Is Tail Docking Dog Torture?

JackieG

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? 

It probably does appear as though we don't care about dog welfare - to people already inclined to view it that way, that is people who disagree with cropping and docking anyway.  The thing about the AR extremists using this issue is that it dovetails nicely into their wider agenda:  that cropping/docking are done for cosmetic reasons to fit the standard, therefore standards are cosmetic and breeding for those should be abandoned too.  

It's a touchy issue, and I think it's always going to be.  Whatever my own personal feelings on the issue, I just don't support the decision being made by anybody but the breeders and owners themselves.

When docking was banned here, an acquaintance of someone I know bought a puppy that he was desperate to have docked.  After a few months of searching in vain for a vet willing to break the law (bear in mind that by this point the puppy was several months old) he slammed his dog's tail in a car door so that the vet would have no choice but to amputate.   THAT is torture.  I'd rather vets be allowed to do it for people who feel that strongly than have people take it upon themselves.

When we hashed out in an earlier thread about spay/neuter, I came to the understanding that any number of people can keep an intact pet successfully. I did for a while. Shadow was neutered at 2.5 years. I made my decisions for various reasons and I know that no one here thinks I did not act in Shadow's best interests. And I'm not re-opening that debate. But, in the same breath, I can see an owner clipping and docking for safety reasons, too. And dogs can get injuries without actually working the job they were bred for. And if a breed of dog is prone to thin, whippy tails that split easily on contact, why not pre-empt that possibility with elective docking?

As for man's power over the dog, that's just the way things are. It has been such for a long time and always will be as dog is, imo, a symbiotic species to man. We can lead dogs because they follow us. Specifically, dogs raised around humans. I have a real life example at work of a feral dog roaming the job site. You will not get closer than 30 feet to her. You can drop food and she will still run off and get it later.

Now, what if someone owned her and spayed her and clipped her nails (which is also "unnatural";) but she had food and companionship and hundreds of dollars in vet care invested? Would she be better off? Not trying to derail the thread or go off on a tangent, I just want to point out that some people who do crop and dock do so and love their pets greatly and before we worry too much about that why don't we worry about human male circumcision? It is usually done before 8 days of age in protestant infants and done at 8 days old in jewish infants. Those baby boys didn't have any say in the matter. Yet, we will worry about a dog that might be better suited being altered? The modern technological solution to the hygiene issue for human males is soap and water, approximately once a day. Yet people continue snipping away.

My old cat, Misty, was probably spayed before I got her at 5 months. She never went into heat. Then I had her front paw de-clawed. Jade was spayed at about 6 months and had already been through a few heats. She was even trying to present to Shadow, which was hilarious. But she still has her claws. I won that one because she may need them with Shadow, theoretically. He can play hard, sometimes.

We may not settle this question fully but I personally hold nothing against the people here that crop and dock, though I may not always see a need for it. That doesn't mean that it isn't done for valid reasons and the people love their pets as much as I love my spayed and neutered pets.

peace out.

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.

Both my docked dog and I got a fine nights rest last night.

I agree with Kate's comment about spuetering dogs being a bigger source of control and "power" over an animal than docking and cropping.  How am I more powerful over my dog because he's docked?  If you are losing sleep because of concerns of power over animals, you should looking into research laboratories and zoos.  If you want to lose sleep over animals in pain you should look at the spuetering process... which I hope you advocate.  I certainly do.  Necessary "pain"? Very much so.

Adding debarking into this debate is off topic, I am not for debarking, neither am I going further on that subject.

Personally my dog was docked at 2 days old.  Should I ever breed a litter of weims, the pups will be docked.  Should the WCA (Weim Club of America) remove the heavy fault for undocked dogs, I still feel I would dock my pups.  I want my dogs to be able to do what they were bred to do, work the field.  Tailed dogs can and do work the field.  But, I personally prefer a docked dog.

And yes.  My dog is a 'working dog'.

