rottie owner, in an enlilghtened country where tail/ear docking is illegal. This is a cosmetic thing only. And Rotties dont swim well without their tails.
> 
> Its a barbaric practice, and seriously, your friend should look to theirselves with shame, that they would mutilate a dog, cutting off most of its communication pathways to other dogs. For what? appearance? The tail carriage avoids lots of trouble in socialising pups as it sends multiple messages.
> 
> ...


This is funny......

I had a Rottie in the late 80's. At the time I was working on passing the physical portion of entrance into the Marine Patrol and or Game and Fish..... The swimming requirement was a timed one mile swim. Note in a pool or calm lake. But an open water swim. I used to swim in the bay every day... Bronson would swim with me. Sans tail..... He had zero issues.....

A good friend of mine currently has a Rottie.... That dog is a swimming fool. Again.... Sans tail.....

I don't know where you got that idea, but dogs swim fine without a tail. 

If Australia was so enlightened, they would realize that it is no big deal......

I find it amusing how folks like to define things like cruelty, barbaric acts, etc as they suit their own needs and agendas. 

Do you weep because people spay and neuter dogs for their own convenience?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

rotten said:


> its not a rottweiler, different type of dog. Dog aggression is very common in this breed. Perhaps less so in your natural bob dog?


Are you saying a dog needs it's tail to let other dogs know it plans to attack them?

Also all three of my short tailed dogs love to swim and do so daily


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Remember years ago..When Rottweilers had antlers..
Those were the days...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

rotten said:


> its not a rottweiler, different type of dog. Dog aggression is very common in this breed. Perhaps less so in your natural bob dog?


I am confused what y ou are saying here........ ?????

I have been around Rottweilers much of my life... Owned one... Trained several......

Never found them to be particularly prone to dog aggression. Maybe they have different Rotties in Australia.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am confused what y ou are saying here........ ?????
> 
> I have been around Rottweilers much of my life... Owned one... Trained several......
> 
> Never found them to be particularly prone to dog aggression. Maybe they have different Rotties in Australia.


They really need to stop the violent kangaroos in that country...


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

rotten said:


> its not a rottweiler, different type of dog. Dog aggression is very common in this breed. Perhaps less so in your natural bob dog?


Seriously? My docked dog has NO problem communicating with other dogs, the Rotts I grew up with were NOT dog aggressive not were they ever attacked by dogs due to pack of communication. Dogs use their WHOLE bodies to communicate and dogs that don't have tails communicate JUST FINE no matter the breed or whether they were cropped or born without tails.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

If dogs without tails cannot communicate with other dogs....... Then we need to be doing reconstructive surgery on all those dogs with tails that curl up..... Because surely must be running around spreading ill will. 

And what about the dogs with floppy ears? We better crop and post those. They can't lay their ears back, down, etc.... Surely they cannot communicate either...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

rotten said:


> Im a rottie owner, in an enlilghtened country where tail/ear docking is illegal. This is a cosmetic thing only. And Rotties dont swim well without their tails.
> 
> Its a barbaric practice, and seriously, your friend should look to theirselves with shame, that they would mutilate a dog, cutting off most of its communication pathways to other dogs. For what? appearance? The tail carriage avoids lots of trouble in socialising pups as it sends multiple messages.
> 
> ...


It's really only humans who are stupid enough to need to look at a dog's tail to know what they are thinking. Dogs have much more subtle means. And tail waggin doesn't always mean a "happy dog" anyway. In order for it to be cruel, it would have to cause suffering. If it is done on neonates it does not. So all your hysteria is really meaningless.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If dogs without tails cannot communicate with other dogs....... Then we need to be doing reconstructive surgery on all those dogs with tails that curl up..... Because surely must be running around spreading ill will.
> 
> And what about the dogs with floppy ears? We better crop
> and post those. They can't lay their ears back, down, etc.... Surely they cannot communicate either...


I'll be sure to tell my pug that next time he's communicating with the bulldog next door and they're running around like fools with my Dobe in tow. :sarcasm:


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

When communicating with my dog..I use verbal commands..
I make sure that her ears are free of ear wax...
Those of you that are looking at the dogs tail for replies should try turning your dog around speak into its ears instead of its hiney.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

IF someone is going to argue against docking, they should probably include fact rather than wives tails.

But anyway..... If Australia was an enlightened country when it comes to sensible laws concerning pets, there would not be breed bans all over the place.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IF someone is going to argue against docking, they should probably include fact rather than wives tails.
> 
> But anyway..... If Australia was an enlightened country when it comes to sensible laws concerning pets, there would not be breed bans all over the place.


Too true, but that's a whole different can of worms.


----------



## rotten (Mar 13, 2012)

I have met 4 rotties regularly on my walks with mine. Mine had a tail, the others owners dogs were docked and older, pre legislation ban here. the docked tailed rotties were poorer swimmers in comparison to mine. I made a assumption, that docked tails was why the body carriage in the water, was a more vertical in the docked dogs. It would seem that assumption is wrong. I have learnt something thankyou.

I can see no reason to dock a dogs tail other than one of a cosmetic nature. And have seen no argument put forward that negates this. IF, this is cosmetic. Then removing pieces of your pet, cutting pieces off it to appease your subjective sense of beauty, does that not seem irrational and barbaric, when you think of it?
To me, yes it does.
To those of differing opinions, no it doesnt.

I am a migrant to Australia. I have suffered at the hands of their breed specific legislation. I meant, with regard to cutting pieces of flesh off your dog. And i find that barbaric too. Enough that i would campaign actively to stop it. Just as i have with docking. 
There are people who stand up and say stop doing X - its wrong. Eventually, enough of us do that, and people will change laws. Dogs will be allowed their tails once more as nature intended. 

Its a dog forum guys. We are allowed to have differing opinions.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

rotten said:


> I can see no reason to dock a dogs tail other than one of a cosmetic nature. .


Thats a good enough reason for me...!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

rotten said:


> I meant, with regard to cutting pieces of flesh off your dog. And i find that barbaric too. Enough that i would campaign actively to stop it. Just as i have with docking.
> There are people who stand up and say stop doing X - its wrong. Eventually, enough of us do that, and people will change laws. Dogs will be allowed their tails once more as *nature intended*Its a dog forum guys. We are allowed to have differing opinions.


So what if it is cosmetic? It is a snip..... A pup would protest more from pulling a tick off of it.

So docking is barbaric in your opinion.... What about spay and neuter??? ..... If leaving a dog as nature intended.... Then we CERTAINLY need to be leaving the testicles, uterus,and ovaries on the dogs. Removing the sex organs has a MUCH MUCH larger impact on a dog's life than removing a tail or trimming the ears.

And something you need to think about..... Nature had little to nothing to do with the creation of dogs.... Man developed every breed in existence. They are a product of man's husbandry not nature.... So natare has no real intentions here....


And yes it is just a dog forum... And yes everyone is allowed their opinion. As others are allowed to verbally contest that opinion.


----------



## Moxie (Sep 9, 2010)

johnnybandit said:


> if someone is going to argue against docking, they should probably include fact rather than *wives tails*.
> 
> But anyway..... If australia was an enlightened country when it comes to sensible laws concerning pets, there would not be breed bans all over the place.


lolz.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

rotten said:


> I am a migrant to Australia. I have suffered at the hands of their breed specific legislation. I meant, with regard to cutting pieces of flesh off your dog. And i find that barbaric too. Enough that i would campaign actively to stop it. Just as i have with docking.
> There are people who stand up and say stop doing X - its wrong. Eventually, enough of us do that, and people will change laws. Dogs will be allowed their tails once more as nature intended.
> 
> Its a dog forum guys. We are allowed to have differing opinions.


My opinion, that of an American who likes to keep GOVERNMENT to a minimum in my life, is that GOVERNMENT has NO BUSINESS telling what medical decisions I'm allowed to make for MY DOGS, MYSELF or MY FAMILY. I will FIGHT any government regulation on medical decisions that should be left to me. 

If you don't like cropped/docked dogs choose a different breed or find a reputable breeder that agrees with your opinion and doesn't crop/dock and a registration that doesn't discriminate against uncropped dogs in traditionally cropped breeds. As long as my animals are well fed, humanly housed, get the proper medical attention and aren't being abused the government has no damn business what I do with them.


----------



## Nev Allen (Feb 17, 2010)

Johnny,

We have gone into s/n adnauseum in another thread. S/n is not cosmetic surgery done for the vanity of owning a dog that was not born with the right conformation to a standard that has been designed by humans. If the dog has a genetically natural bob then that should be the standard that every breeder should aspire to. But to dock just because some judge says it has to be is BS.
Docking a tail does not prevent unwanted litters.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Nev Allen said:


> Johnny,
> 
> We have gone into s/n adnauseum in another thread. S/n is not cosmetic surgery done for the vanity of owning a dog that was not born with the right conformation to a standard that has been designed by humans. If the dog has a genetically natural bob then that should be the standard that every breeder should aspire to. But to dock just because some judge says it has to be is BS.
> Docking a tail does not prevent unwanted litters.


Unwanted litter can be avoided with a little RESPONSIBILITY, it does NOT require S/N. The Hormones regulated by the genetalia are far more important that the tails or ear leather. As the owner of TWO S/N dogs it was done for MY conveniance, not my dogs. I didn't want to put up with the mess/smell from my females heats and at the time I nuetered my pug I thought it would resolve his marking issues thanks to the MISINFORMATION I was fed by the AR community and vets that had been fed the same line of BS.


----------



## Nev Allen (Feb 17, 2010)

Keechak said:


> Excuse me but my male Aussie is a natural bob so whether he is docked or not is a moot point his tail was naturally shorter AT BIRTH! And he is one of the best weaving dogs I have ever had the pleasure to know.


I did not say a docked or bob tail could not do agility. I said a full tail does have a use. See below.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Nev Allen said:


> Johnny,
> 
> We have gone into s/n adnauseum in another thread. S/n is not cosmetic surgery done for the vanity of owning a dog that was not born with the right conformation to a standard that has been designed by humans. If the dog has a genetically natural bob then that should be the standard that every breeder should aspire to. But to dock just because some judge says it has to be is BS.
> Docking a tail does not prevent unwanted litters.


Spay and Neuter is done for an owners convenience.... NOTHING MORE.... An owner CAN EASILY ensure an intact dog does not breed. It is easy...... Just takes a tad of responsibility. If an owner cannot contain their dog, they cannot be trusted to train, vaccinate, etc. 

Anti Docking/cropping people always use the "cruel", barbaric, etc argument. IF docking and cropping are cruel, then spay and neuter are VERY cruel......

So what you are saying is that it is OKAY to be cruel as long as it meets your wishes.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> Unwanted litter can be avoided with a little RESPONSIBILITY, it does NOT require S/N. The Hormones regulated by the genetalia are far more important that the tails or ear leather. As the owner of TWO S/N dogs it was done for MY conveniance, not my dogs. I didn't want to put up with the mess/smell from my females heats and at the time I nuetered my pug I thought it would resolve his marking issues thanks to the MISINFORMATION I was fed by the AR community and vets that had been fed the same line of BS.


I laugh every time I see the line about neutering taking care of marking, I laugh. The most dedicated marker I have EVER owned. Out of I don't know how many male dogs, is my wife's Lab... He was neutered at 12 weeks. He is pretty good in the house, but he tags the Christmas tree every year.... GREAT entertainment.


----------



## Nev Allen (Feb 17, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> Unwanted litter can be avoided with a little RESPONSIBILITY, it does NOT require S/N. .


Unfortunately, the majority of owners with unspayed or unneutered dogs have zero responsibility, but that is getting away from this issue. 

Docking is an unneccessary practice done to make a dog conform to a set standard that the dog was not born to fit. Docking does not make a dobberman or a rotty a better dog by any stretch of the imagination.

It is a barbaric practice and is one law I am proud Aussies stood up and embraced. BSL is another issue altogether.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Nev Allen said:


> It is a barbaric practice and is one law I am proud Aussies stood up and embraced. BSL is another issue altogether.


Having personally docked a good number of puppies.... Having witnessed multiple spay, neuters, crops, etc. 

I can tell you... without question.... Neutering and Spaying are FAR FAR more invasive than cropping and ESPECIALLY Docking. 

