FA+
Shop
384
Views
Views
8
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Animal related (non-anthro)
Species Dog (Other)
Size 516 x 674
File Size 81.6 kB
Report this content
More from Ziggy
Used this as ref:
http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00.....lvWT7RAODI.jpg
http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00.....lvWT7RAODI.jpg
Category Artwork (Digital) / Animal related (non-anthro)
Species Dog (Other)
Size 516 x 674px
File Size 81.6 kB
I wish the USA would follow in the footsteps of other countries and stop docking, cropping, and declawing. In my opinion the only time that stuff is ok is in the case I've seen with some of the working dogs I work with who injure their tail in such a way that it cannot be repaired.
Granted, Danes, Dobes, and Boxers have the silly eagle crop going on which has little to do with working, but I really do wish people would actually research all the various reasons why cropping and docking was done....there was a purpose there, and it still has it's place with working dogs, and in some breeds, pets as well.
I really hope you're not talking about me, because I know more about cropping and docking than you're probably imagining
I've researched it extensively.
I do realise that in SOME breeds there was an actual purpose to a docked tail, back in the day.
But today, the vast majority of pedigree dogs are pet only, and never actually do the job they were intended to do, making tail docking unecessary for the vast majority of dogs.
How many boxers do you know who are still doing what they were originally bred for, for example? And yet this breed is commonly sliced about and mutilated in both ears and tail.
I don't know ANY boxers who are anything other than pets/show dogs.
Ear cropping has never even had a medical benefit to it, either.
There is a good reason why both these practises are illegal in a lot of countries, and research has shown that there has been no negative impact on dog welfare in the countries where it is banned, no rise in tail injuries, etc.
In fact, tail injuries in undocked dogs are still something vets see only rarely.
Cats actually sustain far more tail injuries than any dog breed, via fighting and traffic, but no-one proposes removing all cat tails at birth to prevent this happening. I saw a LOT of cats with injured tails when I worked in vet nursing.
The only dog I ever saw with a tail injury was a greyhound that had 'happy tail'. And greyhounds aren't even a docked breed anyway. Go figure.
I've researched it extensively.
I do realise that in SOME breeds there was an actual purpose to a docked tail, back in the day.
But today, the vast majority of pedigree dogs are pet only, and never actually do the job they were intended to do, making tail docking unecessary for the vast majority of dogs.
How many boxers do you know who are still doing what they were originally bred for, for example? And yet this breed is commonly sliced about and mutilated in both ears and tail.
I don't know ANY boxers who are anything other than pets/show dogs.
Ear cropping has never even had a medical benefit to it, either.
There is a good reason why both these practises are illegal in a lot of countries, and research has shown that there has been no negative impact on dog welfare in the countries where it is banned, no rise in tail injuries, etc.
In fact, tail injuries in undocked dogs are still something vets see only rarely.
Cats actually sustain far more tail injuries than any dog breed, via fighting and traffic, but no-one proposes removing all cat tails at birth to prevent this happening. I saw a LOT of cats with injured tails when I worked in vet nursing.
The only dog I ever saw with a tail injury was a greyhound that had 'happy tail'. And greyhounds aren't even a docked breed anyway. Go figure.
*chuckles* and to add insult to injury on that Dobe --- I thought he was albino
Happy Tail caused our family Dane to be a halftail, glad to hear someone else(that I don't work with daily nor know) knows it's an actual condition.
********and now, the drama, forgive it********
understanding AND agreeing that crops and dockings are 99.999% aesthetics I'm (sadly) able to still see the art(yes, art!) in a WELL DONE crop....something that is growing harder and harder to come by(and I'm ok with that). Boxers, APBT and the like look better to me natural....danes and dobes I'm still a sucker for the above-listed. It is still the default in the show rings here in the US which reminds me just how behind the other major nations we are in terms of animal rights/ethical treatment but sometimes....ah, just don't kill me for appreciating them at times. Karja's comment hints at the 'tradition' of the cuts....which won't become un-common in the show ring(and thusly trickle down into the pet caliber dogs) until they modify the standards.
Happy Tail caused our family Dane to be a halftail, glad to hear someone else(that I don't work with daily nor know) knows it's an actual condition.
********and now, the drama, forgive it********
understanding AND agreeing that crops and dockings are 99.999% aesthetics I'm (sadly) able to still see the art(yes, art!) in a WELL DONE crop....something that is growing harder and harder to come by(and I'm ok with that). Boxers, APBT and the like look better to me natural....danes and dobes I'm still a sucker for the above-listed. It is still the default in the show rings here in the US which reminds me just how behind the other major nations we are in terms of animal rights/ethical treatment but sometimes....ah, just don't kill me for appreciating them at times. Karja's comment hints at the 'tradition' of the cuts....which won't become un-common in the show ring(and thusly trickle down into the pet caliber dogs) until they modify the standards.
Oh yeah, Im not saying I can't sometimes see the appeal of a crop, particularly in a dobe (think it looks awful in boxers, though. They're such clowns that the floppy ears just suit them so much more). I wouldn't say I prefer it to natural ears, but I don't think it looks hideous, if done correctly.
Its really just the cruelty involved in achieving it that I dislike.
While my dobe will have natural ears and tail, I wouldn't oppose anyone who wanted to try and breed dobes for a 'natural' pricked ear, if they wanted to.
We had the same issue here in the UK with docking and the kennel club. They had a standard for a while that dogs had to be docked to be shown. Then, after that, I think they trashed that as a necessity, but people continued to dock because there was the idea that you wouldn't get anywhere in the show ring unless you did, even if the dog was as good as one with a docked tail.
Now, since it became illegal, you're seeing traditionally docked breeds being shown with full tail, and its really lovely to see!
You do still get people walking down the street with a boxer puppy with no tail, clearly born after the ban came in, and very doubtful that it was a working dog (which are exempt from the ban if you can prove it will be worked) so clearly there are still people docking on the sly.
But fortunately, vets are really hot on it, so if you bring a puppy to them with a docked tail, questions will be raised.
Its really just the cruelty involved in achieving it that I dislike.
While my dobe will have natural ears and tail, I wouldn't oppose anyone who wanted to try and breed dobes for a 'natural' pricked ear, if they wanted to.
We had the same issue here in the UK with docking and the kennel club. They had a standard for a while that dogs had to be docked to be shown. Then, after that, I think they trashed that as a necessity, but people continued to dock because there was the idea that you wouldn't get anywhere in the show ring unless you did, even if the dog was as good as one with a docked tail.
Now, since it became illegal, you're seeing traditionally docked breeds being shown with full tail, and its really lovely to see!
You do still get people walking down the street with a boxer puppy with no tail, clearly born after the ban came in, and very doubtful that it was a working dog (which are exempt from the ban if you can prove it will be worked) so clearly there are still people docking on the sly.
But fortunately, vets are really hot on it, so if you bring a puppy to them with a docked tail, questions will be raised.
And I don't know anything about cropping and docking then?
Actually there has been a rise in tail injuries where docking bans have been put into place, it's just that no one talks about it and most people discount it because of the animal rights trend. What is more cruel, a dog that is docked by banding at a few days old and doesn't notice, or one that has to have it docked later in life(sometimes repeatedly because the vet will only take off what is needed, with stitching and bandaging and antibiotics).
Happy tail syndrome in delicate tailed breeds with wide swing are going to occur especially in the home. Greyhounds are not very hardy dogs to begin with in their general structure, and are prone to not only happy tail, but also bumping into thing...even if not pointy...can result in holes in the skin.
By why oh why....are you going to make illegal to dock a field breed? A working dog. Just because most people don't have working dogs? But those that do run a higher risk of having their dog injured because of everyone else declaring something is SOLELY for fashion? Lies and myth and stuff like this running rampant in the animal world make it easier for us to be picked apart and turned against each other.
Example...you don't support rescues that are fully anti-breeder, right? This is something that is recent. Rescues and rescuers didn't used to be so vicious towards even responsible breeders....not at this level. But it's a ploy, it's lies that are being told that if all breeders were gone, then all dogs would be adopted, and there would be no over population of pets because there wouldn't be homes taken away by a breeder's litter. You don't believe...I don't believe it. And if it was true and did happen, then all pets would die out which is what ARs want.... Yet there's a ton of people who do, and that has created a rift. Like the cropping and docking issue...it makes it seems like there's no working dogs, so why give value to something that curbs injury? Don't give value to it, call it fashion and say those people don't know what they're talking about if they agree with it.
And yes, boxers have become null and void with their original purpose, but their tails still suffer. Remember, this is a breed that has not been bred for a specific tail type for a long while, so one boxer's tail may be fine because of a curl, another long thin tail won't be. Case in point, a litter of boxers, three of which were kept in the family out of 7. Two out of those three...had to have surgery...one which had to be docked shorter than it would have been. Pleasant for a dog to go through, right? Considering that pups don't even notice banding...unlike with lambs and their tails...oh they do notice, they go and bed down and cry for about 3 days, but that's the wonder of an animal that isn't born blind to the world.
For cropping, for you to say they've never had a reason for cropping? Ok, look...there's things that aren't talked about even today that were reasons(like criminals being able to swing a dog from their tail and break/ruin the spine all the way down). And oh, yay, England has no predators! But really. Some livestock guardians were cropped to prevent tears to the ears from fight with predators..and ear tears can be serious business. Fighting breeds...same thing. And with the fact that APBTs are terriers, and most of them aren't going to back down even if they don't start something...it's kind of a safety issue in my mind.
But then again, I am for the working dog. I don't say that everyone HAS to crop/dock...but I don't think it should be illegal. Again though..the eagle crop-yeah, that's a fashion crop. The breeds that have it weren't originally cropped that long...and it's pointless...there's too much there still for it to be worth while.
For cats...cats are delicate creatures, which if a person is going to let them out into the world to get injured, why the hell do the have a cat? Cats have no business roaming about, getting into trouble, from what I understand the whole cat culture over seas is a lot different than here.
And maybe you'll just think this is crap and block me. Maybe you'll still think you know better rather than just believe a different way. I just get so....frustrated because this is a view where people do end up bashing each other and don't take into the history or issues that are current(think in terms of early spay and neuter...we're just now learning the problems of it. It doesn't mean we don't want shelters going ahead and fixing adoptable pups, we just want this information out there for other people to make an educated decision). And not everything is easy to find, especially information supporting the 'for' side of this issue. I've simply done a lot of digging....a LOT. I'd rather see balanced views than one sided ones.
Actually there has been a rise in tail injuries where docking bans have been put into place, it's just that no one talks about it and most people discount it because of the animal rights trend. What is more cruel, a dog that is docked by banding at a few days old and doesn't notice, or one that has to have it docked later in life(sometimes repeatedly because the vet will only take off what is needed, with stitching and bandaging and antibiotics).
