# Tail Docking



## Rottieluv (Oct 11, 2009)

How do you guys feel about?

I gets comments from people being rude about the fact that Porter has his tail docked all the time. They act like I cut his tail off with a kitcken knife. I think it looks good, but there is honestly no reason for it if its not a working dog that could get its tail hurt. I dont think if I were to breed rotties that I could get their tails docked. I would feel sooo bad. I wonder if thats why all the rotties i've met trip over everything! Im the same with cutting their ears.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Heh, you might wanna do a forum search on this topic...


----------



## DoxieDayDream (Nov 25, 2009)

I think they look better with their tails docked, but I'm with you. I could never do it!


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I think if breed standard says docked then it should be docked. I mean at one point it used to be for work that dogs get their tails docked so the finer fur doesn't get caught in the bushes/twigs, whatever. Also the tails wouldn't get stepped on by other animals(sheep, cattle) or cut and broken by running around in the forest and getting caught.

I mean it's so weird for me to see an Aussie with a long tail. It's just not right.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Rottieluv said:


> How do you guys feel about?
> 
> I gets comments from people being rude about the fact that Porter has his tail docked all the time. They act like I cut his tail off with a kitcken knife. I think it looks good, but there is honestly no reason for it if its not a working dog that could get its tail hurt. I dont think if I were to breed rotties that I could get their tails docked. I would feel sooo bad. I wonder if thats why all the rotties i've met trip over everything! Im the same with cutting their ears.


Tail docking I'm for, or at least not against. For working dogs tail injuries are very serious. In hunting dogs for example, injuries the tip of their whippy tails are very common and painful. Since you have to do it at days old (three I think?) for it to be humane and you can't know which dogs are going where at that point, or what they might end up doing regardless, every puppy needs to be docked for safety. I do wish there was more allowance for things like the boxer outcross project

Cropping, I'm leaning more towards agaist. I haven't heard a convincing argument like I have for docking, but in the long view of things, as long as it's done humanely (and I do think it can be done in such a way) I have much more serious things to get in a huff about.


----------



## MoosMom (Sep 15, 2009)

Tail docking doesn't bother me a bit. I sat in and on many litters at the vet office and it never made me cry. It goes so fast. Now ear cropping, forget it. I don't really agree with it as I have personally seen many infections and things go wrong. I know many people still partake in the practice. I think a vet that has MANY MANY MANY years of experience should be the only ones doing it if its going to be done.


----------



## cherryhill (Aug 21, 2009)

i like the look of docked tails on aussies but have seen some amazing aussies with tails, i just like the way they look docked, i know some people that breed aussies and if they know that they are selling a puppy as a pet they will keep its tail undocked. 
i have had my vet say to me "*WELL WE LIKE TAILS HERE!* really meanly to me, i just looked at her and thought to myself okay sorry, but thats part of some breeds, breed standard. if you dont support it dont do it or buy a dog with a tail. 
when i have a litter some day their tails will be docked (by a experienced vet of course) unless requested by new pet owners otherwise. 
i also like other breeds tails docked like rotties and others, but not if they are not suppost to be docked 
anyways i dont mind tail docking. My aussies work so i wouldnt want a tail injury or if they had tails i wouldnt want it to cause an injury which i have heard of.



/Amanda


----------



## HersheyBear (Dec 13, 2008)

I'm not a fan of docking or cropping - I prefer the natural look on all breeds that traditionally have it done. (I find it pointless). The vast majority of dogs that are docked, do not do the job they were bred to do any longer, and there's no reason for it. Same for cropping.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

There has been plenty of debate and of course discussion and opinion on the topic of tail docking (and cropping ears too). 

As for people, well they are just ignorant and yes rude. It isn't as if you did it at all, the breeder chose to do it. Many people also rescue dogs already docked (or cropped), get them from rehoming situations, find them as strays and yes some buy them from breeders. 

The judgmental lunatics out there are some of the worse. I've dealt with them myself. It is interesting how they try to say as the owner YOU are such a horrible, cruel person or that you only see the dog as an object or want your dog to look cool WITHOUT ever knowing any background. I totally feel for you.


----------



## Yui (Sep 12, 2009)

I think all the breeds that have docking and cropping in the standard _look_ better natural, I adore the floppy hears on a Doberman or a Boxer, the Doberman looks pretty cool with the natural tale as well, same with the Rottie, but I guess not everyone feels that way. ^^;


----------



## cherryhill (Aug 21, 2009)

Some breeds are born with NBT's .My red girl is a natural bob.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Hawkeye is a Natural bob tail (that was then docked slightly shorter) and Kechara and Jack where both long tailed and docke


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Dakota's tail is docked, I don't have a problem with it. 
I believe cropping and docking to be owner/breeder choice. Anyone that is going to randomly accost a stranger on the street (especially without even knowing the situation) isn't worth listening too, anyway. So many people don't realize that they do a disservice to their 'cause' by using such tactics.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I am not anti docking or cropping. In fact I have assisted with Docking many times. It ain't no big deal. 

I find it funny that some folks are anti docking/cropping but pro spay/neuter. 

They are all elective procedures.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I've been thinking about why, aesthetically, I like some breeds docked and others natural. It finally occurred to me. It's fluffiness. The fluffier the dog, the more I want it to have a tail. Corgis? Cardigan please. Dobermans? No problem. Rotties? A tail just unbalances them to me. Aussies? I'd never buy an Aussie with a tail, but I'd never buy from a breeder that didn't dock. Brittanies? Borderline. It's fluffiness.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

cherryhill said:


> when i have a litter some day their tails will be docked (by a experienced vet of course) unless requested by new pet owners otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> /Amanda


Amanda, tail docking is doen far too early for the potential owners to request it NOT be, you either dock the litter or you don't PERIOD. It MUST be done at 3-5 days, any later an the nerve endings are too developed and it becomes an amputation surgery which is MUCH more traumatic to the dog.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> Amanda, tail docking is doen far too early for the potential owners to request it NOT be, *you either dock the litter or you don't PERIOD.* It MUST be done at 3-5 days, any later an the nerve endings are too developed and it becomes an amputation surgery which is MUCH more traumatic to the dog.


A good friend of mine in Texas will leave the tails on puppies by request to people who are interested in shipping to Europe. Her last litter she left three tails on and I think two of the Europe homes fell thru so the two pups went to performance homes here in the states.

So no it's not all or nothing. If I requested a performance dog with a tail from her I will bet you she would have no issue leaving a tail on a puppy in the litter that looked non show quality for me.


----------



## emily445455 (Apr 8, 2008)

If the dog is used for hunting or whatever, I am all for docking and cropping. I'd rather them to cut off than snagged and ripped off. Other than that...I don't like it.


----------



## cherryhill (Aug 21, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> Amanda, tail docking is doen far too early for the potential owners to request it NOT be, you either dock the litter or you don't PERIOD. It MUST be done at 3-5 days, any later an the nerve endings are too developed and it becomes an amputation surgery which is MUCH more traumatic to the dog.



Yes i am well aware of the time to dock puppies tails. i know friends that had people on waiting list that requested a tail before the pups were born. i know a lot of people that requested tails on pups and the breeders they bought their pup from had no problem leaving the tail.


----------



## GSDGAL (May 27, 2009)

In Australia, it's illegal to dock, declaw or crop ears and also debark. I'm fine with that, I hate the looks of cropped ears, no offence to anyone with dogs like that, it's just not my thing...I don't believe it's cruel or anything like that, but i like dogs to look natural. But I hate that it's been banned, because that just means more control, for things that don't need control, whilst our kids are running the streets and stabbing people...i think they're focusing ont he wrong areas to moderate


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

What's the point of cropping ears? I get that tail docking is done to prevent injury, but what about ear cropping? I've seen some breeds like pits where the ear is almost cut all the way off, which I guess would prevent it from being torn off. But there are some breeds like dobes and great danes that are usually cropped really long. How is an ear like that less likely to be injured? Their natural ears aren't that long anyway. You have breeds with really long ears like bloodhounds and bassets and they can still hunt like that without their ears getting injured. So what's the deal with cropping?


----------



## NeoBodhi (Sep 23, 2009)

I don't see the point of docking a dogs tail if it is not used for hunting or whatever the original reason was to dock the tail in the first place.

Having said that, my puppy was born without a tail. On occasion I run into someone strongly opposed to tail docking and they make sure I know it. Even after I tell them my dog was born that way, they sometimes don't believe it and act as if I'm some sort inhumane monster.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Shalonda said:


> What's the point of cropping ears? I get that tail docking is done to prevent injury, but what about ear cropping? I've seen some breeds like pits where the ear is almost cut all the way off, which I guess would prevent it from being torn off. But there are some breeds like dobes and great danes that are usually cropped really long. How is an ear like that less likely to be injured? Their natural ears aren't that long anyway. You have breeds with really long ears like bloodhounds and bassets and they can still hunt like that without their ears getting injured. So what's the deal with cropping?


Cropping had two uses,

1. To keep the dog from being grabbed by the ears, this was the case with fighting dogs and war dogs, Boxers ears used to be cropped short in the war clip, but now that they are no longer war dogs the crop is more for looks so it is cropped longer as a personal preferance because it is thought to look more regal and beautiful.

2. For looks, The second reason was to make the dogs look more intimidating or look more impressive, such as in the Dobermans, dobermans don't look nearly as formidable when their ears are floppy. It was and still is in many cases a way to make criminals think twice about messing with the dog.



NeoBodhi said:


> *I don't see the point of docking a dogs tail if it is not used for hunting or whatever the original reason was to dock the tail in the first place.*
> 
> Having said that, my puppy was born without a tail. On occasion I run into someone strongly opposed to tail docking and they make sure I know it. Even after I tell them my dog was born that way, they sometimes don't believe it and act as if I'm some sort inhumane monster.


this makes sence for breeders that only sell their puppies as pets.

But what about hunting breeders, how do they know which puppy will be used for hunting and which will be a simple pet? They can't wait till later to figure out which ones need to be docked.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

But what about rottweilers? They have floppy ears and a lot of people think they look scary.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

Shalonda said:


> But what about rottweilers? They have floppy ears and a lot of people think they look scary.


I think that may have something to do with their basketball-sized heads!


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

The Vets in our area will not crop, dock or take off dewclaws.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Shalonda said:


> But what about rottweilers? They have floppy ears and a lot of people think they look scary.


Some people are afraid of everything, personally I think Rotties look hansom but mostly look like cute goofballs, while I think a cropped Dobe is a very elegent regal creature.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I would like to see natural ears and tails accepted in show trials..so that the decision is left to the breeder/owner..I don't have a huge problem with either surgery if it is to be a working dog as the reasons behind it are sound..if it's just for aesthetics that is another story. 

I personally love it when I see a natural rott or dobe and lately I've seen more gundogs (pet ones) with full tails. I think for doggie communication it is helpful to have the whole enchilada...


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not anti docking or cropping. In fact I have assisted with Docking many times. It ain't no big deal.
> 
> I find it funny that some folks are anti docking/cropping but pro spay/neuter.
> 
> They are all elective procedures.


Yeah and a lot of people that are anti docking think nothing of having their kids ears pierced. I mean, really, tail docking is not a big deal.

I have had a Rottie with a full tail and had to have him docked as an adult (something I said I would never do) He had nerve issues in his tail and injured himself very seriously several times. The vet first asked and then the next injury he pretty much insisted on removing the tail. I thought it would be a big problem for him but guess what? He came home from the vet and never seemed to notice his tail was gone. He never acted sore at all and came home to play with his doggy friends. 

Many of the people that are against it have never owned a docked breed. Personally, I think if you don't like the look, get a different breed. One that is not docked. Instead of trying to force your opinion on everyone else. There are so many different breeds of dogs out there. There is literally something for everyone.

I am just so sick of people telling me (and others) what should or should not be done with MY dogs. There are a lot of problems in this world, tail docking is NOT one of the big ones. 



CoverTune said:


> I think that may have something to do with their basketball-sized heads!


Actually it has to do with the fact that many people can't think for themselves. They tend to let the media tell them which dogs are scary or not. Hollywood shows them as mean and scary so they must be.


----------



## NeoBodhi (Sep 23, 2009)

Keechak said:


> But what about hunting breeders, how do they know which puppy will be used for hunting and which will be a simple pet? They can't wait till later to figure out which ones need to be docked.


From what I have read on these forums any decent breeder has a waiting list for his/her puppies and does a screening of the potential new owners. So even before the puppy is born the breeder would know what sort of home the puppy is going to. Should be no problem for a breeder to ask prospective owners if the puppy is going to be used for hunting or as a house pet.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

When you let the bleeding hearts outlaw docking and cropping, breeding will go right behind it.

They are already trying repeatedly, and with a certain amount of success, to pass anti breeding/forced sterilization laws into effect across the country.

6 years of no breeding pretty much equals no new dogs. Of any breed, pure bred, or otherwise.

Their agenda is no secret, it's very clear.

I will fight for my right to dock and crop until the bitter end!


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

NeoBodhi said:


> From what I have read on these forums any decent breeder has a waiting list for his/her puppies and does a screening of the potential new owners. So even before the puppy is born the breeder would know what sort of home the puppy is going to. Should be no problem for a breeder to ask prospective owners if the puppy is going to be used for hunting or as a house pet.


The problem is that they don't know which one of those puppies will go to the show home and which to the hunting home until the puppies are too old to dock. Docking is done in the first few days. Puppy temperaments are not assessed until several weeks.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> 6 years of no breeding pretty much equals no new dogs. Of any breed, pure bred, or otherwise.


Don't worry, if that happens we'll still have imported puppy mill dogs from overseas and Mexico! =P

If the AR nuts ever get their 'no birth nation' goal, all it will do is open up a huge black market in foreign pups. We'd probably end up getting an influx of diseases from those third world country imports. There are actually some people that are worried about that right now.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> When you let the bleeding hearts outlaw docking and cropping, breeding will go right behind it.
> 
> They are already trying repeatedly, and with a certain amount of success, to pass anti breeding/forced sterilization laws into effect across the country.
> 
> ...


Do you mean PETA?


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

NeoBodhi said:


> From what I have read on these forums any decent breeder has a waiting list for his/her puppies and does a screening of the potential new owners. So even before the puppy is born the breeder would know what sort of home the puppy is going to. Should be no problem for a breeder to ask prospective owners if the puppy is going to be used for hunting or as a house pet.


Not true at all. I know a lot of "decent breeders" who won't or don't do a waiting list/take deposits before the dog is bred, during the pregnancy, or when the babies are born. Too many "ifs". They wait until 8-12 weeks and bam, easily find good homes for puppies.



RedyreRottweilers said:


> When you let the bleeding hearts outlaw docking and cropping, breeding will go right behind it.
> 
> They are already trying repeatedly, and with a certain amount of success, to pass anti breeding/forced sterilization laws into effect across the country.
> 
> ...



All too true, sadly.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

I honestly am extremely against it unless like you said, the dog is a working a dog and it's tail could be injured if it's long, or if the dog has "happy tail." I have no idea what the purpose in having a dog get their ears docked is, so if someone could tell me that would be nice. 

I'm one of those people that could care less about the standards of any breed, because in my opinion they're mainly about looks and not about the health or fitness or for the purpose of the dog's job, of course with the exceptions of requiring a muscular build or short legs etc for the job of the dog. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but I do have a book called "The Dog Bible" of every registered breed, and the vast majority of the standards I see have to do with looks, but like I said, there are exceptions and I could be totally wrong.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

you'd be surprised at how much the standards have to do with function. ;-)

Did you know, that the stop on a Golden helped him to be able to see while carrying his bird? (according to Golden Breeders)

Or that the bone called for in the Irish Setter standard, enables the dog to get around in the boggy Ireland terrain?

The double, correctly textured and well fitting coat of the Collie proctects him from the rainy, dreary elements in Scotland/England... The tipped ears helped to protect the ear from water...

There's a ton more out there, if you just study with an open mind, ask breeders, etc etc etc.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

Oh, I believe you! I just don't know, so I'm asking, that's all.


----------



## FaithFurMom09 (Oct 24, 2009)

I understand why they do on some breeds (boxers, dobs, rottis) I think IMO, theyd look silly without ears or tails docked/cut.. would i do it? I dont know. Faith is Beagle/Rotti and I love that her ears are long and her tail sort of kinks where normally it would be docked.


----------



## opokki (May 30, 2006)

All I can say is that I was THRILLED to find an Aussie with a full tail. She is my dream dog. I don't mind them without tails but prefer tails for sure.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> When you let the bleeding hearts outlaw docking and cropping, breeding will go right behind it.


They outlawed it in parts of Europe, and so far breeding has not been banned, and the sky has not fallen....I dunno, I think some people get to be alarmists on some things.

I'm against docking and cropping. I will never buy a dog from a breeder that has done docking or cropping. I cannot support it in any way. Obviously this restricts my choices in breeders considerably....but convictions are sometimes inconvenient. We all have different definitions of moral and ethical behavior.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

I prefer and support cropping and docking... to me, there's nothing more jaw-droppingly beautiful than a _*properly*_ cropped and docked Doberman.

Mmmmmmm... yummy.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sizzledog said:


> I prefer and support cropping and docking... to me, there's nothing more jaw-droppingly beautiful than a _*properly*_ cropped and docked Doberman.


I will admit I do not dislike the look of a properly cropped Dobe (though I do very much dislike the cropped look on all other breeds). Also I've never seen a good crop on a Dobe in real life (only in pics)....ugh, I've seen some very bad crops jobs though. But I do not feel that my preferences on LOOKS are justification to remove a part of an animal. It just feels skeevy to me somehow.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> But I do not feel that my preferences on LOOKS are justification to remove a part of an animal. It just feels skeevy to me somehow.


Many people feel the same about neuters


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Many people feel the same about neuters


I know....we've been through this one a million times. I just can't wrap my head around removing parts of animals for looks. Neuters aren't (usually) for looks at least. But of course I have already read all the arguments on both sides. Of both issues. And I made up my mind based on that, and lots of thought, and I found that my conscience will not allow for any kind of support for docking and cropping. 

Eh, call me a bleeding-heart crazy soft liberal animal rightsist if it makes you feel better---I've heard it often enough from the local farmers when I object to common meat-raising practices  . I don't care anymore.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

*Shrugs* For Dobermans cropping still serves its function. To look intimidating.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> *Shrugs* For Dobermans cropping still serves its function. To *look* intimidating.


Yup. My point exactly.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Mine too. That is part of their function. It is not "just" looks for them, it is an intrinsic part of the *function* of the breed.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Mine too. That is part of their function. It is not "just" looks for them, it is an intrinsic part of the *function* of the breed.


Thank you Xeph.  

So many people don't realize that Dobermans aren't supposed to look "soft" or "friendly" - it blows my mind when people say they want a Doberman that doesn't have an "aggressive bone in their body"- that's like wanting a Border Collie that has no desire to herd, a JRT that has no desire to go to ground, a Bloodhound that has no desire to trail... 

But I'm getting off topic, don't mind me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Meh. After all my considering, I've decided all points about "function" or how it keeps them from being hurt, etc. are simply attempts to justify the person's prefences. I have no argument if someone wishes to say "I prefer the look and I think the looks justify the procedure, so what?". As long as they admit it's just about looks. If their conscience allows for such a thing, that's their business.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

In my opinion, yes - cropping is for looks, for most breeds. Docking is an entirely different matter.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I don't just prefer the crop on the Doberman for the pure aesthetic look, but because it really is still part of their function.

I think the Doberman is one of the *very few* breeds where their continuing to be docked and cropped still serves their originally intended purpose.

On dogs like AmStaffs and Boxers I have no problem admitting that I like the crops for purely aesthetic purposes. I think uncropped ears take away from a nice head on an otherwise nice specimen of the breed. I am also more inclined to like cropped ears on an AmStaff as opposed to an APBT that I could go either way on.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> On dogs like AmStaffs and Boxers I have no problem admitting that I like the crops for purely aesthetic purposes. I think uncropped ears take away from a nice head on an otherwise nice specimen of the breed.


You really like cropping on Boxers? Have to say that's the breed I most dislike the cropped look on. To me they look pin-headed when cropped. Little tiny pointy heads and big muscular bodies. Uncropped ears at least balance out the head a bit. Yes.....even with "good crops" I've seen in pics, not just the bad crops I've seen IRL. 

Whether for or against the procedures, I think there shouldn't be such a strong preference for cropped/docked dogs in the show ring. This should be left up to the preferences of the owner/handler, and the dogs should be judged on their actual conformation, not on how flashy they look. I can't take the dog show world seriously with the current kind of judging.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Yes, I like a properly cropped Boxer and also have no trouble admitting that is extremely hard to find these days! Their crops have gotten ridiculously long. The Boxer exhibited in the National Dog Show this year had a really long Dobermanesque crop. I miss the shorter crops of the 90's.

There will always be bias in dog shows because dogs are being judged by humans and humans are not infalliable. They are swayed by politics and preferences.

If I were in a ring full of Boxers and there were two dogs created equal in always but one was cropped and one was not, I would put up the cropped dog.

That being said if there were an uncropped dog being exhibited that was better structurally than the rest, I would put it up instead.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Whether for or against the procedures, I think there shouldn't be such a strong preference for cropped/docked dogs in the show ring. This should be left up to the preferences of the owner/handler, and the dogs should be judged on their actual conformation, not on how flashy they look. I can't take the dog show world seriously with the current kind of judging.


That's the standard, take it or leave it. IMO, if people want an uncropped and undocked dog, go with breed that is uncropped and undocked. If someone chooses to own a traditionally c/d breed and makes the decision to leave the ears and/or tail natural, that's their decision to go against the standard. It's not the standard's job to bend to the whims of the owners. If that was the case, there would be no need for dog shows.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sizzledog said:


> That's the standard, take it or leave it.


If it was the standard, then wouldn't being uncropped be a disqualifying fault? Instead, the breed standard uses language such as "customarily" and "normally", with qualifiers such as "if/when cropped" or "if/when uncropped" (all info taken from various breed standards on this site: http://www.akc.org/breeds/complete_breed_list.cfm ). If they want it to be required, then it should be written into the standards, not pretending the owners/handlers have a choice in the matter when they actually don't.

Though docking does seem to be required ("must") in most traditionally docked breeds.

And, conscientiously speaking, does showing (a sport) really justify the procedure? I personally am not comfortable with that. Does tradition justify the procedure? Again, not something I can justify to myself.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Cropping has been made optional in AKC (in SOME breeds, not all) because it has been banned in other countries. You cannot deny the addage of needed blood into a gene pool over uncropped ears.

That said, that won't change the preference of a cropped ear in the eyes of the older judges.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

Willowy said:


> If it was the standard, then wouldn't being uncropped be a disqualifying fault?


Not necessarily - it's a deviation from the standard, but not the be-all end-all.

But considering the number of uncropped AKC champion dobermans, it's generally considered a very serious fault.




> And, conscientiously speaking, does showing (a sport) really justify the procedure? I personally am not comfortable with that.


No one is forcing you to get a cropped/docked dog. As I said, the extent of which an individual decides to dictate how far their dog deviates from the standard is their choice. 

