Ban on tail docking

11 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
I assume you mean these reasons Blue .... so a small number of dogs sustain tail injuries whilst working (a very small number) therefore all working dogs should have their tails docked .... a small number of dogs break their legs whilst working (leading to amputation) should all dogs then have their legs amputated as a precaution??
Blue I am a trustee of a dog rescue and have just returned from the N.E.S.S.R. Easter dog show (that's a Springer rescue organisation of which I am a member ) I do have a little knowledge myself ... and in my experience the docking of tails when argued down to the core, boils down to 'they just don't look right with tails'

What a totally ridiculous comparison, if I may say. Most unlike you Staggs...
Not sure it would be much help with flushing game either. wink

11 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
I assume you mean these reasons Blue .... so a small number of dogs sustain tail injuries whilst working (a very small number) therefore all working dogs should have their tails docked .... a small number of dogs break their legs whilst working (leading to amputation) should all dogs then have their legs amputated as a precaution??
Blue I am a trustee of a dog rescue and have just returned from the N.E.S.S.R. Easter dog show (that's a Springer rescue organisation of which I am a member ) I do have a little knowledge myself ... and in my experience the docking of tails when argued down to the core, boils down to 'they just don't look right with tails'

What a totally ridiculous comparison, if I may say. Most unlike you Staggs...
I have spent the weekend in the company of a three legged springer ... he broke his leg in a rabbit hole whilst flushing game,he developed an infection in the bone which made amputation necessary,as I said a small number of dogs break their legs a small number of dogs injure their tails,tail docking is in the vast majority of cases an unnecessary mutilation

11 Apr 2012

just as a question blue.
dobermans and rotties used to have there tails docked. can you answer me as to why they did? was it for medicle reesons, or through the work the dog does? or as i suspect purely for the purpose of making that breed look better, and every other dog of that breed is. also a dog say a boxer without a docked tail, would have been worth less money. true or false?
also dogs use their tails to communicate with other dogs (and with people).
i did see a you tube video of a six week old puppy having its tail docked, but decided is was to gross to even put on here. sorry but it is nothing short of mutilation, and any other reeson than that is an unjustifiable excuse for cruelty and self importance.

11 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
just as a question blue.
dobermans and rotties used to have there tails docked. can you answer me as to why they did? was it for medicle reesons, or through the work the dog does? or as i suspect purely for the purpose of making that breed look better, and every other dog of that breed is. also a dog say a boxer without a docked tail, would have been worth less money. true or false?
also dogs use their tails to communicate with other dogs (and with people).
.

Only working breeds can now have there tails docked legally, unlike the breeds you mention above, it is only a small part of the tail, not the whole tail. communication is not therefore an issue. I would not support the docking for cosmetic reasons.

Quote by starlightcouple
just as a question blue.
sorry but it is nothing short of mutilation, and any other reeson than that is an unjustifiable excuse for cruelty and self importance.

Why would I wish to be cruel to my dog?

11 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
Why would I wish to be cruel to my dog?

are you saying then blue that your dog felt nothing when its tail was cut off? nothing afterwards either?
if it did then sorry that is cruelty.

11 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Why would I wish to be cruel to my dog?

are you saying then blue that your dog felt nothing when its tail was cut off? nothing afterwards either?
if it did then sorry that is cruelty.
No more cruel than circumcision in young boys....

11 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Why would I wish to be cruel to my dog?

are you saying then blue that your dog felt nothing when its tail was cut off? nothing afterwards either?
if it did then sorry that is cruelty.
Sorry you are incorrect
It had local anesthesia, pain would be minimal, far better than the pain suffered every time she works if it is not done, culminating in an operation in adulthood, far more painful and dangerous wink

11 Apr 2012

Does anybody know the proportion of dogs and people who do not hunt that are injured in hunting accidents ?? as spurious statistical arguments go I'd suggest this is a good one for banning hunting ... what do you think ??

11 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Does anybody know the proportion of dogs and people who do not hunt that are injured in hunting accidents ?? as spurious statistical arguments go I'd suggest this is a good one for banning hunting ... what do you think ??