Happy tail syndrome in delicate tailed breeds with wide swing are going to occur especially in the home. Greyhounds are not very hardy dogs to begin with in their general structure, and are prone to not only happy tail, but also bumping into thing...even if not pointy...can result in holes in the skin.
By why oh why....are you going to make illegal to dock a field breed? A working dog. Just because most people don't have working dogs? But those that do run a higher risk of having their dog injured because of everyone else declaring something is SOLELY for fashion? Lies and myth and stuff like this running rampant in the animal world make it easier for us to be picked apart and turned against each other.
Example...you don't support rescues that are fully anti-breeder, right? This is something that is recent. Rescues and rescuers didn't used to be so vicious towards even responsible breeders....not at this level. But it's a ploy, it's lies that are being told that if all breeders were gone, then all dogs would be adopted, and there would be no over population of pets because there wouldn't be homes taken away by a breeder's litter. You don't believe...I don't believe it. And if it was true and did happen, then all pets would die out which is what ARs want.... Yet there's a ton of people who do, and that has created a rift. Like the cropping and docking issue...it makes it seems like there's no working dogs, so why give value to something that curbs injury? Don't give value to it, call it fashion and say those people don't know what they're talking about if they agree with it.
And yes, boxers have become null and void with their original purpose, but their tails still suffer. Remember, this is a breed that has not been bred for a specific tail type for a long while, so one boxer's tail may be fine because of a curl, another long thin tail won't be. Case in point, a litter of boxers, three of which were kept in the family out of 7. Two out of those three...had to have surgery...one which had to be docked shorter than it would have been. Pleasant for a dog to go through, right? Considering that pups don't even notice banding...unlike with lambs and their tails...oh they do notice, they go and bed down and cry for about 3 days, but that's the wonder of an animal that isn't born blind to the world.
For cropping, for you to say they've never had a reason for cropping? Ok, look...there's things that aren't talked about even today that were reasons(like criminals being able to swing a dog from their tail and break/ruin the spine all the way down). And oh, yay, England has no predators! But really. Some livestock guardians were cropped to prevent tears to the ears from fight with predators..and ear tears can be serious business. Fighting breeds...same thing. And with the fact that APBTs are terriers, and most of them aren't going to back down even if they don't start something...it's kind of a safety issue in my mind.
But then again, I am for the working dog. I don't say that everyone HAS to crop/dock...but I don't think it should be illegal. Again though..the eagle crop-yeah, that's a fashion crop. The breeds that have it weren't originally cropped that long...and it's pointless...there's too much there still for it to be worth while.
For cats...cats are delicate creatures, which if a person is going to let them out into the world to get injured, why the hell do the have a cat? Cats have no business roaming about, getting into trouble, from what I understand the whole cat culture over seas is a lot different than here.
And maybe you'll just think this is crap and block me. Maybe you'll still think you know better rather than just believe a different way. I just get so....frustrated because this is a view where people do end up bashing each other and don't take into the history or issues that are current(think in terms of early spay and neuter...we're just now learning the problems of it. It doesn't mean we don't want shelters going ahead and fixing adoptable pups, we just want this information out there for other people to make an educated decision). And not everything is easy to find, especially information supporting the 'for' side of this issue. I've simply done a lot of digging....a LOT. I'd rather see balanced views than one sided ones.
Actually there has been a rise in tail injuries where docking bans have been put into place
Links to support this? I have read many over the years which state there has been no significant increase in tail injuries for traditionally docked breeds since a ban was enforced.
a dog that is docked by banding at a few days old and doesn't notice
This is a big claim to make. There is significant evidence that puppies DO feel a lot of pain at a tail dock. From the australian veterinary journal, volume 74:
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.
By why oh why....are you going to make illegal to dock a field breed? A working dog. Just because most people don't have working dogs? But those that do run a higher risk of having their dog injured because of everyone else declaring something is SOLELY for fashion?
Dogs don't reverse into cover tail first. In fact, if any part of a field dog were to become injured, it would most likely be those long, dangling ears, but I don't see anyone proposing removing those. In fact, working springer spaniels often have their tail left LONGER than the show spaniels!
But then again, I am for the working dog.
You seem to be implying I am not, just because I don't want to see a limb removed from them. I love seeing dogs do what they were bred to do. I just don't agree they need to have a limb amputated in order to achieve this.
As for cropped ears, Im sure even you will agree it is 100% pointless in today's world. So why allow it to continue? Particularly when it is so painful and intrusive for a young puppy to have to go through.
For cats...cats are delicate creatures, which if a person is going to let them out into the world to get injured, why the hell do the have a cat? Cats have no business roaming about, getting into trouble, from what I understand the whole cat culture over seas is a lot different than here.
'Letting it out into the world' and 'getting injured' are not one and the same. You're talking to someone who has owned indoor/outdooor cats for 21 years and had a grand total of................zero become injured or killed due to being allowed outside. So Im going to need a little more convincing on that one.
And maybe you'll just think this is crap and block me.
I like how you think I block people just for disagreeing. Credit me with a little more intelligence than that. I've only ever blocked 3 people in my entire time here, and they were all people who were out and out trolling or abusing me. And I've had a LOT of people disagree with me over the years.
I'd reccomend you go to this site, and read it thoroughly, every single page, then return:
http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/
Links to support this? I have read many over the years which state there has been no significant increase in tail injuries for traditionally docked breeds since a ban was enforced.
a dog that is docked by banding at a few days old and doesn't notice
This is a big claim to make. There is significant evidence that puppies DO feel a lot of pain at a tail dock. From the australian veterinary journal, volume 74:
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.
By why oh why....are you going to make illegal to dock a field breed? A working dog. Just because most people don't have working dogs? But those that do run a higher risk of having their dog injured because of everyone else declaring something is SOLELY for fashion?
Dogs don't reverse into cover tail first. In fact, if any part of a field dog were to become injured, it would most likely be those long, dangling ears, but I don't see anyone proposing removing those. In fact, working springer spaniels often have their tail left LONGER than the show spaniels!
But then again, I am for the working dog.
You seem to be implying I am not, just because I don't want to see a limb removed from them. I love seeing dogs do what they were bred to do. I just don't agree they need to have a limb amputated in order to achieve this.
As for cropped ears, Im sure even you will agree it is 100% pointless in today's world. So why allow it to continue? Particularly when it is so painful and intrusive for a young puppy to have to go through.
For cats...cats are delicate creatures, which if a person is going to let them out into the world to get injured, why the hell do the have a cat? Cats have no business roaming about, getting into trouble, from what I understand the whole cat culture over seas is a lot different than here.
'Letting it out into the world' and 'getting injured' are not one and the same. You're talking to someone who has owned indoor/outdooor cats for 21 years and had a grand total of................zero become injured or killed due to being allowed outside. So Im going to need a little more convincing on that one.
And maybe you'll just think this is crap and block me.
I like how you think I block people just for disagreeing. Credit me with a little more intelligence than that. I've only ever blocked 3 people in my entire time here, and they were all people who were out and out trolling or abusing me. And I've had a LOT of people disagree with me over the years.
I'd reccomend you go to this site, and read it thoroughly, every single page, then return:
http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/
Links to support this? I have read many over the years which state there has been no significant increase in tail injuries for traditionally docked breeds since a ban was enforced.
Problem with statistics is that they can be manipulated and aren't always accurate to begin with. The 500 dockings to prevent 1 injury is based around the entire dog population vs docked breeds. http://www.cdb.org/News/news38.html
This is a big claim to make. There is significant evidence that puppies DO feel a lot of pain at a tail dock. From the australian veterinary journal4:
I'm not keen on half of the animal stuff out of Australia for various reasons. Know the saying of more than one way to skin a cat? There's more than one way to dock a puppy. The banding method is probably the most humane for puppies: http://www.cdb.org/video/video.htm
Dogs don't reverse into cover tail first. In fact, if any part of a field dog were to become injured, it would most likely be those long, dangling ears, but I don't see anyone proposing removing those. In fact, working springer spaniels often have their tail left LONGER than the show spaniels!
It comes from thrashing in the undergrowth, tails hit hard and there's no telling what's out there. Different breeds hunt in different ways...the reasons Ibizans probably aren't docked is because they're large and in brush, they bounce to move...not rush through. Again, from the first page I linked: Certain breeds seemed to be more at risk, with springer and cocker spaniels almost six times as likely to sustain a tail injury as labradors and retrievers.
You seem to be implying I am not, just because I don't want to see a limb removed from them. I love seeing dogs do what they were bred to do. I just don't agree they need to have a limb amputated in order to achieve this.
As for cropped ears, Im sure even you will agree it is 100% pointless in today's world. So why allow it to continue? Particularly when it is so painful and intrusive for a young puppy to have to go through.
I think you, like many pet owners, have never had to deal with this type of ordeal, and thus making a judgment call on it is very opinion based. I've never had to deal with it either, however, I've always been on the search when it comes to animals, to find out what, how, why and so on. I think docking especially needs to stay legal. Cropping...I'm sorry, I live in a land of predators, I have seen many dog fights, known too many horror stories and I know some breeds a little to well and thus find cropping a preventive measure as well.
'Letting it out into the world' and 'getting injured' are not one and the same. You're talking to someone who has owned indoor/outdooor cats for 21 years and had a grand total of................zero become injured or killed due to being allowed outside. So Im going to need a little more convincing on that one.
I can't tell you how many cats I've seen people try and do hit with cars. How many people have dogs that roam. How many cruel kids catch cats to torture them. And the last part...the kids...they're getting worse. Maybe you live in a nice neighborhood, maybe you're lucky. My mom had one cat that just disappeared, and another who was poisoned because my grandparents had to be prissy and not let the cats in. After that though..no more outside cats.
I like how you think I block people just for disagreeing. Credit me with a little more intelligence than that. I've only ever blocked 3 people in my entire time here, and they were all people who were out and out trolling or abusing me. And I've had a LOT of people disagree with me over the years.
Yeah well, it's been my luck lately. Tried to educate someone about camels and THEN point out what they said that made me go 'But that's not right'....they call it ranting and raving and block button. And it's times like that which make me think I've wasted my life.
I'd reccomend you go to this site, and read it thoroughly, every single page, then return:
http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/
Looking at it....very on sided...not balanced and doesn't make sense, it keeps writing everything off and trying to make it sound like the world is flat. There's likely a nice middle ground between this site and the council of docked breeds, but I will trust the latter a lot more until there is.