However, as someone who actually has extensive experience with cropped and docked dogs, I can see no reason to outlaw it. It really is a minor procedure, and as it has been stated in this thread multiple times - most people with an aversion to cropping and docking have never directly dealt with a properly cropped and docked puppy.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

sizzledog said:


> That's the standard, take it or leave it. IMO, if people want an uncropped and undocked dog, go with breed that is uncropped and undocked. If someone chooses to own a traditionally c/d breed and makes the decision to leave the ears and/or tail natural, that's their decision to go against the standard. It's not the standard's job to bend to the whims of the owners. If that was the case, there would be no need for dog shows.


I think I agree with this for the most part. I mean breed standard also tells you what colors each breed should be or what coat they come in. I mean just because people like teacup chihuahuas, doesn't mean the standard should say as tiny as possible Chis are preferred over 6 lbs ones.

Or people love blue/green eyed dachshunds, doesn't mean the standard should include light eyed dogs.

If the breed standards says cropped, then I absolutely like the dog cropped and docked. I also like dew claws removed on all my dogs just because 1. it doesn't look good/feel good. 2. We had a dog years ago that ripped one off, got infected and we spent quite a lot of money trying to fix it. If it had been removed when the pups could barely feel it, it would've been easier.

But if someone goes and docks a border collie or crops a beagle or something that would be very strange to me and I would probably be against it.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> But if someone goes and docks a border collie or crops a beagle or something that would be very strange to me and I would probably be against it.


I completely agree - in fact, I'd be horrified if a Beagle was docked, they NEED that tail, it serves a very important function.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I think that some border collies (or maybe it was ACD's?) actually do get docked occasionally. It depends on the stock, I think. Swine herding dogs are almost always docked because the pigs apparently like to bite/stomp on dog tails and some people do it for cattle dogs as well. I don't think it's done for sheep dogs though. 

@sizzle re: good crops on dobes, I loved Sooner's crop. I've got a thing for right angles


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> I think that some border collies (or maybe it was ACD's?) actually do get docked occasionally. It depends on the stock, I think. Swine herding dogs are almost always docked because the pigs apparently like to bite/stomp on dog tails and some people do it for cattle dogs as well. I don't think it's done for sheep dogs though.
> 
> @sizzle re: good crops on dobes, I loved Sooner's crop. I've got a thing for right angles


That's part of the reason why Pembrokes were docked.  

You mean.... this handsome mug? Update on Sooner - he's in his wonderful new home in Missouri now, and goes by the name of Cody.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> But if someone goes and docks a border collie or crops a beagle or something that would be very strange to me and I would probably be against it.


See, I don't feel that there's any difference. It's somehow OK to crop a Dobe but not a BC? Just because of tradition or breed standards? Doesn't make sense to me. And if a Beagle had a lifestyle that meant that a docked tail might be "safer" (again, I don't believe such claims), it would be wrong to dock the Beagle but OK to dock a JRT with the same lifestyle?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

There's no functional purpose to cropping a BC.

A Beagle also does not go to ground and their tail is used as a flag in the field...so I must admit I don't get your point


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Just that morally/ethically/whatever you want to call it-ally, there is no difference. It's the same procedure, and tradition/function/etc. do not make it "right" to crop one dog and "wrong" to crop another dog, just because they're different breeds.

Of course, objecting on the grounds of sticking to breed standards and function would make sense. But objecting morally to cropping a BC but not to cropping a Dobe makes no sense.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Willowy said:


> See, I don't feel that there's any difference. It's somehow OK to crop a Dobe but not a BC? Just because of tradition or breed standards? Doesn't make sense to me. And if a Beagle had a lifestyle that meant that a docked tail might be "safer" (again, I don't believe such claims), it would be wrong to dock the Beagle but OK to dock a JRT with the same lifestyle?


It's function. Beagles need their tails because the white tip helps the hunter find his dogs (as if the baying wasn't enough ). A hunting beagle breeder is unlikely to place his dogs in homes where they wouldn't be hunting in a beagle-y way, and even if he did he couldn't know WHICH puppy to dock, because you HAVE to dock around day 3, and puppy temperament tests aren't done until much later (as was mentioned earlier).

Docked tails have a lower chance of injury because there is less tail to injure, and depending on how much tail there is it's often thicker/stronger at its tip than an undocked tail. I really don't see how you can not believe this. Viszla for example have long whippy tails that are prone to getting knocked about, torn up, etc just because of it's long whippy nature and the nature of the dog's work. Since breeders cannot know which pups are going to which homes (with the exception of pet only breeders, which is another can of worms entirely), it's a better, safer, more humane to dock tall the pups when they're three days old than wait and perform a much more traumatic surgery on older pups when you know where they're going. And even if dog aren't hunting/carting/herding, there's still a chance of injury. You'll notice that the majority of breeds that are docked have naturally long, whippy tails. No one is suggesting the rudder of a lab's tail be docked.



Willowy said:


> Just that morally/ethically/whatever you want to call it-ally, there is no difference. It's the same procedure, and tradition/function/etc. do not make it "right" to crop one dog and "wrong" to crop another dog, just because they're different breeds.
> 
> Of course, objecting on the grounds of sticking to breed standards and function would make sense. But objecting morally to cropping a BC but not to cropping a Dobe makes no sense.


*Yes* _it does_. Function is the point. Function is why we HAVE different dogs breeds, and they should be able to perform their function safely.

@Sizzle, that dog just skyrocketed in my eyes. Cody is pretty much the best dog name ever.  (Cody was the name of my parent's dog when I was a kid)


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Indeed Raegan...and in comparison to other breeds, Vizslas have LONG docks!


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> @Sizzle, that dog just skyrocketed in my eyes. Cody is pretty much the best dog name ever.  (Cody was the name of my parent's dog when I was a kid)


I agree - *love* the name Cody.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> I think that some border collies (or maybe it was ACD's?) actually do get docked occasionally. It depends on the stock, I think. Swine herding dogs are almost always docked because the pigs apparently like to bite/stomp on dog tails and some people do it for cattle dogs as well. I don't think it's done for sheep dogs though.
> 
> @sizzle re: good crops on dobes, I loved Sooner's crop. I've got a thing for right angles


Some people Dock ACD's. Some think its safer in tight places and in conditions when the dogs are crowded among stock. 
And my previous ACD lost three inches of his tail in a herding accident. Gate accident actually. 

All that being said, I do not like to see ACD's docked and I think it takes away from their working ability. Their tail is their rudder and stabilizer.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> *Yes* _it does_. Function is the point. Function is why we HAVE different dogs breeds, and they should be able to perform their function safely.


I understand about function. But does that really change the ethical implications of something? I don't see how that's possible. If it's wrong to crop a dog's ears, then it's wrong. If it's right to crop a dog's ears, than it's right. The breed of the dog doesn't really matter in terms of wrong or right.


Haha, but it is one in the morning and I'm getting overly philosophical. Time for bed, methinks.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I think the problem is Willowy that none of the rest of us that are pro dock/crop view it as an ethical issue. If I viewed cropping and docking as an ethical and moral issue, I would have to feel the same about spay/neuter.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

And on the subject of subjecting the dog to pain. Cropping is less invasive than neutering and MUCH less invasive than a spay. Docking at three days is so much less invasive it is not even worth mentioning.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I understand about function. But does that really change the ethical implications of something? I don't see how that's possible. If it's wrong to crop a dog's ears, then it's wrong. If it's right to crop a dog's ears, than it's right.
> 
> Haha, but it is one in the morning and I'm getting overly philosophical. Time for bed, methinks.


I don't see it as such a black and white issue - different breeds have different tails, with varying amounts of padding, length, purpose, etc. 

Is it ethical to leave a Chinese Crested (hairless variety) outside in a Midwest winter for a few hours with no coat on? How about a Malamute? You see, it's not a black and white issue - Chinese Cresteds are not built for that climate, but Malamutes thrive in it. Same thing with docking tails.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I understand about function. But does that really change the ethical implications of something? I don't see how that's possible. If it's wrong to crop a dog's ears, then it's wrong. If it's right to crop a dog's ears, than it's right. The breed of the dog doesn't really matter in terms of wrong or right.
> 
> 
> Haha, but it is one in the morning and I'm getting overly philosophical. Time for bed, methinks.


If its ethical to spay and neuter, its ethical to dock and crop.


----------



## NeoBodhi (Sep 23, 2009)

Really, in the end, docking and cropping is just cosmetic surgery for dogs. I prefer the natural look for dogs and humans, but that is just my opinion.


----------



## StarfishSaving (Nov 7, 2008)

NeoBodhi said:


> Really, in the end, docking a cropping is just cosmetic surgery for dogs. I prefer the natural look for dogs and humans, but that is just my opinion.


That's pretty much where I stand.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

If this forum is still up and running 10 years from now, do you think we will still be debating docking and cropping of dogs?

For all the anti docking/cropping folks out there. Do you have an experience with it? Have you ever owned a dog that had these surgeries done? Have you ever witnessed the surgery and recuperation of the dog? If so, was this by a skilled professional cropper? I am just curious because so far, most of the folks that I know of that are against it have absolutely no experience with it. I just find that curious. Most of those also would never consider owning any of the breeds traditionally cropped/docked yet they hold such strong opinions on it.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Inga said:


> If this forum is still up and running 10 years from now, do you think we will still be debating docking and cropping of dogs?


Yes  Milan too, probably.


----------



## lizziedog1 (Oct 21, 2009)

Docking, cropping, cutting, call it what you will, they are cruel and unnatural acts executed on helpless creatures. Laws should be inacted to ban all such acts. Any vet caught perfroming any act of deformation on any animal should have his or her license revoked.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Docking, cropping, cutting, call it what you will, they are cruel and unnatural acts executed on helpless creatures.


That is your opinion, and not all share it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Inga said:


> If this forum is still up and running 10 years from now, do you think we will still be debating docking and cropping of dogs?


What makes you think dog people will not be debating the issue 10 years from now?

I think the issue will always be a matter for debate, unless it's banned. If it is banned, and people/vets actually obey that ban, nobody will even think of it after a few years. I'm told on my cat forum that in Germany, if you say "de-clawing" (well, the German equivalent  ), nobody will even know what you mean. It's just not in the public consciousness. It will become the story you tell your grandchildren ("when I was your age, we amputated dogs' ears and tails because we liked how it looked") and they'll roll their eyes at you.



> For all the anti docking/cropping folks out there. Do you have an experience with it? Have you ever owned a dog that had these surgeries done? Have you ever witnessed the surgery and recuperation of the dog? If so, was this by a skilled professional cropper? I am just curious because so far, most of the folks that I know of that are against it have absolutely no experience with it. I just find that curious. Most of those also would never consider owning any of the breeds traditionally cropped/docked yet they hold such strong opinions on it.


I DO have a Rottweiler. His tail is docked. My conscience is clean because I in no way supported the procedure, as he was given to me by a friend that couldn't keep him, and I paid nothing. I don't believe it bothers him to not have much of a tail (he does have a rather long BYB dock....4-5 inches), but I still do not approve of cosmetic surgery for animals. 

I would prefer him with a full tail. I truly do not like the docked look. I don't mind a natural bobtail---they look different, IMO...more natural, less "cut-off".

I have not seen the procedure performed, though I did know a Miniature Schnauzer breeder who said she had to leave the house when her husband did the docking, because she couldn't stand to hear the puppies screaming. I will never agree to see the procedure being done. I wouldn't be able to stomach it.

I haven't seen a lot of dogs recuperating from a crop. More often I see people get a pup from a breeder already cropped, and they don't bother to tape (too much trouble), and the ears end up looking horrible, and the poor pup went through that pain for no reason at all, not even for looks. I think the puppymills crop their puppies at a very young age....I once saw a 5-week-old litter (Min Pins), and their ears were already cropped and healed. I was told they did it when they docked the tails at 3 days old, but I don't know if that's truly possible.



JohnnyBandit said:


> If its ethical to spay and neuter, its ethical to dock and crop.


I don't see how the procedures can be compared. I really don't. In humans, cosmetic surgery is entirely different from, say, a hysterectomy. Even an elective hysterectomy.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

> If this forum is still up and running 10 years from now, do you think we will still be debating docking and cropping of dogs?


There have been people arguing for and against cropping/docking for over 100 years. _Black Beauty_ was written in 1877 and spoke out against it, for example. I've read some dog books from around that same time that call it 'mutilation'. So there have always been two camps existing regarding this issue. I don't think another 10 years will make a difference.

Personally, I don't think it's any of my business, as long as the breeder does it properly. I've seen many happy, well-adjusted cropped/docked dogs and it doesn't seem like their quality of life is harmed by the procedure. I've also seen some pictures of truly terrible crops/docks, but then again, the breeders responsible for _those_ were bad on pretty much every _other_ level as well.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

The puppies do not scream.

Puppies of an age to be docked DESPISE being restrained. At their age, restraint means they are trapped, and cannot stay near their mother and littermates, or eat. It means death.

So the restraint necessary for docking REALLY PISSES THEM OFF. They screech like MAD from being restrained.

At the moment of docking, they squeak. Then they go right back to being pissed off at being restrained.

When they are put back in the box with the other puppies, they quiet and settle. When put back with the mother, they nurse normally, and sleep normally.

I have observed all dockings done to all of my puppies. 

With all DUE respect, until YOU have observed them, SHUT UP.

My dogs are my property, and docking is my RIGHT.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If its ethical to spay and neuter, its ethical to dock and crop.


I'm not against cropping, but I don't really see how it is the same as spay/neuter. That's like saying a tubal ligation is the same as getting botox or having a boob job. One actually serves the purpose of preventing unwanted pregnancies while the other is just about vanity.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

*Shrug* I was only repeating what I was told by a breeder of a commonly docked breed. There's not much a newborn puppy COULD do, even if it was in horrible pain. They can't run, they can't reach around to lick their tails, they can't do anything but nurse, really. I don't know how you could tell if they were in pain or not. If they kept "squeaking", predators would get them. Survival.

There are plenty of things I do not have to see to know that I don't want to see it. 

Where do you draw the line about our right to treat our dogs any way we want? Dogs are property, and should stay that way, but they are also living creatures capable of suffering. So they're not in the same category as, say, lawn chairs. So there HAS to be a line somewhere.


----------



## lizziedog1 (Oct 21, 2009)

> My dogs are my property, and docking is my RIGHT.


I have a gun. If I go into my backyard and shoot a couple of rounds into the ground, police will knock at my door soon. It is my gun, it is my backyard, but it ain't might right to do with those as I please.

Michael Vicks used *his dogs* in a vicious sport. They were *his property.* Should he not have been punished?


----------



## Herrick's Mommy (Nov 5, 2009)

Personally, I love the look a doberman, rottweiler, and schnauzer have when they are properly docked and cropped. I have nothing against it. When we got Herrick, his tail was already docked and we loved that, to me, a schnauzer with a long tail looks a little weird. We did not get his ears cropped because by the time that we actually decided to get it done, he was to old and we didn't want to put him in any danger by doing it. In the future, we plan on getting a doberman, a great dane, and another schnauzer and if the breed calls for a docking and a crop, we'll do it. I agree with Redyre on all that she's said.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

lizziedog1 said:


> Michael Vicks used *his dogs* in a vicious sport. They were *his property.* Should he not have been punished?


Dogfighting is illegal. 
Cropping/Docking currently are not - at least not in all countries. 

That's what makes it different.


----------



## lizziedog1 (Oct 21, 2009)

> Cropping/Docking currently are not - at least not in all countries.


They should be.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

Willowy said:


> *Shrug* I was only repeating what I was told by a breeder of a commonly docked breed. There's not much a newborn puppy COULD do, even if it was in horrible pain. They can't run, they can't reach around to lick their tails, they can't do anything but nurse, really. I don't know how you could tell if they were in pain or not. If they kept "squeaking", predators would get them. Survival.
> 
> There are plenty of things I do not have to see to know that I don't want to see it.
> 
> Where do you draw the line about our right to treat our dogs any way we want? Dogs are property, and should stay that way, but they are also living creatures capable of suffering. So they're not in the same category as, say, lawn chairs. So there HAS to be a line somewhere.


Any rational person who has observed docking could not contrue it as suffering. 

If puppies are bothered, they cry, they don't nurse, and they don't sleep. Happy healthy puppies nurse well, and are quiet unless they need a nipple or to eliminate. I have had both types of puppies, and it is not hard AT ALL to tell if a puppy is in distress.

I have never seen a puppy in distress as a result of docking. Puppies docked as a neonate have no brain pathways for a tail, they have no cognition of what is missing. In essence for them it was never there.

Certain procedures have been carried out on domestic animals for years in order to improve their usefullness to human beings. As long as it is humanely done, it is NO ONE'S BUSINESS whether a breeder etc docks puppies at under 5 days of age.

When you let your govenment start controlling this, and when you see the things that come next, you will understand. 

Unfortunately, that will probably be too late for dogs, any sports involving dogs, service dogs, etc.

If you think I have an extremist attitude, just go surf a few animal rights websites. They are not hard to find.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

Dakota Spirit said:


> Dogfighting is illegal.
> Cropping/Docking currently are not - at least not in all countries.
> 
> That's what makes it different.


So if dogfighting were legal then Michael Vick's actions would have been ok?


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Shalonda said:


> So if dogfighting were legal then Michael Vick's actions would have been ok?


The question was whether or not he should have been punished. 
And I'm not turning this into a MV or dogfighting debate. I'm also not playing the 'what if' game.


----------



## lizziedog1 (Oct 21, 2009)

> So if dogfighting were legal then Michael Vick's actions would have been ok?


Great point!!!


----------



## Herrick's Mommy (Nov 5, 2009)

After reading this thread, and it's a long one, I feel that tail docking and ear cropping should be left up to the breeder or the owner of the puppy. If they want to do it, great, if they don't, then they don't. I don't see the big problem. Redyre obviously has many years of experience and like she said, one can't make assumptions about whether it hurts them and they scream in pain or not. SHE'S seen it done and she gets it done the right way, I take her word, otherwise her dogs would not be such great dogs in the first place. Like I said, if I would have known that I needed to crop Herrick's ears in a certain time frame, I would have done it, but I couldn't since I didn't find out until later. With all my future dogs if they require it, will I want to get the procedure done, yes, I would.


----------



## lizziedog1 (Oct 21, 2009)

> Certain procedures have been carried out on domestic animals for years in order to improve their usefullness to human beings. As long as it is humanely done, it is NO ONE'S BUSINESS whether a breeder etc docks puppies at under 5 days of age.


Is it anyone's business if you decide to butcher dogs for human consumption? In some cities you would be arrested. Is that fair?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Shalonda said:


> I'm not against cropping, but I don't really see how it is the same as spay/neuter. That's like saying a tubal ligation is the same as getting botox or having a boob job. One actually serves the purpose of preventing unwanted pregnancies while the other is just about vanity.


I was under the impression that abstinence also prevents unwanted pregnancies. I think the same goes for dogs. 

Neutering is for the benefit of the human in most cases it makes their life easier. 95% of the time neutering is for convenience, I don't see convenience as being any better than preference for a certain look.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> I think the problem is Willowy that none of the rest of us that are pro dock/crop view it as an ethical issue.


EVERYTHING in life has ethical/moral implications. There is nothing you could do that would not have any kind of moral or ethical implication. Whether you view it as morally/ethically accepatable is up to you. But it is definitely an ethical issue. 




RedyreRottweilers said:


> As long as it is humanely done, it is NO ONE'S BUSINESS whether a breeder etc docks puppies at under 5 days of age.


As a consumer, it is my prerogative to choose where to take my business. I would not take my business to any breeder that docks/crops, or supports the procedures. It makes me mad that I will most likely never be able to buy a Rottweiler from a breeder (I do love the Rotties), but, as I said, convictions are sometimes inconvenient.



> When you let your govenment start controlling this, and when you see the things that come next, you will understand.


Oh, I DON'T think docking and cropping should be banned. I don't like for the government to get involved in anything, really. And I don't think bans are effective in most cases. I just think people shouldn't do it, or support it.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

lizziedog1 said:


> Is it anyone's business if you decide to butcher dogs for human consumption? In some cities you would be arrested. Is that fair?


So now docking is equal to processing dogs for human consumption?

Okey dokey.

That validates this discussion for sure.





Shalonda said:


> So if dogfighting were legal then Michael Vick's actions would have been ok?


Of COURSE they would not be ok. While I do not believe that dog fighting should EVER be legal, what he did had nothing to do with fighting dogs.

He tortured and killed dogs for no apparent reason. 

This is nothing to do with squaring dogs off in a pit to see which one will scratch the best and the longest. It has to do with torturing and killing dogs.

Way to go to put up another RIDICULOUS comparison.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

Dakota Spirit said:


> The question was whether or not he should have been punished.
> And I'm not turning this into a MV or dogfighting debate. I'm also not playing the 'what if' game.


Her question wasn't about legalities though. It was about ethics. She was just saying that the idea that dogs are property to be treated however the owner chooses opens up a lot of moral problems. She just used Michael Vick as an example since it was so publicized.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> It makes me mad that I will most likely never be able to buy a Rottweiler from a breeder (I do love the Rotties), but, as I said, convictions are sometimes inconvenient.


Sure you could. But you'd likely have to import.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shalonda said:


> I'm not against cropping, but I don't really see how it is the same as spay/neuter. That's like saying a tubal ligation is the same as getting botox or having a boob job. One actually serves the purpose of preventing unwanted pregnancies while the other is just about vanity.



Tubal ligations and vasectomies may not be called costmetic procedures. But they are certainly in the same class. They are for convenience. Condoms, birth control pills, and of course abstinance all prevent pregnancies. 


Same thing for spay and neutering dogs. It is for owner convenience. Nothing more. Neither is neccessary to prevent pregnancies in dogs. It is not difficult to prevent unwanted pregnancies in dogs without putting the dog through those procedures. Both of which are invasive, painful, can have serious lifelong complications, etc. 

The reason shelters, animal controls, vet associations, etc are advocates of spay and neuter is because they do not trust dog owners to be responsible. 

Fact is...... IF you are a responsible dog owner, spay and neuter are completely unneccessary. 

I assume and trust we are all responsible dog owners on this site. So spay and neuter are elective procedures. Done for convenience. An elective procedure is an elective procedure. Whether it is for cosmetic or convenience purposes.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Sure you could. But you'd likely have to import.


Yeah, fine.....maybe I should say, it makes me mad that I'll never be able to buy a Rottie from a breeder without spending the equivalent of a decent car on importation?

No matter, plenty of Rotts in rescue. Some with whole tails!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

lizziedog1 said:


> Docking, cropping, cutting, call it what you will, they are cruel and unnatural acts executed on helpless creatures. Laws should be inacted to ban all such acts. Any vet caught perfroming any act of deformation on any animal should have his or her license revoked.


If docking and cropping are cruel and un natural, so is spay and neutering.



Willowy said:


> Yeah, fine.....maybe I should say, it makes me mad that I'll never be able to buy a Rottie from a breeder without spending the equivalent of a decent car on importation?
> 
> No matter, plenty of Rotts in rescue. Some with whole tails!


Why can't you. I am sure if you want a tailed Rottweiler, you could find a breeder that would leave a pup undocked for you.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

Keechak said:


> I was under the impression that abstinence also prevents unwanted pregnancies.


