Is Tail Docking Dog Torture?

JRTerrier

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?

I also do not necessarily want to debate this, but I think that one should also consider the ethics of deliberatly putting a dog in a confrontational, inherently dangerous situation such as what you just described, and not only that, but using that as a justification for a potentially painful surgical procedure.

 I don't know why I'm even bothering, but here's my take, once again:

 It has been illegal in this country for a few years, now. Breeders loathe it and there is a lot of hatred towards the people that pushed it through, but everyone else has accepted it pretty calmly. I have seen a lot of young dogs with tails that wouldn't normally have them and they are beautiful and have so far had no problems. I have heard Corgi breeders insisting that there are no tail carriage problems in corgis as a result of leaving the tail on. There is, inevitably, some dogs that have copped injured tails that wouldn't have if they were docked, and tail injuries seem to take a long time to heal. Nonetheless, I see loads of Boxers, Dobes and pointers with long, whippy tails that are perfectly fine. 

I hate to say it, but I can't trust the word of a breeder in this because I think breeders are biased. Not all, but many. 

Bring up cropping in this country and even breeders of breeds usually cropped in the States will tell you vehemently that it's a barbaric practice and totally different to docking. I often wonder if they will be saying the same thing about docking in 30 years time when the legislation is old.

jenns

JRTerrier

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?

I also do not necessarily want to debate this, but I think that one should also consider the ethics of deliberatly putting a dog in a confrontational, inherently dangerous situation such as what you just described, and not only that, but using that as a justification for a potentially painful surgical procedure.

 Honestly, I'm not a big fan of ears being done but as time goes on I can see why people do it with tails, especially in dogs that are in the field working.

As far as "potentially painful"--here's my take on that....

Have you ever had to deal with one of your dogs getting a tail injury?

I have--Jack has injured his tail a couple of times.  The last time was bad.  The tail injury was caused by a bloody confrontation.....with the door frame of our bedroom.  All it took was one good, hard, well placed whack and he broke the tip of his tail open.  It took FOREVER to heal.  We couldn't just take all the furniture, doors, doors frames, Sally and counters out of our house, and since he was always hitting his tail against them/playing with Sally and breaking the wound open again we had to crate and rotate them until the tail healed up more.  Then he started licking it constantly so he had to wear a cone 24/7.  This went on for over a month--crating, wearing the cone, not playing with Sally, breaking it open despite our best efforts, until *finally* a callous formed on the wound.

Up until that point, we had begun facing the fact that if it went on much longer we might have to have part of his tail amputated.

I fail to see how a quick "potentially painful" surgery as a pup that they heal from in sort order can possibly be more unpleasant that the nearly two months of tail problems that Jack went through.....

I guess I still see it as the owner's best judgement. I can't very well condemn it carte blanche since I support spay/neuter. Just as some could say that one can maintain an intact pet and others could say that one can protect a pet from tail injury, there is also the other side of the coin that such procedures prevent some problems, too, and make management easier or a non-issue.

And I can appreciate how some breeds, just as a matter of structure, have easily injured tails that might be better being docked. 

jenns

I also do not necessarily want to debate this, but I think that one should also consider the ethics of deliberatly putting a dog in a confrontational, inherently dangerous situation such as what you just described, and not only that, but using that as a justification for a potentially painful surgical procedure.

 What? Their terriers they were bred to hunt. That's their job and they work them in the field or farm. My breeder and a JRTCA one at that, she works her dogs and her website shows their hunts. I see nothing wrong with it. I am so proud that there are breeders that care for the original inherit traits of the breed itself while others just care to constantly changed a breed to something else. I have one of her dogs and I see why she wanted to have him as a stud because he was carrying the exact traits has his father and his mother. Just too bad that her husband couldn't handle another dog like his father.

Like I said in the sports forum, Scout will confront and will not back down to any size dog unless I pull him or stop him. That's a true terrier. My agility instructor who is a judge (agility and conformation) and a breeder really appreciated breeders like her to keep the true traits of the breed living strong to this day. When the original owner told me he was the definition of what a terrier is, she wasn't kidding. She also has his aunt and she has the same mentality. Both dogs are sweet natured as well.