If docking and cropping are barbaric, then Speuter is VERY barbaric.... End of story.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> My opinion, that of an American who likes to keep GOVERNMENT to a minimum in my life, is that GOVERNMENT has NO BUSINESS telling what medical decisions I'm allowed to make for MY DOGS, MYSELF or MY FAMILY. I will FIGHT any government regulation on medical decisions that should be left to me.
> 
> If you don't like cropped/docked dogs choose a different breed or find a reputable breeder that agrees with your opinion and doesn't crop/dock and a registration that doesn't discriminate against uncropped dogs in traditionally cropped breeds. As long as my animals are well fed, humanly housed, get the proper medical attention and aren't being abused the government has no damn business what I do with them.


 I guess it all comes down to what's perceived as abuse, doesn't it? I could find plenty of people to say that x isn't abuse (whatever x is, insert your choice here). Anything you choose, you can find people who says it's abuse and people who say it's not abuse.

And if you think you have full control of your kids' medical care, well. . .


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

"Barbaric" is a strong word, meaning "savagely cruel" or "exceedingly brutal." It's one I'd apply to some of the horrific acts I've read about in news stories about animal abuse... but not to clipping a tail off when a pup is very young. I think it's everyone's right to accept or oppose the practice, of course, but those kind of terms are just hyperbolic. It is a fairly minor procedure that puppies recover from quickly. I am strongly opposed to practices like declawing cats, but after doing a bunch of reading and speaking to vets and to people who have had both procedures done on their pets, I don't feel that this is on the same level.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And I've always thought that if showing is supposed to be about assessing the dogs' genetic superiority, they shouldn't allow any alterations at all. Those alterations could be hiding all manner of genetic oddities. But, well, I gave up on believing that showing means anything a long time ago.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Nev Allen said:


> Unfortunately, the majority of owners with unspayed or unneutered dogs have zero responsibility, but that is getting away from this issue.
> 
> Docking is an unneccessary practice done to make a dog conform to a set standard that the dog was not born to fit. Docking does not make a dobberman or a rotty a better dog by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> It is a barbaric practice and is one law I am proud Aussies stood up and embraced. BSL is another issue altogether.


The standard was set FOR A REASON, at the time a broken tail led to serious infection and could lead to the dog being put down. The ears of traditionally cropped dogs were in danger of causing greater harm for one reason or another in combat with either large game or humans. There are still breeds (as JB has stated) that NEED to have docked tails to do their jobs and not get injured or killed. it's also WELL KNOWN that upright ears are less prone to infection that ears that are down (down ears NEVER occur in wild dogs BTW, NATURAL SELECTION prohibits it).


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> And I've always thought that if showing is supposed to be about assessing the dogs' genetic superiority, they shouldn't allow any alterations at all. Those alterations could be hiding all manner of genetic oddities. But, well, I gave up on believing that showing means anything a long time ago.


Too bad you feel that way.... But it is what it is....

You cannot have good function without good form..... All dogs that are docked and or cropped were done so with valid reason....

If someone does not want to dock or crop.... fine..... But it is fine for those that want to as well.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I guess it all comes down to what's perceived as abuse, doesn't it? I could find plenty of people to say that x isn't abuse (whatever x is, insert your choice here). Anything you choose, you can find people who says it's abuse and people who say it's not abuse.
> 
> And if you think you have full control of your kids' medical care, well. . .


If Congress has anything to do with it I won't have control of MY OWN medical decisions. I'm fighting that with my vote, I'll fight my government telling what MEDICAL DECISIONS I can or can't make for MY DOGS as well. 

As far as the definition of abuse, I think it's pretty clear, if it does the animal mental or physical harm it's abuse. Cropping and docking can AVOID physical harm in working conditions, therefore it's NOT abuse (as long as it's done correctly)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

What makes something a medical decision? Is getting a cosmetic nose job a medical decision? A breast enhancement? A facelift? I guess I would never consider a neonate dock to be medical. If it's done by the breeder and not a vet is it still medical?

And there's a long long history of the government and doctors not respecting a patient's right to choose/refuse medical treatment. That's nothing new.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> What makes something a medical decision? Is getting a cosmetic nose job a medical decision? A breast enhancement? A facelift? I guess I would never consider a neonate dock to be medical. If it's done by the breeder and not a vet is it still medical?
> 
> And there's a long long history of the government and doctors not respecting a patient's right to choose/refuse medical treatment. That's nothing new.


 If the breeder knows what they're doing it's fine, and yes, it's still medical just as the breeder giving the first puppy shots, deworming, or cutting the cord on a newborn pup. I do believe a vet should be the one to do ear crops, as they have to be stitched and should be done under anesthesia. 

Yes, human cosmetic surgery procedures are still medical procedures and ALL are far more invasive than docking.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

You can pierce a baby's ears, circumcize a baby, a TON of other cosmetic procedures......


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I didn't say they weren't invasive, just that I don't think they're medical.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You can pierce a baby's ears, circumcize a baby, a TON of other cosmetic procedures......


Really, a ton? Because those are the only 2 I can think of. And I'm against those, too .

Pretty sure you can't get a kid under a certain age a tattoo. Or a cosmetic nose job.


----------



## LazyZoe (Apr 8, 2012)

This thread seems to be going around and around in the same directions, without end. Clearly there are those against docking (myself included) and those in favor. Since people are allowed to have their own opinions, what's the point in repeatedly beating a dead horse? In my perfect world cats would never be declawed and dogs would always have natural ears and tails. But honestly I'd rather see other issues resolved before cropping and docking are dealt with through legislative means...namely over-population of unwanted pets due to careless and over-breeding by BYB's and mills (which is why, to me, it is not hypocritical to be opposed to cropping/docking but not S/N). But there seems to be some blatant rudeness and hatred for those who disagree with cosmetic surgery in animals on this forum. I understand some of you show dogs, and want to have your dogs up to standard and what-not, but some of us are here because we just love our pets for their own sake. Doesn't make us any more right or wrong than someone who lives and breathes AKC (or whatever) rules and regulations by heart. Perhaps it's possible to just agree to disagree and move on from there.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Really, a ton? Because those are the only 2 I can think of. And I'm against those, too .
> 
> Pretty sure you can't get a kid under a certain age a tattoo. Or a cosmetic nose job.


Depends on the state, some allow a child to be tattoo'd as long as the parents sign a waiver and are present, some allow body piercings under the same circumstances. 

I'd like to know how you think any type of surgery or injection isn't a medical procedure, it may be done for cosmetic purposes, but it's still a medical procedure. Oh, and not all nose jobs are cosmetic, many are done as a correction to improve the ability of the PATIENT to breath. Same with breast reduction (done to alleviate back pain).

Of course this is pulling the thread incredibally off course.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

LazyZoe said:


> This thread seems to be going around and around in the same directions, without end. Clearly there are those against docking (myself included) and those in favor. Since people are allowed to have their own opinions, what's the point in repeatedly beating a dead horse? In my perfect world cats would never be declawed and dogs would always have natural ears and tails. But honestly I'd rather see other issues resolved before cropping and docking are dealt with through legislative means...namely over-population of unwanted pets due to careless and over-breeding by BYB's and mills (which is why, to me, it is not hypocritical to be opposed to cropping/docking but not S/N). But there seems to be some blatant rudeness and hatred for those who disagree with cosmetic surgery in animals on this forum. I understand some of you show dogs, and want to have your dogs up to standard and what-not, but some of us are here because we just love our pets for their own sake. Doesn't make us any more right or wrong than someone who lives and breathes AKC (or whatever) rules and regulations by heart. Perhaps it's possible to just agree to disagree and move on from there.


I don't care that you are against it, I care that people who are against it are trying to take away THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. It's not your place or the place of ANY government to legislate. I feel the same way about manditory S/N, BSL and cropping/docking.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Really, a ton? Because those are the only 2 I can think of. And I'm against those, too .
> 
> Pretty sure you can't get a kid under a certain age a tattoo. Or a cosmetic nose job.


I have a cousin that had his ears trimmed and tucked at 12. I do not know about other states but in Florida, a child can get a tattoo with parents signed consent (and it is common) A child can have just about anything pierced. A minor can get a boob job ( I believe at 16) with parental consent. Kids, get tucks, lifts, etc all the time....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It's my perception that a medical procedure is done for a medical purpose, that's all. And I have a hard time saying that a guy with a razor blade in a garage is performing a medical procedure when he crops his dog's ears, or a breeder with a pair of nail clippers is performing a medical procedure when they dock their puppies' tails. So if it's done properly it's medical, if not done properly, it's not? I'm having a hard time understanding the concept.


----------



## LazyZoe (Apr 8, 2012)

cshellenberger said:


> I don't care that you are against it, I care that people who are against it are trying to take away THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. It's not your place or the place of ANY government to legislate. I feel the same way about manditory S/N, BSL and cropping/docking.


Well, if a law came up on a ballot saying that docking/ear cropping would be illegal, I would probably vote for it. *shrug* But that's my right as an American. Just as it would be your right to oppose that law.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> It's my perception that a medical procedure is done for a medical purpose, that's all. And I have a hard time saying that a guy with a razor blade in a garage is performing a medical procedure when he crops his dog's ears, or a breeder with a pair of nail clippers is performing a medical procedure when they dock their puppies' tails. So if it's done properly it's medical, if not done properly, it's not? I'm having a hard time understanding the concept.


Why is it a hard concept? If the person is performing the procedure in a way that is cruel or abusive, it's abuse. Just as a guy injecting women with motor oil in a back alley is abusive or a person tattooing with a dirty needle is breaking the law. Not all medical procedures are performed by doctors on humans, why should they be in animals? It depends on the difficulty of the procedure what level of skill is needed for the procedure to be performed safely. Hell, it takes a 30 minute course for me to get certified to pierce ears in most states, less than that in some.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Willowy said:


> It's my perception that a medical procedure is done for a medical purpose, that's all. And I have a hard time saying that a guy with a razor blade in a garage is performing a medical procedure when he crops his dog's ears


Okay, come on. Who in this thread is even attempting to argue that _that_ is okay?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Crantastic said:


> Okay, come on. Who in this thread is even attempting to argue that _that_ is okay?


No one other than Willowy.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

LazyZoe said:


> Well, if a law came up on a ballot saying that docking/ear cropping would be illegal, I would probably vote for it. *shrug* But that's my right as an American. Just as it would be your right to oppose that law.


And that is the difference..... No one from the pro docking camp is saying Docking Cropping etc should be a forced issue. The anti docking camp does not give the same courtesy. 

And that is the rub... The way the United States is set up, this will never likely be a national issue but like other laws concerning pets, handled at the State Level. Which thankfully is MUCH easier to fight. 

It will also never likely be on a ballot of popular vote, but rather handled in a Legislative body.... Which also bodes well for pro docking people. 

In any case, anyone that owns pets should be against additional laws regarding their pets.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And that is the difference..... No one from the pro docking camp is saying Docking Cropping etc should be a forced issue. The anti docking camp does not give the same courtesy.
> 
> And that is the rub... The way the United States is set up, this will never likely be a national issue but like other laws concerning pets, handled at the State Level. Which thankfully is MUCH easier to fight.
> 
> ...


Funny thing is, the Anti-docking people remind me of a few other groups that want to ban procedures we have a right to choose on and who we're allowed to have a relationship with...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Neonate docks are commonly done with nail clippers. Even by vets. So I guess some people are saying that's OK. Nobody was saying that cropping without anesthetic is OK, but they were saying that's a medical procedure. And I don't see it as that. I definitely was not saying it's OK.

And, yeah, a lot of pro-docking people wish there was no choice. They call uncropped/undocked dogs disgusting, they say all good breeders dock/crop before sale, they fight against efforts to allow uncropped/undocked dogs to show. So, yes, the "forcing" goes both ways .


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> And, yeah, a lot of pro-docking people wish there was no choice. They call uncropped/undocked dogs disgusting, they say all good breeders dock/crop before sale, they fight against efforts to allow uncropped/undocked dogs to show. So, yes, the "forcing" goes both ways .


I have NEVER seen prodocking people say that. I have heard anti docking people say that about my cropped/docked dog.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Willowy said:


> And, yeah, a lot of pro-docking people wish there was no choice. They call uncropped/undocked dogs disgusting, they say all good breeders dock/crop before sale


Who are these people? My friend with a miniature pinscher (from a very good breeder) had no trouble getting the breeder to leave her pup's ears natural. It's a little harder with a dock, because that has to be done well before the breeder chooses their keeper, but ears are done later and most breeders I know are happy to let their pet-quality pups go uncropped if that is what the new owner likes. Also, both natural and cropped danes are shown here, and I have never heard anyone call the natural ones "disgusting."