Well that's just completely unrealistic. So if people are trying to do something to prevent pregnancy instead of having children they can't take care of then more power to them.



> Neutering is for the benefit of the human in most cases it makes their life easier. 95% of the time neutering is for convenience, I don't see convenience as being any better than preference for a certain look.


A lot of people choose to spay/neuter because they are encouraged to by their vets and by animal welfare organizations. People are told that doing so is better for the health of the pet by reducing various types of reproductive system cancers and such. So no it's not just a thing of convenience with everyone.




> Of COURSE they would not be ok. While I do not believe that dog fighting should EVER be legal, what he did had nothing to do with fighting dogs.
> 
> He tortured and killed dogs for no apparent reason.
> 
> ...


I didn't put up the comparison. Lizzie mentioned the Vick thing and then someone else said it was different because it was illegal. I just don't think "it's legal so therefore ok" is a very good argument.


----------



## lizziedog1 (Oct 21, 2009)

> He tortured and killed dogs for no apparent reason.


You keep saying that dogs are your property and you can do what you want with them. Then anyone else must be allowed to do what they want with their dogs. You can't have it both ways. That is illogical.


----------



## NRB (Sep 19, 2009)

I have nothing against breeds that crop ears or dock tails. I personally don't see anything wrong with docking a tail as it's done so early on and I do think that it looks nice. But i personally could not crop ears, it just seems more painfull to me. And a well cropped ear looks better than a flying nun ear anytime. My own dog would have looked better in a cropped ear than a natural bat wing ear. But I couldn't have done it, cropped the ear. I thought that docking is done so early on before the nerve grows in the tail area. But ear cropping, well there's nerves there when they do the procedure so I assume that its gotta hurt.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Shalonda said:


> Her question wasn't about legalities though. It was about ethics. She was just saying that the idea that dogs are property to be treated however the owner chooses opens up a lot of moral problems. She just used Michael Vick as an example since it was so publicized.


No, what she did was make an exaggeration.

You're right that there are moral obligations and decisions to be made with pet ownership - such things are present in all aspects of life. But as Red said, the comparison made is not a solid one.

Also, my point was not that it was ok simply because it was currently legal. My point was the COMPARISSON was silly because what Vick did WAS illegal. He was punished because of THAT fact. That and I think it was pretty well understood that when Red made the 'property' comment she wasn't referring to any kind of excuse for neglect and/or torture of animals.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

lizziedog1 said:


> You keep saying that dogs are your property and you can do what you want with them. Then anyone else must be allowed to do what they want with their dogs. You can't have it both ways. That is illogical.


DOCKING IS A LEGAL ACTIVITY. 

Please come into reality and a rational discussion. Assuming that what Michael Vick did would be ok if dog fighting were legal is patently illogical.

My LEGAL right to dock my dogs if I wish to do so, and the fact that it is none or your, or anyone else's business, is not.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Why can't you. I am sure if you want a tailed Rottweiler, you could find a breeder that would leave a pup undocked for you.


I keep being told here.....that wouldn't be a "good" breeder....no good breeder would ever do such a thing.....how would they know whether the pup would be going to a working home or not at 3 days old.....etc.

But that doesn't matter, because I still would not support the breeder if they docked the other puppies. I will not support a breeder that condones the procedure at all.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Why can't you. I am sure if you want a tailed Rottweiler, you could find a breeder that would leave a pup undocked for you.


Actually you really can't in the states. Good breeders place their puppies based on their personality traits, which aren't really able to be judged until they are well passed the age you dock. No breeder worth going to will just leave one puppy natural and hope that it is a) a match for the person wanting a natural tail and b) not show quality.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

If you want a Rottweiler with a tail in the states, there are NUMEROUS breeders who don't dock.

Those of you who think you can't are out of the loop. WAY out.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

IMO, S&N serves one purpose = Birth Control, period.

Being intact is a natural, normal state, and doesn't pose as many health risks as people think. I'd look at food, vaccinations, pesticides, chemicals (which damage health far more than being intact), etc first, before blaming being intact - and nor should you S&N out of fear of what "might" happen. 

txcollies (who knows many, many intact, old dogs, both male and female, who have NEVER had oops litters, and who are as healthy as can be...)


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

Dakota I agree that Redye didn't mean anything like that. I'm sorry that misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that legal = ethical, so that's why I disagreed.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> If you want a Rottweiler with a tail in the states, there are NUMEROUS breeders who don't dock.
> 
> Those of you who think you can't are out of the loop. WAY out.


I did quite a bit of searching for natural rotts in the states a month or two ago, and it was hard going. I was definitely able to find them, but they are definitely fewer and further between than docked breeders.

That being said, I didn't contact any breeders that docked about getting a non-docked puppy specifically. My statement about it is just what I've been told from other long-time rott people.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Shalonda said:


> Dakota I agree that Redye didn't mean anything like that. I'm sorry that misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that legal = ethical, so that's why I disagreed.


It's no problem  
I know sometimes written posts can be hard to interpret. I've been known to misunderstand from time to time too lol


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> If you want a Rottweiler with a tail in the states, there are NUMEROUS breeders who don't dock.
> 
> Those of you who think you can't are out of the loop. WAY out.


BYBs? How many would do health testing? Since they can't show an undocked Rott. In this country anyway.

Not the point, really....I'll probably never buy from a breeder. There are WAY more ethical concerns (other than docking/cropping) I have in choosing a breeder, so much so that I doubt there would be ANY breeder who could meet my requirements. Bringing new life into the world is a huge responsibility, and my expectations are high. So I do not realistically expect to buy a dog from a breeder at any point in time. I was just using it as an example.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Shalonda said:


> Well that's just completely unrealistic. So if people are trying to do something to prevent pregnancy instead of having children they can't take care of then more power to them.
> 
> *I have NO idea what you are trying to say here*
> 
> ...


my replies in bold


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

trumpetjock said:


> I did quite a bit of searching for natural rotts in the states a month or two ago, and it was hard going. I was definitely able to find them, but they are definitely fewer and further between than docked breeders.
> 
> That being said, I didn't contact any breeders that docked about getting a non-docked puppy specifically. My statement about it is just what I've been told from other long-time rott people.


I think you could get a breeder to do it if you presented yourself and your desires properly.

Probably not with one of the more anal show breeders. But I think you could find a quality breeder that would consider leaving a tail undocked for you.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

There are several breeders that do all the health testing on Rottweiler's and have natural tails. NOT as many as those that are docked so maybe not as easily found but there are some.

I certainly think that would be a better option then asking a breeder who docks to not dock one puppy for you. I doubt any good ones would do that. How in the world would they know what type of temperament that individual pup was going to have at 3 days old? (average age of docking)


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

I do not care for tail docking or ear cropping but I will defend to my dying breath the right to do it!
It is SUCH a close call & such a thin line!


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I think you could get a breeder to do it if you presented yourself and your desires properly.
> 
> Probably not with one of the more anal show breeders. But I think you could find a quality breeder that would consider leaving a tail undocked for you.


The tough thing for me, though, is that if I were to consider rotts in the future (and I definitely am), I would be getting one for the purpose of pursuing some serious working titles. It's not fair to the breeder for me to have them leave a random puppy undocked and hope it pans out. It's not fair for the dog to not be properly evaluated and matched to a working home. It's not fair to me to settle for a dog that may have a smaller chance of having working drive.

If I do end up going with rotts, I'll probably get a docked one or more likely import. 

All of that needs to be qualified with the fact that I am only very recently into my study on rotts, so I may find a fantastic working breeder that doesn't dock any of their dogs in the states. I just haven't yet!


----------



## Spitzy (Oct 13, 2007)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> Puppies docked as a neonate have no brain pathways for a tail, they have no cognition of what is missing. In essence for them it was never there.


I wonder, do you have any references to support this? (I ask this earnestly, not sarcastically, to be clear!) 

I did a bit of quick PubMed searching, and there weren't really any good-looking published articles. The "best" article I found from Google Scholar was a 2003 article, which does not seem to support your claim. Instead, the authors discuss that there haven't really been any well controlled, statistically valid studies in dogs to address this issue. They discuss and reference other studies in other mammals (lambs, calves, humans) which suggest the contrary position: that young puppies have the capacity to feel pain.

There is also discussion of the possibility of chronic effects, such as "phantom limb syndrome" and the presence neuromas. Again, the issue of no well controlled, statistically significant studies in canines is acknowledged. Since there are no valid studies in canines, the authors' discussion involves studies in other mammals (including human infants and premature-infants).

So, I would be interested if anyone has knowledge of more current studies in canines that have addressed these issues, so I could have the opportunity to better-inform my opinion.


For the moment, I can say that my brief forays into the literature has led to my current understanding that there is a dearth of direct evidence for canine (neuro)physiology at the puppy stage. In the absence of the information from canine studies, I am left with the information from the study of other mammalian organisms, and with what knowledge I have acquired more generally of bio/medical functioning. Therefore from _*my *current perspective_, my understanding is that docking is _likely _to inflict acute pain on an organism that has a sufficient neurosystem to be affected by it, and has a (statistically) significant percentage chance of resulting in chronic pain/discomfort.


I can understand that this is a particularly charged issue, because I believe in general the breeders and owners of docked/cropped dogs love their dogs, and I can empathize that it's a horrible position to be in when there are people who vehemently tell you that you are doing hurtful things to the dogs that you love. I can understand that it is likely to make one take to the defense with equal vehemence. And going back to the OP - I think it's particularly pointless for pet-owners to suffer a barrage of hate over something they probably had/have little control over.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

BTW the other day on the televised the national dog show, the German Pinscher shown in the Working Group had natural ears and tail. 

That is a breed that is traditionally docked and cropped. 

I looked up the entry and the dog. There were three dogs entered. All in Best of Breed. 
So the dog had competition and is a finished champion. So a natural dog can finish in a docked and cropped breed.



trumpetjock said:


> The tough thing for me, though, is that if I were to consider rotts in the future (and I definitely am), I would be getting one for the purpose of pursuing some serious working titles. It's not fair to the breeder for me to have them leave a random puppy undocked and hope it pans out. It's not fair for the dog to not be properly evaluated and matched to a working home. It's not fair to me to settle for a dog that may have a smaller chance of having working drive.
> 
> If I do end up going with rotts, I'll probably get a docked one or more likely import.
> 
> All of that needs to be qualified with the fact that I am only very recently into my study on rotts, so I may find a fantastic working breeder that doesn't dock any of their dogs in the states. I just haven't yet!


True.... You are going to have to take what you get in an undocked pup. Your not going to be able to evaluate much of anything at the age in which you have to dock.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

GypsyJazmine said:


> I do not care for tail docking or ear cropping but I will defend to my dying breath the right to do it!
> It is SUCH a close call & such a thin line!


Yes, where should that line be drawn? Docking and cropping are illegal in most of Europe. So far this seems to have had no ill effects on....whatever it was supposed to have ill effects on. 

I'm sure that when dog fighting was made illegal in this country, MANY dog people said "I don't think people should fight their dogs, but I will defend to my dying breath the right to do it!".

So where is that line?!?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> BYBs? How many would do health testing? Since they can't show an undocked Rott. In this country anyway.


This is not true. There are tailed Rottweilers exhibiting and winning in the American ring.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

> I have NO idea what you are trying to say here


Well you said that people could practice abstinance to prevent unwanted pregnancies and I was saying that's not a realistic option. 



> Ignorance and misguided information is also not a good reason to neuter.


Look you know a lot about dogs. You have studied different things about dogs and have a lot of experience raising dogs. Most dog owners don't have your level of knowledge and experience. They are relying on the vets to know what would be best for the health of the dog. Yes all pet owners should educate themselves better on these things no doubt. But it's not really much different than following advice of your doctor about your own health. Most people are going to trust healthcare professionals to know more about health matters than they do. It's the same with people trusting vets. You have dogs who are spayed/neutered don't you? Why did you do it?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shalonda said:


> Well you said that people could practice abstinance to prevent unwanted pregnancies and I was saying that's not a realistic option.
> 
> 
> 
> Look you know a lot about dogs. You have studied different things about dogs and have a lot of experience raising dogs. Most dog owners don't have your level of knowledge and experience. They are relying on the vets to know what would be best for the health of the dog. Yes all pet owners should educate themselves better on these things no doubt. But it's not really much different than following advice of your doctor about your own health. Most people are going to trust healthcare professionals to know more about health matters than they do. It's the same with people trusting vets. You have dogs who are spayed/neutered don't you? Why did you do it?



Much of the health benefits usually mentioned when discussing spay and neutering, are propaganda. 

What is left out is that there can be serious health issues from spaying and neutering. 

I currently have a neutered dog and an intact dog. The neutered dog came that way. But if I have a choice in the matter, I leave my dogs intact.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Spitzy said:


> I wonder, do you have any references to support this? (I ask this earnestly, not sarcastically, to be clear!)
> 
> I did a bit of quick PubMed searching, and there weren't really any good-looking published articles. The "best" article I found from Google Scholar was a 2003 article, which does not seem to support your claim. Instead, the authors discuss that there haven't really been any well controlled, statistically valid studies in dogs to address this issue. They discuss and reference other studies in other mammals (lambs, calves, humans) which suggest the contrary position: that young puppies have the capacity to feel pain.


Funny, that's the only thing I could find in the literature as well. 

I went and checked out a few of the things on lambs, but they really don't translate to puppies very well. Lambs are born a heck of a lot more developed than dogs are.

I'd really like to see a source that says they don't have the neural development to feel the pain of docking. Just like spitzy, I'm not trying to get on anyone's case, I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

Yeah I understand that. I'm just saying that a lot of people who spay/neuter have good intentions and are doing what they think is best for the dog. I'm not saying it is best. I'm just saying that people are told those things by people they think they can trust.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I wonder if we could find breeders to convince allowing some neural testing to be going on while puppies are docked and when neural spikes occur (being picked up, during the actual docking, etc).


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Shalonda said:


> Well you said that people could practice abstinance to prevent unwanted pregnancies and I was saying that's not a realistic option.
> 
> 
> 
> Look you know a lot about dogs. You have studied different things about dogs and have a lot of experience raising dogs. Most dog owners don't have your level of knowledge and experience. They are relying on the vets to know what would be best for the health of the dog. Yes all pet owners should educate themselves better on these things no doubt. But it's not really much different than following advice of your doctor about your own health. Most people are going to trust healthcare professionals to know more about health matters than they do. It's the same with people trusting vets. You have dogs who are spayed/neutered don't you? Why did you do it?


I 100% agree with vets pushing spay/neuter on their clients. Fact is, if you're uninformed enough to not know that the health issues are propaganda and not motivated enough to find out for yourself, you're probably not well informed or motivated enough to keep an intact dog. Yes, us "dog enthusiasts" may well be able to, but we are not the "mainstream" dog owner. I will err on the side that a fixed animal cannot produce young, just like a human that is not having sex cannot produce young. There are trufax, folks.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shalonda said:


> Yeah I understand that. I'm just saying that a lot of people who spay/neuter have good intentions and are doing what they think is best for the dog. I'm not saying it is best. I'm just saying that people are told those things by people they think they can trust.


True.... But what people need to remember.... Is that vets profit from performing spays and neuters. 

I am not saying that all vets give medical advice based on profitability. But it is something to keep in the back of your mind.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Xeph said:


> I wonder if we could find breeders to convince allowing some neural testing to be going on while puppies are docked and when neural spikes occur (being picked up, during the actual docking, etc).


That would certainly be interesting.

I wonder how many babies have long term emotional, psychological scaring from things like circumcisions, infant ear piercing etc... My brother swears he remembers it. My mother swears he didn't cry or anything over the procedure.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> I wonder if we could find breeders to convince allowing some neural testing to be going on while puppies are docked and when neural spikes occur (being picked up, during the actual docking, etc).


Yeah, I'd like to see some brain studies, too. They've done them on human babies, and they are capable of feeling everything that an adult feels...but again, human babies are more developed at birth than puppies. So I'd really like to see it. Until that time, using my own reasoning power, I do not believe that puppies aren't capable of feeling pain.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Oh nevermind...


I like cheese...and ear cropping and tail docking.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> if you're uninformed enough to not know that the health issues are propaganda and not motivated enough to find out for yourself, you're probably not well informed or motivated enough to keep an intact dog. Yes, us "*dog enthusiasts*" may well be able to, but we are not the "*mainstream*" dog owner


OMG Raegan you suck! LOL!!


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I actually think the comparison is valid. It's a matter of snowballing. The question isn't "Do I have the right to treat my property how I wish to treat it?", the question is "Is this treatment of my property humane?" The first question is easy to answer: Yes, you have the right to treat your property in anyway you like, in accordance with the law. The second is hazier. Where do you draw the line? Personally, my line is somewhere in between ear cropping and dog fighting.

@Xeph XDDD YOU KNOW YOU LAUGHED


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

Why do you put dog enthusiasts in quotations? Are you not really dog enthusiasts? Am I missing something?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, I'd like to see some brain studies, too. They've done them on human babies, and they are capable of feeling everything that an adult feels...but again, human babies are more developed at birth than puppies. So I'd really like to see it. Until that time, using my own reasoning power, I do not believe that puppies aren't capable of feeling pain.


It is not unreasonable to assume that puppies can feel pain. And I think that can feel some types of pain in some parts of their bodies. But....

I have quite a bit of puppy experience. I know how a few days old puppy that is sick or injured (puppies get hurt sometimes. Mom stepping or sitting on them is not as uncommon as some might think) And docked puppies don't act like a sick or injured puppy. You can pick them up, dock the tail, put them back and they will go right back to the nipple (if they were feeding when you picked them up in the first place.)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Um...comparing the right to dog fight to the right to crop is pretty ridiculous.


Why? 

Plenty of dog enthusiasts still defend fighting. For many of the same reasons that pro-docking/-cropping people defend their position. 

Though that's not the point. I meant that, because docking/cropping is considered normal in this country, in the public consciousness that's how it's seen, and even people who do not personally care to crop/dock their dogs will fight for the right to do so. In countries where it's banned, it's not considered an option in the public consciousness. People are shocked and appalled when it happens, or even when it's mentioned. 

Back when fighting was legal, it was considered normal. People were willing to fight to the death for their right to fight their dogs, and even those who did not personally care to fight their dogs would fight for the right to do so. Now we're shocked and appalled when we hear of it. 

In principle it's the same, even if the actions are different.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Xeph said:


> I wonder if we could find breeders to convince allowing some neural testing to be going on while puppies are docked and when neural spikes occur (being picked up, during the actual docking, etc).


Cortisol testing would be a lot easier than directly measuring neural activity. Shoot, even I could do it


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Yeah, but I don't know the ins and outs of biology and physiology like you do, TJ  Neural is the first thing that comes to mind that is familiar to me. I know nothing about cortisol testing.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Shalonda said:


> Why do you put dog enthusiasts in quotations? Are you not really dog enthusiasts? *Am I missing something*?


......Mike


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

He's missed?

I'm a total dog enthusiast, not mainstream in the least.

/OT


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Yeah, but I don't know the ins and outs of biology and physiology like you do, TJ  Neural is the first thing that comes to mind that is familiar to me. I know nothing about cortisol testing.


This is true... basically cortisol is an easily measureable hormone that is produced when the body is stressed. This stress can come from any of the normal stimulus we would normally associate with it, fear, pain, anxiety, etc etc.

If the pups truly had no pain associated with the docking of the tail, they wouldn't show any significant jump in cortisol during or immediately after the procedure. Control groups would be set up both with dogs that didn't have the procedure done, and dogs that went through all of the motions except for the actual removal of the tail. If the tail removal group showed significantly ramped up cortisol levels, it would support the idea that they are indeed experiencing pain, or at least a high level of discomfort.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

But how do you determine that the cortisol spike was from being docked and not from being removed from its litter?

Most docks I've seen done involve removing the puppy for a few seconds to properly guage where to dock and to prevent interference from others.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Xeph said:


> But how do you determine that the cortisol spike was from being docked and not from being removed from its litter?


With the control group I talked about that goes through all the motions.

You would compare the levels of the one that went through every single step except the actual docking (including being removed from the litter) to the ones that you fully dock.

That way you eliminate every variable except for the actual docking of the tail.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> With the control group I talked about that goes through all the motions.
> 
> You would compare the levels of the one that went through every single step except the actual docking (including being removed from the litter) to the ones that you fully dock.
> 
> That way you eliminate every variable except for the actual docking of the tail.


This would have to be done with hundreds of puppies as well since each dog/puppy is an individual and will react differently to different stimuli. Would be interesting though. I would love to see it done.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Inga said:


> This would have to be done with hundreds of puppies as well since each dog/puppy is an individual and will react differently to different stimuli. Would be interesting though. I would love to see it done.


Of course. You aren't going to get statistically significant data with a small sample size.

All it would take is a few dozen breeders willing to dock some of their dogs, but not the others. They don't even need to be good breeders. Heck, this could be a positive thing that came out of puppy millers! (can't believe I just said that...)

One of the things that makes dogs so simple for scientific studies is that genetic influences can normally be ruled out quite easily. Within a breed (and especially well bred dogs), the gene pool is extremely limited compared to doing similar studies in wild species.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Man, now I'm really interested...


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Man, now I'm really interested...


I'm just really surprised neither Spitzy or I has been able to find anything on it in the literature. It would be a fairly easy experiment to set up, and it's something that has been under scrutiny from animal rights for a long long time.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I think the problem is more finding breeders willing to participate.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Xeph said:


> I think the problem is more finding breeders willing to participate.


Frankly, you don't really need them. Labs could get ahold of breeding stock and do this themselves for very little cost. As long as they found homes for the puppies afterwards, I wouldn't have any problems with "byb" dogs being produced in the name of science.

It doesn't even need to be commonly docked breeds.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Shalonda said:


> Why do you put dog enthusiasts in quotations? Are you not really dog enthusiasts? Am I missing something?


It's a joke. Don't worry about it, your life is seriously better for not knowing it.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> As long as they found homes for the puppies afterwards, I wouldn't have any problems with "byb" dogs being produced in the name of science.


Yeah, but how many labs would be willing to go through the proper procedures of homing all these dogs?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Would it change anything? If the studies found that docking does, indeed, cause considerable pain to the puppies, would the pro-docking people stop docking? Especially since perhaps they've been docking puppies for years, and in their opinion, it does not cause undue pain to the pups? I seriously doubt it would change anything. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, though.

It would still be interesting.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

trumpetjock said:


> Frankly, you don't really need them. Labs could get ahold of breeding stock and do this themselves for very little cost. As long as they found homes for the puppies afterward, I wouldn't have any problems with "byb" dogs being produced in the name of science.
> 
> It doesn't even need to be commonly docked breeds.


Some labs actually have colonies of dogs bred expressly to supply their laboratory work.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Would it change anything? If the studies found that docking does, indeed, cause considerable pain to the puppies, would the pro-docking people stop docking? Especially since perhaps they've been docking puppies for years, and in their opinion, it does not cause undue pain to the pups? I seriously doubt it would change anything. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, though.
> 
> It would still be interesting.