Problem with statistics is that they can be manipulated and aren't always accurate to begin with. The 500 dockings to prevent 1 injury is based around the entire dog population vs docked breeds. http://www.cdb.org/News/news38.html
This is a big claim to make. There is significant evidence that puppies DO feel a lot of pain at a tail dock. From the australian veterinary journal4:
I'm not keen on half of the animal stuff out of Australia for various reasons. Know the saying of more than one way to skin a cat? There's more than one way to dock a puppy. The banding method is probably the most humane for puppies: http://www.cdb.org/video/video.htm
Dogs don't reverse into cover tail first. In fact, if any part of a field dog were to become injured, it would most likely be those long, dangling ears, but I don't see anyone proposing removing those. In fact, working springer spaniels often have their tail left LONGER than the show spaniels!
It comes from thrashing in the undergrowth, tails hit hard and there's no telling what's out there. Different breeds hunt in different ways...the reasons Ibizans probably aren't docked is because they're large and in brush, they bounce to move...not rush through. Again, from the first page I linked: Certain breeds seemed to be more at risk, with springer and cocker spaniels almost six times as likely to sustain a tail injury as labradors and retrievers.
You seem to be implying I am not, just because I don't want to see a limb removed from them. I love seeing dogs do what they were bred to do. I just don't agree they need to have a limb amputated in order to achieve this.
As for cropped ears, Im sure even you will agree it is 100% pointless in today's world. So why allow it to continue? Particularly when it is so painful and intrusive for a young puppy to have to go through.
I think you, like many pet owners, have never had to deal with this type of ordeal, and thus making a judgment call on it is very opinion based. I've never had to deal with it either, however, I've always been on the search when it comes to animals, to find out what, how, why and so on. I think docking especially needs to stay legal. Cropping...I'm sorry, I live in a land of predators, I have seen many dog fights, known too many horror stories and I know some breeds a little to well and thus find cropping a preventive measure as well.
'Letting it out into the world' and 'getting injured' are not one and the same. You're talking to someone who has owned indoor/outdooor cats for 21 years and had a grand total of................zero become injured or killed due to being allowed outside. So Im going to need a little more convincing on that one.
I can't tell you how many cats I've seen people try and do hit with cars. How many people have dogs that roam. How many cruel kids catch cats to torture them. And the last part...the kids...they're getting worse. Maybe you live in a nice neighborhood, maybe you're lucky. My mom had one cat that just disappeared, and another who was poisoned because my grandparents had to be prissy and not let the cats in. After that though..no more outside cats.
I like how you think I block people just for disagreeing. Credit me with a little more intelligence than that. I've only ever blocked 3 people in my entire time here, and they were all people who were out and out trolling or abusing me. And I've had a LOT of people disagree with me over the years.
Yeah well, it's been my luck lately. Tried to educate someone about camels and THEN point out what they said that made me go 'But that's not right'....they call it ranting and raving and block button. And it's times like that which make me think I've wasted my life.
I'd reccomend you go to this site, and read it thoroughly, every single page, then return:
http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/
Looking at it....very on sided...not balanced and doesn't make sense, it keeps writing everything off and trying to make it sound like the world is flat. There's likely a nice middle ground between this site and the council of docked breeds, but I will trust the latter a lot more until there is.
I think you, like many pet owners, have never had to deal with this type of ordeal, and thus making a judgment call on it is very opinion based
No, You're right, I've never seen a tail injury on a traditionally docked breed that was left natural. And I worked in vet nursing for a while. I saw at least 15 dogs a day, every day. And this being the UK, a large percentage were undocked examples of traditionally docked breeds. I never saw any with any issues arising from it.
The only tail injuries I ever saw were, as I said above, cats and greyhounds with happy tail.
Had I seen dozens of working dogs coming in with tail injuries, I might think differently (and yes, we did have working dogs in; I live in Norfolk which is country bumpkin territory, we have a lot of shooting and such around here). But as it is, I have personally seen no first hand evidence of this, which would lead me to believe that isn't all that common. At least not common enough to warrant mass removal of a vital communication tool of dogs, at birth.
I've always been on the search when it comes to animals, to find out what, how, why and so on
As am I
Cropping...I'm sorry, I live in a land of predators, I have seen many dog fights,
Surely any responsible owner would not be allowing their dog to be in a situation where it has the chance to have its ears ripped off by a predator, or get into a dog fight?
I think the fact that both practises have been illegal in many countries for a long time speaks volumes. Governments don't make these decisions lightly. In the case of docking and cropping, they had significant veterinary backing and support for the ban. Vets are the one's doing the procedures in a lot of cases, and they're the ones with the understanding. And they're the ones who would have seen all these cases of 'tail injuries' caused by not docking. And they supported a ban.
We don't have large predators here in the UK, but we certainly have other dogs! So our dogs getting into a dog fight is just a likely as anywhere else, yet we still have never cropped.
Some countries have had docking in particular banned for a lot longer than the UK, and so far so good. They have not seen any reason to reverse the ban. Im sure if a relevent number of dogs were getting seriously injured due to the ban, they'd have reversed it ages ago.
Basically, I do not think there is enough evidence to justify mass removal of dog's tails on a 'just in case' basis. There are lots of common human injuries, and lots of injuries that kids often sustain, but we don't propose chopping that limb off a birth to prevent it.
I've seen dozens of tail injuries in my rats, through bites, catching them in things, and had a couple have to have their tails removed.
I still wouldn't advocate mass docking of them at birth.
Tails are so important to communication in dogs. I think we as humans don't understand how important they are.
But the bottom line is, docking and cropping isn't something I discovered this month and decided looked cruel so decided to oppose it.
Its a subject I've researched for many years, and been opposed to for many years. I've yet to see anything that has changed my mind, and I've read up on it extensively.
No, You're right, I've never seen a tail injury on a traditionally docked breed that was left natural. And I worked in vet nursing for a while. I saw at least 15 dogs a day, every day. And this being the UK, a large percentage were undocked examples of traditionally docked breeds. I never saw any with any issues arising from it.
The only tail injuries I ever saw were, as I said above, cats and greyhounds with happy tail.
Had I seen dozens of working dogs coming in with tail injuries, I might think differently (and yes, we did have working dogs in; I live in Norfolk which is country bumpkin territory, we have a lot of shooting and such around here). But as it is, I have personally seen no first hand evidence of this, which would lead me to believe that isn't all that common. At least not common enough to warrant mass removal of a vital communication tool of dogs, at birth.
I've always been on the search when it comes to animals, to find out what, how, why and so on
As am I
Cropping...I'm sorry, I live in a land of predators, I have seen many dog fights,
Surely any responsible owner would not be allowing their dog to be in a situation where it has the chance to have its ears ripped off by a predator, or get into a dog fight?
I think the fact that both practises have been illegal in many countries for a long time speaks volumes. Governments don't make these decisions lightly. In the case of docking and cropping, they had significant veterinary backing and support for the ban. Vets are the one's doing the procedures in a lot of cases, and they're the ones with the understanding. And they're the ones who would have seen all these cases of 'tail injuries' caused by not docking. And they supported a ban.
We don't have large predators here in the UK, but we certainly have other dogs! So our dogs getting into a dog fight is just a likely as anywhere else, yet we still have never cropped.
Some countries have had docking in particular banned for a lot longer than the UK, and so far so good. They have not seen any reason to reverse the ban. Im sure if a relevent number of dogs were getting seriously injured due to the ban, they'd have reversed it ages ago.
Basically, I do not think there is enough evidence to justify mass removal of dog's tails on a 'just in case' basis. There are lots of common human injuries, and lots of injuries that kids often sustain, but we don't propose chopping that limb off a birth to prevent it.
I've seen dozens of tail injuries in my rats, through bites, catching them in things, and had a couple have to have their tails removed.
I still wouldn't advocate mass docking of them at birth.
Tails are so important to communication in dogs. I think we as humans don't understand how important they are.
But the bottom line is, docking and cropping isn't something I discovered this month and decided looked cruel so decided to oppose it.
Its a subject I've researched for many years, and been opposed to for many years. I've yet to see anything that has changed my mind, and I've read up on it extensively.
Surely any responsible owner would not be allowing their dog to be in a situation where it has the chance to have its ears ripped off by a predator, or get into a dog fight?
There's still a need for livestock guards here, with wolves, bears, coyotes, stray dogs. While not every rancher deals with cropping, they also put more stock into the livestock than the dogs that are supposed to keep them safe much of the time. And we do have a serious issue in many places with roaming and stray dogs....and then people target specific breeds instead of the problems at hand. A responsible owner has to socialize their dog, there will always be a risk of a stray popping up, or a dog getting out of the yard(I've actually had this one happen with the other owners standing right there...looking dumbfounded that their dog got out and was attacking mine). So...'allowing'....no...but stuff like this happens every day here, no matter how good an owner someone is. Accidents happen, and you of all people should know that.
Never mind the emphasis the world seems to be on about to blame the breed rather than the owners and work to prevent issues. Confiscating a 'banned' breed takes priority over a dangerous, loose dog that is harassing the kids. And so....something needs to be fixed...seriously. When I was in Miami, I could call and call and call animal control about a dog loose and being an issue...take them like...3 days to respond if they even followed through. -.- So maybe this country is a little more 'derp' in the area of what should take priority, but loose dogs...big problems in some cities.
Basically, I do not think there is enough evidence to justify mass removal of dog's tails on a 'just in case' basis.
The sheer fact that there's been vets that have changed their position on docking not being good enough to even reconsider allowing at least banding rather than cutting? No...I don't understand personally, but then again, sometimes some people have to see an animal suffer at the hands of something not being done before they understand the true issue. Like de-barking for example, the people who disagree and swear ANY dog can be trained out of barking for whatever reason have never had to deal with a dog who had SA issues so bad, there was no other option other than putting the dog down. And for an owner who cares about their dog....putting down vs de-barking from a reliable vet....I know I'd choose the latter personally.
But see, until more and more people have to deal with tail injuries on a personal basis, there isn't going to be a call, and the information that is *trying* to be gathered is not going to be taken seriously. Again, problem with statistics. Until such a time happens, everything about docking is going to be swept under the rug and the people speaking out for it are going to be written off as crazy people who don't know what they're talking about by the masses.
Tails are so important to communication in dogs. I think we as humans don't understand how important they are.
Shall we ban breeding of dogs that are naturally tailless or have short/twisted tails that can't be seen waging from a distance? I think humans under estimate the adaptability of dogs. There's many, many ways dogs communicate and docking or debarking does not hinder that. There's dogs that never bark(either because that's their nature or they're deaf), there's dogs with naturally short tails...and they get along just fine. So unless if we're going to ban the existence and breeding of these dogs because they can't communicate by this manner, despite these other manners of doing so.....