As for the tails, I fail to see how the instrument used has anything to do with it. As long as it can easily and quickly make the cut and is clean, does it matter what tool the breeder uses? In any case, it's very different from hacking away at a dog's ears with a razor blade, which _is_ cruel (and stupid).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> I have NEVER seen prodocking people say that. I have heard anti docking people say that about my cropped/docked dog.


Really? As a Dobe person you've never heard that an uncut Dobe "looks like an ugly Coonhound"? I'm not even involved in the dog world and I've heard that one several times. Lots of people who say they wouldn't own their chosen breed if they weren't cropped/docked. I've seen posts on here to that effect. Etc.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

I'll admit it, I don't like the look of the natural doberman. To me they look like hounds and I am not a fan of hounds. When I first was looking for a dog I would not have considered a doberman if it was left natural. Sue me, I'm a little shallow that way. My feelings have changed since I've spent time with the breed (though that is neither here nor there). However, I don't think I've ever used the word "ugly," or anything similar, to describe one. I can't think of any passionate doberman people (that I know) who have said such things. I have, however, had my cropped and docked doberman called ugly before simply because he was c/d. 


This whole thread is becoming quite silly and reminds me of a quote that I saw on a picture the other day - "The only difference between people with tattoos and people without is that we don't judge you for not having tattoos."


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Really? As a Dobe person you've never heard that an uncut Dobe "looks like an ugly Coonhound"? I'm not even involved in the dog world and I've heard that one several times. Lots of people who say they wouldn't own their chosen breed if they weren't cropped/docked. I've seen posts on here to that effect. Etc.


Tht's an opinion, it's not like the person is saying that is should be legislated that the breed be cropped/docked.

If you're not involved in the dog world, why do you give a crap about what I choose to do with my dog?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Neonate docks are commonly done with nail clippers. Even by vets. So I guess some people are saying that's OK. Nobody was saying that cropping without anesthetic is OK, but they were saying that's a medical procedure. And I don't see it as that. I definitely was not saying it's OK.
> 
> And, yeah, a lot of pro-docking people wish there was no choice. They call uncropped/undocked dogs disgusting, they say all good breeders dock/crop before sale, they fight against efforts to allow uncropped/undocked dogs to show. So, yes, the "forcing" goes both ways .


I have never in all of my nearly 45 years.... Most of it involved in dog sports, working dogs etc. And all of it involved in dogs..... Knowing countless dog people........ You turn on Westminster, I am on first name basis with a good number of the people you see, Any show on performance dogs, Again I know a good portion of them..... HAVE I EVER MET ANYONE that thinks docking and cropping should be mandatory outside of the show ring.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have never in all of my nearly 45 years.... Most of it involved in dog sports, working dogs etc. And all of it involved in dogs..... Knowing countless dog people........ You turn on Westminster, I am on first name basis with a good number of the people you see, Any show on performance dogs, Again I know a good portion of them..... HAVE I EVER MET ANYONE that thinks docking and cropping should be mandatory outside of the show ring.


Well, Willowy would have no idea about this considering that she said herself that she isn't involved in the dog world.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Neonate docks are commonly done with nail clippers. Even by vets. So I guess some people are saying that's OK. Nobody was saying that cropping without anesthetic is OK, but they were saying that's a medical procedure. And I don't see it as that. I definitely was not saying it's OK.
> 
> And, yeah, a lot of pro-docking people wish there was no choice. They call uncropped/undocked dogs disgusting, they say all good breeders dock/crop before sale, they fight against efforts to allow uncropped/undocked dogs to show. So, yes, the "forcing" goes both ways .


And no neonate docks are not commonly done with clippers..... Where the heck do you get your information? Even a newborn puppy's tail would not fit in even to nail clippers......This is just an absolutely absurd claim...... Clearly shows you have ZERO knowledge of how it is done....

Surgical scissors......


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And no neonate docks are not commonly done with clippers..... Where the heck do you get your information? Even a newborn puppy's tail would not fit in even to nail clippers......This is just an absolutely absurd claim...... Clearly shows you have ZERO knowledge of how it is done....
> 
> Surgical scissors......


Or banding, with medical grade rubber bands, I've held pup during both procedures performed by both vets and knowlegable breeders. I've also held a horse during a gelding, FAR worse procedure and I think the boy was worse behaved after (ended up a rig)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have never in all of my nearly 45 years.... Most of it involved in dog sports, working dogs etc. And all of it involved in dogs..... Knowing countless dog people........ You turn on Westminster, I am on first name basis with a good number of the people you see, Any show on performance dogs, Again I know a good portion of them..... HAVE I EVER MET ANYONE that thinks docking and cropping should be mandatory outside of the show ring.


If all good breeders do it, that's basically mandatory, yes?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> If all good breeders do it, that's basically mandatory, yes?


Not all good breeders do it, and some only do it on litters that are to be shown in the US.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I have a pair of nail clippers that would easily fit a neonate's tail. And that's what I've been told by breeders. . .but that doesn't really matter. 

I wouldn't get involved in the "dog world" for a million dollars. I think it's a fine hobby for those who like that kind of thing but I don't. I care about DOGS. Individually. I do not care about breeds or lines or anything like that. Just dogs.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The kennel I'll be getting my next Dobe from, excellent lines, health testing and proven both conformation and working abilty. (Johnny, you may know her Dede Bruno)

http://dourdenkennel.com/Catti.html


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I wouldn't get involved in the "dog world" for a million dollars. I think it's a fine hobby for those who like that kind of thing but I don't. I care about DOGS. Individually. I do not care about breeds or lines or anything like that. Just dogs.


So, what are you trying to say?? Those of us who are in the "dog world" don't care about our individual dogs because we do care about lines and breeds we're passionate about?? 

Wasn't there a thread on here where you were asking about how to find out the lineage of your rottweiler through AKC papers?? My rescued rottweiler was AKC registered but I never saw the papers on him. I never bothered wondering what was behind him...he was a puppy mill dog. I didn't love him any less than my "dog world" dogs.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I care about DOGS. Individually. I do not care about breeds or lines or anything like that. Just dogs.


I'm sorry, Dreizehn. 
I've been wrong. 

It's not the constant activity, the hours of entertainment, training, and play, nor the very high quality of food and amazing vet that I have on call that matters.
All of that means nothing because I chose to support a breeder who crops and docks. 

I love you, Dreizehn, but apparently I don't love your cute face and big nose hard enough.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

PatchworkRobot said:


> I'm sorry, Dreizehn.
> I've been wrong.
> It's not the constant activity, the hours of entertainment, training, and play, nor the very high quality of food and amazing vet that I have on call that matters.
> All of that means nothing because I chose to support a breeder who crops and docks.
> ...


Boy...aren't we a bunch of cold hearted jackasses because we have cropped/docked dogs. Lars and Ocean will never forgive me for choosing them to come live with me and dealing with their breeder who **gasp** has a her licensed vet docks their tails with a surgical scalpel.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I have a pair of nail clippers that would easily fit a neonate's tail. And that's what I've been told by breeders. . .but that doesn't really matter.
> 
> I wouldn't get involved in the "dog world" for a million dollars. I think it's a fine hobby for those who like that kind of thing but I don't. I care about DOGS. Individually. I do not care about breeds or lines or anything like that. Just dogs.


I'm not involved in showing or working dogs currently, however I know enough about it, having been involved in my youth. Even then NO ONE thought cropping or docking should be legislated. It's the extreamists who think we should legislate every aspect of life. That's why we have BSL, Mandatory S/N, banning of cropping and docking. There are of course those who are trying to mandate the decision that HUMANS are allowed to make as well. They're all of the same ilk, those who wish to push THEIR beliefs on others.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I only wanted to find his AKC info for fun. I found it, the end. I wondered about the quality of his breeders since I didn't buy him. . .yup, BYBs. Not one OFA tested dog in his 5-generation pedigree. Too bad.

And, yes, I find that individual dogs are often sacrificed for the sake of lines and breeds and show and work, etc. Not all but enough. I've spoken to "dog people" who freely admit they don't care about the individual. They'll kill a dog who doesn't work out, they'll have unsocialized "kennel dogs" for the sake of their lines, engage in unethical breeding practices "to improve their breed".

I never said it should be legislated. Why does it always go there? I just think people shouldn't do it.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

MrsBoats said:


> Boy...aren't we a bunch of cold hearted jackasses because we have cropped/docked dogs. Lars and Ocean will never forgive me for choosing them to come live with me and dealing with their breeder who **gasp** has a her licensed vet docks their tails with a surgical scalpel.


You know what else I'm a terrible person for?
Having an Icelandic Sheepdog outside of Iceland. 
SHE SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN HER NATIVE LAND, MRSBOATS!


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

Willowy said:


> And, yes, I find that individual dogs are often sacrificed for the sake of lines and breeds and show and work, etc. Not all but enough. I've spoken to "dog people" who freely admit they don't care about the individual. They'll *kill a dog who doesn't work out*, they'll *have unsocialized "kennel dogs" for the sake of their lines*, *engage in unethical breeding practices "to improve their breed"*.
> 
> I never said it should be legislated. Why does it always go there? I ust think people shouldn't do it.


What the hell kind of dog people are you associating with?!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I have seriously never met anyone like the people Willowy describes, and I've been to a lot of shows and spoken to a lot of breeders (and they can be a gossipy bunch, and an opinionated bunch). I'm sure people like that do exist, as there are crazies in every walk of life, but they're certainly not even close to being the majority... at least not as far as I have seen. I'm not trying to make my personal observations sound like cold hard facts, of course. That's a horrible debate technique.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I have a pair of nail clippers that would easily fit a neonate's tail. And that's what I've been told by breeders. . .but that doesn't really matter.
> 
> I wouldn't get involved in the "dog world" for a million dollars. I think it's a fine hobby for those who like that kind of thing but I don't. I care about DOGS. Individually. I do not care about breeds or lines or anything like that. Just dogs.


Well then you have the most unusual pair of clippers in the world. And it does matter..... Because you are posting outlandish comments to try to push your point.....

Name a breeder that told you......I would like to know a name..... Because is doesn't happen.....

And your second statement is just as off the wall as the clipper thing......... You think breeders do not care about dogs? Everyone I know DOTES on each and everyone of their dogs. Their dogs are the entire reason they are in it. The lines are an extension of their dogs and their future dogs.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I only wanted to find his AKC info for fun. I found it, the end. I wondered about the quality of his breeders since I didn't buy him. . .yup, BYBs. Not one OFA tested dog in his 5-generation pedigree. Too bad.
> 
> And, yes, I find that individual dogs are often sacrificed for the sake of lines and breeds and show and work, etc. Not all but enough. I've spoken to "dog people" who freely admit they don't care about the individual. They'll kill a dog who doesn't work out, they'll have unsocialized "kennel dogs" for the sake of their lines, engage in unethical breeding practices "to improve their breed".
> 
> I never said it should be legislated. Why does it always go there? I just think people shouldn't do it.


Any breeder who engages in such practices are neither ethical nor reputable. They are doing nothing to improve the breed. 

You may not have said it, others did. However you have inferred that everyone who crops or docks does so in an abusive manner. You've inferred that those who like dogs with that look think it should be made manditory.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If I call it "culling" does it make you feel better? There were enough defenders of lethal culling on that thread that it might. How about double-merle breeding? Enough defenders of that, too.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> You've inferred that those who like dogs with that look think it should be made manditory.


If they think all breeders of dogs with docking in the standard should dock, that's the same as making it mandatory.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I don't think anyone defend either practice, in fact it was made pretty clear that people didn't approve and culling has a much different meaning now that S/N can control which dogs get bred. You were the ONLY person that insisted on continuing to bring it up.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I only wanted to find his AKC info for fun. I found it, the end. I wondered about the quality of his breeders since I didn't buy him. . .yup, BYBs. Not one OFA tested dog in his 5-generation pedigree. Too bad.
> *
> And, yes, I find that individual dogs are often sacrificed for the sake of lines and breeds and show and work, etc. Not all but enough. I've spoken to "dog people" who freely admit they don't care about the individual. They'll kill a dog who doesn't work out, they'll have unsocialized "kennel dogs" for the sake of their lines, engage in unethical breeding practices "to improve their breed".*
> I never said it should be legislated. Why does it always go there? I just think people shouldn't do it.