If it were shown by several independent labs that it caused serious amounts of pain, it most definitely could be changed. With or without the consent of breeders. It would end up being put through as legislation banning it, due to animal cruelty. 

Disclaimer: I'm in no way claiming docking as animal cruelty, only speculating on the possible impact if studies found docking caused high levels of pain.



Pai said:


> Some labs actually have colonies of dogs bred expressly to supply their laboratory work.


Yup, I was trying to stay away from that fact because it isn't something most dog enthuseists would support.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> Frankly, you don't really need them. Labs could get ahold of breeding stock and do this themselves for very little cost. As long as they found homes for the puppies afterwards, I wouldn't have any problems with "byb" dogs being produced in the name of science.
> 
> It doesn't even need to be commonly docked breeds.


I believe it would because breeders would claim they were bred with that in mind. Like ear cropped Dobes are bred for thinner ear leather, some terriers are bred so they can be pulled out of the holes by their tails etc... To make it as accurate as possible, it would have to be breeds that were bred for years with this in the standard. IMO

Oh and NO, I wouldn't support doggy labs. No way, no how. It would have to be consenting breeder support for me to show interest.

Would it change anything for me? Hm, I love a docked tail but...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I agree about the former Inga. A breed not traditionally docked will not, IMO respond the same I don't think.

For example, Pointers are not traditionally docked and their tails are quite thin but not as mobile as the tail of a GSP, a breed that IS traditionally docked. Their tails are quite mobile and show a tendency to break open.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Inga said:


> I believe it would because breeders would claim they were bred with that in mind. Like ear cropped Dobes are bred for thinner ear leather, some terriers are bred so they can be pulled out of the holes by their tails etc... To make it as accurate as possible, it would have to be breeds that were bred for years with this in the standard. IMO
> 
> Oh and NO, I wouldn't support doggy labs. No way, no how. It would have to be consenting breeder support for me to show interest.
> 
> Would it change anything for me? Hm, I love a docked tail but...


Good thought on using actual docked breeds.

Doggie labs are a fact of life that I'm slowly coming to terms with. Do I like it? Absolutely not... but in the name of science, many sacrifices need to be made. Dog labs pale in comparison to the ethical dilemma proposed by primate labs, and some of our most crucial medical and pharmaceutical technologies have come out of them.

I would love for there to be any other way... but it will take a smarter person than I to come up with it.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> I would love for there to be any other way... but it will take a smarter person than I to come up with it.


In this case there is. Convince a few hundred breeders that breed to standard. can't be back yard breeders because a dog NOT bred to standard couldn't be compared. Again, bred for proper tails, ears etc... 

Also, if there is temporary pain, why would it not be humane to offer pain management just like a spay/neuter surgery? Why would that be any more or less cruel? 

Don't get me started on the Primate labs. I know there are necessary evils but I think some folks take that way too far. There are so many cruelties in this world which is part of my reason for thinking the docking thing is so minor in compression. (sorry 32 years of docked tails, hard to give up so easy)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> If it were shown by several independent labs that it caused serious amounts of pain, it most definitely could be changed. With or without the consent of breeders. It would end up being put through as legislation banning it, due to animal cruelty.


Ooh, with all these people willing to "fight to the death for the right to do it"? Sounds like fun. Maybe not riot-in-the-street magnitude, but....it would be interesting.

Is there pain management that can safely be used with 3-day-old puppies?



Inga said:


> There are so many cruelties in this world which is part of my reason for thinking the docking thing is so minor in compression. (sorry 32 years of docked tails, hard to give up so easy)


Well, here's the thing----I see them as all connected....you allow the small cruelties and things escalate. If the minor things are not allowed to happen, it's easier to prevent the larger cruelties.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Ohh, with all these people willing to "fight to the death for the right to do it"? Sounds like fun. Maybe not riot-in-the-street magnitude, but....it would be interesting.
> 
> Is there pain management that can safely be used with 3-day-old puppies?


Where are all these people that said they would fight to the death?

They have done surgery on puppies so I would assume but I think I will talk to my vet about that just for curiosity sake. I think he will laugh though. I know he has docked a whole lot of puppies and doesn't see it as a big deal. He is retiring soon though, so it will be interesting to see if the clinic changes it's view on docking.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

trumpetjock said:


> Yup, I was trying to stay away from that fact because it isn't something most dog enthuseists would support.


Hairless dogs are used often in dermatological science... I have read papers from many studies done on them. So even though it makes me sad to think of those dogs, it doesn't shock me anymore. Lots of problematic things happen in laboratories, but also many beneficial things, too... it's a difficult subject to work out my feelings on.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Well, here's the thing----I see them as all connected....you allow the small cruelties and things escalate. If the minor things are not allowed to happen, it's easier to prevent the larger cruelties.


Until proved otherwise, I do not see it as cruel. As I have stated, as have others who have seen the docking many times over. The puppies certainly do not act as though it is painful or upsetting to them. I have had a lot of docked dogs and have not witnessed any long term side effects. If it is "cruel" as you say, it needs to be proved. 

You would be taken more seriously by the Pro docking folks if the fingers were not pointing and the verbal slams were not being made to them. Just a thought.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Inga said:


> Where are all these people that said they would fight to the death?





GypsyJazmine said:


> I do not care for tail docking or ear cropping but I will defend to my dying breath the right to do it!
> It is SUCH a close call & such a thin line!


I was mostly going on this post. But I have heard people say it, plenty of people. Mostly at the AKC chapter when I had Penny in obedience classes. It seems that most average dog owners (the type you meet at the dog park, not the type that hang at the AKC) do not have well-thought-out opinions on the matter. They either think it's "OK, I guess", or "mean".


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Inga said:


> In this case there is. Convince a few hundred breeders that breed to standard. can't be back yard breeders because a dog NOT bred to standard couldn't be compared. Again, bred for proper tails, ears etc...
> 
> Also, if there is temporary pain, why would it not be humane to offer pain management just like a spay/neuter surgery? Why would that be any more or less cruel?


It could easily be argued that it is impossible to breed out the pain reaction to docking tails. Clearly, we don't even know if there IS a pain reaction, so how could it be bred out? If you were doing a study on the long term effects (phantom limb?) of it, I would definitely count that as a concern. Dogs who had long term neurological problems associated with it most definitely would have been bred out.

Topical anesthetic could be used for docking. There's actually a lot of strong data pushing towards topical anesthesia when circumsizing human males, so the effects of it on newborns at least in humans is well documented.

I'm barely accepting of tail docking as it is. If you through into the mix data suggesting high amounts of pain involved, I would be firmly against it. Giving serious chemicals to an animal so little developed that their eyes aren't even open just to remove it's tail isn't within my ethical boundaries.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Inga said:


> Until proved otherwise, I do not see it as cruel. As I have stated, as have others who have seen the docking many times over. The puppies certainly do not act as though it is painful or upsetting to them. I have had a lot of docked dogs and have not witnessed any long term side effects. If it is "cruel" as you say, it needs to be proved.
> 
> You would be taken more seriously by the Pro docking folks if the fingers were not pointing and the verbal slams were not being made to them. Just a thought.


Well, I was trying to avoid the word "cruel". But you said that "here are so many cruelties in this world which is part of my reason for thinking the docking thing is so minor in compression" so I was going from there. I did make the concession of "small cruelties".

I would take the pro-docking people more seriously if I wasn't told to shut up until I actually watch a litter being docked....just a thought.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> It could easily be argued that it is impossible to breed out the pain reaction to docking tails. Clearly, we don't even know if there IS a pain reaction, so how could it be bred out? If you were doing a study on the long term effects (phantom limb?) of it, I would definitely count that as a concern. Dogs who had long term neurological problems associated with it most definitely would have been bred out.
> 
> .


It could be argued though I am not sure I would believe it. I am not for a second suggesting that Rottweiler's (for example) do not feel pain, they most certainly do. They are however, a lot less sensitive then some other breeds. There are some breeds that are bred to be "less sensitive" to touch. (not the right words there but you know what I mean)

Look at dogs in temperament tests. Have you seen them done in shelters? many of the shelters do a "pinch test" The breeds that more commonly pass that test are some of the breeds I am talking about. If I grab my dogs skin for instance vs. grabbing a thin skinned dog. 

I am over tired right now and not making the best sense but hopefully you understand what I am getting at. The dog breeds that are historically docked are dogs breed to be...tough (for lack of a better description)



Willowy said:


> Well, I was trying to avoid the word "cruel". But you said that "here are so many cruelties in this world which is part of my reason for thinking the docking thing is so minor in compression" so I was going from there. I did make the concession of "small cruelties".
> 
> I would take the pro-docking people more seriously if I wasn't told to shut up until I actually watch a litter being docked....just a thought.


I know I didn't say that. I will say though, that super good owner's do tend to get a little defensive when being accused of being cruel to their dogs. Especially breeders that go way out of their way to be the absolute best most conscientious owner/breeder that they can be. Then when people come on and insinuate that what they are doing is cruel and compare it to the illegal activity of dog fighting. I can see how they might be defensive. 

I think it is fair to say that everyone on this forum LOVES their dogs. We are a forum of dog lovers and very dedicated to our much loved pets. This is why we spend countless time on this forum sharing stories, laughs and information about our dogs. 

I know it isn't always easy to make an argument without accusation but it is something to keep in ones mind when offering it. We all love our dogs and certainly do not see it as cruel. If we believed for a second it was, I am sure we wouldn't be doing it. At least, I wouldn't.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

One thing I'm noticing that some folks don't address... is that tails are not always 'cut off', sometimes they are just 'banded' so the tail shrivels and falls off without being cut at all. Puppies notice banding even less than they notice cutting, I'd think.

If it's the thought of pain from _cutting_ that is the main reason folks have a problem with docking, then wouldn't banding tails be acceptable?


----------



## lizziedog1 (Oct 21, 2009)

Some here have mentioned doing a study about tail docking. That would be a good idea. I have looked up other studies about dogs, they are woefully lacking. They have never even done a full, scientific study of male versus female dogs. I wonder why doggie research is so lacking.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> They outlawed it in parts of Europe, and so far breeding has not been banned, and the sky has not fallen....I dunno, I think some people get to be alarmists on some things.


 
Many of those countries have outlawed ANY surgical alteration of animals, not ONLY cropping or docking, but also spay, nueter (unless medically neccesary), declaw, & debark. They have taken ALL choice away from animal owners and breeders. Is that really what people want, to have our rights to make medical decisions taken away? Like it or not, that's what some seek to do.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Many of those countries have outlawed ANY surgical alteration of animals, not ONLY cropping or docking, but also spay, nueter (unless medically neccesary), declaw, & debark. They have taken ALL choice away from animal owners and breeders. Is that really what people want, to have our rights to make medical decisions taken away? Like it or not, that's what some seek to do.


Aside from spaying and neutering, I don't see any of those as medical decisions. I see them as cosmetic decisions.

Should we have the right to make cosmetic decisions for animals that can't make the decision themselves?


Also, re: banding.... This most definitely is a more invasive method of removing the tail. Instead of a discrete surgical event, you cut off blood flow to the tail, causing it LITERALLY to rot off. Necrosis of the tail tissue is the mechanism in which the tail is removed.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

lizziedog1 said:


> Some here have mentioned doing a study about tail docking. That would be a good idea. I have looked up other studies about dogs, they are woefully lacking. They have never even done a full, scientific study of male versus female dogs. I wonder why doggie research is so lacking.


Probably because there are so many more important areas of study to spread the funding over.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Cropping and docking are procedures that could prevent further injury later in life. True many of these dogs aren't working, but even home accidents (such as Inga's rottie catching it's tail on fire because the nerve ending in a tail that was supposed to be docked weren't properly developed) can cause trauma. Ears are a little harder to argue, but I definitely notice a difference in my cropped girls ear health and the ear health of my Pug and EB. Erect ears, whether through cropping, posting or natural have better air flow, therefore the chances of infection are less. 

Here is a very interesting report from Sweden where tail docking has been banned.
http://cdb.org/countries/sweden.htm


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Keechak said:


> A good friend of mine in Texas will leave the tails on puppies by request to people who are interested in shipping to Europe. Her last litter she left three tails on and I think two of the Europe homes fell thru so the two pups went to performance homes here in the states.
> 
> So no it's not all or nothing. If I requested a performance dog with a tail from her I will bet you she would have no issue leaving a tail on a puppy in the litter that looked non show quality for me.


My aussie pup as a kid 40 odd years ago had a tail, I grew up with that dog as the only one I saw as a kid as they weren't a popular breed back then in Texas, so aussies without tails just look unnatural to me I guess, just doesn't look right.

I don't think I could have one without a tail, though it did pick up a lot of burrs and such out in the fields we had to pick out of it.


----------



## Spitzy (Oct 13, 2007)

Great discussion going on - it's really interesting catching up and reading the different view points. Special "word" to TJ re: cortisol, banding, and about studies and stuff. 

I want to pull a few quotes from the review article I linked, that are relevant to discussion points that have come up. (ref: Bennett, P.C. and Perini, E., Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues, _Aus. Vet. J._ *81* (2003) 208-218)

On measuring pain (cortisol, etc)


> A congruence between reporting pain and actually feeling pain can never be absolutely guaranteed.9 ... Behavioural indices of pain, such as a reluctance to come in contact with a potentially painful stimulus and distress vocalisations, are often employed, as are physiological indicators, such as a raised concentration of plasma cortisol or corticosterone, depending on the species, and increased heart rate. Webster,12 in his discussion of animal welfare science, argues that in order to adequately understand the nature of pain in animals it is necessary to consider three areas of research, physiology, behaviour and neurobiology, and that none of these are sufficient in isolation. ... Unfortunately, the problems associated with inferring pain are magnified again when considering very young infants and young animals, which may be physically incapable of displaying behaviours thought to be indicative of pain.15 It may also be impossible in these organisms to extract blood or saliva samples in sufficient quantities to permit the measurement of stress-related hormones, and the very act of collecting the samples may be sufficiently stressful or painful to confound any results obtained.


On immature neurological systems


> Indeed, some authors claim that puppies may be more sensitive to pain than adult dogs, because inhibitory nerve pathways are also poorly developed.1,2 In human infants it is commonly argued that pain perception may be magnified by the immature state of the spinal cord27,31,32 and, in rat pups, there is evidence that very immature organisms may experience pain more intensely than do more mature infants (cited in McVey31). In ‘tailed’ animals, like canines, the spinal cord extends further down the vertebral column in infants than it does in adults, perhaps leading to a higher risk of docking-related infection and, potentially, a
> greater magnitude of pain.2


Re: Pai's question about the issue being with the act of cutting... personally, I find the question of more chronic pain associated with the severing of nerves to be more compelling. 

Phantom limb syndrome in young humans (including those born without a limb)


> There are reports that phantom limb experiences occur in up to 20% of people in which limbs are congenitally absent, or when amputation occurs before the age of 6 years.36 Other studies, reviewed in Melzack et al,31 have contradicted these findings, however, leaving the issue open to conjecture. The fact that ongoing pain occurs in even a small number of persons who experience limb amputation very early in life, or who are born with congenitally absent limbs, seems sufficient to raise concerns about tail docking in dogs


Neuromas


> Neuromas are bundles of nerve fibres that develop almost inevitably when axons are severed in mammals and birds. They consist of swollen, tangled masses of nerves, present either as one large mass or as smaller, scattered masses.37 In most cases, neuromas resolve over several weeks as the excess axon sprouts degenerate and the mass regresses. They can persist indefinitely, however, causing spontaneous nerve activity which may be perceived as chronic pain. Neuromas have been documented in lamb tail stumps up to 6 months after docking,38 in pig tail stumps following docking,39 and in the beaks of chickens that have had their beaks trimmed.40 In chickens, neuromas formed after partial beak amputation continue to develop for at least 70 days and can persist for up to 70
> weeks.37,40 ...
> 
> We were unable to find any scientifically controlled studies demonstrating the presence, or absence, of neuromas in dogs following tail docking. This lack of evidence may simply be due to the fact that dogs, unlike farm animal species, are not regularly killed in large numbers soon after docking takes place, so the appropriate assay cannot be conducted. It is possible that dogs, due to the very young age at which they are docked, develop less persistent neuromas than species treated later in life but there is no evidence to support this claim. Indeed, in one study in which three canines with docked tails were euthanased for behavioural problems, all of the dogs were found to have neuromas even though the docking process had occurred many years previously.41 Due to the biased nature of this very small sample, it would not be appropriate to generalise the findings.






cshellenberger said:


> Here is a very interesting report from Sweden where tail docking has been banned.
> http://cdb.org/countries/sweden.htm


This is interesting. It does not, however, appear to be a well referenced and peer-reviewed study, instead being "published" on a website whose bias the study confirms. However, I believe the report you linked is cited in the review I've been referencing. (ref 51 of their paper) Here's an excerpt from their section discussing tail injury.


> if docking is to be justified for the purpose of preventing adult tail damage in any breed, two assumptions require empirical support. First, evidence is required to support the claim that these traditionally docked dogs are particularly likely to sustain tail damage if left undocked, and that they are likely to do so in sufficient numbers to justify docking all members of the particular breed. Second, it is necessary to establish that tail damage in adult dogs is likely to cause substantially more suffering than does the docking process.
> 
> Unfortunately, persuasive evidence with which to either support or refute such claims is lacking. Since tail docking has been banned in Sweden, there has reportedly been a significant increase in the number of dogs from some breeds presenting to veterinary clinics with tail damage.51 There are also anecdotal reports of increased tail damage in dogs left undocked in other countries, and the Council for the Promotion of Docked Dogs displays numerous graphic photos of tail damage on their web site.52 No scientifically controlled studies have been reported, however, and other available anecdotal evidence, suggesting that the incidence of tail damage in European countries remains low, indicates that these few examples may be misleading. Many traditionally docked breeds for which a propensity for tail damage is claimed, simply do not engage in high risk activities. In addition, for almost all breeds that are traditionally docked, a corresponding breed can be found that engages in the same kind of activities but that has traditionally not been docked.2 This calls into question the veracity of the argument, although it has not yet been established empirically whether some breeds do suffer extensive tail damage as a result of carrying out particular activities or whether some breeds may have specific tail characteristics that render them genuinely more predisposed



I'll say... I believe I have reasonable doubt that the percentage of dogs that suffer adult tail injury is greater than the percent of dogs that suffer neurological side-effects of some sort resulting from the severing of spinal nerves.

I'll also mention that neuroendocrine immunology is sort of a hobby-interest of mine, though it isn't my specialty... and while I don't have time to elaborate at present and perhaps not the depth of knowledge to do justice to it ever, given what I've studied about the cross-talk of these chemical systems and their storage of... "molecular memory" I'll call it - I find it very difficult to be blithe about the severing of a major route of nerves.


----------



## MoosMom (Sep 15, 2009)

I just want to say I don't think human pain/memory and dog pain/memory should be compared. While are both mammals, we are very different. Can't compare apples and oranges even if they are both fruit. Until a dog(or cat) can open it's mouth and say to me 
"my feelings are really hurt because you cut off my tail/declawed me" I will not have an issue with things like docking. I've sat in many times and seen it done and I never left the room crying or feeling bad for the puppies. A topical anesthetic was always administered as pain management. 

I don't think animals have phantom limb issues, people do because it's an emotional thing. We see our family and friends with all their arms and legs and long to have the same, no matter when the loss occurred. Heck I even have phantom pain for people I see who have a serious injury, however my butt doesn't hurt when I see a dog with a missing tail.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

MoosMom said:


> I don't think animals have phantom limb issues, people do because it's an emotional thing.


This is absolutely false. Phantom limb has nothing to do with emotionas. It is a proven physical neurological problem. The same nerve problems that give these problems to humans exist in animals. 

Great posting Spitzy. I knew that there were pitfalls in assuming more cortisol=pain, but if the study were to be well enough controlled so that the only variable in the process was the actual sensation created by the cut, it would still be possible to measure the increase.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

MoosMom said:


> I don't think animals have phantom limb issues, people do because it's an emotional thing. We see our family and friends with all their arms and legs and long to have the same, no matter when the loss occurred. Heck I even have phantom pain for people I see who have a serious injury, however my butt doesn't hurt when I see a dog with a missing tail.


 
Phantom Limb is NOT psychological, it's Physiological. It's due to the nerves being cut off. Lets say there's a lag amputation, the Sciatic nerve, which runs from the L5-S1 vertebrae to the toes gets cut off, but will still receive 'signals' which leads to the Phantom sensation of still having toes and the burning pain of a nerve trying to repair itself. Nerve pain is VERY real, ask any person that suffers with a condition such as Fibromyalgia or a ruptured disc.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Phantom limb pain is something I was very concerned about when I had my adult male docked. I had a lot of reservation about allowing the vet to do this surgery but he assured me it was the best course of action for my dog. I was truly shocked to see what little reaction my dog had to this amputation. I expected temperament changes behavior changes of some type but there truly were none to be noted. At that time, the dog was around a large group of people and none of us noted any difference in his behavior. Did he feel pain? I hope not. Would he have felt pain had I left the tail alone? probably.

In rescue over the years, I have dealt with many dogs that had to have limbs removed for various reasons. Most commonly back legs and on occasion fronts. The dogs do miraculously well. It is a short transition and they seem to simply adjust to life without a limb. Not saying I would wish my dog to endure anything of the sort for cosmetic reasons but I just do not see the puppies suffering from docking. I am not sure about the cropping thing.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Inga said:


> Phantom limb pain is something I was very concerned about when I had my adult male docked. I had a lot of reservation about allowing the vet to do this surgery but he assured me it was the best course of action for my dog. I was truly shocked to see what little reaction my dog had to this amputation. I expected temperament changes behavior changes of some type but there truly were none to be noted. At that time, the dog was around a large group of people and none of us noted any difference in his behavior. Did he feel pain? I hope not. Would he have felt pain had I left the tail alone? probably.
> 
> In rescue over the years, I have dealt with many dogs that had to have limbs removed for various reasons. Most commonly back legs and on occasion fronts. The dogs do miraculously well. It is a short transition and they seem to simply adjust to life without a limb. Not saying I would wish my dog to endure anything of the sort for cosmetic reasons but I just do not see the puppies suffering from docking. I am not sure about the cropping thing.


Dogs react and rebound a whole lot better when they take any type of injury. Think about it, how fast are female dogs up and about showing no pain after a spay? How long do humans have to stay in the hospital after a hysterectomy, and how long would you wander around like a zombie even after you were discharged?

I'm willing to bet good money that your male dog experienced a good amount of recovery pain. I don't know the circumstances that led to an adult docking, but knowing you, I wholeheartedly trust they were very good ones, so I don't judge.

The absolute worst way to measure a dog's pain level is through their behavior. Their entire evolutionary history created them to be first highly tolerant of pain, and second to mask that pain.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> Dogs react and rebound a whole lot better when they take any type of injury. Think about it, how fast are female dogs up and about showing no pain after a spay? How long do humans have to stay in the hospital after a hysterectomy, and how long would you wander around like a zombie even after you were discharged?
> 
> I'm willing to bet good money that your male dog experienced a good amount of recovery pain. I don't know the circumstances that led to an adult docking, but knowing you, I wholeheartedly trust they were very good ones, so I don't judge.
> 
> The absolute worst way to measure a dog's pain level is through their behavior. Their entire evolutionary history created them to be first highly tolerant of pain, and second to mask that pain.



