Docking, ear cropping?

ORIGINAL: DPU
With no intention to insult the Australian people or the aboriginals there, and from the US taxpayer view,  I wonder what the taxpayer was socked with or if Australia is towing the line with other developed countries.

I think instead of taking away personal choices, resources and voicing objections should be directed at the creators of the dog image.  When watching dogs shows like Westminster or Eucanuba the dogs are presented with cropped ears.  On food packages the images of the dogs are with cropped ears.  Look at Pedigree kibble for the large dog.  Front and center is the Great Dane with cropped ears.  Look at the avatars provided by IDOG…all cropped.  The public perception is a cropped or docked image and they do not recognize the breed when the ears are natural.

The laws in Australia were brought in after the RSPCA and many Australian vets pushed them through. Ear cropping was banned so long ago that I've never seen a dog in Australia with cropped ears and nor has my mother, so I'm not sure what happened with that one. Docking was banned just a few years ago after 50 years of campaigning from the RSPCA and vets. A lot of vets had already taken a stand and refused to dock tails of puppies. It's been well received, here, but there were a lot of media releases, ads on tv and the likes to get the message across when it happened. For the most part, Australians accepted the new laws with barely a murmur. I believe the RSPCA were quite diligent in tracking down the odd breeder that was docking despite the new laws and I haven't seen a docked puppy since the law was brought in.

You're quite correct about the creation of the image of the dog in the first place. Because I'd never seen cropped dogs before I went to the States, I found them to be quite ugly, and when I talk to other Australians about it, they agree that they think cropped ears are ugly. They look pretty freakish to me. [:'(]

Tails are another thing, but that's still a very new law. []

You're quite correct about the creation of the image of the dog in the first place. Because I'd never seen cropped dogs before I went to the States, I found them to be quite ugly, and when I talk to other Australians about it, they agree that they think cropped ears are ugly. They look pretty freakish to me.

I think the adjectives of ugly and freakish are way too strong especially when the image is staring you right in the face.  Look to the left.  If you did not like Poodle cuts would you use the same terms?  The grooming takes away from the natural look of the dog and inhibits it natural instinct from its descendants as a water dog?

If your current docking law was a stand alone legislation and there were no 'tricks' played to get it passed, kudos for the peoples of your country.  I understand why you can't answer my question on self determination versus Special Interest legislation.  Your grandparents gave away the choice long ago and now you are stuck. 

So if the government says it's evil, it must be right?  Psha.  Many of the same governments who ban cropping/docking are also breed ban happy.  Sorry, but that negates any trust and credibility there. 
 
I do like the look of the longer crops--dobes, boxers, Great Danes, but am not a big fan of the really short crops you see on bully breeds-more because I just don't like the look than anything else.
 
If I got a dobe or boxer right now, I'd not have the ears done because I am almost 100% certain that my current dogs would make it their mission to remove the tape etc.  If I got one later on for show, than I probobly would have it done.
 
I find it interesting that people freak out when someone says that a person should not feed "x" brand of food (who are YOU to judge what they feed their dog if the dog is loved!?!) and yet are so willing to judge the cropping and docking of dogs.  Who are YOU to judge such a procedure as long as it is done by a vet and the dog is in a loving home?
 
 

ORIGINAL: DPU


I think the adjectives of ugly and freakish are way too strong especially when the image is staring you right in the face.  Look to the left.  If you did not like Poodle cuts would you use the same terms?  The grooming takes away from the natural look of the dog and inhibits it natural instinct from its descendants as a water dog?

If your current docking law was a stand alone legislation and there were no 'tricks' played to get it passed, kudos for the peoples of your country.  I understand why you can't answer my question on self determination versus Special Interest legislation.  Your grandparents gave away the choice long ago and now you are stuck. 

Sorry, but it really does look like that to me, because I don't see it really at all. It wasn't meant to be taken personally, just responding to the comment you made earlier. If I didn't like poodle cuts, I would indeed use the same terms. It's not personal.