Where are you meeting these people? You don't compete? Live in a rural lightly populated state, etc. Do you travel alot to attend dog events and gatherings? 

You are getting farther and farther out there with each post you make....


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> If they think all breeders should do it, that's the same as making it mandatory.


Who thinks that?


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

Willowy said:


> If I call it "culling" does it make you feel better? There were enough defenders of lethal culling on that thread that it might. How about double-merle breeding? Enough defenders of that, too.


Another subject change, eh?


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

PatchworkRobot said:


> You know what else I'm a terrible person for?
> Having an Icelandic Sheepdog outside of Iceland.
> SHE SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN HER NATIVE LAND, MRSBOATS!


OMG!!!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 



> What the hell kind of dog people are you associating with?!


No kidding...I don't know the kind of universe your "dog world" is in...but it's not in the one here in New England that I see. Once again...it's the same discussion I see but with different threads and different topics - "I'm a better dog owner than you." I think that constant argument of you're a bad dog owner because you dock or crop/show/have intact dogs/breed (even responsibly)/fill in the blank is what is getting old...at least with me. If your dog is a pet and you're not into doing anything with your dog...great. If your dog is a rescue...great. If your dog is speutered...great. But don't give me crap about what I do with my dogs because it makes (collective) you feel better about yourselves. 

If you take away the topic of a hot topic thread, the underlying current always seems to be "I'm a better dog owner than you..."

Willowy, the longer this thread goes on and you attempt to debate this...I have to agree with Johnny, you're not doing yourself any favors in the "I come across as rational" department


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Where are you meeting these people? You don't compete? Live in a rural lightly populated state, etc. Do you travel alot to attend dog events and gatherings?
> 
> You are getting farther and farther out there with each post you make....


Indeed, I'd like to know her sources as well.

Oh and what the heck does this thread have to do with Double Merle and culling? It's about docking and you're pulling it off topic because you're being countered on all your other arguements.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't compete or go to dog things. I talk to people. Lots of random people. I hear people talk to other people. That's what they say. . .

And what, you want names? Can't people sue you for putting their full names on the internet? The one who told me about nail clippers was a lady named Lori. She bred Mini Schnauzers and lived on the same block as my friend. She hated docking but said she had to or nobody would buy her pups. She said her husband did it, using big-dog nail clippers--the kind with the round opening. I asked a few other breeders about it since and they said the same. The vet I had when I had Willow said that's how she did it. I think her name was Linda .


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I hate all that dominance and "alpha" crap!

...Oh, sorry, I thought we were just listing dog-related pet peeves that had nothing to do with the original topic of this thread.

(For the record, I'm against lethal culling except in the case of a severe medical problem, and I don't condone double merle breedings. That has nothing to do with my stance on cropping and docking, though.)


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Then Lori and the others wer engaged in an unethical practice, The vet I'd have reported to the state board.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, I don't see any difference between big dog nail clippers and surgical scissors. They're basically the same thing.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I don't compete or go to dog things. I talk to people. Lots of random people. I hear people talk to other people. That's what they say. . .


Oh...I get it now. You talk to the same people who tell me that my rottweilers are going to kill me in my sleep because their brains will grow too big for their skulls. That makes them snap and go crazy. Oh yeah...they also told me they will turn into zombie like killers if they ever get the taste of blood. They eat babies when they get like that.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

willowy said:


> well, i don't see any difference between big dog nail clippers and surgical scissors. They're basically the same thing.


rofl, really?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes, I've heard that, too . I never said they were fancy dog show people. Just regular dog breeders/owners/trainers etc.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I don't compete or go to dog things. I talk to people. Lots of random people. I hear people talk to other people. That's what they say. . .
> 
> And what, you want names? Can't people sue you for putting their full names on the internet? The one who told me about nail clippers was a lady named Lori. She bred Mini Schnauzers and lived on the same block as my friend. She hated docking but said she had to or nobody would buy her pups. She said her husband did it, using big-dog nail clippers--the kind with the round opening. I asked a few other breeders about it since and they said the same. The vet I had when I had Willow said that's how she did it. I think her name was Linda .


Get sued how? 


Anyway...... Those people if you talked to them, do not know what they are doing.... Sounds like byb people...... At best..... 

How are you bumping into all these breeders? I live in the most heavily populated states in the country.... I don't remember randomly bumping into a breeder. Sure I have bumped into dog breeders. Just out of thin air in the community.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> rofl, really?


Okey doke if you don't think so. But if neonates don't feel pain, what difference does it make?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

MrsBoats said:


> Oh...I get it now. You talk to the same people who tell me that my rottweilers are going to kill me in my sleep because their brains will grow too big for their skulls. That makes them snap and go crazy. Oh yeah...they also told me they will turn into zombie like killers if they ever get the taste of blood. They eat babies when they get like that.


She has to be surrounded by some of the most incompetent dog owners/breeders and vets I've even heard of. Remind me never to move to her area as the people there must be really scarey (worse than some of the ignorant ******** I grew up with in Mississipi)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Sounds like byb people...... At best.....
> 
> How are you bumping into all these breeders? I live in the most heavily populated states in the country.... I don't remember randomly bumping into a breeder. Sure I have bumped into dog breeders. Just out of thin air in the community.


A lot of people breed. Where do you think all these dogs come from? And it's a fairly well represented "puppy farm" state.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Well, I don't see any difference between big dog nail clippers and surgical scissors. They're basically the same thing.


Give me the vets name.... I will report her.... Not mention your name at all.... 

There is a HUGE difference between nail clippers and surgical scissors. Nail clippers are designed to cut a thick hard nail. Surgical grade scissor are as sharp as a scalpel. They are designed to cut skin, tissue, etc. They are as different as a butter knife and a fillet knife....


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

Willowy said:


> A lot of people breed. Where do you think all these dogs come from? And *it's a fairly well represented "puppy farm" state*.


So then why would these people be credible as doing things ethically?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Okey doke if you don't think so. But if neonates don't feel pain, what difference does it make?


They don't feel as MUCH pain, they can still get infected if the instrument used isn't sharp enough and sterile. Nail clippers, even the ones used in salons for artificial nails are neither sharp enough nor sterile.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

PatchworkRobot said:


> So then why would these people be credible as doing things ethically?


I'm pretty sure I said they weren't doing anything ethically. But it's representative of how a lot of people do it.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> She has to be surrounded by some of the most incompetent dog owners/breeders and vets I've even heard of. Remind me never to move to her area as the people there must be really scarey (worse than some of the ignorant ******** I grew up with in Mississipi)


Mississippi must look like Greenwich, CT in comparison to where ever her area is. That's why she sees intact, in season females hiding behind every tree. 

(when I get tired...the internal filter starts to erode and I get snarky.)


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> A lot of people breed. Where do you think all these dogs come from? And it's a fairly well represented "puppy farm" state.


How do you get that any of those breeders would be reputable, ethical or have the best interest of dogs in mind?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> A lot of people breed. Where do you think all these dogs come from? And it's a fairly well represented "puppy farm" state.


I got news for you..... Those people are not in the dog community either..... A BYB would likely be stoned to death at a dog show, event. They are hated as much as the whacked out AR people. 

That is a common problem with you. You like to paint with an extremely broad brush and dump into a big apple barrel. 

You bounce around and talk to a couple of BYBs and then equate that with what really goes on out there.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I'm pretty sure I said they weren't doing anything ethically. But it's representative of how a lot of people do it.


Johnny said it so I"ll just requote it.


JohnnyBandit said:


> I got news for you..... Those people are not in the dog community either..... A BYB would likely be stoned to death at a dog show, event. They are hated as much as the whacked out AR people.
> 
> *That is a common problem with you. You like to paint with an extremely broad brush and dump into a big apple barrel.
> 
> You bounce around and talk to a couple of BYBs and then equate that with what really goes on out there*.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I'm pretty sure I said they weren't doing anything ethically. But it's representative of how a lot of people do it.


It's how people where YOU LIVE do it, not representative of breeders as a whole and certainly not representative of how REPUTABLE breeders do it!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I'm pretty sure I said they weren't doing anything ethically. But it's representative of how a lot of people do it.


No it is representative of how a few people you have met do it.... You really need to open your mind and avoid forming your opinions on a couple of ancedotal encounters you have had....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Super. I'll just say that the good breeders are all bunnies and sunshine when THEY cut off puppies' tails and leave it at that. I'm still against it.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Super. I'll just say that the good breeders are all bunnies and sunshine when THEY cut off puppies' tails and leave it at that. I'm still against it.


Then don't get a dog that's cropped or docked, easy.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Willowy said:


> A lot of people breed. Where do you think all these dogs come from? And it's a fairly well represented "puppy farm" state.


Um, yeah...none of the people I know in my "dog world" have dogs that came from the dog people you know in your "dog world." Once again, I agree with Johnny...the dog people you're talking to and getting your info from would be stoned to death by my "dog world" people. 

Every time you comment on this thread...your credibility slides down significantly.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Okey doke if you don't think so. But if neonates don't feel pain, what difference does it make?


Because a nail clipper would smash, and tear. Cause a nasty jagged wound. It would not heal.

I still would like to know the vets name because I am serious about reporting them.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

'night.​


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I still would like to know the vets name because I am serious about reporting them.


I don't know . Dr. Linda, that's all I remember. It WAS 17 years ago. I don't even know if she's still in practice.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

PatchworkRobot said:


> 'night.​


LOL, using toothpicks to hold my eyes open, thanks for the chuckle!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I don't know . Dr. Linda, that's all I remember. It WAS 17 years ago. I don't even know if she's still in practice.


Interesting how your memory can be so crisp about certain things and much less clear on other things.... Just sayin...


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

PatchworkRobot said:


> 'night.​



BRILLIANT!!! LOL

I would love to continue this battle of wits...but, my internal filter is hanging on by a thread and I might say something that would get me banned.


----------



## rotten (Mar 13, 2012)

People are forgetting their manners. Posts are rude, personal, passive aggressive, child like, and down right aggressive in others.
And the more vociferous, i note as a knew member, are the senior members.

I vote, with my feet. Enjoy being nasty to people. without me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Then don't get a dog that's cropped or docked, easy.


Not easy if you like a dog that's of a breed that's "traditionally" docked and you don't want it done. So much for choice.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

rotten said:


> People are forgetting their manners. Posts are rude, personal, passive aggressive, child like, and down right aggressive in others.
> And the more vociferous, i note as a knew member, are the senior members.
> 
> I vote, with my feet. Enjoy being nasty to people. without me.


We don't allow insults here, everybody but you has been respectful while expressing their opinions. Goodbye!


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Not easy if you like a dog that's of a breed that's "traditionally" docked and you don't want it done. So much for choice.


Sure it is, it just takes a little effort. In fact I think I posted and outstanding Doberman breeder that allows the choice, you might have to wait for a Euro show litter to get undocked, but it's worth it.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Oh, and there are PLENTY of natural Dobes, Rotties and other 'traditionally cropped' breeds in rescue as well as good breeders that either don't crop/dock or have Euro lines they leave natural for show in the FCI. They may not be near you, you may hve to have a dog shipped, but htey are certainly out there.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Not easy if you like a dog that's of a breed that's "traditionally" docked and you don't want it done. So much for choice.


Hey...wait a minute...



> I do not care about breeds or lines or anything like that. Just dogs.


You do have a choice and it is easy. There are plenty of rottweiler breeders out there that don't dock...they don't participate in the AKC world. There's one 20 minutes from where I live. They prefer to play in the Sieger dog shows. Since you're not into the "dog world" and you may not know this...they don't follow the AKC breed standard. They follow the FCI breed standard which says "TAIL : In natural condition, level in extension of the upper line; at ease may be hanging." 

But here in lies the problem...you would have to drop some bucks for a tailed rottweiler. You do have plenty of choices...you would have to most likely pay for that choice (just like the rest of us...)

http://www.usrconline.org/index.html - The US Rottweiler Club has pics of tailed Rottweilers all over the main page of their website.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Not easy if you like a dog that's of a breed that's "traditionally" docked and you don't want it done. So much for choice.