People do all manner of odd things to dogs... dock, crop... dyeing them unnatural colors.... putting them in bathtubs and blow drying them dry.  At what point do we say "that's it. that's illegal."   Personally with all the anti-pet legislation coming down in over half the country, I'm more concerned that we may not even be allowed to HAVE dogs in the not so distant future. But that's for another thread.

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 poster with the avatar of a poodle dyed FUSCHIA/HOT PINK complaining about things done to dogs for cosmetics... on TOP of assuming that the majority of pure bred dogs are not working.  That was mighty funny.

JackieG

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. 

Now consider that a Doberman's natural tail is somewhere between the two - not thick and covered with dense hair, but not thin or particularly elegant.  The Doberman was bred as a personal protection guard dog.  Not built for high speed races after rabbits, nor long swims through a river.  As someone mentioned earlier, the Doberman appearance was designed to be inherently intimidating to human assailants, and the lack of extra appendages (long tail/ears) also gave less for an attacker to grab onto.  The lack of tail serves a function in this breed's work.

For those that want to consider tail docking torture, remember that we're talking about neonates - puppies that are 2 to 4 days old.  Now think about a puppy when it is born: it cannot see, hear, nor walk.. and for that matter it cannot urinate/deficate without it's mother's intervention (stimulation) or regulate its own body temperature.  There's quite a bit of neurological development that happens throughout and beyond the first few weeks of life.  To consider the neurological senses (pain) of a 3 day old pup as equivalent to that of a developed adult (or even a 3 MONTH old pup) defies science... and common sense.

I agree that docking a 2-3 day old puppy tail is not torture by any stretch of the imagination.  I have been present when this has been done and the pups were mildly upset but certainly not in any sort of torturous pain. 

Miranadobe, you have given a very good comparison on tail structure and use in differing breeds.  I am still wavering on my feelings but if push came to shove and legislation were introduced in my state, I would most likely come down against legislation to ban tail docking.  Not because I think it is necessary for the modern hunting dog or protection dog.  I fear the unscrupulous person who will wait too long or mangle the procedures and truly cause pain and suffering to the puppies.  As with many issues, the people who need to be forced by law to do the right thing never care about breaking the law and rarely face any legal repercussions.  Responsible people don't need laws to regulate their lives but generally respect the laws even when they disagree with them. Aren't people wonderful?

Sera_J

Tailed dogs can and do work the field.  But, I personally prefer a docked dog.

You are the only person in this discussion who has said that tailed dogs can and do work in the field but that your prefer your breed docked.  Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.  Dogs were created by us to serve our purposes and we should retain the right to do as we please as long as they are treated humanely.  What I would do or not do with a docked breed is irrelevant but it is my right to choose.  I just wanted someone to quit using the constant argument of preventing injury, as it still causes me too much conflict knowing that any long tail dog can injure it's tail whether it hunts or not.  I need to quit this thread as I am starting to feel like a see saw.  Bouncing off now. lol

the government already says it's illegal to chop body parts off your animals for non-medical reasons. It's called "animal abuse". I support this principle fully. If you believe it should be illegal for people to cut pieces off of their animals for non-medical reasons you therefore have to believe that chopping pieces off of puppies solely to alter their appearance is animal abuse and should be illegal. Which brings up a point I don't understand: in most animal-showing circles any kind of cosmetic surgery is considered to be blatant cheating. You're supposed to be showing off how well you can breed an animal to match the breed standard. So if your standard calls for "*** ears" and you can't manage to breed an animal to match the standard why is it acceptable to "cheat" and surgically alter your animal? bizarre.

LOL - Sorry JackieG :)

It's really refreshing to see someone who is willing to look at what they believe and exam why they feel that way and are open to hearing the other side of the coin. 

To clarify my point a tailed dog CAN work the field and yes I prefer the look of a docked dog.  But, part of the reason I like a docked dog is the lack of tail injury... in the field and out.  There are some negatives, in that it acts as a rudder and can help balance them.  But, I swear Logan would have broken, or injured, his tail more times than I can count by this point... and as Paige said his tail is unlike a labs (thicker and hairy), so it would be easier to injure. 

