Tail Docking

[l.michelle]

I think any dog with a long tail has the ability to clear things off coffee tables. My dog I mentioned earlier (the lab/sheperd/collie) would knock things off tables, or even of my mother's shelves of her pottery she made, but you don't normally see dogs of those breeds having their tails docked. I don't think knocking things off tables is a good excute to cut their tails off. Any dog with a long tail could potentially knock things over.

 

[Archer]

the bald dog was right on IMO as it answered the comment that KC have nothing to do with the genetic faults dogs have. and i very much doubt nature ever intended dogs to be bald. so someone made it. and people who aren't breeders, are unlikely to be able to achieve this. im sorry you feel its off topic, because i feel docking and the dreadful state of some so called pedigree dogs are one and the same problem and all controlled by the KC. anyone who holds the views i do is bound to antagonise, KC breeders. by definition we hold opposing views. i made the statement right at the beginning, i believed they should be stopped and held to account for their actions.

you will notice though i put my case forcefully, i have avoided abuse, or actually deriding anyone who posts. if someone from this world is antagonised, let the defend their action in words, and put their point of view forward.

can you actually show a boxer or any other dog with a tail in a KC show?

Any dog with a tail?
But of course - that was a silly question.

And yes - you can show a boxer with a tail.

lol not sure why that is a silly question. KC papered boxers have docked tails. i just wondered if you could show one undocked. i now know you can. so why dont breeders just leave the tail on the dog if no one shows a dog without a tail, it matters not what the judges think, they would still have to pick a winner.

I don't know what makes you think that only/all KC reg boxers have docked tails??? A boxer can be docked regardless of being KC reg or not and a KC reg boxer doesn't have to be docked

 

[pica_nuttalli]

Austrailian cattle dog that is 50% queensland dingo.

ooo, post some pics, please?! i've never seen a dingo-cross before

And with reference to the X~ bald dogs (I'm not even gonna try spelling that ), a substantial population of these dogs have THRIVED over the years while having reverted to an undomesticated state. Since natural selection did not result in the slow removal of the hairless specimens in favor of the partially furred individuals, this indicates that hairlessness is a favorable natural state. (In fact, the selection seems to have favored hairlessness over partial furring.) I'd also like to point out that the hairlessness gene in the X~ is the much same as that of the Chinese crested, in that both result in specimens predisposed to premature tooth-loss. While aesthetically displeasing to most people , the fact that early tooth loss has not been selected out of the wild populations of X~ indicates that even this is an acceptable natural state.

Of course, arguing about the relative naturalness of dogs is a foolish endeavor anyways. ALL dog breeds are ultimately "created", even those that strongly resemble wolves. Even when various breeds have reverted to wild for a few thousand years, they haven't lost that essential "doggish-ness". There's tens of thousands of years of selective breeding at work--face it, dogs aren't natural. Cross-breeding does typically result in a certain "houndish" appearance, but even that is subject to the breeds common to the area. So in a region dominated by hunting breeds, you get mongrel hounds. In areas dominated by cattle herding breeds, you get dingos. And in places dominated by a slate grey and bald breed, you get wild X~.

 

[~T~]

Just wondering what the pro docking people think about having fish tail docked?

 

[Archer]

Just wondering what the pro docking people think about having fish tail docked?

When I see one working to the gun I'll tell you

 

[l.michelle]

Just wondering what the pro docking people think about having fish tail docked?

When I see one working to the gun I'll tell you

Ahh, but, as we have seen from arguments above, people dock dogs' tails for showing them, not working. So if someone was to show fish, then technically those people who are pro dockign due to showing, shouldn't have any problem with docking fish tails, no?

