To crop & dock or Not ??

[Haiku]

I appreciate your input and I think it's safe to say we can simply agree to disagree, I definitely feel there should be a limit on "preventative measures" and I have nothing against vaccinating my dogs and having them altered, but I personally do not believe in amputations to prevent the possibility of an injured limb. If statistics showed nearly all dogs with tails broke them in their activity at some point or all dogs without cropped ears regularly got ear infections, perhaps I'd feel differently.

These are the 5th toe that resides further up the leg of a dog..a claw that serves no purpose what so-ever.

Yes both my dogs have their dew claws. Tommy doesn't jump, but Tasha does, and I find if i keep the nail clipped and filed along with the rest of her nails it does no more damage than her other toenails when she jumps on me. That picture shows a horribly maintained dewclaw nail , way too long, they can be kept MUCH shorter than that and with a blunted end. Just my experience and observation as regards to that.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Again, I see no reason why we have the right to force dogs to hunt (ie, kill other animals) just for our pleasure. If dogs should have their tails cut off because it might cost too much money if they injure it, then why have a dog in the first place? If you are not prepared to safeguard the health of the dog, then you shouldn't keep one. If you have a baby and can't pay health bills you get grants, government help etc. If you do the same with a dog, it's slaughtered.

 

[SRC]

You know "hunting" dogs are only used for detection. They don't actually Kill anything...even greyhounds are chasing a mechanical rabbit (I may be wrong but I don't even think that fox hounds are allowed to kill the fox anymore..but they might..IF they can actually catch it). They alert the hunter as to where the game (animal) is. And depending on what type trial they are running and for what purpose (whether it be sport only or an actual hunt) the Hunter takes care of the game..or decoy as it may be (they don't always hunt live animals).

And truth be known the dog is actually enjoying himself quite alot. Man took the dogs love of tracking down game and used that to catch food. Breeders breed the dogs with the strongest desire to "hunt" and produce puppies with the same qualities. The puppies without a strong prey drive are sold as "pet quality" pups.

"Working" dogs are actually among the highest percentage of happy pets. They are not sitting on your couch, in a pen, or on a chain wasting their days away. They are doing what they enjoy. If they did not enjoy it..they would not do it. You cannot make a dog hunt, track a lost child, or run down a "bad guy". There is no physical way to do that. It is a complete act of willingness. So you aren't forcing it to do anything..you are actually allowing it to do what comes natural to it and what the dog enjoys doing.


There is no way you can safeguard a dogs tail from being broken as they wag it while walking through a doorway. That is so silly to even suggest. Just like you cannot safeguard a child from ever falling and scraping their knee. You can't put them in a protective bubble. That is why they invented the word "safeguard"...those are called prevenative measures. I'm sorry but I didn't get a dog with the thinking "well who cares what happens to it..I have the $$$ to spend and fix it". That is silly. You are suposed to try and prevent accidents from happening..not just say "oh well" and shell out money after they happen. What happens if you just spent a load of money fixing your car and then your dog breaks it's tail? You are going to be in quite the jam..as most vets don't accept payments. They want their money up front. Your dog very well may have to be PTS because it's tail is broken and you can't get it fixed.

And actually...if you can't afford to take care of your child you can't get a grant. You apply for Food Stamps and Government assistance. And if you make too much money (like I do) you will get denied (like I did)...your choice after that...get a 2nd or 3rd job (like I have done) to cover your expenses..and hope you can find a decent baby sitter (if you don't have willing family to help out (like mine). If you can't take care of your pet you can take it to the pound...where it may or may not get Euthanized. They can only keep so many (and the homeless children are taking up that portion of the tax money..I doubt they are going to take any away from them to support animals and I doubt they are going to raise taxes to accomodate them either. Nor do I think they should. I do, however, think people should stop breeding so many animals though.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Again, I see no reason why we have the right to force dogs to hunt (ie, kill other animals) just for our pleasure. If dogs should have their tails cut off because it might cost too much money if they injure it, then why have a dog in the first place? If you are not prepared to safeguard the health of the dog, then you shouldn't keep one. If you have a baby and can't pay health bills you get grants, government help etc. If you do the same with a dog, it's slaughtered.

Lets not try to make this a hunting debate, to say the least dogs hunt naturally as an instinct of theirs and are never forced, i know this because we used to hold many pheasant hunts on my mums farm and the dogs would get very excited about it and have a great time chasing pheasants around.

 

[paige]

i'm sorry but i just cant be botherd to read al this post unit i know what crop and dock is so what does it mean?

 

[SRC]

Cropping is removing part of the ear. Docking is removing part of the tail.

uncropped

cropped

un docked

docked

 

[julibob]

With regards to the dew claws. Briards have a DOUBLE dew claw on each hind leg. This is unusual in the canine world and they are only ever removed (in the UK) if they become infected or damaged. They are a guarding breed and would spend weeks on end in the French mountains protecting their flocks from wolves. Having a double dew claw enables such a large dog to turn swiftly and accurately on a difficult terrain.