In all my time, I've never seen a single reason to make it illegal other than moral beliefs of certain people. I don't know if those same people support or hate the idea of banding livestock in the various ways(tails and scrotum), but if you saw that vs banding puppies tails...big difference in reaction. The thing about livestock though, who is going to go out and grooming hundreds of sheep's tails on a daily basis? No one. And do people really need to deal with dozens and dozens of stud animals? No, especially when it comes to bulls, which are dangerous on their size alone, as are steers. Extra hormones anyone? No, let's not. Yet those animals DO show pain when cut and banded. No one thinks twice unless if they are one of those types of people who don't think humans should have anything to do with animals, especially in the form of eating them. Oh...but dogs....the animal everyone loves to over anthropomorphize. They need special protection, even if it risks causing far worse pain later in life.
I actually once upon a time used a saying quite often. Don't change what they do, change how they do it. I think it's rather fitting, get rid of the cutting form, stick to banding if it's going to be done.
There's still a need for livestock guards here, with wolves, bears, coyotes, stray dogs. While not every rancher deals with cropping, they also put more stock into the livestock than the dogs that are supposed to keep them safe much of the time. And we do have a serious issue in many places with roaming and stray dogs....and then people target specific breeds instead of the problems at hand. A responsible owner has to socialize their dog, there will always be a risk of a stray popping up, or a dog getting out of the yard(I've actually had this one happen with the other owners standing right there...looking dumbfounded that their dog got out and was attacking mine). So...'allowing'....no...but stuff like this happens every day here, no matter how good an owner someone is. Accidents happen, and you of all people should know that.
Never mind the emphasis the world seems to be on about to blame the breed rather than the owners and work to prevent issues. Confiscating a 'banned' breed takes priority over a dangerous, loose dog that is harassing the kids. And so....something needs to be fixed...seriously. When I was in Miami, I could call and call and call animal control about a dog loose and being an issue...take them like...3 days to respond if they even followed through. -.- So maybe this country is a little more 'derp' in the area of what should take priority, but loose dogs...big problems in some cities.
Basically, I do not think there is enough evidence to justify mass removal of dog's tails on a 'just in case' basis.
The sheer fact that there's been vets that have changed their position on docking not being good enough to even reconsider allowing at least banding rather than cutting? No...I don't understand personally, but then again, sometimes some people have to see an animal suffer at the hands of something not being done before they understand the true issue. Like de-barking for example, the people who disagree and swear ANY dog can be trained out of barking for whatever reason have never had to deal with a dog who had SA issues so bad, there was no other option other than putting the dog down. And for an owner who cares about their dog....putting down vs de-barking from a reliable vet....I know I'd choose the latter personally.
But see, until more and more people have to deal with tail injuries on a personal basis, there isn't going to be a call, and the information that is *trying* to be gathered is not going to be taken seriously. Again, problem with statistics. Until such a time happens, everything about docking is going to be swept under the rug and the people speaking out for it are going to be written off as crazy people who don't know what they're talking about by the masses.
Tails are so important to communication in dogs. I think we as humans don't understand how important they are.
Shall we ban breeding of dogs that are naturally tailless or have short/twisted tails that can't be seen waging from a distance? I think humans under estimate the adaptability of dogs. There's many, many ways dogs communicate and docking or debarking does not hinder that. There's dogs that never bark(either because that's their nature or they're deaf), there's dogs with naturally short tails...and they get along just fine. So unless if we're going to ban the existence and breeding of these dogs because they can't communicate by this manner, despite these other manners of doing so.....
In all my time, I've never seen a single reason to make it illegal other than moral beliefs of certain people. I don't know if those same people support or hate the idea of banding livestock in the various ways(tails and scrotum), but if you saw that vs banding puppies tails...big difference in reaction. The thing about livestock though, who is going to go out and grooming hundreds of sheep's tails on a daily basis? No one. And do people really need to deal with dozens and dozens of stud animals? No, especially when it comes to bulls, which are dangerous on their size alone, as are steers. Extra hormones anyone? No, let's not. Yet those animals DO show pain when cut and banded. No one thinks twice unless if they are one of those types of people who don't think humans should have anything to do with animals, especially in the form of eating them. Oh...but dogs....the animal everyone loves to over anthropomorphize. They need special protection, even if it risks causing far worse pain later in life.
I actually once upon a time used a saying quite often. Don't change what they do, change how they do it. I think it's rather fitting, get rid of the cutting form, stick to banding if it's going to be done.
Accidents happen, and you of all people should know that.
I don't quite understand this.....unless you mean because I've worked in a vets?
But there are LOTS of common accidents I saw in certain animals. I saw lots of the same conditions in cats, rats, rabbits, all caused by 'common' accidents. But the answer for any other animal but dogs doesn't seem to be removing that body part at birth.
It only seems to be dogs who have to suffer this. We don't routinely dock cats, we don't routinely dock rats (and I've seen far more tail injuries in them than I ever have in dogs) we don't routinely slice off cat's ears, but I've seen a ton of cat ear injuries just from cat fights alone.
sometimes some people have to see an animal suffer at the hands of something not being done before they understand the true issue
And what of the suffering docking causes? A poorly done dock causing the dog issues with infection or calluses for life, or an uncomfortable stump, or god forbid the rather significant amount of people who do 'home' docks and just take scissors to a puppy's tail. If you think docking doesn't cause serious welfare issues to dogs, as bad or worse than those caused by not docking, I'd say you're deluding yourself.
If someone wanted to show me a dog with an injured tail caused by it not being docked, I'd be happy to look at it. As it is, I've never, ever seen it. And, like I said, I live in a country where docking is illegal AND in a county where we have a lot of gundogs and working dogs. Seems Im in the prime position to be seeing all these injured dogs, but I've never seen one.
If this were something I were seeing come into the vet every week, I may change my mind.
But having never seen it, and never heard about it, my opinion remains that it is unecessary to remove a dog's body part 'just in case'.
Shall we ban breeding of dogs that are naturally tailless or have short/twisted tails that can't be seen waging from a distance?
To be honest, while I don't think its the welfare issue docking is, I don't like seeing these short, twisted tails on bulldogs or bostons or whatever. Nature gave canines tails for a reason. I would certainly support moves to breed this out, yes.
I don't know if those same people support or hate the idea of banding livestock in the various ways(tails and scrotum), but if you saw that vs banding puppies tails...big difference in reaction
Personally, I think anything that is having a body part actually removed should be knocked out for the process. I wouldn't want to be awake for such thing, so why should animals be any different? In my perfect world, conscious removal of tails or anything else would not be allowed. But regarding banding livestock? I've seen it done. I studied farming as part of my animal management training and we banded lambs on that course (though I opted out personally, but my classmates did it).
None of them reacted in any way that would suggest discomfort at this. If they had, I would have made a right fuss to my tutor.
As it was, the lambs were put back in the pen, and continued eating just as they were before the banding.
I can only tell you what I witnessed first hand, and that was it.
Still don't like it, because its gotta be at least uncomfortable, but to imply they suffer some kind of agony that puppies don't is false, in my experience.
Oh...but dogs....the animal everyone loves to over anthropomorphize. They need special protection, even if it risks causing far worse pain later in life
Don't lump me in with the dog obsessed furries who think dogs deserve special treatment. Dogs are not my favourite animal and I don't believe they deserve any rights over or above any other animal. In fact, rats are my favourite animal and the one I work hardest to protect.
I would object to tail docking (and do) on any species.
Still not seeing any evidence that these 'risks' are significant enough to warrant mass removal of the tails of ALL puppies of a certain breed.
And for an owner who cares about their dog....putting down vs de-barking from a reliable vet....I know I'd choose the latter personally.
De-barking disgusts me. Its also illegal in my country. If we can live without it, why can't the USA? We have the same dogs!
In my opinion, an owner who 'cares about their dog' wouldn't consider euthanasia for this issue.
Would you consider euthanising a child who was too noisy? No, you'd find SOME way of working around it.
I had a rescue rat kill one of my other rats last night, rip her to bits after showing no signs of this. Most people would euthanise this animal because, hell, he's got issues and he's going to be incredibly awkward and time consuming and expensive to rehabilitate. But my animals are my children, and I don't euthanise my children because they don't behave exactly as I'd like.
I don't quite understand this.....unless you mean because I've worked in a vets?
But there are LOTS of common accidents I saw in certain animals. I saw lots of the same conditions in cats, rats, rabbits, all caused by 'common' accidents. But the answer for any other animal but dogs doesn't seem to be removing that body part at birth.
It only seems to be dogs who have to suffer this. We don't routinely dock cats, we don't routinely dock rats (and I've seen far more tail injuries in them than I ever have in dogs) we don't routinely slice off cat's ears, but I've seen a ton of cat ear injuries just from cat fights alone.
sometimes some people have to see an animal suffer at the hands of something not being done before they understand the true issue
And what of the suffering docking causes? A poorly done dock causing the dog issues with infection or calluses for life, or an uncomfortable stump, or god forbid the rather significant amount of people who do 'home' docks and just take scissors to a puppy's tail. If you think docking doesn't cause serious welfare issues to dogs, as bad or worse than those caused by not docking, I'd say you're deluding yourself.
If someone wanted to show me a dog with an injured tail caused by it not being docked, I'd be happy to look at it. As it is, I've never, ever seen it. And, like I said, I live in a country where docking is illegal AND in a county where we have a lot of gundogs and working dogs. Seems Im in the prime position to be seeing all these injured dogs, but I've never seen one.
If this were something I were seeing come into the vet every week, I may change my mind.
But having never seen it, and never heard about it, my opinion remains that it is unecessary to remove a dog's body part 'just in case'.
Shall we ban breeding of dogs that are naturally tailless or have short/twisted tails that can't be seen waging from a distance?
To be honest, while I don't think its the welfare issue docking is, I don't like seeing these short, twisted tails on bulldogs or bostons or whatever. Nature gave canines tails for a reason. I would certainly support moves to breed this out, yes.
I don't know if those same people support or hate the idea of banding livestock in the various ways(tails and scrotum), but if you saw that vs banding puppies tails...big difference in reaction
Personally, I think anything that is having a body part actually removed should be knocked out for the process. I wouldn't want to be awake for such thing, so why should animals be any different? In my perfect world, conscious removal of tails or anything else would not be allowed. But regarding banding livestock? I've seen it done. I studied farming as part of my animal management training and we banded lambs on that course (though I opted out personally, but my classmates did it).
None of them reacted in any way that would suggest discomfort at this. If they had, I would have made a right fuss to my tutor.
As it was, the lambs were put back in the pen, and continued eating just as they were before the banding.
I can only tell you what I witnessed first hand, and that was it.
Still don't like it, because its gotta be at least uncomfortable, but to imply they suffer some kind of agony that puppies don't is false, in my experience.
Oh...but dogs....the animal everyone loves to over anthropomorphize. They need special protection, even if it risks causing far worse pain later in life
Don't lump me in with the dog obsessed furries who think dogs deserve special treatment. Dogs are not my favourite animal and I don't believe they deserve any rights over or above any other animal. In fact, rats are my favourite animal and the one I work hardest to protect.