 

[venom2112]

dog shows are for the personal gratification of the owner only, well they make money, so who gives a F%$k what happns to the dog. surly dog breeders should be looking to improve the breed, not continue, adding genetic mutations, just to win prizes!

oops sorry i forgot its big business, so that doesn't matter then, sorry
[/quote]

big business??well lets see, blackpool champ show

petrol £40
entry fee £26
parking £3.00
food for day £15
shedule £5.00
total £89

we got 1st place in our class, our prize?? 1 bit of red cardboard with " blackpool champ show winner on it"
thats just one show, there are loads of shows in the country, inc belfast kc, welsh kc etc.. so i dont realy think people make money out of showing, the rewards are not what a lot of show people are in it for, its just a hobby thats all, like keeping fish, while were on the subject, is it cruel to dock a dogs tail to prevent damage in the future when nature didnt intend it that way, or is it cruel to keep tropical fish in a 4x2 tank as nature didnt intend that either!!

 

[l.michelle]

dog shows are for the personal gratification of the owner only, well they make money, so who gives a F%$k what happns to the dog. surly dog breeders should be looking to improve the breed, not continue, adding genetic mutations, just to win prizes!

oops sorry i forgot its big business, so that doesn't matter then, sorry

big business??well lets see, blackpool champ show

petrol £40
entry fee £26
parking £3.00
food for day £15
shedule £5.00
total £89

we got 1st place in our class, our prize?? 1 bit of red cardboard with " blackpool champ show winner on it"
thats just one show, there are loads of shows in the country, inc belfast kc, welsh kc etc.. so i dont realy think people make money out of showing, the rewards are not what a lot of show people are in it for, its just a hobby thats all, like keeping fish, while were on the subject, is it cruel to dock a dogs tail to prevent damage in the future when nature didnt intend it that way, or is it cruel to keep tropical fish in a 4x2 tank as nature didnt intend that either!!

So then, if it is your choice to show your dog, why have the tail cut off? If it is for your own use, as so it seems. Regarding the injuries to the tail, read above, I have been saying all along that i have never seen a dog with a broken or injured tail, how common is it that dogs' tails are injured? Surely if it was such a wide spread problem as people are making it out to be, then all dogs' tails would be docked rather than them deeming it illegal, no?

 

[venom2112]

So then, if it is your choice to show your dog, why have the tail cut off? If it is for your own use, as so it seems. Regarding the injuries to the tail, read above, I have been saying all along that i have never seen a dog with a broken or injured tail, how common is it that dogs' tails are injured? Surely if it was such a wide spread problem as people are making it out to be, then all dogs' tails would be docked rather than them deeming it illegal, no?
[/quote]


you have never seen a dog with a damaged tail, i have though, as for all dogs docked, some breeds are more hyper than others, boxers are puppies all there live, mastiffs are docile, depends on the breed, strange that you didnt reply to the fish question though!!

 

[l.michelle]

I don't think you understand what I am saying, for the amount of dogs' tails that are damaged, do you think that docking should be okay? See, technically, any dogs' tails could be damaged. Not just certain breeds, right? And your arguement is that docking the tails prevents the tai lfrom being damaged, but really, who is to say that the tail would be damaged in the future? And would you agree that dogs' tails being damaged is not common? If not, have you any proof it is common? Also, if it was common, then wouldn't they want every dog's tail docked? I mean, if it was so common, why would they ban docking? It doesn't make sense to me.

As for the fish comment, I have not made any reference to docking being natural or not. My argument I am putting across, is that people are saying that dogs' tails are being damaged, and I don't find that as quite a valid point for the docking, as how many dogs in 100 would you say have had tails damaged? Enough dogs to have a thought that cutting them off is good? I would bet, that more dogs break legs or injure legs, or have ear infections than they do injuring their tails, so why are those other extremitiew not being 'taken care of' to avoid the potential damages in the future?

In regards to your comment about the fish, I don't think it is reasonable to compare cutting off a part of a dog, to keepign fish in fish tanks. I have to leave work so I will elaborate more later

 

[tetraqueen]

I think you have a very valid point about fish being kept in tanks.
Dogs although now bred for house pets are not also meant to be kept alone etc. depending on breed but most are a litter of more than one and are part of a pack.

We however have to consider an animals right to be looked after and kept in good condition.