No more so than banning the sale of matches because they are used to light fires.... dunno

11 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
Does anybody know the proportion of dogs and people who do not hunt that are injured in hunting accidents ?? as spurious statistical arguments go I'd suggest this is a good one for banning hunting ... what do you think ??

No more so than banning the sale of matches because they are used to light fires.... dunno

Or perhaps even docking a dogs tail because it might injure it

11 Apr 2012

Quote by HnS
The fact that some working breeds have always been docked for centuries, for good reason, now seems to be being borne out.
About time this was reviewed again.
All for preventing animal cruelty, don't get us wrong, just that docking is markedly less traumatic if done at birth rather than years later following injury/trauma and the obvious post-op care required whilst they re-learn walking/running without a tail (which upsets their balance in many cases).

worth revisiting this earlier post Staggs. It's the view to which I subscribe without having had an earlier one tbh.

11 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009

Why would I wish to be cruel to my dog?

are you saying then blue that your dog felt nothing when its tail was cut off? nothing afterwards either?
if it did then sorry that is cruelty.
Sorry you are incorrect
It had local anesthesia, pain would be minimal, far better than the pain suffered every time she works if it is not done, culminating in an operation in adulthood, far more painful and dangerous wink

So Blue your logic is ... I will cause my dog pain because what I am going to train it to do will (and I doubt that this is a certainty) cause it pain... The solution Blue if you truly wish to prevent your dog suffering any pain is to not use it to flush game
What you're actually doing is gambling on the possibility that your animal may injure it's tail

11 Apr 2012

a dog is a dog is a dog Staggs.
I don't have one but did many many years ago. She was a labrador.
she injured her paw once on a family walk through the woods. We weren't hunting, or beating or anything like that but nonetheless, she injured her paw. Dogs go roaming about and get into difficulties.
Before you ask, she didn't have her paw amputated but I can see where Blue is coming from on this. You expose your dog to risks by walking it down the street near your home. You are duty bound imho to do what you can to minimise the possibility of injuring it.
In our case, we took her choke chain off in the woods or other open areas so she might not be strangled if it (the choke chain) got caught on a fence, tree branch - whatever. The paw injury was probably as a result of some mindless moron breaking a glass bottle, or something similar. It didn't matter at the time.
Some dogs are working animals. That's what they are bred for. There is no escaping that fact.
Docking a working dog's tail so that it is not injured in circumstances where the risk is high that it might is an act of sensibility, not cruelty.
You are not now going to persuade me to an alternate view. Sincere apologies.

11 Apr 2012

sorry GNV but your comments are without a shred of evidence that says a dog has to have his tail docked. minimising what risks exactly? i have had three dogs and they all had very long tails. they never once got that tail into any sort of problem that made me think i should get it cut off.
now if you are talking about dogs that hunt down holes etc, then that is a pretty lame excuse. dont want to get the dogs tail hurt, but dont mind it ripping saying a rabbit or whatever to pieces down a hole. what double standards nonsense.
a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit GNV. is it not?
or are these dogs the same dogs that are on a hunt, waiting to rip a fox to pieces? and peeple are worrying about a dogs tail getting hurt? pfffft.

11 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
a dog is a dog is a dog Staggs.
I don't have one but did many many years ago. She was a labrador.
she injured her paw once on a family walk through the woods. We weren't hunting, or beating or anything like that but nonetheless, she injured her paw. Dogs go roaming about and get into difficulties.
Before you ask, she didn't have her paw amputated but I can see where Blue is coming from on this. You expose your dog to risks by walking it down the street near your home. You are duty bound imho to do what you can to minimise the possibility of injuring it.
In our case, we took her choke chain off in the woods or other open areas so she might not be strangled if it (the choke chain) got caught on a fence, tree branch - whatever. The paw injury was probably as a result of some mindless moron breaking a glass bottle, or something similar. It didn't matter at the time.
Some dogs are working animals. That's what they are bred for. There is no escaping that fact.
Docking a working dog's tail so that it is not injured in circumstances where the risk is high that it might is an act of sensibility, not cruelty.
You are not now going to persuade me to an alternate view. Sincere apologies.