My dog had a series of serious injuries to his tail. The vet tried in vain to have me dock the tail but I believed it "cruel" to dock an adult dog. The final straw and the change in my mind was when he lit his tail on fire during a campfire and the only reason we knew it was because we smelled the hair and flesh burning. Bear never seemed to notice that either. After the surgery, or rather, after he woke up, he was ready to run and play like normal. I have dealt with animals in pain and they do tend to lay around a bit more. They also might not show interest in food. Bear had a great appetite, wanted to play with all of his doggy friends and was excited to go for a walk just a few hours after the groggy feeling wore off. In that case, the vet was right. It was no big deal for him.

As far as how long it hurts after a human has a hysterectomy? I am all too aware and take Spaying a dog very seriously. I know how it feels so I have a LOT of empathy for them. Can't say I laid around or walked around like a zombie though. My hair may have looked like it but I was up and around a the same day and each day got a little better. I did not run around and bounce off the couch like my females did after surgery though, I assure you. I think that suggests they do not have as much discomfort or that it doesn't bother them like it does us.


----------



## MoosMom (Sep 15, 2009)

Hey, how come we are talking about docking tails and no one has brought up removing dew-claws when they dock tails? DO we have people opposed to that too?


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> Great posting Spitzy. I knew that there were pitfalls in assuming more cortisol=pain, but if the study were to be well enough controlled so that the only variable in the process was the actual sensation created by the cut, it would still be possible to measure the increase.


I'd be curious to know how sensitive cortisol would be to the difference between simple handling and handling with docking. If the handling itself is stressful enough, any additional stressors could be washed out in the response. What I mean to say is: you may elicit a peak response simply by handling, in which case you wouldn't be able to measure the effect of pain. This is something I should know - I study corticosterone in birds - but I don't. 
In any case, one of the behavioral reasons you see an increase in cortisol is to induce a fight or flight response - which generally isn't the best option for young mammals or birds, which may encourage a suppression of a cort response. And an increase in fetal cortisol occurs at gestation and lasts several days past birthing (the amount of time cort is elevated depends on the species and, at least in some cases, even on the breed). My point being, exactly what cort levels and responses mean in young animals is still pretty up in the air. Although I have seen it used to try to measure the effects of castration on goats and lambs. I'd just take that stuff with a grain of salt.

Sorry for the serious nerd-out. I still think it would be cool to do, I'm just wondering if there would be a better tool than cortisol...


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

MoosMom said:


> Hey, how come we are talking about docking tails and no one has brought up removing dew-claws when they dock tails? DO we have people opposed to that too?


It is a big world, there are people against every thing in this world. Including keeping dogs as pets.


----------



## Spitzy (Oct 13, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> Great posting Spitzy. I knew that there were pitfalls in assuming more cortisol=pain, but if the study were to be well enough controlled so that the only variable in the process was the actual sensation created by the cut, it would still be possible to measure the increase.


Thanks! And I do agree with you, that it seems possible to set up a well-controlled study like you described in an early post where both control and docked puppies were handled in the same manner except for the actual docking. Including sample taking, as this would need to be done anyway on the controls for such a study. The article cites sample-size of blood and saliva as a possible issue due to the small size of puppies, but there are techniques such as mass spectrometry that are very sensitive. I know quantitative analysis by mass spectrometry can be a little sketchy, but it is done.



Moosmom said:


> I just want to say I don't think human pain/memory and dog pain/memory should be compared. While are both mammals, we are very different. Can't compare apples and oranges even if they are both fruit. Until a dog(or cat) can open it's mouth and say to me
> "my feelings are really hurt because you cut off my tail/declawed me" I will not have an issue with things like docking. I've sat in many times and seen it done and I never left the room crying or feeling bad for the puppies. A topical anesthetic was always administered as pain management.
> 
> I don't think animals have phantom limb issues, people do because it's an emotional thing. We see our family and friends with all their arms and legs and long to have the same, no matter when the loss occurred. Heck I even have phantom pain for people I see who have a serious injury, however my butt doesn't hurt when I see a dog with a missing tail.


As trumpetjock and cshellenberger have said, phantom limb issues have a physiological basis that is relevant in canines. These are issues that arise due to trauma of cells and molecules within those cells, and for many of those molecules and cells, what a canine has is comparable to what is present in a human body.

You can compare apples and oranges, actually. There are many valid comparisons one can make, such as the development time of the fruit, the level of protective enzymes in the seeds that allow them to lie dormant and then sprout, the levels of vitamin C, etc.

Humans and canines are both mammals, and there are a lot of similarities. We both have an amygdala which is the part of the brain that has roles in memory and emotion, and a hippocampus which is very important in learning and memory. We have the same signal molecules, like serotonin, dopamine, acetylcholine, androgens, cortisol, etc. There is a lot of homology between the genes of humans and other mammals, for example I BLASTed the somatostatin/mu opiate receptor protein sequence and verified that it is highly conserved between humans and dogs. Many of the machines (receptors, enzymes, etc) that make our cells work are built from effectively the same blueprints. Immunology is one of my weakest points, but I’d hazard that there’s a lot of similarity there as well.

In terms of pain memory that I alluded to when speaking of the neuro/immune/endocrine cross-talk – these are the systems where those signal molecules function. When a body undergoes a reaction, especially a “traumatic” reaction, there are shifts in these signal molecules. In the brain (amygdala, hippocampus, etc) but also in other tissues where these molecules and the cells that produce them reside. And after that sort of response, there are physical changes enacted at the molecular level that alter the way your body will respond to later events.

Now, that said, there are of course differences between humans and dogs as well as between different breeds of dogs. There are genetic differences and, maybe more importantly, epigenetic differences. It is extremely improbable that a dog will ever say “my feelings are hurt”, and it is improbable that we’ll ever be able to prove what a dog is “feeling”.

I will say that the more I’ve learned of the cellular and molecular underpinnings of things like “learning” “memory” and “emotion”, the more it gives me pause, what humans do to other organisms with the apparent justification that “they don’t have feelings”, or insufficient feeling. The molecular basis for how we function is pretty well preserved pretty far down the food chain. I’m not saying I’m comfortable claiming that dogs or other animals have emotions in the way humans do. Humans are certainly exceptional in the way we assert ourselves upon the world.



Inga said:


> _…phantom limb pain, Bear’s story, three-legged dogs…_


(Please excuse my lame summary!) While I don’t have extensive experience, the three-legged dogs that I have interacted with also seem to be very well adjusted. And I would not expect that every amputation results in phantom pain or neuromas, as the literature suggests that these occur in only a percentage of cases. It’s awesome that Bear apparently rebounded so well, and it sounds like he was a case where overall the health risks of keeping his tail outweighed the health risks of amputating his tail.

I can certainly imagine that there are populations of dogs where the risks of a tail may outweigh the risks of docking/amputation. I don’t know that I believe that the current prevalence of docking is at a health cost/benefit balance that I’m comfortable with given what I’ve read in the literature. 

I also question whether behavioral observation is sufficient in detecting the physiological issues that may result from docking/amputation. As trumpetjock has already discussed, animals are more prone to masking pain. (This was also addressed in the review I quoted from, though I did not quote all relevant passages.) Throughbreds who continue racing on broken bones are one extreme example that comes to mind. I realize that there are behavior changes that can be observed in certain cases of pain/sickness, but I’m not sure that’s sufficient cause to believe there will always be behavior changes.

Ultimately – the likelihood of a dog (or human) having a life completely free of any physical (or psychological) trauma is slim. If I had a magic wand to wave, I’d probably wish for an increase in pet-people who adopted pets from shelters/rescues to reduce dog-trauma that way before I’d wish for a decrease in docked dogs that have the safety-net of a good breeder.

I do lean towards thinking that trauma from docking is probable, and in many cases unnecessary. Therefore, I’d hope that undocked (and uncropped) dogs would become more acceptable and common in the various dog communities. Ideally, the spontaneous-falling-apart issues of tails of certain breeds may be rectified by breeding for sounder tails instead of avoiding the problem by lopping them off. (I emphasize ideally, since I realize that gene-pool size is a huge issue and there are other issues that rightly deserve higher priority in breeding decisions.) While I'm not inclined to support docking (or cropping), neither do I think it’s worth demonizing someone over.



waterbaby said:


> My point being, exactly what cort levels and responses mean in young animals is still pretty up in the air. Although I have seen it used to try to measure the effects of castration on goats and lambs. I'd just take that stuff with a grain of salt.
> 
> Sorry for the serious nerd-out. I still think it would be cool to do, I'm just wondering if there would be a better tool than cortisol...


Aaaand – I’m just seeing this now. Ehm - maybe I write too much.  Anyway... Cool info! I wonder, too…


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Spitzy said:


> Thanks! And I do agree with you, that it seems possible to set up a well-controlled study like you described in an early post where both control and docked puppies were handled in the same manner except for the actual docking. Including sample taking, as this would need to be done anyway on the controls for such a study. The article cites sample-size of blood and saliva as a possible issue due to the small size of puppies, but there are techniques such as mass spectrometry that are very sensitive. I know quantitative analysis by mass spectrometry can be a little sketchy, but it is done.


Sample size (as in blood drawn) shouldn't be an issue. I get blood from 21 g birds for corticosterone analysis - enough for baseline and restraint stress analyses. Mammal people, used to working with big things - sheesh.  



Spitzy said:


> Aaaand – I’m just seeing this now. Ehm - maybe I write too much.  Anyway... Cool info! I wonder, too…


No way, the neuro stuff is super interesting! Very good information.



Spitzy said:


> I can certainly imagine that there are populations of dogs where the risks of a tail may outweigh the risks of docking/amputation... I don’t know that I believe that the current prevalence of docking is at a health cost/benefit balance that I’m comfortable with given what I’ve read in the literature.


This is pretty much my take on the matter as well. Why not think about the elective surgeries we've been talking about: docking/cropping/dew claw removing/spay/neuter ... in terms of risks (risks including pain during and after, personality changes, infection, whatever) and benefits (high probability of preventing injury, etc.) rather than approaching it from a "boxers look better with cropped ears" mentality? They might also look better with silicone injections in their lips (yes I'm being silly); but, when the argument is largely aesthetic, in my mind the risks will always outweigh the benefits.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

Spitzy, trumpetjock and waterbaby your posts are interesting. Do you all work in the science field?


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

In some herding and hunting breeds, it's done for safety reasons so that the dog is less likely to get his tail injured while doing his work. According to a book on Springer Spaniels I have, a Springer is constantly wagging his tail during a hunt and often works around thorny bushes.
While I do not agree with docking for cosmetic reasons, I'm tolerant to it as long as it's done when the dog is only days old. I've known many happy and healthy dogs with docked tails--all of whom have no trouble communicating with other dogs.


----------



## lizziedog1 (Oct 21, 2009)

Tail damage seems to be a rationale used by some for tail docking. Wolves and coyotes live amongst thorns and brush. Last I looked they have full tails. Someone should examine them and see if they are indeed injured or have scars.

Some are comparing the tail docking procedure to spaying and neutering. When a dog is having its sex organs removed, it is under anesthesia and I assume that the dog is not feeling any pain. I have had surgery before, it didn't hurt, as a matter of fact I don't remember a thing. I closed my eyes, then opened them again after what seemed like a second to me, and the procedure was done. I am sure if I was awake my feeling about the operation would be very different.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The reason for comparing the tail docking to S/N is the S/N is a much more invasive procedure, though it may not be as much pain initially, ther is definately more pain in the reciovery. Lets also remember the S/N is done far later in life than a tail dock or dew claw removal. Wolves and Coyotes have a much thicker tail than many of the breeds we're speaking of, also in many of these breeds because of the traditional docking done, the nerves in the lower part of the tail, don't develop properly (as in Inga's Rottie). Not all breeds are docked for the feild, Rotties were docked for pulling carts, which the tail interfered with (think of your draft horses which are also docked for pulling). 

I suppose docking would be better compared to circumcision in humans, both are done in the first week of birth, niether is done under anesthesia and neither seem to have any repercissions later in life. However both, if not done at birth and decided on later in life are very painful and traumatic procedures.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Spitzy said:


> Ultimately – the likelihood of a dog (or human) having a life completely free of any physical (or psychological) trauma is slim. If I had a magic wand to wave, I’d probably wish for an increase in pet-people who adopted pets from shelters/rescues to reduce dog-trauma that way before I’d wish for a decrease in docked dogs that have the safety-net of a good breeder.


Me too. In my many years of working in rescue, I have dealt with many other rescue people. Mostly in Rottweiler and Doberman rescue, but other breeds as well. There are actually rescue people that will have the tails of their rescued litters docked too. This is because the fact is, people adopting the pup will be more likely to adopt one that looks like the breed standard calls for. 
Dobes are more likely to be adopted if they are docked/cropped and Rotties with docked tails. It is a fact. 
My concern is with getting the dogs into a home that will love them and take proper care of them for the duration of their lives. If that means they have to lose their tails to do it, I can kind of understand it.
With the millions of unwanted pets being killed in shelters and rescues every single year, placing the ones we can is so important. To me at least. I guess when you have seen what I have, docking and even cropping seems pretty far down on the list of things to worry about in life. 

Humans as a rule do all kinds of crazy thing when it comes to dogs. Breeding for extremes in many ways. Under bites, short nose, googley eyes, small, large etc... Then after people have adopted/purchased these dogs that they absolutely HAD TO HAVE, they get sick of them and dump them off to run to their next HAVE TO HAVE item. Working in rescue is hard, and I have seen so much sadness. I have also witnessed many tail dockings, dewclaw removal and I just don't see it as a big deal. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I just don't. 

If they can prove to me that the puppy is in excruciating pain during the procedure and just doesn't show it and then it spends it's life with emotional/psychological scaring, I would certainly change my tune. Again, with all the dogs I have dealt with, I have not witnessed any signs of this. I might not be as smart as some of you (or some of you who think you are) but I do pay very close attention to my dogs and I do LOVE them and want what is best for them. I am sure my stance on docking comes from 32 years of owning a docked breed. I love the little docked tails, I just do.

Edit: Carla I totally agree with you. I see docking as much like circumcisions it is done before they know it and it doesn't seem to have any long term effects.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

MoosMom said:


> Hey, how come we are talking about docking tails and no one has brought up removing dew-claws when they dock tails? DO we have people opposed to that too?


I'm only opposed to anything of the sort if it isn't necessary. My dog has her dew claws, but she's not a working dog, so I don't believe it's necessary to pay for a surgery I don't need and won't improve my dog's well-being. I was irked when a groomer told me to get them removed. 

There was a point I wanted to make about spaying/neutering, but it doesn't seem like anyone is talking about it anymore, but I'll make it anyway.  *From what I know*, spaying and neutering isn't just for the convenience of the owner, but also for the animal. Doesn't getting a male dog spayed improve his temperament, making him less aggressive, territorial, etc? The females as well? I'm sure there are exceptions to that, but... that was kinda half statement half question.. XD Also, in a previous thread, we have all agreed that the "average" dog owner is pretty darned stupid, and I wouldn't trust them to not get their dogs pregnant or to not reproduce, so spaying/neutering as a common procedure can prevent a lot of unwanted puppies. And I'd have to point out that it must be extremely frustrating to have a sex drive and then no one to have sex with your whole life, but that's just me.  So unless you want to buy your dog that crazy new expensive sex toy for dogs, get them spayed/neutered. (I'm sure there are exceptions to that as well, and people have dogs that are spayed/neutered that hump.) 

So yeah, just wanted to make a couple points and see other people's points of views.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The only thing spaying and nuetering does effectively is to stop the dog from reproducing. Thyroid will be more Likely to affect a dogs temperament than reproductive hormones, the only differance I've seen in my Dobe girl since having her spayed is I don't have to put up with the mess of a heat every 6 months. Her temperament is exactly what it was before the spay.

As far as health benefits, the jury is still out. I know there is some reSearch now that suggests that early spay nueter may in fact have a detremental impact on long term health.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Inga said:


> Edit: Carla I totally agree with you. I see docking as much like circumcisions it is done before they know it and it doesn't seem to have any long term effects.


I for one certainly have no memory of it... 

I can see docking if it's likely a dog will likely face injury or amputation in adulthood if it's not done, which is a real issue. Otherwise I fail to see the point. I think dogs look better with a tail.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> The only thing spaying and nuetering does effectively is to stop the dog from reproducing. Thyroid will be more Likely to affect a dogs temperament than reproductive hormones, the only differance I've seen in my Dobe girl since having her spayed is I don't have to put up with the mess of a heat every 6 months. Her temperament is exactly what it was before the spay.
> 
> As far as health benefits, the jury is still out. I know there is some reSearch now that suggests that early spay nueter may in fact have a detremental impact on long term health.


I was talking about possible change in the case of aggressive or territorial dogs, not in other temperaments, or the temperament of your Doberman if she's not aggressive or territorial. Although I have heard of dogs becoming mopey after having it done, specifically male dogs, but I could be remembering that totally wrong.

If spaying/neutering too early can lead to health issues later, then just spay/neuter later. If spaying/neutering can lead to health issues later in general, that could be bad...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

The only thing I don't understand is why weren't the dogs bred for short tails and smaller ears that wouldn't get in the way of their breed jobs.

Assuming it's possible to bred for that (and considering how beagles come in three sizes, and how we've "toyed" several breeds and whatnot, I'd be more surprised that it WOULDN'T be possible), why wasn't it ever done over the hundreds of years some of these breeds have existed?

If everyone with that breed was cropping tails and ears, why didn't anyone think to breed for short tails and smaller ears?



TxRider said:


> I can see docking if it's likely a dog will likely face injury or amputation in adulthood if it's not done, which is a real issue. Otherwise I fail to see the point. I think dogs look better with a tail.


This makes me wonder something else.

We know that dogs use tails to communicate as part of their body language. Ears too for that matter.

Does having less/no tail and smaller ears interfere with the dog's ability to communicate to other dogs?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

She is territorial. I've Had to work with her extensively. Spaying her has done nothing.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

KBLover said:


> The only thing I don't understand is why weren't the dogs bred for short tails and smaller ears that wouldn't get in the way of their breed jobs.
> 
> Assuming it's possible to bred for that (and considering how beagles come in three sizes, and how we've "toyed" several breeds and whatnot, I'd be more surprised that it WOULDN'T be possible), why wasn't it ever done over the hundreds of years some of these breeds have existed?


They do. Aussies for example sometimes are born with a natural bobtail. Many other docked breeds are selectively bred for the bobtail. It's much harder than docking though, and if you can focus on the stuff you can change and dock, it's easier.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Inga said:


> Edit: Carla I totally agree with you. I see docking as much like circumcisions it is done before they know it and it doesn't seem to have any long term effects.


In my opinion, comparing docking to human circumcision doesn't strengthen the pro-docking argument. Circumcision, unlike (some cases of) docking, is entirely a cultural phenomenon with no functional or health benefits. And, like docking, it's performed on individuals who have absolutely no say in the matter.

It probably won't surprise you that there are probably as many people against circumcision as against tail docking, etc.

For me, the strongest argument for docking is that it prevents injury or health problems later in life. Any other reason doesn't hold much water.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

waterbaby said:


> In my opinion, comparing docking to human circumcision doesn't strengthen the pro-docking argument. Circumcision, unlike (some cases of) docking, is entirely a cultural phenomenon with no functional or health benefits. And, like docking, it's performed on individuals who have absolutely no say in the matter.
> 
> It probably won't surprise you that there are probably as many people against circumcision as against tail docking, etc.
> 
> For me, the strongest argument for docking is that it prevents injury or health problems later in life. Any other reason doesn't hold much water.


Isn't that the great thing about the world? We all have different things we agree and disagree with. What gets to me is the people who think that their opinions are the way things should be and the heck with everyone else's. 

The Circumcision argument wasn't whether you or anyone else agreed with it but rather, it doesn't cause long term damage to the individual.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

waterbaby said:


> In my opinion, comparing docking to human circumcision doesn't strengthen the pro-docking argument. Circumcision, unlike (some cases of) docking, is entirely a cultural phenomenon with no functional or health benefits. And, like docking, it's performed on individuals who have absolutely no say in the matter.
> 
> It probably won't surprise you that there are probably as many people against circumcision as against tail docking, etc.
> 
> For me, the strongest argument for docking is that it prevents injury or health problems later in life. Any other reason doesn't hold much water.


Agreed. I'd much rather have my dog's tail docked than my son's penis circumsized. When it comes time for that, you can bet I won't be letting anyone cut him. A dog's tail is a little less important. If the breeder docks, I don't have a problem with it. Considering how much damage I've been dealt thanks to Lab tails, I wish a few more breeds were docked.  

I have no idea if my puppy's tail has been docked. It's not required by the standard, but it's permitted, so I have no preference at this point.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I was thinking more if the phsycological effects than the physical benefits as well as the right to choose by the parents of a male child or the owners of a dog. Both are in danger thanks to certain groups of people, so there are more similarities on those fronts.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> I was thinking more if the phsycological effects than the physical benefits as well as the right to choose by the parents of a male child or the owners of a dog. Both are in danger thanks to certain groups of people, so there are more similarities on those fronts.


Maybe I'm thinking about this in the wrong way, or I'm too naive. But I don't think people are opposed to docking or circumcision because they want to take choices away from parents/owners. Rather they think it's cruel because (1) it's potentially painful, (2) the individual actually having the procedure has no voice in the matter, and (3) it's an unneeded risk. There are probably other reasons as well... 

I think we all agree that as parents and owners we want to avoid cruelty. And I think most people here would agree that cruelty to animals and children is wrong and should be outlawed. So the impasse is that pro-dockers don't think docking is cruel, while anti-dockers do. (And yes, I realize that I'm hugely oversimplifying categories of people.) I tend not to affiliate with groups so maybe there is a lot of misinformation and propaganda out there regarding docking and a faceless organization is leading the charge to take decision-making power out of the hands of parents and pet owners. But I think that unless owners who want to continue docking recognize the fact that people opposed docking are approaching the procedure from an animal cruelty standpoint, the impasse will continue to exist.

For me, cshellenberger's comparison of docking to circumcision did not highlight the similarities between 2 procedures with no long term effects (and, in fact, circumcision can have lifelong, negative physical effects), but rather highlighted what people are willing to do to others in order to meet social norms that are pretty weird when you think about it.

Anyway, I'm thinking too much and I'm not actually an anti-docker. I'm not super comfortable with it either, though. And I guess arguments like: "We should be able to do what we want to our dogs." and "They look better docked." make me a little nervous and tend to swing my opinion to the other side. I'm not trying to argue, just to figure things out in my own head...


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

waterbaby said:


> In my opinion, comparing docking to human circumcision doesn't strengthen the pro-docking argument. Circumcision, unlike (some cases of) docking, is *entirely a cultural phenomenon with no functional or health benefits.* And, like docking, it's performed on individuals who have absolutely no say in the matter.