I would object to tail docking (and do) on any species.
Still not seeing any evidence that these 'risks' are significant enough to warrant mass removal of the tails of ALL puppies of a certain breed.
And for an owner who cares about their dog....putting down vs de-barking from a reliable vet....I know I'd choose the latter personally.
De-barking disgusts me. Its also illegal in my country. If we can live without it, why can't the USA? We have the same dogs!
In my opinion, an owner who 'cares about their dog' wouldn't consider euthanasia for this issue.
Would you consider euthanising a child who was too noisy? No, you'd find SOME way of working around it.
I had a rescue rat kill one of my other rats last night, rip her to bits after showing no signs of this. Most people would euthanise this animal because, hell, he's got issues and he's going to be incredibly awkward and time consuming and expensive to rehabilitate. But my animals are my children, and I don't euthanise my children because they don't behave exactly as I'd like.
After taking a few to recollect thoughts...
Tail injuries in rats. Typically mishandling and not noticing where the tail is. I'd imagine especially where kids are involved. Cats, not the most sturdy of animals and they like being underfoot and in the way...much like zebras only...less attitude.
For poorly docked dogs...how where they done and when? Again...change not what they do but how they do it. Unless if every single factor in a bad docking case is looked at...and not just 'oh...it's another bad docking job, mark it down', how do we know what exactly is the cause, when so many are done correctly and in the first 3 days?
There's reasons for some breeds being bred to be tailless...again, just like there is a reason for docking.
And just because you are in a country is a lot of 'working and gun dogs'...doesn't mean you're in that area where you're likely to see them. Breeds and what you see vary on where you are, even in the states, and I'd imagine it so in most places. Especially as working dogs go. Here in the midwest, we'll get more cattle breeds and coursers working...in forest areas you're gonn have a lot of fiests, curs, and hounds.
To sum it up:
The majority of the human population does not work their dogs, and are in fact separated from animals being their actual livelihood.
Thus, working dog population is < pet population.
Cropped/docked breeds are < non-cropped/docked breeds.
Thus working dogs of cropped/docked breeds are < pet dogs of cropped/docked breeds.
Thus you won't commonly see said injuries often in relation to the general pet population, but they will still exist and will still happen.
In the Atlas of Dog Breeds of the World, in the entry for Akbash, it states that cropping was done to 'keep predators from gripping and holding'. We've got coyotes coming out of the wazoo here....so much so they're starting to go into cities. This is bad enough with the reports of coys in yards and stealing chihuahuas.
And wolves are making fast comebacks and ranchers and farmers don't quite know what to do...they're protected in this area but not over there, but we have this pack that is attacking cattle...and whole big mess. Big mess. Imagine if a pack got into with a dog. Imagine if a wolf got a hold of an ear. I don't like where that's going personally, but if there wasn't a reason for it in the first place, it wouldn't have been done. Well, save for the stupid tax docking.
I've seen banding, I've seen cutting with getting rid of the testes on various species...and oddly enough I've personally seen more pain involved on banding than cutting with livestock. Which is odd because that can not be pleasant....but 3 days I'll see a lamb lie around banded and having a fit. Not right off the bat, but after a couple of minutes it sinks in and they go and bed down crying. So I don't know what was done differently to have two different results.
Average everyday owners anthropomorphize their animals, it's just that furries are worse about it.
Honestly, what is the benefit of having 50 intact bulls, and 500-2000 sheep with tails?
Again, you don't fully know the situation, you haven't and 99.5% chance is you wont ever have that situation where it's debarking....having the animal taken from you and put down because of the noise complaints...rehoming to the unknown because there is no sure fire way of knowing if even the most experienced trainer would be able to handle what this dog is doing.....
And that's the thing...people who go on and on about what they believe is right or wrong haven't ever been in that situation or seen that situation that's just that bad where there is no other way, no other option. They believe it doesn't exist...it CAN'T exist. It can't EVER be that bad...but yet a few of those same people say if it is...the animal is better off dead.
There's a few who are, but I believe those animals that are, are the fully dangerous type. The ones who have been mentally damaged beyond repair, or have a mental defect that no one can figure out. Those are rare. Very rare.
Fact remains...if there wasn't a valid reason to at least dock...then why are some vets changing their minds? Of course that's being kept under wraps as much as possible it seems.
Tail injuries in rats. Typically mishandling and not noticing where the tail is. I'd imagine especially where kids are involved. Cats, not the most sturdy of animals and they like being underfoot and in the way...much like zebras only...less attitude.
For poorly docked dogs...how where they done and when? Again...change not what they do but how they do it. Unless if every single factor in a bad docking case is looked at...and not just 'oh...it's another bad docking job, mark it down', how do we know what exactly is the cause, when so many are done correctly and in the first 3 days?
There's reasons for some breeds being bred to be tailless...again, just like there is a reason for docking.
And just because you are in a country is a lot of 'working and gun dogs'...doesn't mean you're in that area where you're likely to see them. Breeds and what you see vary on where you are, even in the states, and I'd imagine it so in most places. Especially as working dogs go. Here in the midwest, we'll get more cattle breeds and coursers working...in forest areas you're gonn have a lot of fiests, curs, and hounds.
To sum it up:
The majority of the human population does not work their dogs, and are in fact separated from animals being their actual livelihood.
Thus, working dog population is < pet population.
Cropped/docked breeds are < non-cropped/docked breeds.
Thus working dogs of cropped/docked breeds are < pet dogs of cropped/docked breeds.
Thus you won't commonly see said injuries often in relation to the general pet population, but they will still exist and will still happen.
In the Atlas of Dog Breeds of the World, in the entry for Akbash, it states that cropping was done to 'keep predators from gripping and holding'. We've got coyotes coming out of the wazoo here....so much so they're starting to go into cities. This is bad enough with the reports of coys in yards and stealing chihuahuas.
And wolves are making fast comebacks and ranchers and farmers don't quite know what to do...they're protected in this area but not over there, but we have this pack that is attacking cattle...and whole big mess. Big mess. Imagine if a pack got into with a dog. Imagine if a wolf got a hold of an ear. I don't like where that's going personally, but if there wasn't a reason for it in the first place, it wouldn't have been done. Well, save for the stupid tax docking.
I've seen banding, I've seen cutting with getting rid of the testes on various species...and oddly enough I've personally seen more pain involved on banding than cutting with livestock. Which is odd because that can not be pleasant....but 3 days I'll see a lamb lie around banded and having a fit. Not right off the bat, but after a couple of minutes it sinks in and they go and bed down crying. So I don't know what was done differently to have two different results.
Average everyday owners anthropomorphize their animals, it's just that furries are worse about it.
Honestly, what is the benefit of having 50 intact bulls, and 500-2000 sheep with tails?
Again, you don't fully know the situation, you haven't and 99.5% chance is you wont ever have that situation where it's debarking....having the animal taken from you and put down because of the noise complaints...rehoming to the unknown because there is no sure fire way of knowing if even the most experienced trainer would be able to handle what this dog is doing.....
And that's the thing...people who go on and on about what they believe is right or wrong haven't ever been in that situation or seen that situation that's just that bad where there is no other way, no other option. They believe it doesn't exist...it CAN'T exist. It can't EVER be that bad...but yet a few of those same people say if it is...the animal is better off dead.
There's a few who are, but I believe those animals that are, are the fully dangerous type. The ones who have been mentally damaged beyond repair, or have a mental defect that no one can figure out. Those are rare. Very rare.
Fact remains...if there wasn't a valid reason to at least dock...then why are some vets changing their minds? Of course that's being kept under wraps as much as possible it seems.
Ear cropping has never even had a medical benefit to it, either.
Actually, it increases airflow through the ear, minimalizing ear infections and the normal stink of floppy dog's ears. Probably mostly just a positive side-effect of what used to be a surgery done for absolutely functional purposes.
TL;DR your other comments, sorry if this was rehashed somewhere.
I still like this pic, though.
Actually, it increases airflow through the ear, minimalizing ear infections and the normal stink of floppy dog's ears. Probably mostly just a positive side-effect of what used to be a surgery done for absolutely functional purposes.
TL;DR your other comments, sorry if this was rehashed somewhere.
I still like this pic, though.
This is what people think, however, there is a lot of evidence suggesting ear cropping actually INCREASES the chances of ear infection.
If you look at a dog with naturally pricked ears, they have a lot of hair in the ear to prevent dirt and debris getting in.
A dog with naturally floppy ears has no natural protection from this as it doesn't need it. So when the ears are cut and forced to be pricked ears, they are much more likely to get dirt and debris into them as they lack the protection of a naturally pricked eared breeds.
If you look at a dog with naturally pricked ears, they have a lot of hair in the ear to prevent dirt and debris getting in.
A dog with naturally floppy ears has no natural protection from this as it doesn't need it. So when the ears are cut and forced to be pricked ears, they are much more likely to get dirt and debris into them as they lack the protection of a naturally pricked eared breeds.
Do you have some kind of source to back this up? It sounds credible, except that all dogs do have hair in their ears and thus, some protection. In personal experience, my dog has never once had a problem with internal ear problems. It's not like naturally floppy ears helps protect from debris, anyway. Also in my experience, a friend's Brittany Spaniel got several plant seeds (I forgot what they're called, the spiky ones) stuck inside his ear. Similarly, my own Springer Spaniel had the same thing happen to her. And it was stuck far inside. The problem probably could have been prevented had the ear not been floppy, as then, we would have spotted the little seed inside the ear.
So, going by pure logic and no scientific sources, you can say both have drawbacks and advantages. I still stand by the claim that cropped ears are a medical advantage with increased airflow.
So, going by pure logic and no scientific sources, you can say both have drawbacks and advantages. I still stand by the claim that cropped ears are a medical advantage with increased airflow.
a friend's Brittany Spaniel got several plant seeds (I forgot what they're called, the spiky ones) stuck inside his ear.
And yet, spaniels are a family of dog NOT traditionally cropped. You'd think that if cropping were seriously to prevent ear infections and problems, then spaniels, bloodhounds, bassets, etc would be the first to be cropped!
And yet its dobermans, boxers, great danes etc All breeds with the stereotype of being 'aggressive' who seem to get cropped. It doesn't support the theory that its for ear health, otherwise a whole TON of other breeds would be cropped too.
And yet, spaniels are a family of dog NOT traditionally cropped. You'd think that if cropping were seriously to prevent ear infections and problems, then spaniels, bloodhounds, bassets, etc would be the first to be cropped!
And yet its dobermans, boxers, great danes etc All breeds with the stereotype of being 'aggressive' who seem to get cropped. It doesn't support the theory that its for ear health, otherwise a whole TON of other breeds would be cropped too.
