Tried to comment on this but it seems it was deleted so I'm gonna repost my comment.

I don't like cropping either because I prefer natural ears but I'm not against it. If they wanna crop dogs' ears, that's their choice. I don't think it hurts the dogs unless it's done inhumanely. I'm strongly against docking/cropping when it's done inhumanely without the aid of a vet.

I had to reupload 'cause my net messed up, sorry. XD Cropping hurts, a lot...I remember a friend who's family did it to their puppy. She cried so much, every time they had to "retape" the bandages into place. It's horrific, no animal ever deserves that. My concern is, the dog is the one that it effects...they don't get a choice, it's not our choice to make and I'm sure NO dog would say "please cut off my ears & tail!" lol If there is some valid medical reason for cropping and/or docking than benefits the dog then I'm all for it...however, if it's just for cosmetics or some shallow person's "prefs"/AKC standards then no, never.
Just my two cents

I do agree with you at some point of this arguement where people who have dogs simply as pets and do not use them for their original purpose should not have their dogs looks altered.

But you also must take into consideration that some of these alterations were for their actual use. Dogs like Dobermans are not of this case, as they were guard dogs, and were meant to look tough. But some dogs actually have these alterations to protect them I'm sure docking could do many dogs good, rather than breaking their tails if they have rigorous jobs. And cropping ears could make the ears themselves a bit tougher, rather than them ripping off. And you neglect to say anything about dewclaws, which are also taken off sometimes because they rip off and can make a hunting dog bleed to death in the field.

I'm not trying to hate, but this is some biased thinking. Their are humane ways to alter animals, it's not like everyone take the axe to a dog to make it beautiful. They carry the tradition of how dogs looked and functioned when they worked. Banding tails can occur at three days old. Pups feel minimal pain, and do not lose blood. Dewclaws can be taken off at two days old, and only cause the pup a bit of pain, but any responsible person would have septic powder on hand to stop bleeding. Concious dogs usually do not have their ears cropped, they are usually sedated.

Most people mainly think of the worse case senario of iresponsible people doing much wrong by the dog. Their are some stupid people who do this, but their are responsible people who know what is best. I do not support showmanship groups where only a dog's looks and how well they can stand is taken into consideration. I care about animals, but you cannot completely criminalize these practices. Not all of them are bad.

I am sorry about what happened to the puppy you are talking about, but only sensless people would do that. Without even numbing the dog is just terrible.

Why do I always forget to click "reply". I'm too used to another forum's set up, sorry. XD

Here is a quote from some with actual working dogs (who are also uncropped/docked):

"Our dogs are not docked or cropped; they never have been and never will (with or without a law) our dogs have never injured their tails nor have they knocked things off the table, nor have they bruised our legs when wagging their tails. If all of this would be true about natural tails then vet offices here would be packed with dogs (not just boxers) with natural tails with injuries.
We are members of a boxer club; I see hundreds of boxers a year at shows and competitions, I never seen one with a damaged tail. We work our boxer, we do Schutzdenst, we see others doing the same, and I have never seen a boxer with a natural tail injured.
The stories about having it done “because it's for the dogs sake and own protection” is a brainwash. It is totally and completely unnecessary."

and one more:
"have listened to both sides of the argument regarding tail docking and have reached the conclusion that this is a barbaric practice which should be banned now, regardless to whether the dogs are working dogs or pets. I am the owner of two 3 year old boxers who had been docked as pups by their breeder. In January they had a beautiful litter of 5 pups and suddenly I found myself having to face the issues of docking; whether to follow the 'norm' and have them docked (which in the opinion of many of my fellow Boxer owners, I should do, purely because 'Boxers don't have tails' or to leave them. At this point I had an open mind and scoured the internet for information, talked to my vet and read many articles. It didn't take me long to conclude that these pups would be keeping their tails! I have watched them as they teeter about using their tails to balance, their delight at mealtimes and playtime, obvious by the manic wagging of tails. These animals were born with tails, they have the right to keep them. I SUPPORT THE CAMPAIGN TO BAN DOCKING "

For more just see http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/ & http://www.stopthecrops.com

I suppose I am biased, I have read a lot on this issue and unless there is some valid reason that benefits the dog, I see no reason such cosmetic operations should continue. See many undocked/cropped working dogs here: http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_5.htm

I've met a pair of boxers with natural tail injuries and it looks gross... The skin re-growth ain't pretty.