There are a couple of Rottweilers on the same circuit that Merlin runs that do not have docked tails.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

That's good to know (and I don't care about breed, it's more of a hypothetical thing. I don't think I'll ever buy from a breeder. My main beef was that so many arguments are all about "choices"--but not that choice! ). But, honest question here. . .do you think any "good" American breeders would offer the choice of an undocked pup if it weren't illegal in Europe? It sounds like the only reason they have undocked pups is so they can show them over there.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Not sure, it's not a question that can be answered because it is out of standard in the FCI and quite a few Americans wish to compete in Europe to show their dogs are just as good (or better).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, I suppose the ban is good for something, if only to get breeders to offer choices and to get some undocked dogs into American shows. I doubt that would have gone anywhere if not for the European ban, too.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

As I said in my post there are plenty of breeders who show Seiger shows with tailed dogs. If they belong to USRC they have a code of ethics they have to adhere by. Therefore, they are "good breeders." It's all about choice...they chose FCI's standard. Others choose AKC's standard.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Why does it matter to you? You've already stated you don't want a dog that's not from rescue. Why does it matter what breeders do as long as the dogs are healthy, have great homes and the breeder isn't contributing to the overpopulation problem?


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> Why does it matter to you? You've already stated you don't want a dog that's not from rescue. Why does it matter what breeders do as long as the dogs are healthy, have great homes and the breeder isn't contributing to the overpopulation problem?


Because she's probably someone who lives for drama and loves to be a "right-fighter." Because she doesn't think we should have the choice to have a docked dog, but she can have the choice of a tailed one. Being "right" on this shows she loves her dogs more than us and is a better dog owner than everyone else.

I was appalled when she said the ban was probably a good thing. Bans with dogs never lead to good. Someday it might be the breed of dog they ban. Oh I forgot...she doesn't care about breeds.

On that note...I'm going to bed.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

LOL. I don't think I'm a better dog owner than most. Fairly mediocre probably; I can't keep my dogs from occasionally escaping no matter how hard I try, I don't feed top-quality food, I'm hopeless at training, I don't "do anything" with them, and some people would say their nails are too long. I find the people who "do something" with their dogs and those with "well-bred" dogs (and those whose dogs have closely clipped nails ) tend to be fairly self-righteous about it. . .I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

And it matters to me because I care about dogs. Am I supposed to ignore dog issues because I don't show?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

It's not about being self-righteous about it, it's about wanting to be left alone and not judged for the look I like. If I want a dog that has down ears, I'll get a breed that is supposed to have them, if I want a dog with a long tail I'll get a breed that is supposed to be that way. I like a dog that looks functional for the job it was supposed to do (IE the ORIGINAL breed standard). I don't appreciate people making rude comments about that choice or accusing me and the breeder of animal cruelty.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

The only breed I am very interested in that is traditionally cropped and docked is very easy to find in the US with natural ears and tails. There is one breeder that doesn't dock or crop at all and another that leaves many of their puppies natural. You can show them in the US either way easily. That would be the route I would take if I were to ever get the breed. I like my dogs with tails and I am too lazy to post ears. I've taped ears in the past and I wouldn't even ever try it again. Don't see a point to it.

I also know of a schnauzer breeder in the US that keeps their dogs all natural. Dunno about other breeds, most other breeds that are docked/cropped don't interest me.

But yes, depending on the breed you could get a dog that is all natural in the US.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MrsBoats said:


> Bans with dogs never lead to good. Someday it might be the breed of dog they ban.


I know I've seen a lot of statements (like this one) implying that AR is behind breed bans. That laws governing how you treat animals lead to breed bans, etc. This state, as a farming state, is rabidly anti-AR. Yet several small towns have breed bans. If you told the city leaders in those towns they were influenced by AR they'd be furious. They want those dogs DEAD, just think of the children! But since, apparently, people who are for "animal rights" don't actually think animals should have rights, I guess now it's code for "animal haters", maybe those guys are PETA members in disguise! I'd like to see that conversation .


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Whatever...I am so done with this thread. I would get further in this discussion with talking to my coffee maker...

and I am going to add that I think you like the drama you create on here...especially with you bouncing around from topic to topic to topic. It's like you know the buttons to push to get us all fired up and us to keep posting. So, I'm going to stop enabling this...and I'm done. And...I found the ignore feature. See ya Willowy.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

There is no "like" button here, so I just wanted to give a nod to the post above.

SOB


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

ADA said:


> I think it would be useful to have listed which ones.
> I cannot think of any country which does not have a rescue problem due to dog over population resulting from those who deliberately breed anything dog in the hope of making money out of it and/or are irresponsible owners.<snip>


Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) have no over population problem and it was illegal to spay and neuter, unless medically needed, in Sweden until less than 10 years ago ... it became illegal to crop or dock in 1989, so it's nothing new there. 

Personally I think this face is much prettier than a cropped dog.

(Huldra, a friend's dobie, IPO 3 and a Champion in Europe even though she lives in the US)









And her dogs' ears may appear cropped in high speed. LOL


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

Beautiful dogs. The bottom one would make a perfect Christmas card.
I prefer natural but abide by the old saying Never discuss politics, religion or crocking. ;-)


----------



## Moxie (Sep 9, 2010)

begemot said:


> I am always impressed by Willowy's posts, which I think are thoughtful and well-intentioned. I don't think she's a provocateur. It sounds like the "ignore" feature is a good choice for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you've said here, I also enjoy Willowy's posts.

I would never do either, but cropping seems even stranger to me than docking. If there is pain involved in either procedure, and it seems logical that there would be, that one sounds like the more painful one. It requires extended care, has to be done later, and doesn't seem to serve any purpose at all in modern times. If hog dogs have ears for protection, it stands to reason that ears would also act as protection for other breeds of working dogs.

Also, it seems like cropping is less common in Boxers now than it used to be, but the same doesn't seem to be true for other cropped breeds. I wonder why, is it just that Boxers have gained in popularity in the US and so there are more non-show dogs running around?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

hast said:


> Personally I think this face is much prettier than a cropped dog.


And that is the ONLY issue I have with uncropped Dobes is what is stated right here. I find uncropped dogs in all other breeds fine looking but a Dobe looses it's original purpose when it is left natural.

That dog there looks cute and sweet and pretty, when I look at a doberman the first descriptive words that should come to mind are alert, regal, intimidating.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I have seen totally natural Dobermans, and I've mistaken them for a hound every time.

My issue with natural Dobes is that they completely lose breed type (the look that makes a breed recognizable). I still don't prefer natural eared Dobermans, but they're tolerable as long as the tail is docked.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

Hounds' ears are longer and different shaped but i do know what you mean


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

houndies said:


> Hounds' ears are longer and different shaped but i do know what you mean


says who? hounds have all sorts of ear types last I checked


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

houndies said:


> Hounds' ears are longer and different shaped but i do know what you mean


Isn't the Basenji technically in the hound group?
Edit: Or Ibizan Hounds and Pharaoh Hounds if one wants the word "hound" as part of the actual name.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

PatchworkRobot said:


> Isn't the Basenji technically in the hound group?
> Edit: Or Ibizan Hounds and Pharaoh Hounds if one wants the word "hound" as part of the actual name.


 yes they are hounds - have you actually looked at the size of the old ancient houns' ears they are huge and standing up naturally...


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

houndies said:


> yes they are hounds - have you actually looked at the size of the old ancient houns' ears they are huge and standing up naturally...


 I have not. Hounds aren't a type of dog that I'm particularly interested in so It's not something I've looked up. I'd love to see some though, if you have any to post. I've seen a picture of a doberman with standing un-cropped ears before, it was rather comical. 

That being said, I wasn't mentioning it in regards to the ears standing, just adding to the point that all hounds aren't equally eared (shapes of ears, to be specific). Natural dobes look like hounds to some "dog people" so it's no surprise that non-dog people mistake them for hounds. The first time (and second and third time) I saw a natural doberman I thought it was a hound. Hound people might find that ridiculous but that would be expected from somebody who has spent more time than the normal person around/with hounds.

Edit: Teehee


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

momof3 said:


> Someone I know got a rottie pup today. The person they got it from didn't have the tail docked early,The pup is now approx. 10wks old. I'm trying to find some information for her. Is it even possible to do this late?


They can probably find a vet to preform this operation. ..but look at how many people would be upset...


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

PatchworkRobot said:


>


This is what a doberman looks like when the ears are posted to stand upright without cropping away the ear leather, looks like one of the ancient Sight hounds to me.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> This is what a doberman looks like when the ears are posted to stand upright without cropping away the ear leather, looks like one of the ancient Sight hounds to me.


That is exactly what natural dobes look to me, overweight pariah/sighthound type dogs. I have seen my fair share of natural dobes (over a hundred in fact), they don't appeal to me. I do love Spinone's with natural tails, but they carry them correctly for their breed. They are not gay, they are not curled over the back, but lay down flat while calm and somewhat outwards when moving.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I have a question about dobes. In a natural doberman is the tail supposed to curl over the back? I always thought that looked very out of place on dobes. I like most other breeds left all natural but dobes with natural tails just look so weird to me.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I have a question about dobes. In a natural doberman is the tail supposed to curl over the back? I always thought that looked very out of place on dobes. I like most other breeds left all natural but dobes with natural tails just look so weird to me.


To my knowledge no, but they do, and some double curl. The tail should be carried outwards freely, think Dalmatian, or they can be down.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> I have a question about dobes. In a natural doberman is the tail supposed to curl over the back? I always thought that looked very out of place on dobes. I like most other breeds left all natural but dobes with natural tails just look so weird to me.


Since the Dobe has Greyhound in the background (for chest depth and speed) they tend to carry their tails much like the Greyhound.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Since the Dobe has Greyhound in the background (for chest depth and speed) they tend to carry their tails much like the Greyhound.


Yes but even greyhounds, don't curl their tails up over the topline quite like many undocked dobes do.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

True, but if you look, Dobes are encouraged to carry their tail UP, it's the natural carriage for them, so of course if they have a long tail, it wil be carried up and possibly over the back. I guess more like a Ibizan Hound or Afghan.


----------



## jennytay92 (May 24, 2012)

I had a doberman pup that I had to dock her tail (medical reasons) Thats why the vet did it. Some people are offended when you dock your dogs tail. I even had one person ask me how i would feel about someone removing my toes and fingers. 

It cost me a pretty penny and she was a little sore for a day but didn't even notice it was gone. You could remove a dogs leg and he can out run other dogs. I say if you don't HAVE to remove it...don't.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

jennytay92 said:


> I say if you don't HAVE to remove it...don't.


Yes but why risk the pain of a split tail, amputation is the only option, it's not something that can be easily fixed and then the dog can still have a full tail, it can and likely will still break, and you can't stop a dog from wagging it's tail. Dobermans don't have a thick tail, nor do they have any feathering, so breakages can happen specially with a happy tail.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Keechak said:


> And that is the ONLY issue I have with uncropped Dobes is what is stated right here. I find uncropped dogs in all other breeds fine looking but a Dobe looses it's original purpose when it is left natural.
> 
> That dog there looks cute and sweet and pretty, when I look at a doberman the first descriptive words that should come to mind are alert, regal, intimidating.


How many breeds haven't yet already lost their original purpose? Lots of breeds, including most Dobermanns. The biggest part of dogs today are companion animals. Though some do sports, especially with dogs who used to be die hard working breeds, those former working breeds aren't used as solely working dogs anymore. Like the Dobermann, that is mostly kept as an active (family) companion, is still used for IPO, KNPV, you name it, and though some are probably still used as a guard dog... most have likely been replaced by modern day alarm systems. And I don't think tax people bring Dobes with them anymore.  (which is what they were created for, right?) 

So what is the regal, intimidating look for? The cropped & docked look serves nothing but aesthetics. The original purpose was abandoned long ago. Imo, that 'the original purpose is lost' doesn't sound like it should be an issue. 

Just saying. And I'm not saying you can't like the look, aesthetics (and breed standard) is more than a valid reason in the USA.  
But I agree with Hast.


----------



## Nev Allen (Feb 17, 2010)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Yes but why risk the pain of a split tail, amputation is the only option, it's not something that can be easily fixed and then the dog can still have a full tail, it can and likely will still break, and you can't stop a dog from wagging it's tail. Dobermans don't have a thick tail, nor do they have any feathering, so breakages can happen specially with a happy tail.


Is this fact or is it hearsay. Have you taken a tape measure and actually gone out and measured the thickness of tails on dogs such as Ridgebacks and pointers and various other short coated hunting breeds. How do they stack up against the thickness of the Dobbermans tail?