This is actually not true. Circumcising has recently been found to decrease the risk of acquiring and spreading AIDS. Some studies have proved it, some studies say they are unproven. Just google it, you should find studies saying circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS in men.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> This is actually not true. Circumcising has recently been found to decrease the risk of acquiring and spreading AIDS. Some studies have proved it, some studies say they are unproven. Just google it, you should find studies saying circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS in men.


And studies saying it's BS. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

There are people who still believe that AIDS is common in heterosexual men, when it's not. 

You know what REALLY helps prevent STDs? Condoms. Something the guy actually CHOOSES. Rather than relying on a non reversible surgery, let's use something non permanent.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> There are people who still believe that AIDS is common in heterosexual men, when it's not.


Did you mean to say hetero, or did you mean ****? I just want to be truly clear, thanks 

I'm ok with circumcision, which probably makes me a bad person because I know that we are born with fully developed nervous systems....


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> This is actually not true. Circumcising has recently been found to decrease the risk of acquiring and spreading AIDS. Some studies have proved it, some studies say they are unproven. Just google it, you should find studies saying circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS in men.


Yeah, I'll hold out a little bit longer on this one. It's still rather controversial as there have been other studies showing no trend and studies showing an increase in transmission. In all 3 cases, the data is just a correlation, which means the patterns seen might not have anything to do with being circumcised, but rather something to do with the types of people whose parents choose circumcision.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Did you mean to say hetero, or did you mean ****? I just want to be truly clear, thanks
> 
> I'm ok with circumcision, which probably makes me a bad person because I know that we are born with fully developed nervous systems....


I did in fact mean to say hetero. AIDS (in this part of the world, I'm not talking about Africa) is NOT prevalent in straight men the way it is in gay men or drug users. But many people think it is even.

(And no, I am not homophobic. I do not think gay men deserve it. It's just a matter of statistics.)


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

From tail docking to circumcision to sexual preference and AIDS in 11 pages! That's some kind of win.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

waterbaby said:


> From tail docking to circumcision to sexual preference and AIDS in 11 pages! That's some kind of win.


I think it's usually the way it goes


----------



## emily445455 (Apr 8, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Did you mean to say hetero, or did you mean ****? I just want to be truly clear, thanks
> 
> I'm ok with circumcision, which probably makes me a bad person because I know that we are born with fully developed nervous systems....


I don't think it makes you a bad person. I am for circumsision but not docking/cropping...unless they will be used for hunting.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> (And no, I am not homophobic. I do not think gay men deserve it. It's just a matter of statistics.)


I don't believe you are at all ^_^ I just wanted clarification. I agree it IS a matter of statistics.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Many of those countries have outlawed ANY surgical alteration of animals, not ONLY cropping or docking, but also spay, nueter (unless medically neccesary), declaw, & debark. They have taken ALL choice away from animal owners and breeders. Is that really what people want, to have our rights to make medical decisions taken away? Like it or not, that's what some seek to do.


De-clawing IS truly cruel, and I have no problem saying that. I wish it were illegal here. The only counties where vets do routine de-claws are the U.S. and Canada.....other places, even if not banned, you'd get thrown out of the vet's office for even asking for a non-medically-necessary de-claw. The countries that ban de-clawing have no restrictions on spaying/neutering cats (Germany in fact requires it). They do feel that it's not necessary for dogs....which is what many people here think as well.

The others I don't think should be illegal, but I don't think people should do them. If they did it less often, only when truly necessary, I don't think there'd be as many people out to ban the procedures.

And are you saying that the goverments in ALL those countries were influenced by AR extremists? I find that hard to believe. I'm sure at least some of them got valid medical opinions before making their decisions.


Pai said:


> One thing I'm noticing that some folks don't address... is that tails are not always 'cut off', sometimes they are just 'banded' so the tail shrivels and falls off without being cut at all. Puppies notice banding even less than they notice cutting, I'd think.


Banding is AWFUL. Also carries a very high risk of tetanus (livestock are always given tetanus injections when banded). Too risky for puppies I think, and much worse than a clean cut.


cshellenberger said:


> Cropping and docking are procedures that could prevent further injury later in life.


If that were a good reason for the procedures, we'd dock/crop all dogs. I've know a couple Labs that had crazy tails they kept injuring, one needed his tail removed. One lived his entire life with his tail bandaged. Should all Labs be docked? 

I'm against circumcision in most cases, too. But I'm not really sure what that has to do with this topic  .


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> She is territorial. I've Had to work with her extensively. Spaying her has done nothing.


Okay, that's all I wanted to know.  I've heard that it could help, but I guess it's obviously not 100%.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Banding is AWFUL. Also carries a very high risk of tetanus (livestock are always given tetanus injections when banded). Too risky for puppies I think, and much worse than a clean cut.


You may think banding is awful, but I know quite a few very reputable boxer breeders who prefer to band their litters opposed to having them docked. You risk more infection by having them docked than banded.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Indeed Box. The English Cocker breeder I show for bands tails. No issues.

Also, she's in the medical profession herself...she knows how to look for and treat any possible infection.


----------



## Kayto Potato (Aug 30, 2009)

No offense to anyone, but I personaly hate tail docking, along with ears. I don't like how it looks. I think how a dog is born is how they should stay. My dogs are mutts with no tail or ear docking and I love how they look.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm sorry, but I personally think it's stupid how we determine how an animal is "supposed" to look. I know that somewhere along the line someone literally created that breed and decided the standards, etc, etc, but even then, I feel that their decision that their breed is "supposed" to have certain parts cut off or cut into a certain shape is just stupid and unnecessary. It's fine that they want it to look a certain way, they want a dense coat, muscular body, etc, but those serve purposes. Like someone said before, they could've just bred them to have perked up ears or a shorter tail...

Unless the cutting is serving a HEALTHFUL purpose, NOT for the purpose of looking a certain way, but for the benefit of the dog's health, I don't see any reason for it at all. 

I saw a figurine of an uncut undocked Doberman the other day, and he was beautiful.


----------



## kpollard (Aug 3, 2008)

Bo, why all the hate? you're turning this kind of personal, some of the things you said really are a little offensive. Just because someone doesn't care for cropping/docking doesn't make them narrow minded or a PETA member.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

Bo7784 said:


> I wouldn't expect you to understand what a pure bred breed was "supposed" to look like anyway.
> It's not stupid, it's required in some cases. If you choose not to register or breed your dog, then fine. Let his hair grow, his tail, ears go un-cut.
> But I wanted a specific breed. I registered my dog and wanted him to LOOK like a Boxer was supposed to look (with the exception of cutting his ears, which is not required). So shoot me. This doesn't make me a "bad dog owner" or "cruel". You are entitled to your opinion, I will not take that from you but don't assume one is "stupid" for choosing to keep the breed pure by keeping him well groomed (which includes the docked tail). If I choose one day to breed my dog (which is unlikley, but nevertheless) no one would breed thier boxer with a boxer that did not look like a boxer was SUPPOSED to look.
> But again, I would not expect a narrow minded dog owner/PETA member to understand this concept.


Okay, well, you're lucky I'm a nice person and I'm not going to get mad at you. 

I really hate PETA, so please don't call me that.

Please read my post again, I was calling the person who CREATED the breed or other breeds that require cutting/docking stupid, not you, or anyone who likes the breed or likes the look. I said that I THINK _IT'S_ STUPID, _not_ YOU ARE STUPID, or that you are a bad dog owner or a terrible person, because I did not say those things, and I did not intend to offend anyone, or insult, so I apologize if it seemed that way.

Also, most people choose breeds because of their temperament, not their looks. I was questioning the _person who created the breed and their decision_, not your decision, or if you are a "good" or "bad" dog owner. If the original creator of the breed never called to have their breed's tail cut off, such as the Boxer, then you probably would be very much against having your Boxer's tail cut off, because the breed was determined to look that way. Hypothetically, of course. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I know what a lot of breeds are "supposed" to look like, I have read many books and looked at a ton of breeds before even getting a dog. I did not insult you or anybody else here, so please do not insult me.


----------



## chipmunk0221 (Dec 3, 2009)

Have you seen a puppy get their tails dock? It's painful to watch. They use an instrument that looks like dog nail clippers, and snip it off and cauterize it, not to mention I think it looks dumb.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

I guess I won't get a response?


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Bo7784 said:


> I wouldn't expect you to understand what a pure bred breed was "supposed" to look like anyway.
> It's not stupid, it's required in some cases. If you choose not to register or breed your dog, then fine. Let his hair grow, his tail, ears go un-cut.
> But I wanted a specific breed. I registered my dog and wanted him to LOOK like a Boxer was supposed to look (with the exception of cutting his ears, which is not required). So shoot me. This doesn't make me a "bad dog owner" or "cruel". You are entitled to your opinion, I will not take that from you but don't assume one is "stupid" for choosing to keep the breed pure by keeping him well groomed (which includes the docked tail). If I choose one day to breed my dog (which is unlikley, but nevertheless) no one would breed thier boxer with a boxer that did not look like a boxer was SUPPOSED to look.
> But again, I would not expect a narrow minded dog owner/PETA member to understand this concept.


Whoa...being new to the forum, you might want to chill out a little there buddy.  



JLWillow said:


> Okay, well, you're lucky I'm a nice person and I'm not going to get mad at you.
> 
> I really hate PETA, so please don't call me that.
> 
> Please read my post again, I was calling the person who CREATED the breed or other breeds that require cutting/docking stupid, not you, or anyone who likes the breed or likes the look.


Well, unfortunately when these breed standards were being developed, cropping and docking SERVED a purpose, like not getting your dogs ears or tails mutilated...so if you think that's stupid, well - so be it. 




JLWillow said:


> Also, most people choose breeds because of their temperament, not their looks.


I don't believe this to be true. I fell in love with the boxer and the doberman because of their looks. Their temperment was just a plus.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Well, unfortunately when these breed standards were being developed, cropping and docking SERVED a purpose, like not getting your dogs ears or tails mutilated...so if you think that's stupid, well - so be it.
> 
> I don't believe this to be true. I fell in love with the boxer and the doberman because of their looks. Their temperment was just a plus.


I've already stated previously that if it doesn't serve for the purpose of keeping the dog healthy, then there isn't much of a point to it. So no, a breeder isn't stupid for wanting their breed to be docked or cut to keep the dog safe, but in my opinion they are if it's only for looks. I honestly can't say the reason for every single breed creator who wanted to have their breed's tails' cut etc, but I wouldn't be surprised if some were just for looks.  And _to my knowledge_, Dobermans are cut and docked to look intimidating, but that doesn't keep the dog healthy or keep them from being mutilated.

Well, my statement was _most people_ look for temperament before looks, but I didn't say it was 100% or anything, so... I don't really know what you want me to say to that. Glad that worked out?  Most people who come on here and ask what breed they should get, it seems as though the last thing on their minds were looks. Would you have gotten a Boxer and a Doberman if you didn't like their temperament? I would hope not. XD That just sounds like no fun.


----------



## Yui (Sep 12, 2009)

JLWillow said:


> Also, most people choose breeds because of their temperament, not their looks.


I have to agree with this, who cares what the breed looks like if they're too much of something you don't want(to energetic or not energetic enough), if you get the temperament you want and you like the look of the breed, it's just a nice bonus. :'3 But why not just have both, eh? ;D


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

Exactly!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Well personally, I chose my breeds based on both. I don't care how perfect the temperament is if the dog isn't aesthetically pleasing to me too. That's why I'll never get a Beauceron or Doberman.

The Beau is too plain and the Dobie doesn't have enough hair.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

JLWillow said:


> Also, most people choose breeds because of their temperament, not their looks.


I can tell you for an absolute fact this is 100% not true. The vast majority of people pick their dog based almost entirely upon looks.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Bo7784 said:


> What do you want? A cookie? I apologized for being a jerk so what do you want from me? We clearly have different opinions and beliefs and that's human so no big deal!
> I chose my dog because of his temperment and his looks. The boxer is a beautiful breed and I like his docked tail. I don't think he would look the same with a long tail. He would still be the same dog and I would still love him the same but the docked tail is the breed. So is cropped ears but that is optional and I chose not to crop Bo's ears. My dog is beautiful in so many ways and I am sorry some of you think the docked tail is ugly but look at my dog and tell him he is ugly.
> AND the breeder I bought Bo from is a vet. He docked the tails of Bo's litter himself a few days after birth. Not only did he use a local anesthetic but he administered a cream daily on their tails to reduce the pain along with infection. So I do not believe the pups felt anything from the surgery and I do believe they do not remember any of it as well. Yes he used a "nail clipper" like things but it was a completely legit procedure.
> *Ok thats all I've got to say on this post. I do believe docking the tail of breeds that require it is a great idea, especially if the dog is a registered stud/show. However, I think if you dock the tail of your dog and the breed does not require it but you think it "looks cool" then you should be forced to have your ears cropped.*
> Have a wonderful day! I'm taking Bo for a walk!


That makes absolutely no sense to me.



trumpetjock said:


> I can tell you for an absolute fact this is 100% not true. The vast majority of people pick their dog based almost entirely upon looks.


True, but it's not exactly a smart way to go about it.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> I can tell you for an absolute fact this is 100% not true. The vast majority of people pick their dog based almost entirely upon looks.


That is not true, I chose my dogs based on temperament. As long as they look like a Rottweiler, they are good for me.  

Kidding aside, you are right. Most people do pick based on looks. This is why the humane societies are so full. When Fido turns out to be more dog then Mrs. Smith is able to handle she wonders "How did such a cute dog turn into such a monster?" Then she does makes her second most intelligent decision, She dumps him.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

I think both looks and temperament play a role. I like dogs with long fur, so I wouldn't have adopted a Pug even though I think they've got wonderful personalities. I also wouldn't get a Malamute, even though I think they're absolutely gorgeous dogs. It's a little more complex than just saying people are choosing based on either looks or temperament  There are plenty of other factors, too, like grooming, shedding, exercise requirements, behavior around strangers, ease of training, size, health, etc.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> True, but it's not exactly a smart way to go about it.


Didn't say it was... just that it was what happened


----------



## MicheleZ (Nov 5, 2009)

I have a schnauzer and the breed requirement for the US requires a docked tail and cropped ears. This was done to my schnauzer at a very young age (before we knew we were getting him - we lucked out in the timing and got him). The breeder is very active in the standard schnauzer community and with showing so all her dogs are cropped and docked. I hope that eventually the US will go the way of Europe and make it a requirement that dogs are not cropped or docked to enter shows. They have outlawed it there because they see no reason other than cosmetic. I have seen schnauzers with natural tails and ears and they look fantastic. They also look pretty darned good with cropped and docked tails. If a crop or dock is done because the dogs works and it needs to be done to protect the dog then fine - cosmetic reasons I don't agree with. However, at this time in the US certain breeds must be cropped and docked in order to enter shows and that is just the way it is. Until the US outlaws it like Europe, it will not stop because breeders are required to do it for conformation.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

chipmunk0221 said:


> Have you seen a puppy get their tails dock? It's painful to watch. They use an instrument that looks like dog nail clippers, and snip it off and cauterize it, not to mention I think it looks dumb.


Seen it? I have done it. Many times...I always have used surgical scissors.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

chipmunk0221 said:


> Have you seen a puppy get their tails dock? It's painful to watch. They use an instrument that looks like dog nail clippers, and snip it off and cauterize it, not to mention I think it looks dumb.


I have watched numerous litters get docked, and of several different breeds (from toy poodles to Rotties). Most didn't even cry out. Done correctly the procedure is nearly painless becasue the pups nervous system hasn't fully developed yet. I have seen it doen INCORRECTLY once and the pups did suffer, it's not a procedure every vet knows how to do. I'd only take a litter to be docked if the vet had alot of experience and was referred by someone established in the breed.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

Bo7784 said:


> What do you want? A cookie? I apologized for being a jerk so what do you want from me? We clearly have different opinions and beliefs and that's human so no big deal!
> I chose my dog because of his temperment and his looks. The boxer is a beautiful breed and I like his docked tail. I don't think he would look the same with a long tail. He would still be the same dog and I would still love him the same but the docked tail is the breed. So is cropped ears but that is optional and I chose not to crop Bo's ears. My dog is beautiful in so many ways and I am sorry some of you think the docked tail is ugly but look at my dog and tell him he is ugly.
> AND the breeder I bought Bo from is a vet. He docked the tails of Bo's litter himself a few days after birth. Not only did he use a local anesthetic but he administered a cream daily on their tails to reduce the pain along with infection. So I do not believe the pups felt anything from the surgery and I do believe they do not remember any of it as well. Yes he used a "nail clipper" like things but it was a completely legit procedure.
> Ok thats all I've got to say on this post. I do believe docking the tail of breeds that require it is a great idea, especially if the dog is a registered stud/show. However, I think if you dock the tail of your dog and the breed does not require it but you think it "looks cool" then you should be forced to have your ears cropped.
> Have a wonderful day! I'm taking Bo for a walk!


Umm, no, I don't want a cookie, I just wanted an intelligent and enjoyable discussion with someone who had a different viewpoint from me so I could learn from them...I don't know why you're still giving me such an attitude. If you wanted to actually apologize to me, you would have said it directly to me, or at least given me a direct response in general. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of your opinion, I'm trying to _learn_ from it, but I guess you don't want to teach me anything except that you give people an attitude when they disagree with you, no matter how they do it, and I don't want to think that, but that's the only thing I've learned from trying to have a discussion with you. 

I can see from your picture that your Boxer is beautiful and I don't think that having a docked tail makes him any more or less beautiful, the only thing I ever questioned was whether the docking was truly necessary or not.

Have a nice walk. 



trumpetjock said:


> I can tell you for an absolute fact this is 100% not true. The vast majority of people pick their dog based almost entirely upon looks.


I never said what I stated was ever 100% true, just that it seems most people look for temperament first.



trumpetjock said:


> Didn't say it was... just that it was what happened


You are right, though, it seems that I've become too used to being on this forum full of intelligent dog-owners instead of the majority of them, which have no idea what they're doing.  Lovely humans.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Well, unfortunately when these breed standards were being developed, cropping and docking SERVED a purpose, like not getting your dogs ears or tails mutilated...so if you think that's stupid, well - so be it.


Well if that was the standard, why didn't they develop the breed to be the standard so cropping wouldn't even be needed - he/she'd just come out like the standard says like for so many other breeds?

I mean, that would be like if I created the Coton breed and it would serve the purpose best with short hair - instead of breeding for short hair, I would put in the standard that everyone had to shave their Cotons down bald or close to it. Why shouldn't I, as breed creator, have the responsibility to breed the dog to fit the purpose instead of all the other breed buyers and owners to have to do "maintenance" in order for the dog to fulfill the purpose?


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

JLWillow said:


> I never said what I stated was ever 100% true, just that it seems most people look for temperament first.
> 
> 
> You are right, though, it seems that I've become too used to being on this forum full of intelligent dog-owners instead of the majority of them, which have no idea what they're doing.  Lovely humans.


I don't blame you. Being engaged in enlightening conversation with so many fantastic dog owners on these boards can easily skew your view on what *most* dog owners are like.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I haven't had the privelege get so jaded. I work with average dog owners every week. x.x


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Xeph said:


> I haven't had the privelege get so jaded. I work with average dog owners every week. x.x


Same here.=/


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

KBLover said:


> Well if that was the standard, why didn't they develop the breed to be the standard so cropping wouldn't even be needed - he/she'd just come out like the standard says like for so many other breeds?
> 
> I mean, that would be like if I created the Coton breed and it would serve the purpose best with short hair - instead of breeding for short hair, I would put in the standard that everyone had to shave their Cotons down bald or close to it. Why shouldn't I, as breed creator, have the responsibility to breed the dog to fit the purpose instead of all the other breed buyers and owners to have to do "maintenance" in order for the dog to fulfill the purpose?


 
Because cropping and docking are easier to do than breeding for a short tail (which is actually a deformity that can cause back problems when present) or upright ears. It takes generations to breed in such traits while trying ot maintain the other desirable traits that are needed in the breed far more than the short tail. Also. lets not forget that not all docked tails are done at the 4th tail vertebrae, many are done as 1/4 to 1/2 tails, which is nearly imppossible to breed to and the original crops took nearly all the ear off to keep animals from ripping and humans from grabbing in combat.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> Because cropping and docking are easier to do than breeding for a short tail (which is actually a deformity that can cause back problems when present) or upright ears. It takes generations to breed in such traits while trying ot maintain the other desirable traits that are needed in the breed far more than the short tail. Also. lets not forget that not all docked tails are done at the 4th tail vertebrae, many are done as 1/4 to 1/2 tails, which is nearly imppossible to breed to and the original crops took nearly all the ear off to keep animals from ripping and humans from grabbing in combat.


That is part of my problem with cropping arguments actually. Most modern crops are not the same crops that were actually used to be functional. Show crops in most breeds are not going to prevent much damage at all because they leave much of the ear. There's still handles and still much to tear.

I am interested in a traditionally cropped and docked breed but luckily I've found a breeder that keeps their dogs 100% natural.


----------



## da hat (Dec 4, 2009)

i live in ireland and tail docking is qutie accepatable at the moment though the uk has banned tail docking in all breeds.
from my own experience i breed a type of short leg jack russell that they loosely call a minature though i hesiate to use that term.
potential buyers always look for a docked tail and many people i have heard of have been unable to sell pups if the tail is not docked. natural tails on a jrt seems to be disliked on our side of the globe


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Not all breeds are docked for the feild, Rotties were docked for pulling carts, which the tail interfered with (think of your draft horses which are also docked for pulling).


In most areas of the world, docking a horses tail is now illegal. Braiding up the tail is the common practice, and is equally effective. Just sayin' 

I'm not for, or against, tail docking (on dogs). As long as it is done correctly, I don't really have a problem with it.

Ear cropping bothers me a little.. it looks so messy and painful. There are enough prick-eared breeds out there that you'd think they could breed that into the Doberman (or, whatever other breeds get their ears cropped) somehow, if that really is the way the breed "is supposed to be". But, that's just an idea lol.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

CoverTune said:


> In most areas of the world, docking a horses tail is now illegal. Braiding up the tail is the common practice, and is equally effective. Just sayin'


It is? We have tons of docked draft horses around here. Especially the Belgians and Percheron horses. I always thought they looked better with tails. Plus they need their tails to swish flies.

I laughed thinking of people trying to figure out a way to tie their dogs tails up out of the way.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Agree that a horses tail is beautiful left long, however the reason they're docked is for cleanliness, when in a draft rig a horse can't get it's tail out of the way and the tail gets very messy and is very hard to clean. 

As far as. Breeding upright ears into a Dobe, you couldn't do it without outcrossing, perhaps back to the Greyhound (pert of the breed heritage). Which would mean it would no longer be a Doberaman. This would be the case with any of the cropped breeds, it would mean they would no longer be the breeds they are now, they would lose other breed traits that are far more important.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

They did do a NBT boxer project though:

http://www.steynmere.com/BOBTAILS.html


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

True, bt how much success have they had and what health issues have resulted from it? As I said, the short tail is a a genetic deformity, I've seen it in several bobbed tail cat breeds, there are still the same number of vertebrae but they are twisted in on themselves, this can result in some serious back issues, my own Pixie Bob cat has a kinked tail and it causes him pain in his hips. It's a condition that prevelnt in Japanese Bobs as well. It's a trade off and not always a good one. 