Er, so you really HAVEN'T done your ear crop research, have you? At all. At least, on Dobermans. A man named Dobermann, a German tax collector, was frequently harassed and assaulted. He bred the Doberman as a protection breed; the tail dock and ear crop are merely functional. If the dog has no tail (and indeed, the natural Doberman tail is scarily long) or long ears, the attacker has nothing on the dog to grab onto or injure. If you put two and two together, it's why "aggressive dogs" seem to get cropped.
What I meant by the Brittany anecdote is that leaving long ears long DOES NOT automatically mean the dog has better protection for the inner ear. You're further showing your lack of knowledge in this field by implying ear cropping is done to prevent ear infection, which is laughable. No one has ever claimed that. I was merely replying to your claim that ear cropping has no medical value, only for looks. And my response is, yes it does, it increases airflow which helps prevent ear infections. And you still haven't backed up your claim, by the way.
Look, I am all for supporting or not supporting ear cropping/tail docking. If you think it's cruel, and you hate it, fine. I respect that. Just don't masquerade your true reasoning for being an advocate of natural Dobermans with falsified facts or baseless assumptions.
What I meant by the Brittany anecdote is that leaving long ears long DOES NOT automatically mean the dog has better protection for the inner ear. You're further showing your lack of knowledge in this field by implying ear cropping is done to prevent ear infection, which is laughable. No one has ever claimed that. I was merely replying to your claim that ear cropping has no medical value, only for looks. And my response is, yes it does, it increases airflow which helps prevent ear infections. And you still haven't backed up your claim, by the way.
Look, I am all for supporting or not supporting ear cropping/tail docking. If you think it's cruel, and you hate it, fine. I respect that. Just don't masquerade your true reasoning for being an advocate of natural Dobermans with falsified facts or baseless assumptions.
Wow, you wanna be any more arrogant?
I've research ear cropping extensively. You think I just woke up one day and thought 'Im gonna be vocally opposed to that practise!' for no reason?
I don't throw my passion behind subjects I haven't researched, mate. Perhaps you do, but I make sure I know what Im talking about.
Bottom line is that regardless of what the ORIGINAL purpose was for a crop or a dock, it is mostly obselete NOW.
I have stated this throughout. Im not talking about cropping when it was originally done, Im talking about cropping done NOW.
There is a reason it is illegal here. And wow, our dobermans manage to survive perfectly well.
Just admit that the vast majority of pet owners who crop ears TODAY do so for fashion. They like the way it looks, they think it makes the dog look more 'alert' or it gives them a better chance in the show ring.
NONE of these are valid reasons to slice bits off your animals. Full stop.
I've research ear cropping extensively. You think I just woke up one day and thought 'Im gonna be vocally opposed to that practise!' for no reason?
I don't throw my passion behind subjects I haven't researched, mate. Perhaps you do, but I make sure I know what Im talking about.
Bottom line is that regardless of what the ORIGINAL purpose was for a crop or a dock, it is mostly obselete NOW.
I have stated this throughout. Im not talking about cropping when it was originally done, Im talking about cropping done NOW.
There is a reason it is illegal here. And wow, our dobermans manage to survive perfectly well.
Just admit that the vast majority of pet owners who crop ears TODAY do so for fashion. They like the way it looks, they think it makes the dog look more 'alert' or it gives them a better chance in the show ring.
NONE of these are valid reasons to slice bits off your animals. Full stop.
My point is that if cropping were done with benefits for the dog, then surely dog lovers the world over would be campaigning to see it encouraged or, in the case of my country, reinstated?
And yet, NO-ONE in countries where cropping is banned is at all bothered about seeing it return.
The only people who whine about their 'right' (sic) to crop are from countries where it is commonplace already. This suggests to me its far more about 'tradition' and what people are used to seeing than actual dog welfare.
If it were about dog welfare, we would have groups asking for the legal right to crop here in the UK. We don't.
We love our animals here as much as anyone else, and if cropping were truely for the benefit of dogs, you can BET we'd have a good few people up on their high horses letter writing and campaigning to see it become legal.
And yet, in my entire life, working in shelters and in veterinary practises, I've never met anyone who wanted to see cropping made legal here.
Therefore, is it not quite clear that people's love of cropping is more down to the fact that they've always been allowed to do it and its 'normal' for them, and NOT in any way about whats best for the dog?
Because if it were best for the dog, the UK would NEVER have banned it, and vets would NOT oppose it.
And yet, NO-ONE in countries where cropping is banned is at all bothered about seeing it return.
The only people who whine about their 'right' (sic) to crop are from countries where it is commonplace already. This suggests to me its far more about 'tradition' and what people are used to seeing than actual dog welfare.
If it were about dog welfare, we would have groups asking for the legal right to crop here in the UK. We don't.
We love our animals here as much as anyone else, and if cropping were truely for the benefit of dogs, you can BET we'd have a good few people up on their high horses letter writing and campaigning to see it become legal.
And yet, in my entire life, working in shelters and in veterinary practises, I've never met anyone who wanted to see cropping made legal here.
Therefore, is it not quite clear that people's love of cropping is more down to the fact that they've always been allowed to do it and its 'normal' for them, and NOT in any way about whats best for the dog?
Because if it were best for the dog, the UK would NEVER have banned it, and vets would NOT oppose it.
I'm sorry you seem to think that my word choice or presentation of my arguments constitutes arrogance. I really don't give a shit either way, since it's not the point, and neither is whether or not you woke up one morning with whatever idea or not. This isn't personal, just a discussion.
No, actually, you hadn't stated this throughout. At least, not to me. Which is why was surprised why you quoted, out of all of what I wrote, the thing about Brittanys, and suggesting that some people crop pets to stop ear infection. Which I've never in my life heard as a reason people crop. Easy to see why it doesn't look as though you'd researched anything.
As to your actual argument, it is really a matter of modernity versus tradition. People crop for any number of reasons, and you're generalizing by saying it's mostly for aesthetics or alertness, or whathaveyou. The people that do use their Dobermans for their original purpose - guarding, and protection - still benefit from the dog not having long ears and tails for the same reason it was done in the first place - to prevent excessive injury. Sure, it makes them look meaner, which is also part of the purpose, wouldn't you think? And why others do it? I can only imagine. And sure, aesthetics is certainly one reason out of many. That claim hasn't been argued once.
As per your links... I really can't argue with unsubstantiated claims. Just, in my experience, having personally owned a long-eared dog and a cropped-ear dog for a long time, the latter dog has had far less ear gunk and problems with the inner ear than the long-eared dog.
I'm concerned you haven't mentioned cruelty, or pain for the animal... just that it's an obsolete practice, which it isn't because it still serves its purpose.
At any rate, I've said already what I meant to, and that's the end of it.
No, actually, you hadn't stated this throughout. At least, not to me. Which is why was surprised why you quoted, out of all of what I wrote, the thing about Brittanys, and suggesting that some people crop pets to stop ear infection. Which I've never in my life heard as a reason people crop. Easy to see why it doesn't look as though you'd researched anything.
As to your actual argument, it is really a matter of modernity versus tradition. People crop for any number of reasons, and you're generalizing by saying it's mostly for aesthetics or alertness, or whathaveyou. The people that do use their Dobermans for their original purpose - guarding, and protection - still benefit from the dog not having long ears and tails for the same reason it was done in the first place - to prevent excessive injury. Sure, it makes them look meaner, which is also part of the purpose, wouldn't you think? And why others do it? I can only imagine. And sure, aesthetics is certainly one reason out of many. That claim hasn't been argued once.
As per your links... I really can't argue with unsubstantiated claims. Just, in my experience, having personally owned a long-eared dog and a cropped-ear dog for a long time, the latter dog has had far less ear gunk and problems with the inner ear than the long-eared dog.
I'm concerned you haven't mentioned cruelty, or pain for the animal... just that it's an obsolete practice, which it isn't because it still serves its purpose.
At any rate, I've said already what I meant to, and that's the end of it.
No, actually, you hadn't stated this throughout. At least, not to me.
Which is why its probably a good idea to read all other posts in a debate before wading into it. It gives you an idea of what has already been covered. Why should I repeat myself because you can't be bothered to do this?
In your own words:
TL;DR your other comments, sorry if this was rehashed somewhere.
Yeah.....I'd go back and read the whole thing....
and suggesting that some people crop pets to stop ear infection. Which I've never in my life heard as a reason people crop
From YOUR OWN post: Actually, it increases airflow through the ear, minimalizing ear infections and the normal stink of floppy dog's ears.
The people that do use their Dobermans for their original purpose - guarding, and protection
My dobe will be partly for protection.
I live in a fairly rough area, I'll be alone a lot as my boyfriend works nights, I'll be required to go out at night in town. My dog will be to prevent me as a lone woman being attacked. I don't feel the need to surgically alter him or slice parts off his anatomy for him to be an effective deterrent.
A doberman is an affective deterrent even if its in a pink tu-tu.
Sure, it makes them look meaner, which is also part of the purpose, wouldn't you think?
Actually, I'd think in a world where BSL and breedism and stereotyping of so called 'dangerous' breeds was becoming so rife, that people would not want to encourage this stereotype by making their dobes or pits or boxers look 'meaner'. Aren't we trying to phase OUT this kind of bullshit where people think a dog of a certain breed is going to rip your throat out? As far as Im concerned, people cropping for the reason of making the dog look more aggressive are contributing to the bullshit breed stereotyping.
Also, if you honestly think a doberman NEEDS to look meaner in order to be an effective deterrent, you're crazy.
No-one with a brain is going to break into somewhere with a doberman in the yard, REGARDLESS of whether that dog is cropped, docked, sliced about, or has a studded collar on.
Those dogs are a deterrent, full stop.
Even a sign saying 'HEY DOBERMANS HERE!' is enough to make people not want to enter a place. They don't need to be mutilated to be off putting.
As per your links... I really can't argue with unsubstantiated claims. Just, in my experience, having personally owned a long-eared dog and a cropped-ear dog for a long time, the latter dog has had far less ear gunk and problems with the inner ear than the long-eared dog.
I'd imagine the American Veterinary Medical association has more experience with both cropped and natural dogs than you or I. I'd imagine they know more about the risks, the procedure, the after care, and they're opposed to it.
In fact, you'll find most animal welfare organisations are opposed to it.
Why do you suppose this is?
As for the ear gunk: thats why you clean your dog's ears. Thats part of being a good owner. If you feel you can't be arsed to do that and chopping the ear off is easier, then perhaps someone like that doesn't deserve a dog?
Pugs need their facial wrinkles cleaned, thats something you accept when you take on the breed. Dogs in general benefit from teeth cleaning, thats something else you accept when you take on an animal. Certain animals of certain types need specific types of daily care and maintainance.