Well, on the issue of dewclaws, I've had 7 dogs through the years, 12 if you count those in my extended family (who I see every day) and none of us have never had any problems with dewclaws causing injuries. No, my dogs aren't "working" dogs but they do get to hike a lot when the weather permits.

If you check out the sites I linked to in the post they explain far better than I ever could why I feel so strongly about these issues. "Anti docking alliance" even has a gallery of "natural dogs", along with many undock/cropped working dogs. None of them have bent or injured tails. Realistically, any dog could injury it's tail, so why is it that only some are docked and other working breeds are not?

I also fail to see how one dog's floppy ears could pose more of a risk for injury than another's. Labrador retrievers and spaniels are working breeds, they have floppy ears. How are their ears less of a risk than another breed's? How about the border collie, they have full tails and floppy ears and are an excellent working breed. As I said in my original post, if there is some valid reason for crops/docks that benefits the dog in some way then I'm all for it. However, there seem to be many examples, even of working dogs, showing that it's not necessary.

When it comes to certain breeds ,like pitbulls, ear crops in this case were done to prevent injury in fighting. This "sport" is illegal now, and rightfully so...so why continue to promote it through this look? These are the ones that bother me the most honestly. Then there are the toy breeds that are docked. Why on earth would anyone dock a miniature pinscher, except for a "proper look" (according to the AKC) There's just no need for it.

PS: I saw an all natural boxer at a dog event last spring, first I had ever seen (in person) with a tail! I was so happy to see that I went up to his owner and we both talked about how they look so much better that way. His dog had never had any tail injuries.

To be honest, I've seen some of the worst of it in AKC breeding and all that jazz. I am against them strongly. I do not like ear cropping that much, either. It is a sort of tradition, as Doberman were bred to be guard dogs and look scary. So if Mr. Doberman was walking down the street with his dogs, nobody would want to steal anything from him.

But docking and removing dewclaws can be done in very humane ways. I am a dog breeder of Pembroke Welsh Corgis and Border Collies, and those are some pretty high working breeds. My dogs don't even herd as much or run as much as they were meant to, but there are still alot of good done by this practice. And Pembroke Welsh Corgis are called the "corgi without the tail" for a reason. It's a more traditional thing, and can happen naturally. But with Corgis or other dogs that are born with the natural bob can sometimes have tails way to short, as in causing them severe back problems, or too long for the standard set for them, and they'd need it re-cut, which could be painful.

Pretty much what I have been trying to say, is maybe cropping ears in the practice you have described is a terrible thing. But docking tails can be for safety, from both natural genetics and in the field. Plus their are many painless ways of docking tails. And removing dewclaws, I think, is just common sense. Breeders who don't remove them are a bit irresponsible, in my view. It's a simple procidure that can be done when they are young, and can prevent later heartache from dogs that might be working in situations where they could rip off. If no one notices, the dog could easily bleed out.

I planned to post this last night but FA went through it's major laggy time, so I'll post it now...this is from an article written by an actual vet, as seen in the Australian Veterinary Journal. You can see the full thing here: http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_4.htm

These are some key points:

THE PAIN OF TAIL DOCKING.

Tail docking involves the removal of all or part of the tail using cutting or crushing instruments. Muscles, tendons,
4 to 7 pairs of nerves and sometimes bone or cartilage are severed. The initial pain from the direct injury to the
nervous system would be intense and at a level that would not be permitted to be inflicted on humans. The
subsequent tissue injury and inflammation, especially if the tail is left to heal as an open wound will produce
the algogenic substances, the 'sensitising soup' and the 'dorsal horn wind up' required for peripheral and central
sensitisation and the development of ongoing pathological pain. Puppies are usually subjected to this pain and
trauma at 2 to 5 days of age when the level of pain would he much greater than an adult would experience
because the afferent stimuli reaching the dorsal horn from a greater density of sensitised cutaneous nociceptors
will exceed that of the adult and the strength and frequency of painful stimuli reaching the brain will he greater
because inhibitory pain pathways will not be developed.

*
The whimpering and the 'escape response' (continual movements) exhibited by most puppies
following tail docking, are evidence that they are feeling substantial pain. Animals tend to be
more stoic than humans due to an inherent preservation instinct.

*
Because some puppies do not show signs of intense suffering, it does not mean that the pain
inflicted on them has not registered in their central nervous system.