No 'tricks', just passed for the dogs. They did try to bring in legislation to ban docking the tails of sheep here, but it didn't even get close to going through because of flystrike. It's way worse for a sheep to get flystrike than have its tail cut off as a lamb, and chances are it will get flystrike if they leave the tail on.

No one I know thinks fondly back on the days of yore when cropping dog's ears was legal. We don't feel "stuck with it".

Yes we have some BSL aimed at APBTs and another 3 breeds. The RSPCA are trying to overturn those as well. We're not perfect and I never said we were, but I'm glad we have anti cropping and docking laws and that's my opinion. I'm constantly saying the reason why I push this is because I believe it to be cruel. Feeding certain foods over others is not what I consider cruel, but cosmetic surgery for dogs is. I don't think I have the right to judge anyone, and I'm not, but I do have the right to express my opinion, and that opinion happens to be that I think these procedures are unnecessarily cruel.

If you want to do it, then I won't judge you, but I will still believe it's cruel regardless of who does it for you.

No 'tricks', just passed for the dogs. They did try to bring in legislation to ban docking the tails of sheep here, but it didn't even get close to going through because of flystrike. It's way worse for a sheep to get flystrike than have its tail cut off as a lamb, and chances are it will get flystrike if they leave the tail on.

No one I know thinks fondly back on the days of yore when cropping dog's ears was legal. We don't feel "stuck with it".

One would think that keeping a tail on a sheep would help the flystrike situation by the tail swatting a number of them.  It sounds like there is a real purpose to docking the tail of sheep.  I don't know sheep or flystrike.

I just do not understand the need of government intervention by passing a law to ban when there was no law passed allowing the procedure in the first place.  If the majority of the peoples of Australia disapproved of the procedure then by their purchasing power it would have stopped without legislation.  Since the majority of the peoples today feel strongly one way about docking why aren't the marketing forces and public opinion working in Australia.  Why do you need the Special Interest Groups to do your citizenry duty.  It sounds like Australian peoples are towing the line.

How can anyone not be offended when their pet is called ugly and freakish looking.  The more civilized way would be to characterize the procedure, opine on the owners choice, but leave the dog alone.  The dog had no say-so in the matter.  I would think a more natural humanly response to a perceived elective deformity would be sympathy and not repulsion to the animal.

Hmmm, I can see my post has raised some controversy. That's okay though, everybody has their own opinion...Mine is that God created everything how everything was supposed to look, and despite the arguments that it is 'painless' or 'just fine' for dogs...well, as I said before, I would feel guilty doing that to a dog. And the person who raised the point about how if some countries have labelled it cruelty then you should really have a closer look at it...excellent point.
I guess my question has been answered. It is more than normal for show Dobes to have cropped ears...and for a little while I considered cropping/docking. But the more I consider it the more strongly against it I feel. My friend has a boxer who went through the ear cropping ordeal and it was rather nasty to me...it took a while and there was a lot of itchiness and bleeding. That's probably not normal, but the fact that that COULD happen to one of my babies just because I had a superficial problem with his/her natural appearance....no way. Anyways, thank you for the opinions/posts you guys.

That's okay though, everybody has their own opinion...Mine is that God created everything how everything was supposed to look...And the person who raised the point about how if some countries have labelled it cruelty then you should really have a closer look at it...excellent point.

Are you referrng to domestic dogs?  The person who raised the point about how if some countries have labelled it cruelty...The person's pet is a dog without a tail...How did it get that way, by God?

ORIGINAL: Xeph

So barbaric it needs to be outlawed?  Well I wholeheartedly disagree.  I certainly don't see any undocked/uncropped Dobes or Rotts on police forces.

So if docking and  cropping is such a great  advantage in  your ring sports why are you GSD's not cropped.
As for the hunting theory I have yet to see a golden, lab, gordon, setter, etc that are  cropped or docked, these dogs not only retrieve pray they are used to flush it out so the burrs in the coat theory does not hold water with me  I am afraid.
 