You don't just pull all its teeth out or cut its wrinkles off instead to save you having to do it.
If you take on a breed with dropped ears, you accept that you have to clean them.
When I take on hairless rats, I accept that they need quite invasive cleaning of their eye sockets to prevent serious eye issues. I don't just say 'ho hum, lets just remove the eyes, save all that bother!'
I honestly don't see this as a valid reason, more an excuse for laziness.
I'm concerned you haven't mentioned cruelty, or pain for the animal.
Because I would assume thats agiven. Do I NEED to mention the pain? Its pretty obvious that slicing your ear off then taping it up is going to hurt. Not to mention anaesthetic risks on a young animal being higher, and the risk of infection in the wound afterwards.
There are even behavioural issues linked to cropping. Dogs are cropped at a very important stage of their development. This is a time when they will be forming their adult personalities. If this time is spent in pain, having sore ears pulled about and taped and manipulated, it can and does affect the dog's personality.
Look, you will NOT change my mind on this.
Myself and most reputable animal welfare organisations agree its an outdated, unecessary, cruel practise done only to cater to human whims, fashion or laziness, and it is banned in a lot of places FOR A GOOD REASON.
If it were so vital to dog welfare, it would not be banned and animal welfare organisations would not condemn it.
Which is why its probably a good idea to read all other posts in a debate before wading into it. It gives you an idea of what has already been covered. Why should I repeat myself because you can't be bothered to do this?
In your own words:
TL;DR your other comments, sorry if this was rehashed somewhere.
Yeah.....I'd go back and read the whole thing....
and suggesting that some people crop pets to stop ear infection. Which I've never in my life heard as a reason people crop
From YOUR OWN post: Actually, it increases airflow through the ear, minimalizing ear infections and the normal stink of floppy dog's ears.
The people that do use their Dobermans for their original purpose - guarding, and protection
My dobe will be partly for protection.
I live in a fairly rough area, I'll be alone a lot as my boyfriend works nights, I'll be required to go out at night in town. My dog will be to prevent me as a lone woman being attacked. I don't feel the need to surgically alter him or slice parts off his anatomy for him to be an effective deterrent.
A doberman is an affective deterrent even if its in a pink tu-tu.
Sure, it makes them look meaner, which is also part of the purpose, wouldn't you think?
Actually, I'd think in a world where BSL and breedism and stereotyping of so called 'dangerous' breeds was becoming so rife, that people would not want to encourage this stereotype by making their dobes or pits or boxers look 'meaner'. Aren't we trying to phase OUT this kind of bullshit where people think a dog of a certain breed is going to rip your throat out? As far as Im concerned, people cropping for the reason of making the dog look more aggressive are contributing to the bullshit breed stereotyping.
Also, if you honestly think a doberman NEEDS to look meaner in order to be an effective deterrent, you're crazy.
No-one with a brain is going to break into somewhere with a doberman in the yard, REGARDLESS of whether that dog is cropped, docked, sliced about, or has a studded collar on.
Those dogs are a deterrent, full stop.
Even a sign saying 'HEY DOBERMANS HERE!' is enough to make people not want to enter a place. They don't need to be mutilated to be off putting.
As per your links... I really can't argue with unsubstantiated claims. Just, in my experience, having personally owned a long-eared dog and a cropped-ear dog for a long time, the latter dog has had far less ear gunk and problems with the inner ear than the long-eared dog.
I'd imagine the American Veterinary Medical association has more experience with both cropped and natural dogs than you or I. I'd imagine they know more about the risks, the procedure, the after care, and they're opposed to it.
In fact, you'll find most animal welfare organisations are opposed to it.
Why do you suppose this is?
As for the ear gunk: thats why you clean your dog's ears. Thats part of being a good owner. If you feel you can't be arsed to do that and chopping the ear off is easier, then perhaps someone like that doesn't deserve a dog?
Pugs need their facial wrinkles cleaned, thats something you accept when you take on the breed. Dogs in general benefit from teeth cleaning, thats something else you accept when you take on an animal. Certain animals of certain types need specific types of daily care and maintainance.
You don't just pull all its teeth out or cut its wrinkles off instead to save you having to do it.
If you take on a breed with dropped ears, you accept that you have to clean them.
When I take on hairless rats, I accept that they need quite invasive cleaning of their eye sockets to prevent serious eye issues. I don't just say 'ho hum, lets just remove the eyes, save all that bother!'
I honestly don't see this as a valid reason, more an excuse for laziness.
I'm concerned you haven't mentioned cruelty, or pain for the animal.
Because I would assume thats agiven. Do I NEED to mention the pain? Its pretty obvious that slicing your ear off then taping it up is going to hurt. Not to mention anaesthetic risks on a young animal being higher, and the risk of infection in the wound afterwards.
There are even behavioural issues linked to cropping. Dogs are cropped at a very important stage of their development. This is a time when they will be forming their adult personalities. If this time is spent in pain, having sore ears pulled about and taped and manipulated, it can and does affect the dog's personality.
Look, you will NOT change my mind on this.
Myself and most reputable animal welfare organisations agree its an outdated, unecessary, cruel practise done only to cater to human whims, fashion or laziness, and it is banned in a lot of places FOR A GOOD REASON.
If it were so vital to dog welfare, it would not be banned and animal welfare organisations would not condemn it.
ive never had much beef with the tail docking. I certainly agree its unnecessary and would prefer it wasn't done, but at least its something that the animal isn't likely to remember.
the ear cropping i hate with a passion.. you know the dog is old enough to remember that, and its blatantly obvious that it causes them pain.
ive known more then one dog that after its ears were cropped couldn't stand to even be petted on their heads
and besides.. it you want your dogs ears to stand up why not just get a different breed where they do that naturally?
as far as im concerned, body mutilation in a real life animal isnt ok. The animal has no choice in it like we do with our tattoos and piercings.
the day my dog can walk up to me and ask for an earring, then i might reconsider my standpoint XD
all that aside, the drawing is still cute, as well as making a point
the ear cropping i hate with a passion.. you know the dog is old enough to remember that, and its blatantly obvious that it causes them pain.
ive known more then one dog that after its ears were cropped couldn't stand to even be petted on their heads
and besides.. it you want your dogs ears to stand up why not just get a different breed where they do that naturally?
as far as im concerned, body mutilation in a real life animal isnt ok. The animal has no choice in it like we do with our tattoos and piercings.
the day my dog can walk up to me and ask for an earring, then i might reconsider my standpoint XD
all that aside, the drawing is still cute, as well as making a point
personally, if I were to be breeding and the prospective owners thought such a thing I'd turn them away! (that's just damn stupid to me)
and speaking from an ACO standpoint it's not true -- the bulk of the boxers we get in aren't cropped(but are docked) and about half our dobes and danes are -- and it's RARE we put one down so not only were they originally in homes but they make it into new homes more often then not.
and speaking from an ACO standpoint it's not true -- the bulk of the boxers we get in aren't cropped(but are docked) and about half our dobes and danes are -- and it's RARE we put one down so not only were they originally in homes but they make it into new homes more often then not.
I've never been to america, so I don't know how people percieve dog breeds there. But Im sure america will follow suit with a ban on cosmetic surgery for pets soon enough. Most of the big animal welfare organisations there are, I understand, already opposed to it. That and declawing. It is only a matter of time before its banned there too.
Tail injuries in rats. Typically mishandling and not noticing where the tail is. I'd imagine especially where kids are involved.
While rats can get de-gloved tails from poor handling, all mine that have sustained tail injuries have had them caused by either fighting with another rat, or catching the tail in something in the cage. I had 2 rats need tails surgically removed as adults after both catching them in a chinchilla play-ball that was zip-tied into their cage as a bed. I'd had the same bed for about 3 years prior to this and never had any tail issues, then bang, 2 in a week!
I've also had rats have injured and wounded tails, some badly, from bites from other rats.
Rats naturally scuffle to sort out their heirarchy (they live in strict social groups) and tail nips are a common injury due to the tail being so long and thin and hairless. Because the tail is so thin, a small bite can be a big issue if its near the end, and even if its near the base, I've seen them become infected (even with medication and bathing) and the infection begin to spread up the tail, needing an amputation.
So for me, I've had rats 13 years and have seen a fair few tail injuries just from day to day living and being a rat!
Cats, not the most sturdy of animals and they like being underfoot and in the way
So do puppies. In fact, most animals that live in your house get underfoot. I wouldn't say cats are particularly unique in this. I've had cats 20 years and they've never been particularly in the way of me or sustained any accidents from this. I never saw that at the vet's either. Most minor cat injuries I saw were, like with rats, due to fighting or catching tails in things.
For poorly docked dogs...how where they done and when? Again...change not what they do but how they do it. Unless if every single factor in a bad docking case is looked at...and not just 'oh...it's another bad docking job, mark it down', how do we know what exactly is the cause, when so many are done correctly and in the first 3 days?
But the point is that while docking is allowed, and 'acceptable' you'll always get morons who think they can do it themselves. I've seen cases of a little of rotties all with tails just snipped off with some kind of blade. Absolutely atrocious.
If docking were banned, as it is here now, people would not be attempting to do it themselves because no one would want a docked dog. Here, people do not want docked puppies any more because if they're seen walking them, they'll get questioned. Some vets will even refuse to treat docked puppies, and will report to the proper authorities if a docked pup is brought to them.
If docking is undesireable, these horrible cases of crappy home docks will cease.
There's reasons for some breeds being bred to be tailless...again, just like there is a reason for docking.
If people insisted on having dogs without tails, I'd rather they be bred this way rather than surgically altered. But honestly, nature knew what it was doing when it gave canines a tail.
And just because you are in a country is a lot of 'working and gun dogs'...doesn't mean you're in that area where you're likely to see them.
I actually said a 'county'. I live in Norfolk, UK, which is a county/area where there is lots of shooting and working dogs as it is very rural. We have a lot of farms here, a lot of woodland, a lot of shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk
Farming and agriculture is one of the biggest industries here. So if anyone is going to see a tail injury on a working dog, it'd be someone working in a vet in Norfolk.
Thus you won't commonly see said injuries often in relation to the general pet population, but they will still exist and will still happen.
But you likely will if you live in an area with a high proportional number of working dogs, as I do. If it is truely as common as you imply, I'd have seen at least one in my time at the vet's in norfolk, but I never did.
I don't deny these injuries happen, but I do not believe they happen often enough to warrant mass removal of puppy's tails at birth.
In the Atlas of Dog Breeds of the World, in the entry for Akbash, it states that cropping was done to 'keep predators from gripping and holding'. We've got coyotes coming out of the wazoo here....so much so they're starting to go into cities. This is bad enough with the reports of coys in yards and stealing chihuahuas.