REASONS GIVEN TO JUSTIFY TAIL DOCKING TODAY

*
Prevention of injury in hunting and working dogs.

Most dogs in the breeds that are generally docked are kept as pets and companion animals and are never
used for hunting or working. The most popular breeds used in the field or paddock are Labradors, Kelpies,
Border Collies and Cattle dogs, none of which are required to have their tails docked.

*
Prevention of injury in short coated dogs especially those with exuberant and ebullient
temperaments.

This is inconsistent because not all breeds in this category are required to be docked, for example the Dalmatian
and the Labrador. The boxer is often cited a dog requiring docking for this reason, but some professional dog
trainers note a difference in the behaviour of this and other traditionally docked breeds when they are left
undocked and 'urge and encourage all breeders to forget about what has happened in the past and now
change to keep their dogs' tails on" (Tucker 1994)


And this is a quote from some owners with working dogs, boxers, who are also uncropped/undocked):
"Our dogs are not docked or cropped; they never have been and never will (with or without a law) our dogs have never injured their tails nor have they knocked things off the table, nor have they bruised our legs when wagging their tails. If all of this would be true about natural tails then vet offices here would be packed with dogs (not just boxers) with natural tails with injuries.
We are members of a boxer club; I see hundreds of boxers a year at shows and competitions, I never seen one with a damaged tail. We work our boxer, we do Schutzdenst, we see others doing the same, and I have never seen a boxer with a natural tail injured. The stories about having it done “because it's for the dogs sake and own protection” is a brainwash. It is totally and completely unnecessary."

Again, you can see the full vet written article from the posted link there, I just thought those sections were important. As far as dewclaws, I have personally never seen any problems occur with them, all my dogs have their dewclaws and they never get in their way. All of them are rescues (I'm against "buying" pets when there are so many thousands upon thousands in the shelters) and I have seen some amazing rescue dogs who endure hardships MUCH worse than anything a working dog would, with intact dewclaws, ears and tails..

TRADITION OR CUSTOM

Submitting dogs to a procedure known to be painful and which may have harmful consequences, just to satisfy
a centuries old custom, cannot he justified in a humane society.

CONCLUSION

Cosmetic tail docking cannot be justified on scientific or medical grounds. Unless pecuniary or traditional
reasons are to take priority over the welfare of the animal, then the criteria to justify removal of a dogs tail are
not satisfied. The tail is not merely an inconsequential appendage. It is an anatomically and physiologically sign
significant structure which has many biological functions that should not he underestimated. Tail docking can
predispose the dog to detrimental consequences including intense, initial pain and continuing pain related,
neurological problems. Tail amputation should only be performed on those dogs whose tail or associated
structures have been injured or where there is occult pathology of this appendage. If tail amputation is indicated
as a therapeutic measure, appropriate anaesthetic and surgical techniques should be employed. The neonate
is anatomically and physiologically able to and in fact does feel pain.

Theirs far worse things going on in the world, and to focus on something as minor as this is pretty bad. My dogs mean the world to me, far more than any human could. When done at a young age, these things do not effect them for the rest of their lives. They aren't in shock from it. Compare it to circumcision in humans. Done at a younger age, but a male isn't shocked for the rest of his life in memory of what happened. Animals don't live in the past or future, but in the current day. If you take a few month old puppy and hack it's tail or ears, then it will most likely be effected. Compaired to a few day old pup, where the dewclaws and tail may be removed.

While their are animals being tortured and burned, forced to fight, eaten alive, tested on with human drugs, this shouldn't be fretted about so highly. Mountain out of a mole hill, it's very hard to change people. And if anyone is going to try and change something, try something alot worse. While people are poking spears into bulls for fun, their are crowds of people trying to change a creation of man, not earth. Evolution made the dog our own creature, and a pet and loyal animal to man. Something as simple as tail docking shouldn't be made criminal.

Seeing as if it is done the right way, of course.

I agree with you on the fact that there are worse things, I'm very aware of that. It's the reason I always adopt from shelters/rescue, the reason I'm a vegetarian (working towards vegan) and the reason I join in as many animal rights protests as I can. I know what happens in fur farms and factory farms. I'm also in facebook groups that constantly share thousands of "urgent" cats and dogs from dirty overflowing shelters, most of which never get seen anywhere else. I share as many as I can; if I had room to adopt or foster more I would.