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

The REASON a dobies tail is (slightly) curling over it's back is because the breed standard calls for a straight back. (ie, it gets a high tail set) Rottweilers have a standard for the tail, but I don't think dobermanns have that and it's therefore not at all important how they carry the tail.



ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Yes but why risk the pain of a split tail, amputation is the only option, it's not something that can be easily fixed and then the dog can still have a full tail, it can and likely will still break, and you can't stop a dog from wagging it's tail. Dobermans don't have a thick tail, nor do they have any feathering, so breakages can happen specially with a happy tail.


Say what? Are you saying the tail will "split" if it's not docked? Considering that it's not illegal to dock in Europe and that it has been that since 1989 in Sweden I can inform you that this is not true. At all. Over 80% of all dogs are insured in Sweden (whether they are show dogs or not, there a dog is a part of the family) and there is therefore statistics on how often tails have to be tended to by vets and it's no more often on breeds that here are being docked than on non docked breeds.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Girls, girls, you're ALL pretty.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Avie said:


> How many breeds haven't yet already lost their original purpose? Lots of breeds, including most Dobermanns. The biggest part of dogs today are companion animals. Though some do sports, especially with dogs who used to be die hard working breeds, those former working breeds aren't used as solely working dogs anymore. Like the Dobermann, that is mostly kept as an active (family) companion, is still used for IPO, KNPV, you name it, and though some are probably still used as a guard dog... most have likely been replaced by modern day alarm systems. And I don't think tax people bring Dobes with them anymore.  (which is what they were created for, right?)
> 
> So what is the regal, intimidating look for? The cropped & docked look serves nothing but aesthetics. The original purpose was abandoned long ago. Imo, that 'the original purpose is lost' doesn't sound like it should be an issue.
> 
> ...


The original purpose of the Doberman was simply to "look" intimidating to ward off potential criminal activity, whether it's used by tax collectors or a single female living alone doesn't really matter it can still serve that purpose.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Also the Doberman is still used by Police Forces and Military units as well as private security companies as a take down dog. It may not be as popular as it was, but it's certainly STILL doing it's original job. There are also still a lot of people using the small terriers as ground dogs as well, many are now used for sport, but if the tail makes it dangerous (even life threatening) for them to do thier job, why would you keep it?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Keechak said:


> The original purpose of the Doberman was simply to "look" intimidating to ward off potential criminal activity, whether it's used by tax collectors or a single female living alone doesn't really matter it can still serve that purpose.


I suppose the houndoom look easily gets that job done (not an insult, houndoom was one of my favorite pokémon). 

But honestly, a natural Dobermann is just as intimidating, especially if you don't know them to be any different. For example, Dutch people don't mistake Dobermanns for hounds. They're dobes allright... (and they make unwanted people :bolt: nonetheless ) 

About the working terriers, I tried looking up some info on the tail thing. Found out there is a national Dutch working terrier club and they do groundwork with undocked dogs. Nowhere on the site they mention the importance of docked tails and that the work is possibly dangerous because the tails are left natural. I suppose, if it were really that dangerous to do groundwork if they have natural tails, it wouldn't be practiced here anymore.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I am not vehemently opposed to docking/cropping... personally I prefer the natural look but to each their own and I certainly don't want any legislation getting passed about it.

Having said that... I've never really bought the "the tail needs to be docked to do the job safely" in most cases. It's hard to brainstorm a job done by a docked breed that isn't also done perfectly well by an undocked breed. I wish that argument would get dropped, because weak arguments fall into "get off my side" territory for me.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

PatchworkRobot said:


> I have not. Hounds aren't a type of dog that I'm particularly interested in so It's not something I've looked up. I'd love to see some though, if you have any to post. I've seen a picture of a doberman with standing un-cropped ears before, it was rather comical.
> 
> That being said, I wasn't mentioning it in regards to the ears standing, just adding to the point that all hounds aren't equally eared (shapes of ears, to be specific). Natural dobes look like hounds to some "dog people" so it's no surprise that non-dog people mistake them for hounds. The first time (and second and third time) I saw a natural doberman I thought it was a hound. Hound people might find that ridiculous but that would be expected from somebody who has spent more time than the normal person around/with hounds.
> 
> Edit: Teehee


But they are not sight hounds and their ears do not naturally stand like that... There are few hounds with purely black body and tan accents and of the few hounds that do - like the plott or the Black and Tan **** Hound they have longer or wider ears - sorry should have been clearer.
But I agree to each their own - here working dogs can still be docked except in Scotland where there is a total ban.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

houndies said:


> But they are not sight hounds and their ears do not naturally stand like that... There are few hounds with purely black body and tan accents and of the few hounds that do - like the plott or the Black and Tan **** Hound they have longer or wider ears - sorry should have been clearer.
> But I agree to each their own - here working dogs can still be docked except in Scotland where there is a total ban.


I never called a doberman a sight hound and I of all people should know that a doberman's ears don't naturally stand like that. I have a doberman, I posted his ears until he was about 8 months old. 
I don't quite understand what you're getting at. YOu said something along the lines of (I'm not going back and looking it up) dobes not looking like hounds because hounds have longer ears. So, for that reason, I asked about the Basenji and the sight hounds because they are grouped with the hounds but don't have super long floppy ears (especially the basenji). I made a side comment about dobes with standing ears looking comical (in regards to you mentioning old hound pictures with standing ears) and then I posted a picture because I found one. I don't quite understand the point that you're trying to make. But whatever, it's silly now (just like that dobe's ears!)





Avie said:


> But honestly, a natural Dobermann is just as intimidating, especially if you don't know them to be any different.


I only partially agree with this.
If a person knows that a c/d doberman and a natural doberman are one in the same than chances are that they will be equally intimidating. 
I know many doberman people both with c/d dogs and with natural dogs. The general consensus is that people with natural dogs (in a place where c/d is the norm) are approached much more often than people with a c/d dog. I've read over many a talk about how the natural dogs look softer/friendlier/whatever. I've read many stories about when a non-dog person asks "what kind of dog is that" to a natural doberman owner, and the owner responds in saying that it's a doberman, there are many answers including, "but he looks so sweet," "i thought dobermans were mean looking," and "what happened to his ears, aren't they supposed to stand?" Where cropping/docking is the norm, many people think that dobermans are born with short tails and standing ears.

I got a doberman because I wanted an intimidating looking dog. I'm a young, small female and I thought I was going to be living alone so I wanted a visual deterrent. There are many breeds that would fit this bill, sure, but the doberman personality fit with me best. For example's sake, I also have a small (adorable) fluffy dog. I go out with my dogs quite often, sometimes together, but mostly separately. For every 100 times I've been approached about my dogs MAYBE 15 have been for my doberman (who I've been out with much more than my smaller and fluffier dog) and the rest for my other dog. I LOVE it that way. I have had people start to approach me only to turn away once they've seen Dreizehn and I'm OK with that. I got a doberman because I didn't want strange people approaching me. I'd rather my dog look intimidating and put people off. Isn't that the original intention of this breed? I know plenty of people who originally got the breed for this reason - the cropping and docking is still serving it's purpose.




Avie said:


> For example, Dutch people don't mistake Dobermanns for hounds. They're dobes allright.


In a country where cropping and docking is illegal (or just not the norm) than of course their Dobermans don't look like hounds to the general public because when they think Doberman that's what they see, the natural version. 
In a country where just about every doberman on TV, in pictures, and in war stories is cropped and docked a natural doberman is not going to say "DOBERMAN" to many people.
That must make some sense.




I think that this thread was about docking the tail of an older pup? 
Obviously I am all for freedom of choice here. If you don't want your dog c/d than don't do it but if you do than do it right. Get your dog from a reputable and ethical breeder who is getting everything done by an experienced vet. Still, while my own dog is cropped and docked I was against the docking of an older pup (which I think was a Rottie). How this turned into a c/d and mostly doberman debate, I'm not entirely sure. But lets keep in mind that all responses (if I remember right), regardless of it the person responding was for or against docking, were against the docking of an older pup's tail.
------> Unless it was needed medically (split tail/injury).


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

I am just saying Dobes - with natural ears - look nothing like hounds. Simple....I think you said it ... it is what you become accustomed to as a norm.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

> I got a doberman because I didn't want strange people approaching me. I'd rather my dog look intimidating and put people off. Isn't that the original intention of this breed? I know plenty of people who originally got the breed for this reason - the cropping and docking is still serving it's purpose.


So... it still comes down to aesthetics. But in adjustment to my former statement, it's aesthetics that form the regal, intimidating look --part of its original intention in which it was created-- exactly the look that scares people off because people associate it with the Dobermann they think is fearsome--because they don't know them to be any different, because cropping/docking is the norm. 

(edit: the above alinea feels very weirdly formulated... but it's late and I can't get myself to formulate something better, sorry for the inconvenience) 

Which has me thinking; Rottweilers are a pretty intimidating breed, like the Dobermann. Both are black&tan (yes, dobes come in more colors), large guard dogs. But unlike the Dobermann, they aren't cropped. They're still intimidating. ...because the norm is that they have down ears? But regardless of the down ears that are associated with sweet looking, people know that it's a Rottweiler and therefore it scares people off. I think this very same would happen to Dobermanns if the norm became that they had down ears, like it has happened here. 'Regal and intimidating' is part of what they are, whether they are cropped and docked or not. 

I'm not rebuking what you said though, I fully understand what you were getting at. In the US, Dobermanns are commonly docked and cropped, people oftentimes don't know them to be any different. And so, if they are different (in other words: natural) the goal (intimidating look) isn't achieved anymore. 



> In a country where cropping and docking is illegal (or just not the norm) than of course their Dobermans don't look like hounds to the general public because when they think Doberman that's what they see, the natural version.
> In a country where just about every doberman on TV, in pictures, and in war stories is cropped and docked a natural doberman is not going to say "DOBERMAN" to many people.
> That must make some sense.


Yes, it sure does. I said earlier in this thread, it's just a matter of what you're used to. (and yeah, illegal. 'not the norm' doesn't quite cut it  ) 



> How this turned into a c/d and mostly doberman debate, I'm not entirely sure.


I believe that happened because it was mentioned multiple times that of all dogs that are cropped/docked, Dobermanns are the one breed that simply 'must' be. 



> But lets keep in mind that all responses (if I remember right), regardless of it the person responding was for or against docking, were against the docking of an older pup's tail.
> ------> Unless it was needed medically (split tail/injury).


This... is quoted for truth. :amen:


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I think Rotts are intimidating because of the head size and shape and the density of the body. Rotts typically outweigh Dobes by around 30 lbs, the dobe is a finer boned, more 'refined' looking dog over all and natural ears in particular give it a very soft look, even in black and tan.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

This thread is so stupid. If you want to dock/crop, DO IT! f you don't, squee over the floppy ears. End of discussion. No one is going to care if your dog is/isn't cropped or docked. And the people who go out of their way to tell you your dog is 'wrong?' well they're just pooheads

Honestly, with all the issues with puppy farming the cynical side of me wonders if the carry on about docking is a smokescreen for the fact some of these nutty groups (coughPETAcough) are doing squat about puppy farms..


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

SPotted nikes>> I agree, comparing a tail docking procedure to sputering is irrelivent & like comparing apples & oranges.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Oh it's should also be brought to attention that docking started because back in the day docking was what defined a 'working' dog from a 'luxury' dog, many european farmers were too poor to afford livestock for draft work & the like so they docked the tails of their farm dogs to avoid the tax.... The tradition stuck & became asthetic. 

In thr not so distant future I plan on getting a cane corso; a breed whose tail is traditionally docked... I wish the parent club would omit that from the standard , dogs use their rails to balance & IMHO a tailed dog is a better & more agile working dog (something I have observed in ACDs)


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> This thread is so stupid. If you want to dock/crop, DO IT! f you don't, squee over the floppy ears. End of discussion. No one is going to care if your dog is/isn't cropped or docked. And the people who go out of their way to tell you your dog is 'wrong?' well they're just pooheads
> 
> Honestly, with all the issues with puppy farming the cynical side of me wonders if the carry on about docking is a smokescreen for the fact some of these nutty groups (coughPETAcough) are doing squat about puppy farms..