British police dogs
[linkrev=/images%3Fq%3Dbritish%2Bpolice%2Bdogs%26start%3D40%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN]http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.daelnet.co.uk/images/news/police_dog_spaniel.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daelnet.co.uk/countrynews/country_news_07042006_4.cfm&h=229&w=290&sz=18&hl=en&start=55&tbnid=U9MFQgmBttzqzM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=115&rev=/images%3Fq%3Dbritish%2Bpolice%2Bdogs%26start%3D40%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN[/link]>http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.daelnet.co.uk/images/news/police_dog_spaniel.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daelnet.co.uk/countrynews/country_news_07042006_4.cfm&h=229&w=290&sz=18&hl=en&start=55&tbnid=U9MFQgmBttzqzM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=115&rev=/images%3Fq%3Dbritish%2Bpolice%2Bdogs%26start%3D40%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN]http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.daelnet.co.uk/images/news/police_dog_spaniel.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daelnet.co.uk/countrynews/country_news_07042006_4.cfm&h=229&w=290&sz=18&hl=en&start=55&tbnid=U9MFQgmBttzqzM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=115&rev=/images%3Fq%3Dbritish%2Bpolice%2Bdogs%26start%3D40%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN[/link]
 
[linkhttp://www.herts.police.uk/specialists/images/dog_search2.jpg]http://www.herts.police.uk/specialists/images/dog_search2.jpg[/link]
 
[linkhttp://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/wasphound/images/wimbledon2.jpg]http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/wasphound/images/wimbledon2.jpg[/link]
 
[linkhttp://web.telia.com/~u42802113/k9sweden/svansbild.jpg]http://web.telia.com/~u42802113/k9sweden/svansbild.jpg[/link] 
In Sweden you are not allowed to crop tail´s. In july 1989 we got a new law against croping tail´s. Dogs such as Rottweiler, Dobermann and Schnauzers has nowadays tail.
 

ORIGINAL: flip195

ORIGINAL: Xeph

So barbaric it needs to be outlawed?  Well I wholeheartedly disagree.  I certainly don't see any undocked/uncropped Dobes or Rotts on police forces.

So if docking and  cropping is such a great  advantage in  your ring sports why are you GSD's not cropped.

 
Maybe because their ears are already erect and out of the way?
 
As far as hunting dogs, I can't speak for other breeds, but labs have been bred with thick, course coats and are rather pain insensitive.....
 
In addition, they are built in such a way that the tail acts as a rutter when swimming....

Personally, if I got a dobe as a pet, I'd want tail docked and ears natural..just my [sm=2cents.gif]

ORIGINAL: DPU

I just do not understand the need of government intervention by passing a law to ban when there was no law passed allowing the procedure in the first place.  If the majority of the peoples of Australia disapproved of the procedure then by their purchasing power it would have stopped without legislation.  Since the majority of the peoples today feel strongly one way about docking why aren't the marketing forces and public opinion working in Australia.  Why do you need the Special Interest Groups to do your citizenry duty.  It sounds like Australian peoples are towing the line.

How can anyone not be offended when their pet is called ugly and freakish looking.  The more civilized way would be to characterize the procedure, opine on the owners choice, but leave the dog alone.  The dog had no say-so in the matter.  I would think a more natural humanly response to a perceived elective deformity would be sympathy and not repulsion to the animal.

To respond to your comment about government intervention, I'd like to point out that abusing animals is illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there were ever any laws passed to allow animal abuse. It was just done. The laws were brought in to protect the interests of animals and at the same time it helped to change people's ideas of what is acceptable to do to animals and what is not. Same deal with our cropping and docking laws. Sometimes laws serve to establish a moral or ethical standard. It's like laws regarding human cloning and that kind of thing. A lot of people look to government bodies for guidance, and those government bodies often look to special interest groups for guidance. And a lot of people look to special interest groups for guidance.

I was not calling your dog specifically ugly or freakish. I was calling the result of the practice in general ugly and freakish. It's just a matter of opinion. I'm sorry you took it so personally, because it wasn't directed at you or your dog. It's no different than if I said I didn't like the look of most toys, which I don't (sorry toy owners!).