Let's say you did outcross a dobe with the Greyhound to get naturally upright ears, what would be lost to the breed? would the new Dobe have the thinner skin of the Greyhound? Would they lose the gaurdian drive or the bone structure that allows the dog to jump walls and take a person down? How many generations would it take to get the trait reliable enough to be a part of the breed standard? How long would it take for the breed community to accept the outcrissed dogs as a part if the breed if they ever did.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> True, bt how much success have they had and what health issues have resulted from it? As I said, the short tail is a a genetic deformity, I've seen it in several bobbed tail cat breeds, there are still the same number of vertebrae but they are twisted in on themselves, this can result in some serious back issues, my own Pixie Bob cat has a kinked tail and it causes him pain in his hips. It's a condition that prevelnt in Japanese Bobs as well. It's a trade off and not always a good one.


Actually I'm pretty sure NBT in dogs doesn't posses the same risk as it does in cats but I'll have to go look that up and get back to you.

ETA: Here we go:

http://wajoma.com/custom3.html


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Two of those dogs have the same type of kink In the tails I've seen in NBT cats, this is a problem because it can result in back issues I've spoken of. I'll try to find pictures of what I'm talking about and post them later. I'm at work right now and posting from my phone.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

the gene responsible for NBT curled tails like Pugs and bulldogs is a different gene than that of the Aussie and many herding breeds.

The NBT gene in Bulldogs is a gene that breeds true and can cause backbone problems

the NBT gene in Aussies is a lethal dominant gene, any puppy that gets two copies of the gene dies as a fetus, and it has not been found to cause any problems. (unless you consider fetal death a problem) Therefore Aussies and any NBT breed with the same gene cannot breed true for that gene.


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

Referring to past comments on docking - circumcision is removal of skin only and not similar to tail amputation. Nowadays if no local anaesthetic is used during circumcision it would be likely deemed as a disciplinary matter.
Neonates have been shown to produce hormonal, physiological and behavioural stress responses, in response to pain, that are similar to those produced by adults, however they occur at lower thresholds. Such responses are reduced or diminished by the administration of analgesics in neonates.
Thus, neonates are HYPERsensitive, rather than hyposensitive in comparison to an adult animal. The assessment and control of pain in neonatal infants is well developed and such protocols are routinely in use.

The following links may be of interest to some of those commenting on this issue:-
http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_14.htm
[URL="http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_17.htm"]http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_20.htm[/URL]
It is now being mentioned amongst breeders in the UK that they may have to consider being more selective on tails when breeding but as said this could be a long process and affect the gene pool. (Bulldog breeds now having to consider reducing head size!). Breeding tailless is not a constant viable option (homozygous genes - 2 mated = non viable outcome)
Certain breeds produce differing sets. The tail set in relation to the spine is particularly important as a bad set may result in neurological problems.
Corkscrew tails are presumed a result of earlier generation out crossing for other required breed characteristics and also from times of austerity moving forward to prosperity resulting in show ring communities of breeders and pocket money breeders (in conjuntion with no 100% accurate records of blood lines or even more recently that of compulsory DNA testing in “pedigree” dogs!).
Referring to injury it is all too easy to find on docking debates that one is being constrained in discussion to tail injury as if all injury relates to tails only. Injury of course in working dogs happens not only to tails; many more injuries occur to other body parts but prophylactic surgery is not even considered for those injuries (Greyhounds almost certainly injure a leg during their working lives........) 
The Swedish GSP tail injury "study" was also mentioned earlier in the discussion and was refuted. At the time it was drafted, it was not regarded as scientific research by the Swedish government and as stated was promulgated by a self interested group. When studying the figures it will be noted that the first year's statistics were carried forward to the following year and included in the that year's totals thus making it look as if there were an increase. More importantly to note that TWELVE young dogs were recorded as having died during the "study"; somewhat more than those receiving tail injuries and only some of those ?needed their tails amputated. Dogs were also being used for sledding which has not usually been regarded as typical "work" for a GSP. Notwithstanding, the ban still came in in Sweden and I hold a statement which says _'There have been no reports of any alarming increase in tail injuries in working dogs. On the contrary, the general feeling is that working dogs of the former tail docked breeds have become more used to handling their tails while working, resulting in a decrease of tail injuries' _
Spaniels' tails have a different movement from most other breeds and their previous out-crossing has produced varying length of tails when undocked. Surprisingly the show Spaniel is docked shorter than the Field Spaniel. It will often be found that docked stumps are more prone to opening up as the skin has had to be stretched and stitched across the severence and is more vulnerable. It is due to this that neuromas often occur and phantom pain.
Australian Shepherds are very close to Border Collies both bred for similar work, the Aussie though does appear to carry the mutated tailless gene possibly one reason why the breed became docked so as conform in the show ring. It only takes one or two breeders/judges (as they will be both) who consistently win to be able to get their "type" accepted as the standard which is then rubber stamped by the "KC" .


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

> It is? We have tons of docked draft horses around here. Especially the Belgians and Percheron horses. I always thought they looked better with tails. Plus they need their tails to swish flies.


I believe that it is, yes.

_International prohibitions against docking are common. Ireland,67 Northern Ireland,68 Norway,69 and the United Kingdom70 all prohibit docking horses’ tails. In Great Britain, horses with docked tails are virtually nonexistent; the ban has effectively halted the practice, and no recorded violation has occurred during the last few decades.71 In Australia, many provinces have enacted anti-docking laws. South Aus- tralia,72 the Northern Territory,73 Queensland,74 New South Wales,75 and Victoria76 all prohibit horse tail docking. Interestingly, the Cana- dian provinces, save one, have not addressed the issue.77 Only Al- berta’s provincial statute mentions horse tail docking. Its statute addressing professional veterinarian standards specifies that horse tail docking need not be performed by a “registered veterinarian.”78_Animal Law

_The practice of docking is illegal in 11 states and the District of Columbia. My legal research has found anti-docking laws on the books in the following: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio and Washington._ - 
"The Case of the 'Docked' Tail"
© Kenneth C. Sandoe, Attorney-at-Law
published in The Draft Horse Journal, Autumn 2002



cshellenberger said:


> Agree that a horses tail is beautiful left long, however the reason they're docked is for cleanliness, when in a draft rig a horse can't get it's tail out of the way and the tail gets very messy and is very hard to clean.


Hmm.. what do you mean by a "draft rig"? I'm certainly not claiming to know everything, but I have been driving horses for about a decade and honestly can't think of a harness that interferes with the tail.

Anywho.. not a horse forum, and I didn't intend to derail the conversation. My apologies.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Just curious, but when people suggest that you breed a dog such as a Dobe to have erect ears, what exactly do they expect the ear to look like? Most prick eared dogs don't have the pointy, dagger-like ears that a cropped Dobe has. I imaging out crossing with prick eared breeds would result in Dobes with ears that look like a (smooth) wolf's, or perhaps even the ears of a chihuahua. I'm not sure how one would achieve the same look that Dobes are known for without cropping?

I can imaging Dobe fanciers would much prefer a Dobe with drop ears over a Dobe with an unnatural looking pair of wolfy or bat-like ears.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Just curious, but when people suggest that you breed a dog such as a Dobe to have erect ears, what exactly do they expect the ear to look like? Most prick eared dogs don't have the pointy, dagger-like ears that a cropped Dobe has. I imaging out crossing with prick eared breeds would result in Dobes with ears that look like a (smooth) wolf's, or perhaps even the ears of a chihuahua. I'm not sure how one would achieve the same look that Dobes are known for without cropping?
> 
> I can imaging Dobe fanciers would much prefer a Dobe with drop ears over a Dobe with an unnatural looking pair of wolfy or bat-like ears.


I would imagin it would look much like the natural prick ear of some Min Pins


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ADA there is an importent differance in digs and humans, that being the development of the nervous system at birth. A pups nervous system isn't as fully developed as a humans is at Coordinated Movement: A puppy is born without a fully developed nervous system. The brain, spinal cord, and associated nerves are present at birth but lack the capacity to adequately transmit electrical impulses in a coordinated fashion. As the nervous system matures in the initial weeks of life, a series of nerve controlled events begin to become evident. During the first week of life, it seems that puppies do little but eat and sleep. They do have some motor activity, moving even while seemingly sound asleep. By the second week of life a puppy still spends a great deal of time sleeping, but the sleep becomes quieter or more restful with fewer body movements. Awake moments are typically spent nursing. By three weeks of age, most puppies can maintain an upright posture and begin to spend more time awake. They attempt to move by pushing or sliding, as they are still unable to stand and walk. The initial attempts at 'crawling' are usually short as the muscles are not strong. After three weeks of age, the puppy will develop the ability to stand and perhaps walk short distances. Eventually, over the next few weeks, the puppy becomes fully mobile and able to walk and even run in a clumsy sort of movement"

This allows docking to be far less painful as long as it's done in the first week after birth.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> Let's say you did outcross a dobe with the Greyhound to get naturally upright ears, what would be lost to the breed? would the new Dobe have the thinner skin of the Greyhound? Would they lose the gaurdian drive or the bone structure that allows the dog to jump walls and take a person down? How many generations would it take to get the trait reliable enough to be a part of the breed standard? How long would it take for the breed community to accept the outcrissed dogs as a part if the breed if they ever did.


they did this with dalmations to fix a kidney problem (i think) and it was a huge scandal.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

jesirose said:


> they did this with dalmations to fix a kidney problem (i think) and it was a huge scandal.


Yep the LUA dal project. They're not accepted back into the AKC but you can show them in the UKC and they're winning there too! There have been quite a few outcross projects both in the US and over seas that have been very successful so far. The LUA dalmatian project goes all the way back into the 1970s.

Personally I believe outcrossing can be a very good thing and is something we need to do for certain breeds. What use is "purity" if a dog breed is completely unhealthy?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

believe there are breeds that could benefit from outcrossing to correct serios health problems in the breed, however outcrossing for upright ears or a shorter tail would not be good solutions as it could damge the breed in the long run. The only good reason to outcross is to improve health or save a breed from disappearing and I believe it should become more accepted in the purebred community.


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> ADA there is an importent differance in digs and humans, that being the development of the nervous system at birth. A pups nervous system isn't as fully developed as a humans is at Coordinated Movement: A puppy is born without a fully developed nervous system. The brain, spinal cord, and associated nerves are present at birth but lack the capacity to adequately transmit electrical impulses in a coordinated fashion. As the nervous system matures in the initial weeks of life, a series of nerve controlled events begin to become evident. During the first week of life, it seems that puppies do little but eat and sleep. They do have some motor activity, moving even while seemingly sound asleep. By the second week of life a puppy still spends a great deal of time sleeping, but the sleep becomes quieter or more restful with fewer body movements. Awake moments are typically spent nursing. By three weeks of age, most puppies can maintain an upright posture and begin to spend more time awake. They attempt to move by pushing or sliding, as they are still unable to stand and walk. The initial attempts at 'crawling' are usually short as the muscles are not strong. After three weeks of age, the puppy will develop the ability to stand and perhaps walk short distances. Eventually, over the next few weeks, the puppy becomes fully mobile and able to walk and even run in a clumsy sort of movement"
> 
> This allows docking to be far less painful as long as it's done in the first week after birth.


The description given is so similar to that of a human baby other than the fact that the human baby can see! In addition to feeding and sleeping, babies cry spontaneously - puppies don't presumably because to do so in the wild would lead predators to them!
In both puppies and humans, the neurophysiologists tell us that the reticular formation in the central nervous system has not developed far enough to filter out pain 'messages' that are recognised as unimportant - the response to *any* noxious stimulus is vocalisation.

The phraseology in your response intimates that it possibly relates to older research. There is also the ethical viewpoint that one should do no harm and if there is any doubt as to whether pain is being inflicted on what is cosmetic, and barely ever prophylactic surgery, then this is not an ethical route on which present day Vets let alone breeders should be embarking.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

So, is it more ethical to breed in a trait that is know to cause birth defects and fetal death for cosmetic reasons or to do a proceedure that take seconds, heals quickly and the dog doesn't remember? Given that often in docked tail breeds the nerve ending further down the tail never develop properly which can lead to serious injury that results in a later, more traumatic, tail injury (at least one example is on this board) I'll opt for docking over the NBT. BTW, the study is fairly recent (last five years) and there is far less developement in the nervous system of puppy than a human, who's nervous system is fully developed at 6 months in the womb. 

I assume from your user name that you're aligned with an anti-docking activist group (in fact looking up your profile I now know you are), that's fine, You have your view and I have mine. If you don't want a docked dog, then don't get one. Look for a breeder that agrees with you or rescue. DO NOT try to force your view on others, leave the choice open for consumers, vets and breeders to make. I feel this way for medical procedures on both humans and animals no matter how 'controversial'. Funny how you've turned up just in time for this thread, do you intentionally look for them?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

> So, is it more ethical to breed in a trait that is know to cause birth defects and fetal death for cosmetic reasons or to do a proceedure that take seconds, heals quickly and the dog doesn't remember?


Personally, I don't think breeding dogs who have a gene that can cause a zygote (14-30 days old) to die and be reabsorbed before being born is _cruel_. It doesn't suffer by not becoming a puppy or being born... and even a mutation that can cause live birth defects (like the stubby tail in Manx cats, or the merle color) can be bred responsibly by breeding an animal affected with the gene to one that isn't. So to just say 'it's a lethal gene so it's cruel to breed for it' is not that simple.

If we're going to start banning breeding of dogs for 'defects' you'd be surprised how many modern breeds technically are 'mutants'... it would include every stubby-legged and stubby faced dog, every hairless dog, every merle dog... technically, floppy ears in a dog is a 'defect', too. The domestic dog is NOT a 'natural' animal.

You determine cruelty by asking 'does doing this/breeding this trait harm their quality of life?' and if the answer is no... then it's really not anyone's business. If you have a problem with docking or breeding dogs with natural bobtails or other mutations, then don't buy dogs from people who do it.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pai, 
the question was posed to an activist, ibown an NBT breed dog (English Bulldog) and an NBT cat (Pixie Bob) so I don't have a problem with being done. What I do have a problem with is ANYBODY telling me I shouldn't be allowed to make a decision because they don't agree with it. I don't care if it's circumcision, docking, cropping, spay/nueter, vaccinations or abortion.

Pai, 
the question was posed to an activist, ibown an NBT breed dog (English Bulldog) and an NBT cat (Pixie Bob) so I don't have a problem with being done. What I do have a problem with is ANYBODY telling me I shouldn't be allowed to make a decision because they don't agree with it. I don't care if it's circumcision, docking, cropping, spay/nueter, vaccinations or abortion.


----------



## Spitzy (Oct 13, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> A pups nervous system isn't as fully developed as a humans is at Coordinated Movement: A puppy is born without a fully developed nervous system. The brain, spinal cord, and associated nerves are present at birth but lack the capacity to adequately transmit electrical impulses in a coordinated fashion. ... (followed by mention of observed puppy behavior over time)
> 
> This allows docking to be far less painful as long as it's done in the first week after birth.


First point - I don't see where in your first paragraph there is supporting evidence for your final statement (nothing speaking to pain sensing ability).

Second - I think I've seen you now state as fact in more than one post that a pup's nervous system is insufficient for pain sensing, but you haven't cited any peer-reviewed sources that support that claim. Nor have I been able to find any peer reviewed sources that support that claim via PubMed.

On the contrary, peer-reviewed sources seem to suggest neonatal, immature nervous systems may be MORE sensitive to pain, if anything.

From my original linked article (Bennett, P.C. and Perini, E., Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues, Aus. Vet. J. 81 (2003) 208-218):


> Some authors have even argued that the immaturity of sensory processing within the newborn spinal cord of human infants leads to lower thresholds for excitation and sensitisation, therefore potentially maximising the central effects of tissue-damaging inputs.


and


> A similar refutation can be levelled against the common argument that pups are unlikely to feel significant pain during docking due to a reported lack of myelination in the nerve cells responsible for pain conduction. This argument is not persuasive, since myelination is not necessary to enable nerve cell conduction, but merely speeds it up.11,30 Puppies may experience docking related pain more slowly than older dogs, but an estimated 0.25 second delay2 in pain perception says little about the magnitude of pain experienced. Indeed, some authors claim that puppies may be more sensitive to pain than adult dogs, because inhibitory nerve pathways are also poorly developed.1,2 In human infants it is commonly argued that pain perception may be magnified by the immature state of the spinal cord27,31,32 and, in rat pups, there is evidence that very immature organisms may experience pain more intensely than do more mature infants (cited in McVey31). In ‘tailed’ animals, like canines, the spinal cord extends further down the vertebral column in infants than it does in adults, perhaps leading to a higher risk of docking-related infection and, potentially, a greater magnitude of pain.2


From the abstract of their reference 31 (McVey C, Pain in the very preterm baby: 'suffer little children?'. _Pediatr Rehabil._ *2* (1998) 47-55.):


> Reviews within the past 10 years have shown that the neurochemical, anatomic and functional systems of newborns are developed enough to perceive pain. More importantly, rat pup studies have indicated that not only may the very preterm baby experience pain but it may experience it more intensely than the more mature infant. Moreover, there may be serious consequences of repeated painful medical intervention. Alleviation of pain and/or distress in very preterm infants is, therefore, an important issue.


Cited in this review of prenatal stress, (Austina, M., Leaderb, L.R. and Reilly, N., Prenatal stress, the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, and fetal and infant neurobehaviour, _Early Hum Dev._ *81 *(2005)917-26.) are studies pointing to the susceptibility of _fetal_ neurosystems to the signal molecules of (maternal) stress response.


> As highlighted in two review articles [19] and [20], animal studies have amply demonstrated that maternal stress in pregnancy has long-term effects on offspring “temperament” and regulation of stress-induced changes in physiology and behaviour. Thus, the offspring of rats “restrained” in pregnancy are more anxious and fearful and have reduced sociability [21]. They also have prolonged stress-induced cortisone secretion as adults [22]. Weinstock et al. [23] and Henry et al. [24] have shown that prenatal stress in rodents causes an elevated corticosterone response characterised by increased anxiety in offspring during exposure to a novel environment. In addition, glucocorticoid receptor numbers were reduced in the hippocampus at 90 days, suggesting a possible mechanism for the long-lasting effects of antenatal stress on the HPA axis [24]. Finally, rats subjected to maternal deprivation as neonates demonstrate HPA axis hyperactivity throughout life [25].
> 
> Similar results obtain in primate studies. Stressing pregnant monkeys by exposure to unpredictable noise in late gestation leads to raised basal cortisol levels in their offspring and a raised adrenocorticotropin response during stress [26], and poorer motor skills and increased distractibility [27]. Schneider and Coe [28] also demonstrated that stress, in the form of disturbed social relationships in the primate female, altered the performance of offspring on neuromotor tests and ability to cope in stressful situations. Schneider et al. [29] report changes in HPA axis in rat pups after injecting their pregnant mothers with adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH). The results of these animal studies have led researchers to hypothesize similar associations in humans [20]. However, the paradigms used in animal research cannot be replicated in humans.


The above demonstrates that the exposure of immature neurosystems to the signal molecules released in a stress-response can shape those neurosystems in ways that have statistically-relevant effects later on.

I'll also highlight again from my first reference:


> Indeed, in one study in which three canines with docked tails were euthanased for behavioural problems, all of the dogs were found to have neuromas even though the docking process had occurred many years previously.(Aust Vet J in press. Gross TL, Carr SH. Amputation neuroma of docked tails in dogs. Vet Path 1990;27:61-62.) Due to the biased nature of this very small sample, it would not be appropriate to generalise the findings.


As the paper states, three cases is such a small fraction of the total dog population that alone it is not statistically significant - similar to the un-peer reviewed report of tail injuries.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Spitzy said:


> First point - I don't see where in your first paragraph there is supporting evidence for your final statement (nothing speaking to pain sensing ability).
> 
> Second - I think I've seen you now state as fact in more than one post that a pup's nervous system is insufficient for pain sensing, but you haven't cited any peer-reviewed sources that support that claim. Nor have I been able to find any peer reviewed sources that support that claim via PubMed.
> 
> ...


Kids these days and their science. Rubbish.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Inga said:


> We have tons of docked draft horses around here. Especially the Belgians and Percheron horses.


I never knew horses were docked.....I always thought the actual tail part was kept and the hair was cut off. Ugh. I could never be into horses because just about everything in the horse world makes me mad. I could have a pet horse (and I would if I lived in the country), but I could never actually get INTO horses. 



cshellenberger said:


> What I do have a problem with is ANYBODY telling me I shouldn't be allowed to make a decision because they don't agree with it.


But again, were do we draw the line? We can tell people they can't make the decision to beat their dog to death, or starve him or throw him off a bridge, because we don't agree with it, but other decisions are not to be commented on? How do we decide what is "wrong" and what isn't our business? I guarantee you that plenty of people think child/spousal/animal abuse is nobody's business, and that we can't tell them they can't make that decision just because we don't agree with it.


----------



## DogsforMe (Mar 11, 2007)

Tail docking was banned in Australia except West Aust apparently because we see quite a few young dobermans with docked tails although it was banned about 5 yrs ago. The breeder sends the pregnant bitches to WA to give birth, has the tails docked & they get shipped back to NSW. The RSPCA investigated but she got away with it.
I prefer natural tails & was devastated when my son's dog injured her tail a number of years ago. There's nothing cuter than seeing a dog all curled up in a ball with its tail wrapped around its nose. Thank goodness it got better, she has a very expressive tail. I have never seen a dog with cropped ears other than on TV & in movies. As far as I know it has never been done in Aust. And I don't like the look of dogs with cropped ears at all.


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> So, is it more ethical to breed in a trait that is know to cause birth defects and fetal death for cosmetic reasons or to do a proceedure that take seconds, heals quickly and the dog doesn't remember? Given that often in docked tail breeds the nerve ending further down the tail never develop properly which can lead to serious injury that results in a later, more traumatic, tail injury (at least one example is on this board) I'll opt for docking over the NBT. BTW, the study is fairly recent (last five years) and there is far less developement in the nervous system of puppy than a human, who's nervous system is fully developed at 6 months in the womb.
> 
> I assume from your user name that you're aligned with an anti-docking activist group (in fact looking up your profile I now know you are), that's fine, You have your view and I have mine. If you don't want a docked dog, then don't get one. Look for a breeder that agrees with you or rescue. DO NOT try to force your view on others, leave the choice open for consumers, vets and breeders to make. I feel this way for medical procedures on both humans and animals no matter how 'controversial'. Funny how you've turned up just in time for this thread, do you intentionally look for them?


I fear there is error here – the human nervous system is not fully developed at 6 months’ intrauterine life, for example thermoregulation is not fully functional at birth, and the nervous system in general does not functionally mature for some considerable time after birth. In fact, the frontal lobe connections (behaviour patterns and self-control) do not complete their development until the late teens!

There is an omission in your reply; that being humans have the power of saying ‘No!’. 