Barney has both double dew claws, natural ears and is still entire! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I appreciate that docking and cropping is still legal and everyday common practice in some countries that have never done any different, and would not feel as strongly as those in countries where it has been outlawed for decades.

Briards have extremely long hair on their ears, and ear problems/infections is not an inherent problem in this breed when uncropped (natural).

 

[Haiku]

You are suposed to try and prevent accidents from happening..not just say "oh well" and shell out money after they happen.

I'm trying to keep from commenting anymore because I feel like I've had my say and there are also plenty of articles and evidence to back up the things I've pointed out if one really wants to look into it, however, this logic is making it sound like you'd support and even encourage the docking of all dogs' tails in order to "prevent" the chance of injury. Certainly any dog with a tail is capable of slamming it against something and injuring it. Tasha's tail wags so hard it hurts if it hits you , it's long and thin and whip-like. While I don't agree with it, I can accept the explanation of doing it for looks (which I think most people do with dobermans, boxers, and spaniels and the like simply because it is how they are used to seeing them), and I can accept the explanation of a pure working dog out in the field, but I simply cannot accept the "preventative maintenance" line for pet dogs who MIGHT hit their tail against something and break it. You are actually turning it around making it sound like "the responsible thing to do" and comparing it to child vaccinations, quite a leap. Again, I'd like to see all the evidence of the dogs in the UK, Australia, NZ, and so on that shows monumental evidence of constant tail break injuries amongst dog breeds formerly cropped. Many, many vets, including my own, say there is no evidence of this.

There are myths on both sides of the argument for tail docking. Of course there is a risk of tail injury if the tail is left whole, the same as there is a risk of an arm or leg injury by having arms and legs, but there is no evidence at all to show that dogs whose tails are docked have higher break/injury incidences as a breed trait than those who don't. The anti-docking extreme claim a dog can't swim or run as well without a tail and those are also not backed up by evidence. These are all assumptions, not factual based.

 

[kimbowee]

OK, where to start. First off, I am a licensed vet tech and went to school for 6 years. I originally wanted to become a vet. Family, house & bills happened. I worked in a reputable vets office for 10 years. In those years I have only seen & treated 1 dog with a broken tail, it was in fact a Doberman. But the tail was run over by a car, not caused by whacking a wall or any other hard surface. I used to own a great Dane. They also have very long tails that are not very well padded. He could give you a bruise with his tail & even managed to break a lamp with it, but never broke his tail.

I have also shown dogs & worked with many breeders here. Some breeders here still dock their own pups tails. Click Here These breeders are not backyard or puppymill breeders.

The pups do not generally receive any kind of pain treatment. Docking of the tail is seriously painful. Also, have you looked at a tail of an adult dog that had its tail docked as a pup? Most do not have hair at the dock site, the hair around it growns to cover most of the site but hair doesn't grow back where it was clipped. Cutting cartilage is not over quickly and the pain is not gone immediately. The pain will remain until the site has healed & sometimes for a period after it is healed. Some dogs are sensitive for life where their tail was docked. Yes the pups usually do calm down when returned to their mother, but it doesn't mean it still doesn't hurt. Just as when a child falls from a swingset the site of their mother will calm them down. Their skinned knee still hurts though.


For dewclaws, some dogs have a double set of dewclaws. The dewclaw on the rear foot I feel should be removed. If not removed it can cause a lot of problems with gait, back problems in some dogs and also dogs have a higher tendancy to rip rear dewclaws. The rear dewclaw is very close to a major foot nerve & also a major blood line. A severe tear can cause death because of blood loss or permanent nerve damage.

I do not remove front dewclaws on my dogs. Yes a dewclaw is meant to rip, so are the nails. If kept properly trimmed you avoid this problem.

Most dogs having their ears cropped & tails docked these days are strickly for cosmetic appearances not preventitive maintanence. Not too many people have to hunt for their dinner anymore.

If you want to look at breed specifics you can check out American Kennel Club for more info. Most of the dogs that we crop or dock are not evenused in the Sporting, Herding or Working dog classes anymore. They are mostly docked or cropped for appearance.

Again, these are my personal opinions and examples of why I feel the way I do. I refuse to alter an animals appearance to please someone else. If it is unnecessary why do it at the expense of the animal. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Happy debating!

 

[Bloo]

Okiedokie, well for what it's worth and from what I've read so far, I have reconsidered the docking situation. If and when I get a new Dobermann (I will almost certainly be placed on a waiting list if I get a pup) I will ask the breeder not to crop the pup's tail
However I will also (when the time is right) consider homing a rescue Dobermann and will more than likely go that route first - and in that case it's whichever way it comes.

 

[SRC]

#1. I never said anyone didn't do it anymore..I said that most don't.

#2. that is not docking..that is banding.

#3. I don't agree with someone who is not a licensed proffessional performing any type medical procedure on an animal. That "tool" is not even for that and should not be allowed. that website is an abomination.. may lead people into doing something that could maim their animals for life...that could possibly lead to gangrene and/or death. That website sickens me.

An entire website dedicated to the reasons for docking:
http/www.cdb.org/letters.htm
Please, read over and look at the articles that show the evidence of tail damage. They are quite informative.