I notice you did finally notice that my dog is docked. I got her before the docking laws came in, obviously, and there were no undocked Pembroke corgis available. I was also only 13 at the time, so not so informed on animal rights and cruelty and whatnot. I'm glad that if I decided to get another corgi, I'd be able to get one with a tail. I think Penny's small tail is cute, but I have no desire to deprive an animal of their tail just because I might think it's cute.

ORIGINAL: sillysally

ORIGINAL: flip195

ORIGINAL: Xeph

So barbaric it needs to be outlawed?  Well I wholeheartedly disagree.  I certainly don't see any undocked/uncropped Dobes or Rotts on police forces.

So if docking and  cropping is such a great  advantage in  your ring sports why are you GSD's not cropped.

Maybe because their ears are already erect and out of the way?

As far as hunting dogs, I can't speak for other breeds, but labs have been bred with thick, course coats and are rather pain insensitive.....

In addition, they are built in such a way that the tail acts as a rutter when swimming....

Actually  I meant to say docked  not cropped..

To the OP:

I thnk if your are thinking of getting a potential show pup, you should go with a breed who is not docked or cropped. A Dobe breeder will dock very early, and may possibly give you the chance to choose to crop. But I can guarantee you will not find a show puppy undocked, and if that bothers you, youre better off finding another breed

i think it's going to be really hard to find a dog that's not docked in the US. You would have to call the breeder and have a pup picked out for you as soon as it was born, because most likely it's going to be the only one not docked. Pups are usually docked at about 3 days old. I, personally have docked a dog's tail myself. I don't understand why it would be outlawed in some places. Cropping on the other hand, is your choice and usually isn't done until much later ( i think around 9 weeks is average) I would want my dog's ears cropped...but i can understand where some people don't...good luck to ya!!

I need to use the icons to express sarcasms because my statement about laws negating previous one was meant to be funny.  My eyes are not good and I can't make out some of the icon figures.  You seem to take a passive role in legislation and that is why I say you are towing the line disregarding whether the law is good or bad. Come to think of it, the constitution in some way or form contains the law to start with, protecting not abusing.  Subsequent laws have to be compatible and identify the specific circumstances and the resulting punishment.  In the US people look to government bodies to serve the public and they are elected because of their views on particular issues are similar.  Also when one relies on government entities for guidance and Special Interest to do their citizenry duty you create a power that can lead to abuse and corruption.  I was trying to point out that there are other ways to protect the interest of animals and at the same time change people's ideas without taking away choice.  I assume your vets are government licensed, qualified to perform procedures.  You state that the majority of vets chose not to perform the procedures.  It's the same in the US.  This is an excellent start or finish to change the public perception of the image and distinguish the practice without laws being passed.  But, I see that a choice was taken away from the vets disregarding that the choice was compatible with the law.  The young probably do not see a difference.  When you are old and things are taken away from you by nature you get very protective of freedom of choice and fight like heck when others try to box you in further.  I like my mind to be retrained gently rather than using an aversive correction (Oooo, am I becoming a +R advocate?).

Excellent statement about purchasing a docked Pembroke Corgis, that's all that was available.  When you were finally informed on animal rights, cruelty, and whatnot, what did you do?  Wait for someone else to do something?  (whats the icon for rhetorical question)  Whenever someone presents an opinion or view to me and it registers, my mind processes it in one of 3 ways.  Reinforces my view, alters my views, or is stored for future reference.  Your view reinforces my view and I am hoping you store my view for future reference.

I am glad you are in agreement with my statement that

"The more civilized way would be to characterize the procedure, opine on the owner's choice, but leave the dog alone.  The dog had no say-so in the matter.  I would think a more natural humanly response to a perceived elective deformity would be sympathy and not repulsion to the animal.”

You said  "Because I'd never seen cropped dogs before I went to the States, I found them to be quite ugly, and when I talk to other Australians about it, they agree that they think cropped ears are ugly. They look pretty freakish to me.”

When you next participate in a cropping/docking as you said you would, change your delivery to represent what you really mean.  And now for the aggravation I reference Jackie Gleason's sitcom from the Honeymooners where he says to Alice

"Bang!  Zoom!  You going to the moon Alice”

Nice talking to you.