Imagine if a pack got into with a dog. Imagine if a wolf got a hold of an ear.
Id imagine if a wolf pack is surrounding a dog, not having ears isn't actually going to save it. Id guess its pretty much screwed and not having flappy ears isn't going to be much help.
I don't like where that's going personally, but if there wasn't a reason for it in the first place, it wouldn't have been done.
People do lots of things that have no good reason for them. Never underestimate the human obsession with the way things look and what is 'fashionable' and their desire to do anything to cater to that. Look at the human obsession with plastic surgery for themselves, its not really surprising that certain people extend this to their pets looking a certain way too.
Average everyday owners anthropomorphize their animals, it's just that furries are worse about it.
Anthropomorphizing isn't always bad, but in a lot of cases it is. Furries do seem to often have a poor understanding of genuine animal behaviour; you only have to read the many debates on 'zoophilia' here to see how its advocates think of animals as just little furry people with the exact same drives, desires, and ways of looking at situations. Its kinda sad that people don't understand animals as animals.
Honestly, what is the benefit of having 50 intact bulls, and 500-2000 sheep with tails?
With sheep, I don't object to docking too much due to the fact that some breeds are highly likely to get flystrike if their tails are left. And this is highly likely, not just potentially or occasionally. Oddly, its only certain breeds of sheep. Some breeds can be left with full tails, and we do, and have no problems with this, despite living in the same conditions.
And that's the thing...people who go on and on about what they believe is right or wrong haven't ever been in that situation or seen that situation that's just that bad where there is no other way, no other option.
Once again, the complete lack of tail injuries I've seen in traditionally docked breeds who have been left intact influences my opinion.
If I were seeing it several times a week, I'd likely change my opinion.
The complete lack of seeing it suggests to me it isn't as big a problem as you're making out.
So yes, if you've not experienced something, despite being in a situation where you likely would if it were so common, you're likely to believe it isn't a big problem, partiularly not big enough to surgically remove an animal's body part.
They believe it doesn't exist...it CAN'T exist.
I don't think tail injuries never occur, Im sure they do. I just don't think they occur commonly enough to justify docking.
It can't EVER be that bad...but yet a few of those same people say if it is...the animal is better off dead.
Fact remains...if there wasn't a valid reason to at least dock...then why are some vets changing their minds? Of course that's being kept under wraps as much as possible it seems.
I've never heard this. In fact, the vets I spoke to when I worked there all still supported the ban. I never met any who were opposed to it.
The world small animal veterinary Association has this to say on docking:
· The WSAVA considers amputation of dogs' tails to be an unnecessary surgical procedure and contrary to the welfare of the dog.
· The WSAVA recommends that all canine organisations phase out any recommendations for tail amputation (docking) from their breed standards.
· The WSAVA recommends that the docking of dogs’ tails be made illegal except for professionally diagnosed therapeutic reasons, and only then by suitably qualified persons, such as registered veterinarians, under conditions of anaesthesia that minimise pain and stress.
Norway has banned docking since 1987, and sweden and switzerland since 1988. Thats almost 25 years, long enough to see an increase in tail injuries. And there is no talk of reversing the ban in any of those countries.
But really, we will not ever agree on this.
My stance on tail docking and ear cropping isn't one that popped up overnight because I thought 'OMG THAT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE CRUEL!!!'
I have spent many years researching, educating myself, and working first hand with dogs (not only did I work in vet nursing, but Ive done countless years volunteer work at shelters in the area).
You clearly won't change your mind, and neither will I :)
While rats can get de-gloved tails from poor handling, all mine that have sustained tail injuries have had them caused by either fighting with another rat, or catching the tail in something in the cage. I had 2 rats need tails surgically removed as adults after both catching them in a chinchilla play-ball that was zip-tied into their cage as a bed. I'd had the same bed for about 3 years prior to this and never had any tail issues, then bang, 2 in a week!
I've also had rats have injured and wounded tails, some badly, from bites from other rats.
Rats naturally scuffle to sort out their heirarchy (they live in strict social groups) and tail nips are a common injury due to the tail being so long and thin and hairless. Because the tail is so thin, a small bite can be a big issue if its near the end, and even if its near the base, I've seen them become infected (even with medication and bathing) and the infection begin to spread up the tail, needing an amputation.
So for me, I've had rats 13 years and have seen a fair few tail injuries just from day to day living and being a rat!
Cats, not the most sturdy of animals and they like being underfoot and in the way
So do puppies. In fact, most animals that live in your house get underfoot. I wouldn't say cats are particularly unique in this. I've had cats 20 years and they've never been particularly in the way of me or sustained any accidents from this. I never saw that at the vet's either. Most minor cat injuries I saw were, like with rats, due to fighting or catching tails in things.
For poorly docked dogs...how where they done and when? Again...change not what they do but how they do it. Unless if every single factor in a bad docking case is looked at...and not just 'oh...it's another bad docking job, mark it down', how do we know what exactly is the cause, when so many are done correctly and in the first 3 days?
But the point is that while docking is allowed, and 'acceptable' you'll always get morons who think they can do it themselves. I've seen cases of a little of rotties all with tails just snipped off with some kind of blade. Absolutely atrocious.
If docking were banned, as it is here now, people would not be attempting to do it themselves because no one would want a docked dog. Here, people do not want docked puppies any more because if they're seen walking them, they'll get questioned. Some vets will even refuse to treat docked puppies, and will report to the proper authorities if a docked pup is brought to them.
If docking is undesireable, these horrible cases of crappy home docks will cease.
There's reasons for some breeds being bred to be tailless...again, just like there is a reason for docking.
If people insisted on having dogs without tails, I'd rather they be bred this way rather than surgically altered. But honestly, nature knew what it was doing when it gave canines a tail.
And just because you are in a country is a lot of 'working and gun dogs'...doesn't mean you're in that area where you're likely to see them.
I actually said a 'county'. I live in Norfolk, UK, which is a county/area where there is lots of shooting and working dogs as it is very rural. We have a lot of farms here, a lot of woodland, a lot of shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk
Farming and agriculture is one of the biggest industries here. So if anyone is going to see a tail injury on a working dog, it'd be someone working in a vet in Norfolk.
Thus you won't commonly see said injuries often in relation to the general pet population, but they will still exist and will still happen.
But you likely will if you live in an area with a high proportional number of working dogs, as I do. If it is truely as common as you imply, I'd have seen at least one in my time at the vet's in norfolk, but I never did.
I don't deny these injuries happen, but I do not believe they happen often enough to warrant mass removal of puppy's tails at birth.
In the Atlas of Dog Breeds of the World, in the entry for Akbash, it states that cropping was done to 'keep predators from gripping and holding'. We've got coyotes coming out of the wazoo here....so much so they're starting to go into cities. This is bad enough with the reports of coys in yards and stealing chihuahuas.
Imagine if a pack got into with a dog. Imagine if a wolf got a hold of an ear.
Id imagine if a wolf pack is surrounding a dog, not having ears isn't actually going to save it. Id guess its pretty much screwed and not having flappy ears isn't going to be much help.
I don't like where that's going personally, but if there wasn't a reason for it in the first place, it wouldn't have been done.
People do lots of things that have no good reason for them. Never underestimate the human obsession with the way things look and what is 'fashionable' and their desire to do anything to cater to that. Look at the human obsession with plastic surgery for themselves, its not really surprising that certain people extend this to their pets looking a certain way too.
Average everyday owners anthropomorphize their animals, it's just that furries are worse about it.
Anthropomorphizing isn't always bad, but in a lot of cases it is. Furries do seem to often have a poor understanding of genuine animal behaviour; you only have to read the many debates on 'zoophilia' here to see how its advocates think of animals as just little furry people with the exact same drives, desires, and ways of looking at situations. Its kinda sad that people don't understand animals as animals.
Honestly, what is the benefit of having 50 intact bulls, and 500-2000 sheep with tails?
With sheep, I don't object to docking too much due to the fact that some breeds are highly likely to get flystrike if their tails are left. And this is highly likely, not just potentially or occasionally. Oddly, its only certain breeds of sheep. Some breeds can be left with full tails, and we do, and have no problems with this, despite living in the same conditions.
And that's the thing...people who go on and on about what they believe is right or wrong haven't ever been in that situation or seen that situation that's just that bad where there is no other way, no other option.
Once again, the complete lack of tail injuries I've seen in traditionally docked breeds who have been left intact influences my opinion.
If I were seeing it several times a week, I'd likely change my opinion.
The complete lack of seeing it suggests to me it isn't as big a problem as you're making out.
So yes, if you've not experienced something, despite being in a situation where you likely would if it were so common, you're likely to believe it isn't a big problem, partiularly not big enough to surgically remove an animal's body part.
They believe it doesn't exist...it CAN'T exist.
I don't think tail injuries never occur, Im sure they do. I just don't think they occur commonly enough to justify docking.
It can't EVER be that bad...but yet a few of those same people say if it is...the animal is better off dead.
Fact remains...if there wasn't a valid reason to at least dock...then why are some vets changing their minds? Of course that's being kept under wraps as much as possible it seems.
I've never heard this. In fact, the vets I spoke to when I worked there all still supported the ban. I never met any who were opposed to it.
The world small animal veterinary Association has this to say on docking:
· The WSAVA considers amputation of dogs' tails to be an unnecessary surgical procedure and contrary to the welfare of the dog.
· The WSAVA recommends that all canine organisations phase out any recommendations for tail amputation (docking) from their breed standards.
· The WSAVA recommends that the docking of dogs’ tails be made illegal except for professionally diagnosed therapeutic reasons, and only then by suitably qualified persons, such as registered veterinarians, under conditions of anaesthesia that minimise pain and stress.
Norway has banned docking since 1987, and sweden and switzerland since 1988. Thats almost 25 years, long enough to see an increase in tail injuries. And there is no talk of reversing the ban in any of those countries.
But really, we will not ever agree on this.
My stance on tail docking and ear cropping isn't one that popped up overnight because I thought 'OMG THAT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE CRUEL!!!'
I have spent many years researching, educating myself, and working first hand with dogs (not only did I work in vet nursing, but Ive done countless years volunteer work at shelters in the area).
You clearly won't change your mind, and neither will I :)
I like crops, but at the same time understand the issues. My dad owns a boxer, his tail is cropped, but we didn't have it done. The breeder had it done before we got him. I do agree most people do it for fashion, and it is sad. I can appreciate a well done crop, but I do agree that if you would like a dog with pricked ears or a short tail, start breeding for it. I do have to say on dobies I can go with or without, personally for me I like their ears natural and a cropped tail. But I do know this is cruel to the dog. So I'm at odds with myself sometimes. Interesting views on here, all unique and informative. Thank you for posting!
Comments