During Xmas, both of my jacks natural hunting instincts came out when we walking a corn field. Chloe tracked a scent into a burrow she started to dig. Scout wanted in. And they dug in and pulled out six bunnies. All necks were snapped. I felt bad for the bunnies but I was proud that my terriers still have thei instincts. Maybe one day I'll take my dogs with to the breeder's and go hunting with them.

Sorry for detracting from the thread.

Any time you take a dog hunting you put it in a potentially dangerous situation.  Retrievers get snakebit, break legs, suffer heatstroke, drown and many other dangerous and deadly things can and do occur.  A dog died at the Master National one year. But dogs get hurt and seriously hurt doing other dog sports like agility, tracking, lure coursing and for that matter just romping around.  I knew two dogs who were the same size and ran full speed into each other and one ended up with a broken shoulder.  Do we keep them in a bubble to protect them?  No more than we keep children off the playground or off their bikes and other sporting activities.  To be alive is to be facing certain risks.

I still have to continue to ask if tail docking is done to a few breeds then why not to all natural long tails?  Not just certain breeds injure their tails so why would only certain ones have their tails docked.  The only logical conclusion is that it is the breeders and owners preference to dock tails. People keep bringing up tail injuries but if it is that common we should be docking all long tails for the dog's benefit.

JRT's in Australia, New Zealand and other countries that have banned tail docking are still used to hunt and they don't seem to be facing any great crisis due to keeping their natural tail.

BTW, personally I love the look of some breeds with docked tails and cropped ears but that doesn't justify it as a benefit to the dogs.

jenns

  I think that one should also consider the ethics of deliberatly putting a dog in a confrontational, inherently dangerous situation such as what you just described, and not only that, but using that as a justification for a potentially painful surgical procedure.

I agree wholeheartedly.My Aussie's bred to herd.She comes from parents and grandparents with working titles on cattle but I would never put her on cattle because of the inherent danger.She does have a docked tail and given the choice I would have chosen to have her kept natural.I do not favor a ban, but there should be strict guidelines as to when, how, and by whom the procedure is done.

Tena

Any kind of dog "job" is potentially dangerous, and so are some of the dog sports.  So is not having a good recall...I second Jackie's motion that you can't keep a dog in a bubble.

I don't own cropped or docked breeds, but I feel that it is up to the people invested in breeds which are cropped and docked to make decisions for their breed.  Frankly I don't want a poodle/beardie/pug/etc etc expert telling me how my lab or maremma should look, or to make decisions for me that override my own opinion, education and experience.  The people who have their dogs cropped/docked are comfortable with what has been done to their dog and I'm not sure that beyond that it's really any of my business.  A lot of people make decisions regarding their dogs that I would not, I'm sure I make a lot of decisions that other dog owners don't agree with, that's how life goes and I don't lose sleep over it.  Call me an idealist, but I prefer to believe that most caring dog owners make the decisions they feel are right - the minute I support taking that power away from them is the minute I give them permission to support taking that power away from me.  

I do believe vets should be allowed to abstain from performing these procedures if they choose to.

Benedict

Call me an idealist, but I prefer to believe that most caring dog owners make the decisions they feel are right - the minute I support taking that power away from them is the minute I give them permission to support taking that power away from me.  

That is eloquent. That was the point I was alluding to in my previous post but you stated it so well. I suppose, in the end, even if it is an owner's total decision to pre-emptively dock or crop, is it that bad if the dog is well cared for and loved? I understand in other countries where the procedures are banned, the "intact" dogs are doing okay and not suffering from injuries that require emergency amputation. Some might could say that about the dogs that are not altered. That they havent produced a litter and they haven't suffered from illness normally related to aging reproductive organs.

As to the thread title. to me torture is some kind of pain that goes on for a while, rather than a short relatively one time pain. Sen. John McCain knows something about torture. So, a short medical procedure done not long after birth, especially with a sedative, is not torture in the same sense as being subjected to daily physical and mental abuse. It can be dismemberment and some might see it as disfigure meant but we disfigure ourselves all the time. Piercing body parts, getting tatts, cutting our hair, taking a bath to was a layer of dirt off.

l.michelle

I don't know about ear cropping or any reasons other than cosmetic for that.