Couldn't agree more. If you don't like cropping/docking, then don't get dogs that are cropped or docked but quit worrying so much about what others chose, as long as it is done humanly. If you want to fight for animals, then spend that energy stopping abuse, neglect, starvation, dog fighting. Those are some issues that should be stopped.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

What is really interesting that a lot of you think it is some kind of AR agenda - it is not. I think with most countries over here in Europe - it is the VETS that do not want to carry out docking... perhaps they are all AR...


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

houndies said:


> What is really interesting that a lot of you think it is some kind of AR agenda - it is not. I think with most countries over here in Europe - it is the VETS that do not want to carry out docking... perhaps they are all AR...


It's an agenda promote by the AR groups, who pressure vets, Just like the ban of certain training devices and breeds. They are connected believe it or not, the connection is the AR groups who seek to end "animal slavery" IE ownership rights.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

houndies said:


> What is really interesting that a lot of you think it is some kind of AR agenda - it is not. I think with most countries over here in Europe - it is the VETS that do not want to carry out docking... perhaps they are all AR...


There is Absolutely an AR agenda involved with docking and cropping....I find it interesting that someone would think there is not... Anyone that has not bumped into AR groups in regard to Docking and Cropping, has not spent much time around dog politics.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Avie said:


> I suppose the houndoom look easily gets that job done (not an insult, houndoom was one of my favorite pokémon).
> 
> But honestly, a natural Dobermann is just as intimidating, especially if you don't know them to be any different. For example, Dutch people don't mistake Dobermanns for hounds. They're dobes allright... (and they make unwanted people :bolt: nonetheless )
> 
> About the working terriers, I tried looking up some info on the tail thing. Found out there is a national Dutch working terrier club and they do groundwork with undocked dogs. Nowhere on the site they mention the importance of docked tails and that the work is possibly dangerous because the tails are left natural. I suppose, if it were really that dangerous to do groundwork if they have natural tails, it wouldn't be practiced here anymore.


Just because the Dutch club you found does not dock, does not take away from the validity of docking earthdogs. 

And I can tell you, sending a dog to ground after Varmits is DANGEROUS!!! Tail, no tail... Dogs die doing ground work. It is very possible the most dangerous thing that is done with dogs.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Just because the Dutch club you found does not dock, does not take away from the validity of docking earthdogs.
> 
> And I can tell you, sending a dog to ground after Varmits is DANGEROUS!!! Tail, no tail... Dogs die doing ground work. It is very possible the most dangerous thing that is done with dogs.


And Daschsunds who really are ground dogs have always had a natural tail? Sorry guys I really don't buy into this all AR thing. Over 90% of the RSVM do no want to dock for purely aesthetics - do you really think that they are so lead by AR? IMO I think they think for themselves. I know my vets stopped docking long before a ban for aesthetics because they didn't see a necessity.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

cshellenberger said:


> It's an agenda promote by the AR groups, who pressure vets, Just like the ban of certain training devices and breeds. They are connected believe it or not, the connection is the AR groups who seek to end "animal slavery" IE ownership rights.


Yes but Carla wouldn't vets be out of a job if they supported this?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

How is a tail dangerous for a dog that goes into a hole? The dog has the ability to clamp his tail down, so it wouldn't get in the way. I had a hound once get stuck in a skunk hole. Not due to her tail. She didn't have enough sense to get out.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> There is Absolutely an AR agenda involved with docking and cropping....I find it interesting that someone would think there is not... Anyone that has not bumped into AR groups in regard to Docking and Cropping, has not spent much time around dog politics.


Yes JB I know about dog politics. Always have and always will....


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

juliemule said:


> How is a tail dangerous for a dog that goes into a hole? The dog has the ability to clamp his tail down, so it wouldn't get in the way. I had a hound once get stuck in a skunk hole. Not due to her tail. She didn't have enough sense to get out.


Very true. Is this the most dangerous predicament a dog can get into? Don't think so... I'd love to see statistics that it is... I would imagine dogs being hit by cars is much more dangerous and happens a lot more then a dog having troubles with their tail in a hole.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

houndies said:


> And Daschsunds who really are ground dogs have always had a natural tail? Sorry guys I really don't buy into this all AR thing. Over 90% of the RSVM do no want to dock for purely aesthetics - do you really think that they are so lead by AR? IMO I think they think for themselves. I know my vets stopped docking long before a ban for aesthetics because they didn't see a necessity.


Yup. I wrote about this on page 3. The AR boogeyman -- they're going to end pet ownership! -- is a specious argument that people use to deflect from the issues. Anyone who doesn't agree -- must be in cahoots with the AR groups! It's just a way to avoid discussing the actual issue, instead creating a evil AR strawman that all pet owners must band together to fight.

Yes, groups like PETA exist. No, they are not taking over the world, or practicing mind control on their veterinary minions. The bans on cosmetic surgery were promoted by vets, because they have an abiding interest in not performing unnecessary and sometimes harmful cosmetic surgeries on animals. An interest not based on their bottom line (the opposite!), but based on a more noble desire not to cause unnecessary suffering to the animals they serve and protect.


----------



## houndies (Feb 2, 2012)

very well said x


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

houndies said:


> Yes JB I know about dog politics. Always have and always will....


Then you should know that this is an agenda pushed by the AR.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

begemot said:


> Yup. I wrote about this on page 3. The AR boogeyman -- they're going to end pet ownership! -- is a specious argument that people use to deflect from the issues. Anyone who doesn't agree -- must be in cahoots with the AR groups! It's just a way to avoid discussing the actual issue, instead creating a evil AR strawman that all pet owners must band together to fight.
> 
> Yes, groups like PETA exist. No, they are not taking over the world, or practicing mind control on their veterinary minions. The bans on cosmetic surgery were promoted by vets, because they have an abiding interest in not performing unnecessary and sometimes harmful cosmetic surgeries on animals. An interest not based on their bottom line (the opposite!), but based on a more noble desire not to cause unnecessary suffering to the animals they serve and protect.



Have you ever taken the time to look at HSUS and PETA Tax returns? IF you had, you would realize that these organizations are a serious threat to all dog owners.....


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

ahhhh.... yep... 20 pages later and were still :deadhorse:


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Have you ever taken the time to look at HSUS and PETA Tax returns? IF you had, you would realize that these organizations are a serious threat to all dog owners.....


HSUS is not worried about being a threat to pet owners, theyre worried about lining their pockets with a lot of green. and PETA? most people are beggining to understand theyre flippin crazy, i rarely hear anything about PETA anymore.... but yet another one worried about the green


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

houndies said:


> What is really interesting that a lot of you think it is some kind of AR agenda - it is not. I think with most countries over here in Europe - it is the VETS that do not want to carry out docking... perhaps they are all AR...


I live in Australia where docking is banned and I'm hardly AR. I just don't care.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yup, and breed bans and restrictions on exotic ownership is all AR, too. Nevermind that AR-hating farmers and hunters are the ones supporting those bans/restrictions in some areas. . .

I had that argument with someone on my cat forum who owns bobcats and a cougar. LOL.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Then you should know that this is an agenda pushed by the AR.


Do you know the saying: a horse is an animal, but not every animal is a horse? (horse = animal, animal ≠ horse) 

Well, think about this: 

The AR lobby is against crop/dock, but not every person that's against crop/dock is part of the AR lobby. 

That make sense to you? It does to me. With this, I'll stop posting in this topic. I think everything's been said by now. Greatdanemom's beating the dead horse emoticon made me laugh and realize this (and remember that saying).


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Avie said:


> Do you know the saying: a horse is an animal, but not every animal is a horse? (horse = animal, animal ≠ horse)
> 
> Well, think about this:
> 
> ...


I am well aware that not everyone that is anti docking and cropping is not AR.... I never suggested otherwise. I am also aware that those that are not AR but support positions that are on the agenda of AR might as well be AR themselves. Because their support of an issue, make AR all that much stronger. 

The enemy of your enemy is your friend.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So. . .you're saying that when farmers and hunters support breed bans and exotics restrictions they may as well be AR nuts? LOL, I want to be there when you tell them that.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am well aware that not everyone that is anti docking and cropping is not AR.... I never suggested otherwise. *I am also aware that those that are not AR but support positions that are on the agenda of AR might as well be AR themselves.* Because their support of an issue, make AR all that much stronger.
> 
> The enemy of your enemy is your friend.....


I personally find this viewpoint bizarre. It polarizes the debate in I way I don't think it's useful, and it certainly doesn't help convince the non-AR people who might be uncomfortable with things like cropping/docking to come to your side. Maybe people who say that other people who are not in support of AR but are uncomfortable with docking/cropping "might as well be AR themselves", might as well be AR _themselves_ because they alienate people with moderate viewpoints. It's probably not very good for your anti-AR agenda, either. The enemy of your enemy of your enemy is your...enemy. lol

Man am I glad I got to this thread late.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> I personally find this viewpoint bizarre. *It polarizes the debate in I way I don't think it's useful*, and it certainly doesn't help convince the non-AR people who might be uncomfortable with things like cropping/docking to come to your side.


 (bold added)

Totally agree.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

kafkabeetle said:


> I personally find this viewpoint bizarre. It polarizes the debate in I way I don't think it's useful, and it certainly doesn't help convince the non-AR people who might be uncomfortable with things like cropping/docking to come to your side. Maybe people who say that other people who are not in support of AR but are uncomfortable with docking/cropping "might as well be AR themselves", might as well be AR _themselves_ because they alienate people with moderate viewpoints. It's probably not very good for your anti-AR agenda, either. The enemy of your enemy of your enemy is your...enemy. lol
> 
> Man am I glad I got to this thread late.


It is already polarized.... And every issue the AR is not heavily challenged on, leaves more resources for them to move on to the next item on their agenda.

Something that is important to you might be far down their list. But if you do not support those whose interests are under attack, by the time they get to what is important to you, there may not be anyone to stand beside you.

Issues in the hunting and farming community taught us that lesson.....



Willowy said:


> So. . .you're saying that when farmers and hunters support breed bans and exotics restrictions they may as well be AR nuts? LOL, I want to be there when you tell them that.


Not what I am saying at all.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am well aware that not everyone that is anti docking and cropping is not AR.... I never suggested otherwise. I am also aware that *those that are not AR but support positions that are on the agenda of AR might as well be AR themselves*. Because their support of an issue, make AR all that much stronger.
> 
> The enemy of your enemy is your friend.....





> Not what I am saying at all.....


 Since you say that breed bans and exotics restriictions are on the agenda of AR, then isn't that what you're saying? What am I missing?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm a LOT more scared of the anti-AR contingent taking away my pets than the AR bunch. When they put the Spencer ban in place, they didn't even grandfather in the existing dogs, and a few pit bulls were killed, including one much-loved housepet whose owner made a big stink in the media but was eventually forced to give in (because she couldn't afford to move). I've been told by plenty of crusty old farmers that they'd gladly kill my Rott, because "dogs like that" should all die. I really consider that kind of attitude to be the antithesis of animal rights, and so do they. So I've never understood the whole "AR = they want to take your pets away OMG!1!!1!" idea, because that's what the anti-ARs want to do. I think some lines must have been crossed somewhere.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Personally I'm a lot more scared of BSL then I am of AR, PETA or HSUS. As the future owner of a cane corso, I have even more of an interest in BSL but I always have to some degree because any dog can be effected by BSL.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

kafkabeetle said:


> I personally find this viewpoint bizarre. It polarizes the debate in I way I don't think it's useful, and it certainly doesn't help convince the non-AR people who might be uncomfortable with things like cropping/docking to come to your side. Maybe people who say that other people who are not in support of AR but are uncomfortable with docking/cropping "might as well be AR themselves", might as well be AR _themselves_ because they alienate people with moderate viewpoints. It's probably not very good for your anti-AR agenda, either. The enemy of your enemy of your enemy is your...enemy. lol
> 
> Man am I glad I got to this thread late.


Great post! I have stated at least three times I'm not a fan of docking but I don't think it should be banned...So that makes me a red paint throwing/anti medical research bug eyed lunatic?

Gee thanks. :help:

:laugh: By the way, that is seriously how I picture AR nuts in my head.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Since you say that breed bans and exotics restriictions are on the agenda of AR, then isn't that what you're saying? What am I missing?



You are off in left field again.... First of all, I never said anything about breed bans or exotics. You added things.... Secondly I have never seen or heard of the AG community being in favor of any sort of breed ban. In fact in our state, the Agriculture community has been very good to dog owners. More than once BSL has been killed in our Legislature's Ag Committees. 