And I would ask where the figures are that show that the risk of injury is high ... I don't object to people working their dogs ...I object to them using that as an excuse to make a financial choice to dock the dogs tail and prevent the POSSIBILITY of higher vets bills to treat any POSSIBLE future injury ... if you are going to dock your animals tail admit to yourself at least why you're really doing it

11 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
a dog is a dog is a dog Staggs.
I don't have one but did many many years ago. She was a labrador.
she injured her paw once on a family walk through the woods. We weren't hunting, or beating or anything like that but nonetheless, she injured her paw. Dogs go roaming about and get into difficulties.
Before you ask, she didn't have her paw amputated but I can see where Blue is coming from on this. You expose your dog to risks by walking it down the street near your home. You are duty bound imho to do what you can to minimise the possibility of injuring it.
In our case, we took her choke chain off in the woods or other open areas so she might not be strangled if it (the choke chain) got caught on a fence, tree branch - whatever. The paw injury was probably as a result of some mindless moron breaking a glass bottle, or something similar. It didn't matter at the time.
Some dogs are working animals. That's what they are bred for. There is no escaping that fact.
Docking a working dog's tail so that it is not injured in circumstances where the risk is high that it might is an act of sensibility, not cruelty.
You are not now going to persuade me to an alternate view. Sincere apologies.

And I would ask where the figures are that show that the risk of injury is high ... I don't object to people working their dogs ...I object to them using that as an excuse to make a financial choice to dock the dogs tail and prevent the POSSIBILITY of higher vets bills to treat any POSSIBLE future injury ... if you are going to dock your animals tail admit to yourself at least why you're really doing it
For me it is all about the dogs well-being, that is my personal reason.
My expensive insurance will cover the vets bill, so your theory, which says more about the way you think than me, has holes in it

11 Apr 2012

I got a proof for ya. Is the insurance premium for a docked dog less than for an intact one? It isnt, therefore the risk reduction is minimal.

11 Apr 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I got a proof for ya. Is the insurance premium for a docked dog less than for an intact one? It isnt, therefore the risk reduction is minimal.

I have no idea, but it would seam, if true, that the insurance company also thinks docking help prevent suffering to the dogs. but there is no question on the form I filled out which asks if the dog has had its tail docked wink

Can you provide any thing to back this up, or is anecdotal?

11 Apr 2012

Please rest assured that IF docking reduced the risk significantly there would be a reduction in premium and they would ask the question.

11 Apr 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I got a proof for ya. Is the insurance premium for a docked dog less than for an intact one? It isnt, therefore the risk reduction is minimal.

Quote by Bluefish2009
Can you provide any thing to back this up, or is anecdotal?

i would say that unless ben is up on the pet insurance, or has proof, then it is of course anecdotal.

Quote by Ben_Minx
I got a proof for ya

i for one would be interested to see this proof please. if you ignore my comment then bluefish can you ask the question please. no point saying you have proof if you dont supply it. :doh:

11 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
The fact that some working breeds have always been docked for centuries, for good reason, now seems to be being borne out.
All for preventing animal cruelty, don't get us wrong, just that docking is markedly less traumatic if done at birth rather than years later following injury/trauma and the obvious post-op care required whilst they re-learn walking/running without a tail (which upsets their balance in many cases).