Actually in Italy working Maremmas are allowed to have their ears cropped despite the fact that they are not ordinarily a cropped breed.  As a rule the people who own them are very much the "don't do anything for the dog that is not necessary" type and yet they feel that it is necessary for the dog's safety to crop the ears.  I think there are far more uncropped working ones, so obviously not everyone feels it is needed, but it's unlikely that this practice was started with absolutely no evidence to support it, and it's also unlikely that it would have made it into the Italian breed standard if it were not at least somewhat common.  A good working LGD is revered, and not ever gratuitously harmed for the sake of cosmetics which don't matter a whit in dogs living on the top of a mountain and rarely seen by people.

And thanks, Ron.

Benedict

Actually in Italy working Maremmas are allowed to have their ears cropped despite the fact that they are not ordinarily a cropped breed.  As a rule the people who own them are very much the "don't do anything for the dog that is not necessary" type and yet they feel that it is necessary for the dog's safety to crop the ears.  I think there are far more uncropped working ones, so obviously not everyone feels it is needed, but it's unlikely that this practice was started with absolutely no evidence to support it, and it's also unlikely that it would have made it into the Italian breed standard if it were not at least somewhat common.  A good working LGD is revered, and not ever gratuitously harmed for the sake of cosmetics which don't matter a whit in dogs living on the top of a mountain and rarely seen by people.

This is very interesting and something I didn't know.  Makes the issue even more complicated for me.  I go round and round in my mind, with the entire dilemna.  In the deepest part of my being I don't want government telling me what I can do with my dog.  My brain tells me that the animal rights extremists use this type of issue to sway public opinion.  If it seems that breeders perform these procedures for mostly cosmetic reasons, doesn't that look as though we don't really care about the dogs welfare? 

jdata

Their terriers they were bred to hunt. That's their job and they work them in the field or farm.

 And pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs.  That certainly doesn't justify dog fighting.  I don't think we're going to engage in bull-baiting with bulldogs, or set a pack of rhodesian ridgebacks on lions either.   What a dog was "bred for", or what people did in the past, is not justification for deliberatley putting your dog in harms way.

Benedict

I feel that it is up to the people invested in breeds which are cropped and docked to make decisions for their breed.  Frankly I don't want a poodle/beardie/pug/etc etc expert telling me how my lab or maremma should look, or to make decisions for me that override my own opinion, education and experience.  The people who have their dogs cropped/docked are comfortable with what has been done to their dog and I'm not sure that beyond that it's really any of my business. 

 Since the majority of pure bred dogs are not working, what is the justificaiton for all these people you speak about to crop and dock their dogs, other than cosmetics? 

A lot of people make decisions regarding their dogs that I would not, I'm sure I make a lot of decisions that other dog owners don't agree with, that's how life goes and I don't lose sleep over it.  Call me an idealist, but I prefer to believe that most caring dog owners make the decisions they feel are right - the minute I support taking that power away from them is the minute I give them permission to support taking that power away from me.   

 Well that's nice that you can get a good night's sleep while animals are recoving from painful procedures, like cropping, declawing, de-barking etc..,  so that humans can retain their "power" over them.

pudel

Since the majority of pure bred dogs are not working, what is the justificaiton for all these people you speak about to crop and dock their dogs, other than cosmetics? 

The point of my post was that it's not my business what their justification is.  If they believe they are doing what is best, if they are not causing long term pain and suffering for their dogs, if the dogs are otherwise well cared-for and loved, it's really not my place to judge them for making a decision I have never been required to make. 

pudel

 Well that's nice that you can get a good night's sleep while animals are recoving from painful procedures, like cropping, declawing, de-barking etc..,  so that humans can retain their "power" over them.

 

I didn't say any of that, for the record.  I don't support de-barking for one thing, and for another I had my dog neutered, which could also count as a "painful procedure to retain my power over him" but I don't expect many people view neuters that way, though I know some do.

pudel

Since the majority of pure bred dogs are not working, what is the justificaiton for all these people you speak about to crop and dock their dogs, other than cosmetics?

IMO you are making a pretty big assumption in this statement.  While I still stand by my earlier words regarding docking I would like to comment on this.

I have hunting dogs and live in an area with a big hunting culture.  Most, easily over 80%, of GSP, Wiem or Vizsla owners that I know in my area hunt with their dogs and I do consider that to be working.  Perhaps you have some data to back up your statement.  If you do I would be interested in seeing it because then I would know that I live in an "outlier" area.