Is Tail Docking Dog Torture?

Krissim- I have also heard the reasons you have mentioned

One thing I should, which would allow me to say that docking and clipping are an owner responsibility and may contribute to the enjoyment of the pet. My old cat Misty was front-paw declawed, to save DW's furniture. Otherwise, I would have left her alone. Jade, however, still has her claws and I managed to keep her that way, even at the risk of the furniture because of Shadow. Shadow normally plays well with her and will break off every time I have commanded him. And sometimes, he can play a little too hard, not trying to hurt her, just playing a bit crazy (which is why I am so keen on the off command.) But she may need those front weapons at least once, theoretically, to ward him off. It hasn't happened yet but you never know. And one ouchie swipe across the snout might be all that is necessary. So, I would suggest that cats that live with dogs should have all of their claws. But, at the same time, there may not be anything wrong with de-clawing a cat if she/he is an indoor cat only.

Ron, I think declawing is a whole different ball game.  I think it's far more painful and invasive than ears, tails, or declaws (though ears come the closest but the dogs I've seen with cropped ears recovered very quickly and had no complications).  Personally I think declawing any cat that weighs over 2 lbs is inhumane.  The recovery is very painful.  I've seen declawing a cat at full weight change the behavior of the cat (it hurt to use the litter box so the cat never used it again).  I have two cats that are front-declawed but were before I got them.  The one cat I adopted with all claws intact has stayed that way.  I trim her nails once every few weeks, and she has a cardboard scratching box in the basement.  My furniture and carpets are fine, most cats prefer corrogated cardboard or sisal for scratching anyway.  Scratching is a training issue.  Declawing for a natural behavior that humans deem unacceptable is like cutting off a dog's willy because he marks when he pees.  Uh uh.

Liesje

Ron, I think declawing is a whole different ball game.  I think it's far more painful and invasive than ears, tails, or declaws (though ears come the closest but the dogs I've seen with cropped ears recovered very quickly and had no complications).  Personally I think declawing any cat that weighs over 2 lbs is inhumane.

Your opinion. The whole reason for my admission was to show that I can understand why an owner might do such things. And you might be splitting hairs, literally, to determine what is more painful than the other. But, on another level, mutilation is mutilation, whether it is de-clawing, clipping, tail docking, or branding a dog with an id. I know you said Nikon yelped when being restrained but evidently didn't make any noise when he got branded. And so you assumed that didn't hurt him that much or for that long. But we might split hairs a little finer and say that branding isn't nearly as long to recover from as is clipping or docking. In which case, the branding might not be a good comparison, either.

And personally, I don't think I was being inhumane when I had Misty de-clawed, but thanks for the inference that I was, anyway. Nor is it necessarily inhumane to dock and clip or brand, though it might seem unnecessary, IMO, at times. And that's all it is, my opinion. There can be valid reasons for those procedures. We also do other "unnatural" things, like creating specific breeds, vaccinations, spay and neuter, grooming, including nail clipping. Evidently, feeding anything other than, say, freshly dead rabbit is also unnatural. It might be unnatural to keep intact dogs separated when they are in season but we do it, anyway. What part of a dog's natural environment includes getting struck with a stick? Not saying that is bad but I haven't seen where it is natural, either. But I guess everyone draws a line somewhere.

I remember hearing somewhere that cats use their front claws for climbing and scratching but they use there back claws for fighting/protection. Anyone? 

I consider something inhumane when 1) it's unnecessary and 2) recovery takes longer than 24hrs and is painful.  So in that category for me would be ear cropping and declaws.  Spays/neuters are on the line but often "necessary" to prevent pyometra or breeding.  Dewclaws, tails, and tats are instant, painful for maybe a few minutes but don't require any sort of recovery period.  That's how I personally draw the line.

Ron, don't take it personally, I'm not hating you b/c you declawed your cat.  I do think it was unnecessary, but like I said I have two declawed cats as well.  It doesn't stop me from liking cats or adopting them, I just won't have it done on a cat that weighs more than 2lb and frankly, it's more and more difficult to find a vet that will do it at all.  I'm just saying that if we are each discussing where we place these procedures on the spectrum, that's how I rank them.

I've either lived with, helped raise, or shared my life with likely 75 Schnauzers or more. Related and non-related alike. None were cropped, and I've never seen chronic ear infecitons in any of them...ever. I've only had one ear infection in any of my three once, and that was from a dog we had that was a chronic ear-licker - this dog was a "groomer" of other dogs, and caused an ear infection that way. I don't buy the air-circulation issue.

If that was really the reason, I'm sorry, but there'd be an entirely different set of dogs that would be cropped. I can think of a good 15 breeds that have air circulation and ear-hair issues that are never cropped.

I consider any sort of cosmetic surgery on an animal to be inhumane.