Exotics are a different story. Living in a state in which more established invasive exotics that probably any other place in the world, exotics are a very real concern. But that is another story.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

There are breed bans in this state. The powers-that-be in those towns are hunters and farmers. They hate AR. Yet they ban breeds happily. It's not an AR thing. 

And the exotics thing is from my conversations with Mr. Bobcat Owner. He claims that any attempts to restrict exotics ownership is a AR plot to. . .take away our pets! What a surprise!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> There are breed bans in this state. The powers-that-be in those towns are hunters and farmers. They hate AR. Yet they ban breeds happily. It's not an AR thing.
> 
> And the exotics thing is from my conversations with Mr. Bobcat Owner. He claims that any attempts to restrict exotics ownership is a AR plot to. . .take away our pets! What a surprise!


Well you live in a social black hole then. Some of the things you say happen there do not happen anywhere else. 

In your case I would be going against the farmers and ranchers. 

The Agriculture community has leaned very much in favor of dog owners. Multi interest groups like the NAIA bring the agriculture community together with the dog community.
In our state as I mentioned the AG committee in the State house has been soley responsible for killing BSL several years in a row. A bill that is routinely sponsored by someone that receives contributions from both PETA and HSUS. 
Which is how you tell who is behind a bill or law. Look at the sponsor then look at their list of contributors. Someone, some special interest group is going to jump out at you. Follow the money. HSUS and PETA both spend big bucks on campaign contributions. Even if you don't see the AR standing out front, does not mean they are not there. They do a bunch of stuff from the shadows. In the form of contributions, shell organizations etc. Just follow the money to find them. 

Your bobcat scenario I don't know the back story on. But bobcats while they are wild animals are not exotics in MOST of the US. Different situation. And I have no idea why the Ag community would be involved in people keeping wild animals as pets. 

When you say exotics...... That is species that are not native to an area. Many of them pose a threat to native species. Feral Cats are far and away the worst offenders.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> This thread is so stupid. If you want to dock/crop, DO IT! f you don't, squee over the floppy ears. End of discussion. No one is going to care if your dog is/isn't cropped or docked. And the people who go out of their way to tell you your dog is 'wrong?' well they're just pooheads
> 
> Honestly, with all the issues with puppy farming the cynical side of me wonders if the carry on about docking is a smokescreen for the fact some of these nutty groups (coughPETAcough) are doing squat about puppy farms..


AMEN to this post!!!!!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Well you live in a social black hole then. Some of the things you say happen there do not happen anywhere else.
> 
> In your case I would be going against the farmers and ranchers.
> 
> ...


 State laws are the ones with sponsors, right? No, there aren't any state laws about dog breeds. These are local ordinances. City councils can do whatever they want, apparently. The creators of these ordinances do not think that banning and killing a breed of dog has anything to do with animal rights (I'm kind of fuzzy on that myself). They simply hate that breed and "just think of the children!". You say that I should be afraid of docking being banned because it would lead to breed bans and eradication of pets. I say that breed bans are already happening in places that don't care one bit about what you do to animals. The two things are not related.

The bobcat owner refers to all non-domesticated pets as "exotics". I think that's fairly normal among big cat keepers. But maybe not, I don't know. Anyway, he thinks any regulations governing the keeping of wildlife are an AR plot, just like you think efforts to stop docking are an AR plot. It's starting to all sound like tinfoil hat time to me.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> State laws are the ones with sponsors, right? No, there aren't any state laws about dog breeds. These are local ordinances. City councils can do whatever they want, apparently. The creators of these ordinances do not think that banning and killing a breed of dog has anything to do with animal rights (I'm kind of fuzzy on that myself). They simply hate that breed and "just think of the children!". You say that I should be afraid of docking being banned because it would lead to breed bans and eradication of pets. I say that breed bans are already happening in places that don't care one bit about what you do to animals. The two things are not related.
> 
> The bobcat owner refers to all non-domesticated pets as "exotics". I think that's fairly normal among big cat keepers. But maybe not, I don't know. Anyway, he thinks any regulations governing the keeping of wildlife are an AR plot, just like you think efforts to stop docking are an AR plot. It's starting to all sound like tinfoil hat time to me.


They may may not be related in your little corner of the world, but on a State, National and International level they most certainly are. Might I suggest you look beyond your back yard and at the larger picture.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> They may may not be related in your little corner of the world, but on a State, National and International level they most certainly are. Might I suggest you look beyond your back yard and at the larger picture.


I have read many things about it. Nothing has shown any proof of that, and I'm not convinced.

Oh, and North Dakota has a bunch of towns with local breed bans. I hardly think they're a bunch of "bleeding-heart animal rightsists" there, either . Sioux City, Iowa has a breed ban. I don't think a city with that many meat packing plants can be accused of being sympathetic to animal rights.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I have read many things about it. Nothing has shown any proof of that, and I'm not convinced.


Have you ever looked up the organizations that support such bills on a state level? Nearly always H$U$ and PETA are there right along side other AR organizations.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Have you ever looked up the organizations that support such bills on a state level? Nearly always H$U$ and PETA are there right along side other AR organizations.


PETA is a pack of wackos, and I think most people realize that. HSUS claims that they don't support breed bans at this time., and I can't find anything about them recently sponsoring a breed ban bill (maybe in the '80s. . .but, well, it was the '80s ). They advised against the breed ban in Sioux City, and are apparently trying to overturn the Miami ban. They may support and sponsor other things you don't like, but I have never seen anything that makes me believe they want to end pet ownership.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Anyway, he thinks any regulations governing the keeping of wildlife are an AR plot, just like you think efforts to stop docking are an AR plot. It's starting to all sound like tinfoil hat time to me.


So true. And whenever people make rational, well-reasoned arguments against the conspiracy theories, it doesn't matter anyway because the next time it comes up, we're back to square one. But I admire your perseverance.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Meh, I have nothing better to do. I can type in between washing dishes and scooping litterboxes . I like a good debate.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> PETA is a pack of wackos, and I think most people realize that. HSUS claims that they don't support breed bans at this time., and I can't find anything about them recently sponsoring a breed ban bill (maybe in the '80s. . .but, well, it was the '80s ). They advised against the breed ban in Sioux City, and are apparently trying to overturn the Miami ban. They may support and sponsor other things you don't like, but I have never seen anything that makes me believe they want to end pet ownership.


Peta has money.... They have lots and lots of money. They raffle off Movie star cars, get all kinds of support, etc. And that is what you have to look at.... It is always about money..... So follow it. Peta and HSUS do a LOT of their work via backing people. 

Organizations do not sponsor bills. Senators, Assembly Men, and Representatives do..... You are not going to see Peta, HSUS, etc on a bill. So do not waste your time looking there. But find the bill sponsor and look through their contributers.... That tells the story.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

You are not going to see bank names, insurance company names, etc on bills that favor their industries either. Does that mean that banks and insurance companies do not push bills? No it means they do it behind the scenes.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> PETA is a pack of wackos, and I think most people realize that. HSUS claims that they don't support breed bans at this time., and I can't find anything about them recently sponsoring a breed ban bill (maybe in the '80s. . .but, well, it was the '80s ). They advised against the breed ban in Sioux City, and are apparently trying to overturn the Miami ban. They may support and sponsor other things you don't like, but I have never seen anything that makes me believe they want to end pet ownership.


Actually.... I am involved with the fighting the Miami ban. Both personally and financially. I have not heard or seen too much AR rumblings.... But they are not fighting to end it.

And if you have not seen anything to make you believe the AR is not about the end of pet ownership, it is because you have not looked. 

Heck here are few quotes from the founder and President of Peta.


“I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, *eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”*— Ingrid Newkirk, The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223 





*
“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990 *


*“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Harper's, Aug 1988 *
*
“The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Animals, May 1993 *
*
“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Newsday, Feb 1988 *


“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986 


“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]”
— Ingrid Newkirk, “Animal Rights 2002” convention, Jun 2002


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I already said that PETA is a pack of wackos. I just don't think they're going to get anywhere. The pet industry is highly profitable, so unless they can find a way to make more money off people not having pets nothing is going to happen.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> State laws are the ones with sponsors, right? No, there aren't any state laws about dog breeds. These are local ordinances. City councils can do whatever they want, apparently. The creators of these ordinances do not think that banning and killing a breed of dog has anything to do with animal rights (I'm kind of fuzzy on that myself). They simply hate that breed and "just think of the children!". You say that I should be afraid of docking being banned because it would lead to breed bans and eradication of pets. I say that breed bans are already happening in places that don't care one bit about what you do to animals. The two things are not related.
> 
> The bobcat owner refers to all non-domesticated pets as "exotics". I think that's fairly normal among big cat keepers. But maybe not, I don't know. Anyway, he thinks any regulations governing the keeping of wildlife are an AR plot, just like you think efforts to stop docking are an AR plot. It's starting to all sound like tinfoil hat time to me.


I don't know what is fuzzy for you....

AR wishes to end pet ownership.... 
They know they are not going to get that at one time. They like most extremists are patient. They will take what they can get when they can get it. 

A breed ban knocks away at the freedoms of dog owners. 
Laws against docking and cropping take away dog owner rights.
Every little thing they can chip away at they do. 

I did a little looking at the Breed bans in your state. All local stuff. IF you wanted to get active you could very likely cause change there. Florida and other states have had good success with enacting laws at the state level to prevent local governments from enacting restrictive dog laws. 

I still have NO CLUE how you tried to tie agriculture communities into your local ordinances. 

But once again you paint with a broad brush and then when called on it, you state that other t han reading some things, you really do not know that much about it. 

As for Peta being involved with breed bans.....
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20070512/PC1602/305129959
http://www.prlog.org/10087797-peter...n-to-ban-dog-breeds-and-humane-restraint.html

Another Quote from Peta's President.
PETA’s president, Ingrid Newkirk, made public statements in which she opposed the adoption of pit bulls in her article, “Some Dogs Are Weapons – Ban Them.”

And another...
People for the "Ethical" Treatment of Animals: 

"BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION (WITH A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE FOR THOSE DOGS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE) CAN BE AN IMPORTANT TOOL IN ENDING THE TRAGIC EXPLOITATION OF THESE BREEDS" 

Here is an active one Peta is involved in.
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/bay-city/index.ssf/2011/01/peta_supports_bans_on_pit_bull.html

How much stuff do you want showing Peta is pushing breed bans?
I could clod the servers. 

With HSUS.... All you have to do is look at their public record to see their stance on pit bulls. Remember HSUS stood in front of the judge and told him the Vick pit bulls have to be put down. Thankfully the Judge listened to bad rap. And all but one or two were saved. 

And if you want to do some reading.... Google Meritt Clifton.... He is the head of Animal People. Another AR group and the poster child for breed bans. A bogus report he did has been used, cited, etc in court cases, BSL, etc for YEARS.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I already said that PETA is a pack of wackos. I just don't think they're going to get anywhere. The pet industry is highly profitable, so unless they can find a way to make more money off people not having pets nothing is going to happen.


Just because you do not think Peta is going anywhere does not mean they are not.... Breed bans are the PERFECT arena for them to go mainstream. They are actively involved, have had SUCCESS, and have LOTS of money. The reason the breed ban issue is good for them is because a lot of people are already afraid of pit bulls because of the media. Peta getting behind this builds credibility for Peta.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Perhaps this is meant for another thread? As it has nothing to do with tail docking in older puppies anymore...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Apparently it does. Because if you don't let people cut the tails off of puppies they'll ban your pets, dontcha know .


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I did a little looking at the Breed bans in your state. All local stuff. IF you wanted to get active you could very likely cause change there.


The aforemenationed pit bull's owner tried to "get active" and got nowhere. I doubt I could do better. 



> I still have NO CLUE how you tried to tie agriculture communities into your local ordinances.


Not sure what you mean by "agricultural communities"? Are you talking about the cattlemen's associations or farmer's unions? I meant that the towns and city councils that made those ordinances are largely made up of farmers and hunters. Individual people who, individually, hate AR. But they like their breed bans.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You are not going to see bank names, insurance company names, etc on bills that favor their industries either. Does that mean that banks and insurance companies do not push bills? No it means they do it behind the scenes.


That's what I meant, not the actual sponsors, but the monitary ones, the Lobbies that work to get mandatory S/N and breed bans pushed through are the same people who back other bills to restrict the rights of animal ownership.


----------