I think why crops/docks bother me so much is the fact that it's considered "okay" to do it, it's legal (in America anyway). Any form of pain inflicted on an animal should not be legal...it isn't in other countries. This shows a list of the countries that have outlawed crops/docks: http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_10.htm I just couldn't imagine taking a tiny puppy (of any age) and cutting off it's tail, while saying "I love you". I couldn't cause any sort of pain to the ones I love...

Yes, there are far worse things, and this is most certainly not the only animal rights issue I focus on. I just don't think it should be overlooked. A ban on cosmetic operations (unless they benefit the animal in some way, not the person's prefs, traditions or akc standards) would be a step in the right direction. A step to a more humane country as a whole.

PS: My vet is against crops/docks too. Stopthecrops.com has a petition you can print out for your vet to sign, stating that they disagree with these practices & refuse to perform cosmetic operations. Mine refuses to dock/crop. If he didn't I would have been looking for another vet! lol

Cows get their tails docked, and you are not mentioning that. Dogs aren't the only animals in the world, and their are worse things considered okay. Some people eat dogs. Keep them in little cages behind resturants to boil them up and serve them with a side of brown rice.

People are horrible creatures, to say simply. They will not change. Neither of us are any different from the people who mistreat animals. Everyone has the power to change theirselves, but once they die, nothing has really changed. Their beliefs die with them. I am not going to say anything further on this, because I'm just wasting my time.

I know about all that, I just can't mention everything in a single post, this artwork of dogs, so that's where the focus was. Of course I'm against the docking of sheep and other animals too.

Yes, I also know about the savage countries that do that too (China is perhaps the worst) What I find sad is, in America cows, pigs and other "farm animals" are treated the same way, but no one seems to care. It's a double standard, people care about dogs and cats but look the other way when it comes to what they think of as "lesser" animals.

This is getting into another topic altogether though, so I'll leave it at that. I think actions speak louder than words, and for what it's worth I do all I can to speak up for and help animals, and not just dogs.

Things can and do change, it's just up to the people to demand it. People change and evolve, things are a lot better than they were and the more people that speak up for change the better. Awareness is the key. As a child I thought certain breeds just naturally had no tails. I also had no clue about where my "happy" meals really came from. When I found out the facts, I went vegetarian without a second thought.

Just for the record, the used to be a pet store in my area which sold puppies (found out to be from puppy mills) Enough people shouted and protested and they went out of business. There also used to be two fur stores in this town, protesting and awareness closed the doors on one. We're workin' on the other one!

Peace

Im with you on the being opposed to cropping and docking. I can't ever be comfortable with it. Its illegal here in the UK, thank god.
Its so sad when people claim to love the breed, but ONLY if its surgically mutilated, as if the temperament, personality and nature of the dobe is just not even worth mentioning.
Personally, temperament and nature is my main driving force for getting a dobe, NOT appearance.
Its also amusing how so many of these crop and dock obsessives get so purist about what the breed 'originally was meant to look like' but they have no problem with blue dobes, or a long show crop on the ears, neither of which were intended by the breed creator. Seems they like to pick and choose which parts of the 'original breed' they want to keep.
Similar to how bigots pick and choose passages from the bible to support their anti-gay views, while ignoring other things the bible says that they happily do every day!

I honestly do think croppers/dockers are so defensive and, usually, rude, because they feel threatened. Their love for cosmetic surgery on dogs is threatened as this practise becomes more and more frowned upon, and rightly so. Its already been banned in many countries, and is continuing to be banned more and more. It will, in my view, eventually be a thing of the past and put in the history books, where it belongs.

This drawing caught my attention - I'm the same way about cropping/docking. But, oh god, I DARED to speak up about it on a dog forum somewhere some time ago and you would not BELIEVE how many people spazzed at me over that. I was just dumbfounded. I don't get how people can love a breed and yet still want to injure tiny defenseless puppies just so they look a certain way. (I am pro spay/neuter, but that has a PURPOSE). My mind just can't seem to wrap around people sometimes.

I hope it is eventually banned in the US, but can't bring myself to hold out much hope after my experience.

I heard that dogs use their tails to communicate. I doubt that they can do so if their tails are cropped. Also, why do Dobermans' ears need to be cropped? Other dogs with floppy ears are not cropped. Dobermans still look fierce with their tails and ears intact.