There are billions of vet clinics around the world. Just becasue yours didn't treat any doesn't mean it doesn't/isn't happening. I've worked in several over the last 10 years..and I have seen plenty come in with broken, busted, and infected tails form warping them against things.

 

[julibob]

My parents have had 5 Briards over 25 years, all with double dew claws and have never had any problems with them. I am also the member of the British Briard club, and speak to many breeders and owners, none of which have mentioned a problem with the double dews (in fact the quarterly magazine of the British Briard Club is called "Double Dew Claw"). There is no obvious use for the human appendix, but we do not remove it as a matter of course, "just in case ther is a problem". This is all my personal opinion, but then I am also a vegetarian who feels very strongly about many subjects which may cause discomfort to animals.

 

[SRC]

(I bred and raised Doberman's for 5 years and every litter had their ears, tails, and dewclaws removed. None suffered any ill effects from it. They actually give you pain tablets to give them..none of mine needed them. After the anethesia wore off they were the same puppies they were before they had the ear surgeries done. Except for teh occassional ear bite that another pup may have inflicted...none showed any signs that they were in pain (although maybe a litle annoyance from their ears being in the racks, however). I use a vet that gives lidocain injections during the dewclaw and tail removal...never heard a wimper out of any of them..during or after the procedure. People also need to realize animals have a higher pain tolerance level them humans do. God gave that to them so they woudl survive out in teh wild. So that if another dog bit them or they fell and hurt themselves (without breaking anything) that they coudl continue on and not falter. Otherwise they would die from most injuries they sustain in the wild. Our domestic dogs have this same tolerance).

But I'm mainly talking about tail docking at the moment. If you feel ok about the possibilities of yourself or others getting scratched and what-not from dew-claws...so be it...it's a personal decision (just like having your male son circumcised..as that serves no "real" purpose other then for the "cosmetic" appearance of it. It works just fine with the foreskin as it does without it). I guess since you don't want to cause animals any discomfort..that you are also against having pets altered, correct?

That's a good question actually...

How about having pets altered? This causes them the same amount of pain as cropping, or the docking of tails and dewclaws. And it's main purpose provides us with more benefit then it does the animals. As once they are altered we don't have to worry about letting them outside unprotected so they don't reproduce aimlessly (meaning it takes the responsibility off us to watch them as closely), we no longer have to worry about the mess they leave behind on our floors and beds and furniture (meaning there will be no urine marking, spraying, or blood left by an unaltered pet in our houses for us to clean up), we don't have to worry about vet bills that may or may not creep up later due to the animal not being fixed (i.e. breast, ovarian, uteterian, testicular, and/or prostate cancers that can occur..but don't always), and we don't have to worry about controlling as many unwanted behaviors that crop up with unaltered pets (meaning we don't have to work as hard with their obedience training if they are altered and have less hormones controlling what they want to do).

How about descenting? You know..the surgery that removes the anal sacs from ferrets and skunks. That serves no purpose to them at all..only us. Are the same people that are against the other "cosmetic" procedures that only benefit man and his wishes against these procedures as well?

I'm quite curious.

 

[Haiku]

You certainly like to compare it to any and every accepted procedure you can don't you? First vaccinations and ear piercings for humans, now spaying and neutering. There is plenty of factual evidence that it has more benefits than merely "convenience" to us. As I'm sure you know, there is plenty of medical evidence that the risk of prostate or uterine cancers are GREATLY increased if not altered by a certain age. This has scientific evidence to back it up, unlike the tail injury thing and ear infection claims (which by the way generally aren't life threatening). There have been threads here on alteration and if you seriously want to get into that perhaps go to those threads. Apparently I'm not alone in my thinking, as docking and cropping are being banned in many countries, and altering isn't. This is getting ridiculous and it seems to me you will not be satisfied until you have the final word here, which is fine. I accepted that and was prepared to let you have it, however you decided to ask your question and prompt more response. You are not going to convince me, anymore than I will convince you, so why not just do as I suggested, agree to disagree, and move on? Must someone "win" the argument? I could go on all day about the differences between the two, but it would all be pointless, not to mention I've already been typing all day (for my job), and my wrists are about done in.

This is the last I'll be visiting this thread, as I believe it is at an impasse and pointless for me to continue and is turning into reaching and repetitive arguments. I don't agree with your opinions, but I can respect them. Can you do the same?

 

[OohFeeshy]

Don't forget though, that by comparing it with things done to humans, you are comparing a procedure where the affected can communicate with whoever chooses to have it done (ie, circumcision sp?) and both parties have a bond that is stronger than anything. (OK, confuzzling words, but I'm confused by what I'm saying too). Or we ourselves choose it (piercing, plastic surgery etc.). When you cut a dogs tail off, you have no idea how the dog feels about this. The dog does not speak English, you do not speak dog. All you can do is nod and smile and say its for the best. Which it isn't. ATM I'm not going to argue with cutting off the tail of 'working' dogs, as that is almost a whole other matter (ie, fox hunting has cruelty vs. 'livelyhood'). I definately disagree with doing it for cosmetic reasons, which in this day and age most of it is.