worth revisiting this earlier post Staggs. It's the view to which I subscribe without having had an earlier one tbh.
This like all the other pro docking arguments is predicated on the notion that a tail injury is a near certainty in working dogs and that is quite patently a nonsense
Lets look at Blues' earlier post (or parts thereof)
Dogs with docked tails significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries says Veterinary Record
Dogs with docked tails are significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries, finds research published in this week’s Veterinary Record.
Well no shit... did they also discover that castrated dogs were less likely to suffer testicular torsion ??
Among the 138,212 dogs seen by vets at the 52 practices during the study period, 281 were treated for a tail injury.
Well there's a nice positive figure it's obvious to me now that non docked dogs are an absolute shoe-in for a tail injury. I would refer you to the fact that 100% of animals with docked tails have suffered a tail injury at the request of their owner
The owners of 224 of these injured dogs, as well as a random sample of 799 owners whose dogs had not been treated for tail injury were sent a questionnaire on dog tail injuries and docking.
Only 97 of the owners whose dogs needed treatment and 227 of those whose dogs had not been injured replied.
So now we have a huge sample of 97 dog owners ... these figures are it would seem positively definitive
But their responses indicated that around one in three tail injuries (36%; 35 cases) had occurred at home as a result of the dog knocking its tail against a wall, kennel wall or other household object.
A further 17.5% (17 cases) were sustained outdoors, while 14.4% (14 cases) were caused by the tail being caught in a door. In 15 (15.5%) other causes were cited; and in 16 (16.5%), the cause was unknown. Almost half of the injuries (44%) were recurrent.
Over half the cases were treated with drugs and dressings, but in almost one in three cases, amputation was required. Eleven dogs did not need any treatment.
So from an original sample of 138,212 dogs we come to a grand total of dogs who needed a tail amputation... with figures like that Andrew Landsley would be arguing that all women should have double mastectomies at the age of 18 to prevent breast cancer
Blue you may well believe you are acting in the best interests of your dog and that your motives have no financial basis....
The original owner of the three legged springer I mentioned earlier (his name is Tyler)loved his dog and worked him ,when the dog broke his leg he had the vet set it in the hope it would heal and he would be able to work this was shown not to be the case he contacted N.E.S.S.R. and issued an ultimatum 'take this dog or I will shoot it,he's no use to me if he can't work',they/we took Tyler and one of our members adopted him and spent a large amount of his own money on vets fees (Tyler is now uninsurable)to try and save the leg, when this proved to be impossible he spent more to have the leg amputated Tyler is now a happy and (albeit three legged) healthy dog ... now whilst this may or may not have any bearing on the debate in hand it does go a long way to explaining the mindset of many who own and use working dogs (I am not suggesting it is one you share Blue)A working dog is to many who own and use them no more than a tool and if it breaks it is discarded,I will never believe that this is the case ( and I believe it or not am in no way sentimental about animals)
I would suggest to you Blue that the reason you have your animals tail docked is no more than it is the norm in the culture you are a part of ... much the same as your previously stated preference for certain headgear... if you actually have some concrete evidence for the benefits of tail docking I would love to see it but thus far your have presented nothing more than you belief that it is better

11 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
I got a proof for ya. Is the insurance premium for a docked dog less than for an intact one? It isnt, therefore the risk reduction is minimal.

I have no idea, but it would seam, if true, that the insurance company also thinks docking help prevent suffering to the dogs. but there is no question on the form I filled out which asks if the dog has had its tail docked wink

Can you provide any thing to back this up, or is anecdotal?No the insurance company thinks that it will reduce the risk of it having to pay out on tail injuries...it is right,it would also be correct in thinking that leg amputation would reduce the risk of paying out on leg and paw injuries...this does not mean that amputation of either tails or legs is best for the dog

11 Apr 2012

Of course because castration and spaying does reduce risk some insurance companies charge lower premiums for such dogs.

12 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I got a proof for ya. Is the insurance premium for a docked dog less than for an intact one? It isnt, therefore the risk reduction is minimal.

I have no idea, but it would seam, if true, that the insurance company also thinks docking help prevent suffering to the dogs. but there is no question on the form I filled out which asks if the dog has had its tail docked wink

Can you provide any thing to back this up, or is anecdotal?No the insurance company thinks that it will reduce the risk of it having to pay out on tail injuries...it is right,it would also be correct in thinking that leg amputation would reduce the risk of paying out on leg and paw injuries...this does not mean that amputation of either tails or legs is best for the dog
Until you can provide some evidence on this insurance idea, that it is real and not just dreamed up :sleeping: I shall ignore it, I have not heard of this and feel it is purely supposition on you part.
If it were true, which I have never seen any evedence of, the insurance company would do better not to encorrage people not to have the dogs tail docked and charge every one the high primium, because this tail injury thing is so rare..... so you tell me..... If an insurance company feel it has reduced there risk for them then in turn it must have reduced the dogs risk.....
As for your sob story above Staggs, I would like to think you do not judge us all by the same standard. Any one who trains a dog to the standard I do has spent many hours together and has built a bond that is unbreakable no matter what health problems the dog may inconter