I am not sure I know how you have derived your comments._’so it is more ethical to breed in a trait that is known to cause birth defects and foetal death for cosmetic reasons…’_ from anything stated in my posts If we are to follow this line of discussion then this statement could in fact apply to a multitude of pedigree dogs, crossbreeds and mongrels, size of Bulldog head, roach backs, achrondroplasic legs, skin folds, foreshortened faces and on and on. Please give a reference to this most recent study of pain development in puppies to which you refer, was it perchance related to cortisol levels?
How can we be sure that _'a dog doesn’t remember procedures carried out on it' _but then dogs are better at understanding what we say than we at what they say to us but I do think there has to be something in them wanting to keep their tails when asked! May be there has been some research on what dogs remember, it would be interesting to assess. 
One injury to an undocked tail does not equate to the injury being inflicted on every tail that is docked ie 100% injury to all those that have been docked.
This forum appeared to be for presentation and interchange of knowledge on which people can make informed choices. The reply post reads that if one holds an opposing view to a poster in this forum, the assumption is that that view is being forced on others; (no, it was being presented to others) it is obvious that there is more than one view in this discussion so if there is any “forcing” of opinion does it then not apply to those holding other contentious views as well?
There is no complete practising freedom of choice for Veterinarians and Doctors/Medical licencees as their practices are supposedly governed/ restrained by codes of practice laid down by their licensing bodies and disciplinary action can be taken if they act in a manner which brings their profession into disrepute.


----------



## Um Shabka (Nov 19, 2009)

well after reading 14 pages of posts and learning a lot that I didn't know before, I would still have to say I don't like tail or ear docking, I rate it right up there with declawing a cat. Of course there are plenty of opinions here that don't agree with me and that is their right. I do think though that after all I've read that if a person is going to do it, there should be laws about the age of the dog and that it has to be done by a licensed Vet.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Um Shabka said:


> well after reading 14 pages of posts and learning a lot that I didn't know before, I would still have to say I don't like tail or ear docking, I rate it right up there with declawing a cat. Of course there are plenty of opinions here that don't agree with me and that is their right. I do think though that after all I've read that if a person is going to do it, there should be laws about the age of the dog and that it has to be done by a licensed Vet.


I wouldn't compare docking tails and cropping ears to declawing a cat. Declawing is very psychologically distressing for a cat, whereas dogs barely seem to notice if they're missing their tail or part of their ears.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Willowy said:


> I never knew horses were docked.....I always thought the actual tail part was kept and the hair was cut off. Ugh. I could never be into horses because just about everything in the horse world makes me mad. I could have a pet horse (and I would if I lived in the country), but I could never actually get INTO horses.
> 
> 
> 
> .


just about everything in the horse world makes you mad? yikes! I think they are amazing creatures and an absolute blast to have. 

Probably not a good time to tell you some farmers hack off their cows tails so the cow doesn't swat them in the face while milking. Just for the record, I hate that practice as well.


----------



## Um Shabka (Nov 19, 2009)

Nargle said:


> I wouldn't compare docking tails and cropping ears to declawing a cat. Declawing is very psychologically distressing for a cat, whereas dogs barely seem to notice if they're missing their tail or part of their ears.


 I'm an old woman and I remember years ago when people thought declawing a cat wasn't a big deal. Now many people are working to get the practice stopped. It seems, from this discussion, the issue of docking is being re-evaluated in the doggy world. As one person mentioned, in her country or part of her country, the practice is now outlawed. 

Plus really, we aren't able to ask the dog is they do miss their tails or ears, so all we are left with is trying to make a decision that is best for the dog without, hopefully, thinking what is cosmetically more appealing. If it is done, it should be done for good reasons that are benefical to dogs, like spaying and neutering which is also a painful operation, but at least there is a benefit to the animal. I'm just not convinced that there is enough of a true benefit to the dog to have either tails or ears automatically docked for some breeds to meet a standard.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Inga said:


> just about everything in the horse world makes you mad? yikes! I think they are amazing creatures and an absolute blast to have.
> 
> Probably not a good time to tell you some farmers hack off their cows tails so the cow doesn't swat them in the face while milking. Just for the record, I hate that practice as well.


I LOVE horses. I think they're amazing animals and an absolute blast to have. I would love to have a horse and learn to ride properly. I don't agree with how horses are treated, in general. Inhumane treatment seems to be the rule rather than the exception. At least in my experience.

I am aware that dairy cows are commonly docked. I don't agree with most meat/milk production methods, but humane methods are not profitable. So I don't even bother getting into that anymore. I mostly concentrate my comments on companion animals, because profit is not the leading concern with them. One would hope, anyway.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ADA said:


> There is an omission in your reply; that being humans have the power of saying ‘No!’.
> 
> This forum appeared to be for presentation and interchange of knowledge on which people can make informed choices. The reply post reads that if one holds an opposing view to a poster in this forum, the assumption is that that view is being forced on others; (no, it was being presented to others) it is obvious that there is more than one view in this discussion so if there is any “forcing” of opinion does it then not apply to those holding other contentious views as well?
> 
> There is no complete practising freedom of choice for Veterinarians and Doctors/Medical licencees as their practices are supposedly governed/ restrained by codes of practice laid down by their licensing bodies and disciplinary action can be taken if they act in a manner which brings their profession into disrepute.


 

Human infants have NO say over what their parents decide to have done to them, be it circumcision, ear piercing or Heart Surgery, so that argument is moot. Dogs are, in intelligence approximately equal to a three year old child, therefore it is the owners responsibility to make decisions for them. Interesting point though on the development of the human nervous system, and certainly explains a lot about my teenagers. 

Yes we are for discussion of differing view points, however you are representing yourself as an individual when you are *Anti*-*Docking* *Alliance*. From the postings I'd say there are at leath three people posting under the the user name, I believe your IP numbers will prove that out as well. 

And yes, there is a certain amount of freedom allowed any medical practitioner be it a vet or an MD. They can refuse to perform a procedure on their individual beliefs as long as it would not affect the overall health on the patient (this means plastic surgery, circumcision, abortion in humans and cropping, Docking ect in dogs). Here in the U.S. the regulating body is there to be sure the doctor is competent and not ripping people off or performing procedures they aren't qualified to. They are not there to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship, though that could change soon if certain people get their way. 

I'm not going to deny that there have been botched procedures, or that some really stupid and/or abusive people haven't tried to perform cropping/docking procedure when they had no business doing so, those people should be prosecuted under the existing abuse laws and if there is a medical professional involved they should be investigated. However it's not the reality of the MAJORITY of the procedures performed therefore individuals should have the right to choose, not have the choice made by the government especially when it costs my tax dollars to enforce it and there are far more important things that money should be spent on.

I did a little research on the studies on tail docking, however all I could find we re those done on Cattle and sheep both of which are born with a more fully developed nervous system that either humans or dogs (as exibited by the fact they can run from a preditor shortly after birth where as dogs and humans can't)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Um Shabka said:


> I'm an old woman and I remember years ago when people thought declawing a cat wasn't a big deal.


I assure you that serious cat people always thought de-clawing was a "big deal". Show cats cannot be de-clawed (Championship or Neuter class), and, in CFA shows, de-clawed cats cannot even be shown in Household Pet division (although in TICA shows they can....under the assumption that the cat was adopted from a shelter already de-clawed). It has never been acceptable to people who truly know cats, and have seen how damaging it is to them.

I think the lines between "acceptable" things we do to animals and those deemed "unacceptable" are entirely arbitrary. Do we go by legalities? In some states, drowning unwanted pets is legal, in other states it's illegal. So is it "right" in those states where it is legal, and "wrong" in those states where it's illegal? It's the same thing no matter where it's done. If you grew up being told that docking and cropping were wrong, and it was illegal where you were, you'd grow up believing that it's wrong. But since Americans are in general accustomed to docked and cropped dogs, and have been told that it's normal, they see nothing wrong with it. Totally arbitrary.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

I've been thinking about this for a while, and while I don't have strong feelings about it, I have come to this conclusion: if I think that it's wrong to cause unnecessary pain to animals (which I do) than I must also think it's wrong to dock pet animals unless there is a benefit to be had by the animal. This conclusion means that if it provides a benefit to working dogs by preventing future injury, it's okay for them. But it's not ethical for pet, non-working dogs who are not at risk for tail injury.

Part of the reason that I don't have strong feelings about it is because I honestly do think that the pain caused is fleeting, and forgotten, so it's not that big of a deal compared to all the other horrible things that people do to animals. Compared to the de-clawing of cats, it's minor.

But pet dog owners who have the best interests of their dogs at heart should reconsider the reasons why they want to do this. The pain may be forgotten, and perhaps you have the legal right to do it, but is that really the owner you want to be? Someone who holds their own aesthetic preferences above the interests of their pets?

I hope this doesn't upset anyone too much. I don't think people who dock are necessarily ignoring the well-being of their dogs, by any means. I just think they might be losing their perspective on the issue because they are attached to an idea of what their breed "should" look like.



cshellenberger said:


> ADA there is an importent differance in digs and humans, that being the development of the nervous system at birth. A pups nervous system isn't as fully developed as a humans is at Coordinated Movement: A puppy is born without a fully developed nervous system. The brain, spinal cord, and associated nerves are present at birth but lack the capacity to adequately transmit electrical impulses in a coordinated fashion...
> This allows docking to be far less painful as long as it's done in the first week after birth.





cshellenberger said:


> BTW, the study is fairly recent (last five years) and there is far less developement in the nervous system of puppy than a human, who's nervous system is fully developed at 6 months in the womb.


Not sure where you're getting your info about the human nervous system. It doesn't "finish" developing until our early twenties, and it's pretty much an ongoing process for those first twenty+ years. Human babies are decidedly _not_ more developed than puppies. When we are born, our nervous systems are still "fetal" in many ways. A lot of the most basic processes that we take for granted actually took _years_ to develop.

For instance, one of the reasons you can't trust very young children to "look both ways before crossing" is that their visual systems are unable to detect movement unless it contains internal change. So they can see that an animal (just one example) is moving forward because of its changing form -- legs moving, back shifting, head nodding, etc. A car, on the other hand, retains the same form while moving forward, so in the first years they literally can't _see_ that it's moving towards them on the road. One more reason to hold kids' hands.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

For me then it comes back to spaying and neutering. I certainly feel it's unnecessary to spay/neuter pets. These days it is mostly about convenience and ignorance than really improving the health of the dog.

A breeder does not known at 3 days which puppies will be workers and which puppies will be pets. Drives and personalities are no where near developed, so you dock the whole of them.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

Xeph said:


> A breeder does not known at 3 days which puppies will be workers and which puppies will be pets. Drives and personalities are no where near developed, so you dock the whole of them.


Oh, well that's true. I suppose I should rephrase in terms of whole litters. So for litters that are not intended for working purposes it's a no, while for litters that may have individuals that are used for working purposes, it's okay.



> For me then it comes back to spaying and neutering. I certainly feel it's unnecessary to spay/neuter pets. These days it is mostly about convenience and ignorance than really improving the health of the dog.


I don't think it's the same. While for an individual dog it may be better for the owners to be hypervigilant and prevent unwanted pregnancies rather than put the dog through surgery, this can have consequences for not just your dog but for dogs everywhere, and possible accidental litters of dogs in the future that your dog creates.

I forget who it was, but someone on here wrote about completely responsible breeders occasionally have accidental litters, and mentioned a time that it happened when two dogs were in adjacent crates at an event. I do think that it can happen to _almost_ anyone, so as a rule of thumb I think everyone should neuter unless they have a compelling reason not to (like future plans to breed responsibly).

[I will say, to Xeph specifically, that I think she knows what she's doing and I trust her judgment for her dog -- but on a public forum it makes more sense to just lay out a rule for everyone, since it applies to 99.9% of the public anyway.]


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> [I will say, to Xeph specifically, that I think she knows what she's doing and I trust her judgment for her dog -- but on a public forum it makes more sense to just lay out a rule for everyone, since it applies to 99.9% of the public anyway.]


Appreciated,lol.



> So for litters that are not intended for working purposes it's a no, while for litters that may have individuals that are used for working purposes, it's okay.


So, BYB litters? The other "problem" with this, while I can agree in principle, is that the majority is LESS likely to buy from a breeder that does not DOCK a traditionally docked breed.

I know a few that will buy a cropped breed with natural ears, but the tail is non negotiable. 

I do find it interesting that the TAIL seems to be the deciding factor about a breed fitting the physical standard we want to see.

A dog with cropped ears and a natural tail is not acceptable, but a dog with natural ears and a docked tail is.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> For me then it comes back to spaying and neutering. I certainly feel it's unnecessary to spay/neuter pets. These days it is mostly about convenience and ignorance than really improving the health of the dog.
> 
> A breeder does not known at 3 days which puppies will be workers and which puppies will be pets. Drives and personalities are no where near developed, so you dock the whole of them.


Great points Xeph!!!!!

I know this is like a broken record. But.... Docking and cropping is much less invasive than neutering and especially spaying a dog. And... Spaying and neutering are done for convenience. Any potential health benefit to the dog from being de sexed is negated by the potential for issues resulting from lack of hormones.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

Did anyone else hear about the woman who was selling "goth" kittens on craigslist (or ebay?), complete with multiple ear piercings? She was busted for animal cruelty.

Not to throw a flagrantly inflammatory wrench in the works, but how is this really that different? I'm seriously not a zealot on this issue, I just can't see the difference.

I know that centuries of tradition may seem to validate our desire to dock with some breeds, but ... I just can't see how (for non-working dogs) it's anything but an aesthetic foible. And how does that justify it, really?



Xeph said:


> > So for litters that are not intended for working purposes it's a no, while for litters that may have individuals that are used for working purposes, it's okay.
> 
> 
> So, BYB litters?


Well, no. There are respectable breeders who breed traditionally docked dogs for non-working home environments, aren't there?

And I guess I would wonder which working environments require docking and which don't. GSD's are never docked, so does that rule out schutzhund? And herding? I honestly don't know enough about this to say.



> The other "problem" with this, while I can agree in principle, is that the majority is LESS likely to buy from a breeder that does not DOCK a traditionally docked breed.


That's true, but I guess an ideal situation (for me) would be that there would be a slow sea change in how the public -- and responsible breeders -- view docking and cropping, and over time it would become more acceptable to both for dogs to keep their parts when there's no practical reason for them to be removed. Maybe this is already happening?



> I know a few that will buy a cropped breed with natural ears, but the tail is non negotiable.
> 
> I do find it interesting that the TAIL seems to be the deciding factor about a breed fitting the physical standard we want to see.
> 
> A dog with cropped ears and a natural tail is not acceptable, but a dog with natural ears and a docked tail is.


That is an interesting point. I wonder why that is?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

canteloupe said:


> Did anyone else hear about the woman who was selling "goth" kittens on craigslist (or ebay?), complete with multiple ear piercings? She was busted for animal cruelty.
> 
> Not to throw a flagrantly inflammatory wrench in the works, but how is this really that different? I'm seriously not a zealot on this issue, I just can't see the difference.
> 
> ...


To be blunt.....poking some holes in the cats ears is a non issue for me. I have ear tagged I have no clue how many cattle in my life. 

But given a cats, nature (jumping around, up on things, rubbing against things, etc.) I do have a problem with hanging jewelry from their ears.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Not to throw a flagrantly inflammatory wrench in the works, but how is this really that different? I'm seriously not a zealot on this issue, I just can't see the difference.





> To be blunt.....poking some holes in the cats ears is a non issue for me. I have ear tagged I have no clue how many cattle in my life.


Responding to two quotes at one...JB, tagging cattle serves a functional purpose. Pierced kitten ears do not.



> That is an interesting point. I wonder why that is?


I wonder that myself!

I've seen many natural Boxers, Dobermans and Pits over the years, and while I can accept natural ears on all (I admit I still have a problem with natural eared dobes to some end), tails on Dobes and Boxers I just go...ew.



> Well, no. There are respectable breeders who breed traditionally docked dogs for non-working home environments, aren't there?


I do not believe so, no. The responsible ones are breeding to some end besides just being house pets.



> And I guess I would wonder which working environments require docking and which don't. GSD's are never docked, so does that rule out schutzhund? And herding? I honestly don't know enough about this to say.


The GSD is a tending dog and is often not amongst the thick of it in the flock of sheep, so the tail is generally less of a concern. Even the BC, a dog that moves cattle a LOT, is not RIGHT in the middle of things like the ACD or the Corgi.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

Xeph said:


> I've seen many natural Boxers, Dobermans and Pits over the years, and while I can accept natural ears on all (I admit I still have a problem with natural eared dobes to some end), tails on Dobes and Boxers I just go...ew.


It would be interesting to do a poll on this, to see how many people feel that way. I suspect a lot of people do. I don't think there's anything inherently ewwy about a tail on a boxer, but I do know what you mean -- it's like we're conditioned to see the no-tail as natural, so seeing a tail looks _un_natural. In some ways, tails remind me of human eyebrows. They convey expression, and when we're used to seeing them they become an almost structural part of a person's face. And likewise when we're not used to seeing them.



> I do not believe so, no. The responsible ones are breeding to some end besides just being house pets.


Are some breeds that are traditionally docked now only used for working purposes that wouldn't require it? Like rottweilers? I'm really not assuming I'm right here, I'm just looking for info.



> The GSD is a tending dog and is often not amongst the thick of it in the flock of sheep, so the tail is generally less of a concern. Even the BC, a dog that moves cattle a LOT, is not RIGHT in the middle of things like the ACD or the Corgi.


Oh, makes sense.

Just to reiterate what I said before, for anyone else who reads this, I _don't_ have strong feelings against docking. I think out of all the problems and concerns that face dogs everywhere, this issue is quite minor.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Responding to two quotes at one...JB, tagging cattle serves a functional purpose. Pierced kitten ears do not.
> 
> 
> I wonder that myself!
> ...


There are two schools of thought on ACD's. The standard calls for them to have natural tails. They are commonly docked on ranches. 

And as Xeph said, they REALLY get in thick of things. 

I think natural tails are better. This is AFTER I have had an ACD that had to have part of his tail amputated because of a working injury. (I believe it was 1200 bucks. plus 900 total to clean the truck. I ended up having to have one of those crime scene cleanup companies clean the cab. It looked like a B grade horror movie) 

But this is why I still am pro tail on ACDs. They are so athletic and SO agile, I believe their tail (counter balance and rudder) saves them from more serious injury.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Are some breeds that are traditionally docked now only used for working purposes that wouldn't require it? Like rottweilers? I'm really not assuming I'm right here, I'm just looking for info.


While they are not terribly common here in America, there are many countries that do still incorporate the use of Rottweilers in their police forces. The Rottweiler tail, unlike the tail of the Malinois or GSD, is thick, slow moving, and relatively long. The Rottweiler is also less agile and are noted for their use of power and overall factor of intimidation.

I do not have a problem admitting that most of this is theoretical, but I can say that if I were stoned enough, I wouldn't think twice about grabbing onto a Rottie's tail (or at least make an attempt) to avoid the "Sharp end".

I also know quite a few people that will still teach their Rott's to pull carts. Versatility titles and all.

For those that would argue tailed carters such as the Bernese, here are a couple of pictures of both breeds carting:

Rotties:
http://www.rottweiler.on.ca/rottfun/carting.jpg
http://www.amrottclub.org/images/design_elements/cart2.jpg

Bernese:
http://www.mdbmdc.org/images/Franko_Cart2.jpg
http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/4742898/LynnePaulBagnallWillie-main_Full.jpg

Difference in length from dog's tail to cart mechanisms.

I DID see some Bernese in shorter harnessed carts, but I dare say that those furry tails and the carts they were pulling made me a little "oooo...." I'd worry about the hair getting caught in the wheels.



> But this is why I still am pro tail on ACDs. They are so athletic and SO agile, I believe their tail (counter balance and rudder) saves them from more serious injury.


Agreed. The other thing about the ACD is I personally believe dogs like yours are freak accidents...they have to be caught between something. Their tails,as far as I have seen, are not particularly long and lack a good bit of hair.

The drovers of the tailed herders are the Border Collie, Bearded Collie, Collie, the three Belgians and the Cardigan Welsh Corgi. With the exception the Corgi, most seem to have tail sets and carriages that keep their tails OUT of the way, and it's going to take them being pinned against something to cause a tail injury. The others are tenders, or if they are drovers, have spitz tails or docks to prevent their injuries.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> But this is why I still am pro tail on ACDs. They are so athletic and SO agile, I believe their tail (counter balance and rudder) saves them from more serious injury.


That's a good point. I wonder what other breeds this would or wouldn't apply to.



Xeph said:


> While they are not terribly common here in America, there are many countries that do still incorporate the use of Rottweilers in their police forces. The Rottweiler tail, unlike the tail of the Malinois or GSD, is thick, slow moving, and relatively long. The Rottweiler is also less agile and are noted for their use of power and overall factor of intimidation.
> 
> I do not have a problem admitting that most of this is theoretical, but I can say that if I were stoned enough, I wouldn't think twice about grabbing onto a Rottie's tail (or at least make an attempt) to avoid the "Sharp end".


Oh, that's interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a rottweiler with a tail except in pictures (where I'll admit I actually like how it looks), and I didn't know it was slow moving. I see what you mean about the carting, also.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Oh, that's interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a rottweiler with a tail except in pictures


I've seen a couple at shows, and even a couple that won (and deserved it!!)

Rottie people seem to be pretty accepting of tailed dogs and are importing many to open up and improve upon their bloodlines. I think the biggest thing is that they still want the right to CHOOSE.

I will also say that people are looking at these dogs and starting to breed for tailset to allow for proper carriage, though what that carriage people think it should be...well, the jury is still out on that one.

I'm hoping Inga can weigh in more on this particular subject.

When shown stacked the tail is kept down and it gives the appearance of a docked dog (which may be why it's more acceptable). There seems to be no propensity for a hooked tail (not much anyway), but rather a dead hang.

In motion I see some dogs with sickle tails and others that do not raise the tail past the horizontal. In the latter the tail may have a light curve (shepherd's crook) at the end, others carry the tail like a Labrador.

I don't have a problem with tailed Rotties either and find most to be quite beautiful.

The rottweiler is one of the few though that has maintained similar type overseas and the imported dogs finish rather easily here

BTW I would like to add that I do not profess to know EVERYTHING about all the herding breeds but do hold a profound interest in all of them and try to study them and their jobs/way they worked the best I can. I am most experienced with the workings of the three Belgians, the Corgi, and the GSD. While I've seen many Shelties, Collies, and BC's work, I admit I do not entirely understand HOW they work.

Some of my thoughts regarding tails, docks, spitz tails in some of the breed is based on theory.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

So for breeds that have been docked for a long time, the tail is like an "invisible appendage" and all kinds of different quirks could have developed over time, without the breeders knowing it? Sorry for the repetition, but that's really interesting.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> So for breeds that have been docked for a long time, the tail is like an "invisible appendage" and all kinds of different quirks could have developed over time, without the breeders knowing it? Sorry for the repetition, but that's really interesting.


Yup. Improper tail set, different tail carriage, dead nerves (such as the case with the Rott Inga had that turned himself into a walking torch....).

It is easy to hide poor/incorrect tailset on a dog like the Rottweiler as only a nub is left. Sometimes all you get is Rottie butt, but you can see a little "something"wiggling under hair at times.


----------