We breed Jack Russell Terriers. And yes, we do dock. And, contrary to popular belief, it isn't always for cosmetic reasons. It's for safety. We both show and hunt our Jack Russell Terriers. Underground, a long tail can get hung on something and break... causing excrutiating pain. A long tail also makes it harder for the terrier to manuever about underground, something they need to be able to do, when face to face with a wild animal.

But yeah, I'd rather the dog go through a little pain while at its pup stage, than end up breaking its tail underground while facing a wild animal. Not to mention, it'll hurt a heck of a lot more since the bone has matured and is a lot stronger than when they're pups. Just like humans.

Ear cropping, I don't like. It is mainly for cosmetics, though I've heard other reasons as well.

Being that I have performance dogs, I came across this article written by Zink. Please take read and give me your thoughts

http://www.jandemellobordercollie.com/DewClaws.htm

That was quite interesting. I do feel bad for the dog though.

 We've never had a terrier get carpal arthritis. And we've never had one tear their dewclaw, simply because we have always had them removed. The pain at so young a day is very little. I haven't always been around when the dewclaws and tails were docked off our pups, rather I might have been somewhere else and busy.. but the majority of pups mostly just whine, rather than yelp.

As I mentioned before, an undocked tail can be a hazard while hunting with Jrts. The same is with the dewclaw, it can be hung and ripped on a root, as much digging as these little terriers do.

Not here to debate, but I'm against cropping and docking unless it's considered necessary for any current medical issues.

In regards to tail docking, removing an extension of a dog's spine seems like a very dangerous procedure to me. I understand that it's been performed for many years(and I've witnessed it countless of times working under a Veterinarian), but personally, it doesn't change my viewpoint that it can be very detrimental to a dog's well-being, balance, and/or canine-to-canine communication.

So I suppose I should wait until my terrier is underground hunting, breaks its tail, and won't be able to defend itself near as well against its quarry? Rather than prevent any of that before it ever happens?

Again, as stated earlier, I'm not here to debate.

However, in regards to the underground hunting JRTerrier, I personally feel that there's not enough case studies done to compare the exact number of tail injuries on docked dogs versus dogs with intact tails. Yes, I have seen graphic images of a few working dogs with injured tails, but personally, I feel those injuries are fairly rare and not common. Then again, I'm generally opposed of all hunting so I'm not knowledgeable about what a hunting dog's working environment is, etc. So, I'm probably not entitled to speak about whether I feel a hunting dog's tail should be docked or not.

These discussions on tail docking and ear cropping always get me to thinking of ownership of animals in a broader sense than just dogs.  Some will argue that the dog's safety and health is the only reason they would ever consider for doing either procedure.  The fear from dog owners is that government will start to dictate what we as dog owners can and can not do with our personal property.  This is where some people start to feel queasy. As animal lovers, the term personal property doesn't even begin to explain the deep, loving connection we have with our dogs.  We want to believe that we would never, ever cause our beloved dogs any sort of pain for simply cosmetic reasons. 

When it comes to domestic livestock we often have completely different feelings about the government stepping in to provide that the animals are treated humanely by all the people involved in the raising and slaughter of said animals.  We want the owners of livestock to follow the most humane guidelines and to do everything possible to prevent any undue suffering to the animal.  We want zoos to provide the utmost in care and environment for the animals in their possession. The government does indeed regulate this level of care and most people don't have a problem with government regulation in these cases.  These animals are legally the personal property of the owner.  Government has stepped in over the years because animals have been treated in callous and inhumane ways and the public has demanded intervention.

The bottom line for me is that pets are indeed personal property.  Dogs were bred by humans to fulfill needs that people felt were important.  Over the centuries dogs have come to fill many roles to many people from hunting companion to pampered lap dog.  No breed in my opinion is more important than any other.  They are all creations of man and as such, are our responsibility to provide humane treatment throughout their lives.  Some hunting dogs have always had long tails and still do to this day.  Why, because that is how that breed of dog is supposed to look and we don't want anyone to tell us we are not allowed to create the dog to look the way it was originally designed. 

Arguing for cropped ears and docked tails for medical and safety reasons is trying to dance around the plain fact that dogs are our personal property and we want to retain the right to do as we want with our property.  As long as there are people who exploit dogs for strictly monetary reasons, we face government intervention.  I wish the ardent opponents of all government regulation in regards to dogs would expend some of that effort to stopping the irresponsible dog breeders and owners who are really the ones who are responsible for the government stepping in to the entire issue. 

Children also belong to their parents and parents are given much leeway in how their children can be raised and educated.  But parents who allow their children to come to harm have resulted in laws that protect them because they can not protect themselves.  Are laws requiring children to be in car seats up to a certain age wrong?  Why did these laws have to be created?  Irresponsible people will always be with us and the rest of us will always pay the price in certain personal freedoms because of these people.