If it were illegal to dock my dog and he kept injuring his tail -- I would feel pretty angry at the whole situation and government.  As you said, Jackie... the bad seeds do what their gonna do, period regardless of law.

 

 Just popping in to say that Bugsy's tail is the type that often is docked - it is long, thin, and powerful and we think he chipped a bone in it a while back.  The vet was concerned at that point that we might wind up docking it and I was freaked out.  I understand that someday down the road it may be necessary as he hits it so hard against things it is a miracle that it is a mess but it really turns my stomach to consider it.  I have never seen him in a field or near water where it was in danger of being injured nor has it seemed a problem when he dives into a cement culvert tube   In fact in the field it is nice because he carries it up I can always see the periscope LOL

If he had come to me docked I wouldn't have felt he were more or less attractive to me - but as a mutt I am not looking at a breed standard.

He also has dewclaws and uses them all the time 

As for cropped ears, honest I think a dane or a dobie with cropped ears looks great but I feel more comfortable with natural ears.

Overall I personally would not crop/dock or remove dewclaws - but I will never show or breed dogs. I understand the cosmetic importance in breed standards but do think it is nice to see natural eared danes in the ring.

And I will always spay/neuter my mutts - I believe that for the average pet owner (and less than average) it is the better option.

mudpuppy

the government already says it's illegal to chop body parts off your animals for non-medical reasons. It's called "animal abuse". I support this principle fully. If you believe it should be illegal for people to cut pieces off of their animals for non-medical reasons you therefore have to believe that chopping pieces off of puppies solely to alter their appearance is animal abuse and should be illegal. Which brings up a point I don't understand: in most animal-showing circles any kind of cosmetic surgery is considered to be blatant cheating. You're supposed to be showing off how well you can breed an animal to match the breed standard. So if your standard calls for "*** ears" and you can't manage to breed an animal to match the standard why is it acceptable to "cheat" and surgically alter your animal? bizarre.

Right on, mudpuppy. 

As someone who has had cosmetic surgery on my own ears, I can tell you it was very painful.  And pain is the norm, as my doc sent me home with a precription for percosets.

mudpuppy

So if your standard calls for "*** ears" and you can't manage to breed an animal to match the standard why is it acceptable to "cheat" and surgically alter your animal? bizarre.

Because it's not cheating.

What a wonderful way to see the world, very simple when everything is black and white.  Personally I feel there are many shades of gray.  I obviously will *never* agree with you... and I'm sure you can say you'll never agree with me.

And that's A-Ok with me
 

Sera_J

Because it's not cheating.

According to who, the AKC?  The AKC's area of concern is that of the business and sport of dog showing and breeding, not animal welfare.  The AKC is trying to stop legislation against puppy mills in some states because of course they make most of their money from puppy mills.  They promote the breeding of extreme features, genetic health conditions and cosmetic surgery, not to mention promiting the idea that breeders need to keep pumping out litter after litter in order to achieve these "standards" and thus adding to the overpopulation problem,  all of which cause unncessecary suffering. I would hardly view them as the authority on ethics, so no, I don't leave the "choice" up to them or any owner who decideds to use their standards as a guide.

Look, I'm definitely against puppy mills. IN EVERY WAY.  But, the legislation "to stop" puppy mills in some states are also completely anti-breeder in general.

HSUS/PETA are anti-PETS... to let them write legislation to "stop puppy mills" would prevent dog breeding pretty much altogether, if that's what you want, I will say no more to you.  I cannot even debate with someone who is so diametrically opposed to what I believe. But that's WAY off topic.

To answer your Question, the AKC is the keeper of the Breed organizations rules/regs.  So, in my case the Weimaraner Club of America says the dog needs to be docked.

 

pudel

Sera_J

Because it's not cheating.

According to who, the AKC? 

No.  The AKC has nothing to do with the breed standards, it is the parent clubs that write them and approve them.