12 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
sorry GNV but your comments are without a shred of evidence that says a dog has to have his tail docked. minimising what risks exactly? i have had three dogs and they all had very long tails. they never once got that tail into any sort of problem that made me think i should get it cut off.
now if you are talking about dogs that hunt down holes etc, then that is a pretty lame excuse. dont want to get the dogs tail hurt, but dont mind it ripping saying a rabbit or whatever to pieces down a hole. what double standards nonsense.
a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit GNV. is it not?
or are these dogs the same dogs that are on a hunt, waiting to rip a fox to pieces? and peeple are worrying about a dogs tail getting hurt? pfffft.

Not once in this thread have I professed any superior knowledge in this subject, nor will I.
I did not have a view before the commencement of this thread but based on what I have read, my leaning now is sympathetic towards the sensibility of the practice.
That, my dear friends, is the purpose of discourse and in this thread, it has educated me and served me well.
I'm having difficulty with the rabbit reference though.
Where is the supportive content that suggests dogs with docked tails are more likely to rip a rabbit to bits dunno

12 Apr 2012

A dog's view.

12 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
Not once in this thread have I professed any superior knowledge in this subject, nor will I.

sorry gnv it did come across as though you knew a thing or three on this subject worship

Quote by GnV
I did not have a view before the commencement of this thread but based on what I have read, my leaning now is sympathetic towards the sensibility of the practice.

what because peeple use them for hunting and are fine with there dog ripping another animal to pieces, but are sympathetic towards it hurting its tail in the process of that action loon

Quote by GnV
That, my dear friends, is the purpose of discourse and in this thread, it has educated me and served me well.

well the only thing it has served me GNV is the fact of cruelty for no real reeson.

Quote by GnV
I'm having difficulty with the rabbit reference though.

as i did with your " a dog is a dog is a dog " comment. probably from the same stable.

Quote by GnV
Where is the supportive content that suggests dogs with docked tails are more likely to rip a rabbit to bits

are dogs that go down holes not little terrier type dogs with no tails :dunno: or dogs that go on the " hunt ". do they not have tails as well? dont want them hurting there tails in the pursuit of killing another animal now, do they?
sorry but as much as i like bluefish and his threads, he is looking at things from a country boys way of life. to a city boy like myself any form of hunting is barbaric, and i still beleeve that the docking of a dogs tail is for the practise of hunting and that entails. nothing i have read in this thread will convince me otherwise. the only sympathy i am leaning towards is the poor little dog whilst having its tail cut off.

12 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
sorry but as much as i like bluefish and his threads, he is looking at things from a country boys way of life. to a city boy like myself any form of hunting is barbaric, and i still beleeve that the docking of a dogs tail is for the practise of hunting and that entails. nothing i have read in this thread will convince me otherwise.

I suppose you also subscribe to the view that foxes are nice cuddly creatures and are to be encouraged in urban society...
boom boom

Quote by starlightcouple
the only sympathy i am leaning towards is the poor little dog whilst having its tail cut off.

You're all heart...

12 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
I suppose you also subscribe to the view that foxes are nice cuddly creatures and are to be encouraged in urban society...

well it is clear you do not.

Quote by GnV
You're all heart...

i am suprised that you know anything about that sentiment GNV to be honest.
for someone who states he knows very little about this subject, you sure got a lot to say about it.
boom boom

12 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
for someone who states he knows very little about this subject, you sure got a lot to say about it.
boom boom

I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave earlier....

Quote by GnV
Not once in this thread have I professed any superior knowledge in this subject, nor will I.
I did not have a view before the commencement of this thread but based on what I have read, my leaning now is sympathetic towards the sensibility of the practice.

It's called being educated star. I read, I learn, I form an opinion, I express myself.
It's quite simple really. It's an annoying little habit of mine which I just can't seem to shrug off wink