I do not know of anyone who does not have to pay the vet to have the dog's tail docked and the responsibilty should be exchanged to the vets. They will lose money for what is part of their trade....

I also think shipping fish in plastic bags all over the world or indeed are they flown is good or bad and also big business.

I however would like some dog owners love the animal either way and if it had a tail great but if not then great too.

I like non agressive fish some like aggressive fish and we are all individuals.

I think live and let live.

If you feel strongly against don't have it done and if not I say vets put your prices up that will determine quickly those that believe it is good for them or good for the pocket.


Soap Box done One day I'll get a life not a dog as they will not go back after Christmas and I'd find them very tying and prefer to help other owners who can give time to a job that is only for those that need that best friend.

 

[pica_nuttalli]

Just wondering what the pro docking people think about having fish tail docked?

the distinct difference is that the docking of dogs should be done in the first hours of life before the nervous system is fully formed and well before the bones have hardened. there is essentially no pain and little risk involved in the procedure, provided that it is performed early and quickly. the longer one waits following birth, the more likely complications are to arise. there are also safety issues at stake for certain dogs--while these are rare, equivalent saftey issues due to docking are equally (if not more) rare.

"docked" fish are amputated after the complete formation of the nervous system and after the hardening of bones. presumably, they also must be removed from the water for a prolonged period in order to perform the procedure, itself a stressful and risky action. the removal of a fish's tail also seriously impedes its ability to move about the aquarium. since a large incision must be made to remove the tails of most fish, this also greatly increases the risk of complications such as infection. finally, the removal of a fish tail is not performed except for cosmetic purposes, hence making the surgury completely unnecessary.

apples and oranges, T, apples and oranges.

 

[venom2112]

how many dogs in 100 would you say have had tails damaged?

out of 100 mastiffs? none
out of 100 boxers prob about 60%
out of 100 working spanniels prob about 80-90 %
like i say , its about the breed, thats why all dogs dont have there tail docked, different breeds have different temperments
this site will ans your questions http/www.cdb.org/letters.htm

i dont realy want to fall out with anyone on here about this, i joined so i could start a new hobby with tropical fish, i aint even got my fish in my tank yet & im arguing about dogs tails!!! i will be asking quite a few questions on here in the near future, so dont want to annoy anyone coz they wont answer me!!!

 

[geo7x]

you have never seen a dog with a damaged tail, i have though, as for all dogs docked, some breeds are more hyper than others, boxers are puppies all there live, mastiffs are docile, depends on the breed, strange that you didnt reply to the fish question though!!

Exactly how many undocked damaged tails have you seen? surely nothing to justify tail docking.

I would really like to know exactly how many undocked dogs (which "should" be docked) get damaged tails compared to those who dont, I'm sure it doesn't justify it, especially if you compare it to how many people in house with stairs fall down the stairs, i expect most people have fallen down the stairs at some point in their lifetime.

 

[andywg]

And yes - you can show a boxer with a tail.

But not a white one (or one with less than 30% brindal/red) which leads to some breeders drowning the white pups at birth claiming they are slingbacks when most of the books I read on them indicated that white was the original colour.

how many dogs in 100 would you say have had tails damaged?

out of 100 mastiffs? none
out of 100 boxers prob about 60%
out of 100 working spanniels prob about 80-90 %
like i say , its about the breed, thats why all dogs dont have there tail docked, different breeds have different temperments
this site will ans your questions http/www.cdb.org/letters.htm

I would be very grateful if you would back those numbers up with some evidence. I can't help but feel you have just made those numbers up. If the numbers really were that high then proper representation would have been made at the drafting of the new legislation to exclude those dogs from the ban.

That site lists 16 people who have had problems with the tails. I am fairly sure there are a lot more than 16 dogs kept in the country. And some of those stories are adults recalling occurences from when they were not even teenagers. This hardly suggests that such problems are commonplace, and if anything supports the contrary to your belief.

So I ask again, where is the raw data on which you have provided the above percentages? I would be most interested to read it.