Monday, 26 May 2014

Silky Terrier Club claims *not* docking is unethical

A natural tail? How very dare you!
Nine members of the Silky Terrier Club of America have filed a complaint against three others, claiming that they have violated the Club's Code of Ethics by breeding, registering and showing dogs with natural tails.

The ridiculous case is highlighted in The Dog Press. On an accompanying blog, Maggie Keuser, one of the breeders named in the suit, claims the Club also tried to make the national club specialty judge sign an addendum to his contract to not put up a dog with a tail - "because he had awarded a tailed dog a BISS and they didn't want it at their specialty".

The anonymous author of the Dog Press article is, fortunately, on the side of sanity.
"Is this a frivolous action on the part of the Directors of the Silky Terrier Club of America? The Silky Terrier AKC Breed Standard, approved 1989, says  The Breed Standard does not require docking ...nor can it! According to AKC Rules no standard may require, mandate, or otherwise prescribe docking or cropping of ears or tails. Do you interpret the sentence referring to "docked" as nothing more than an observation that the tail is usually docked? No penalty is stated for natural tails. There is not even the usual disclaimer such as any deviation should be considered a fault, etc. 
"There is considerable debate on the necessity of cropping and docking for the conformation ring. Indeed much of the western world, including Europe where many of our breeds come from, does not allow tail docking or ear cropping. American breeders are exercising their right, preference and choice for natural ears and tails and some clubs have handled the cropping/docking debate better than others. It is hard to fathom that the American Kennel Club would allow a Club with AKC-approved By-Laws and an AKC-approved Breed Standard to entertain a Code Of Ethics violation for failing to crop or dock.

"The current trend toward importing natural ears and tails, coupled with breeder refusal to crop ears or dock tails has affected all breeds that have descriptions of docked tails or cropped ears in their standards. The cropping-docking debate has caused much in-fighting among clubs, destroyed friendships, and generally damaged the reputation and integrity of the sport over an issue which some consider strictly cosmetic and others consider mutilation."
If internecine breed club wars are your thang, you can follow the debate here.

The Dog Press blog reveals, among other gems, that a law suit brought against the Brittany Club of America to amend the breed standard to allow Brittany Spaniels with tails to be to be shown failed four years ago. As a result, the current breed standard in America still states: "Any tail substantially more than four inches shall be severely penalised."

I was also interested to see mentioned this statement from the English Springer Spaniel Field Trial Association (despite its name, this is the AKC parent club and conformation showing is a big part of it).
"Springer enthusiasts, both field and conformation, dock tails for utilitarian function and to reinforce the breed’s moderate, balanced outline, consistent with proper breed type as defined in the standard. 
'A docked tail is required by the standard, and natural tails are not customary. For this reason, the standard provides no description of the correct carriage of a natural tail.
Judges are advised that the presentation of the English Springer Spaniel with a natural tail is inconsistent with the breed standard. In the United States, therefore, a natural tail is a fault. It is not, however, a disqualification.
"Judges are encouraged to evaluate positive attributes of breed type first and then measure the impact of individual faults on that overall evaluation. 
"Please note: With regard to the length of docked tails typically seen, conformation judges should be aware that conformation exhibitors leave approximately one-third of the tail’s length, while field trial exhibitors approximately two-thirds. Exhibits in field trial and hunting classes may have longer, though docked tails." 
Lovin' the irony in the fact that conformation breeders in the US cling to a shorter-docked tail in the Springer than the working folk on the basis of "utilitarian function". In fact, a fair few working breeders of ESS in the US no longer dock at all (although many do still here in the UK where there is an exemption from the docking ban for working dogs).

I'm a little off-topic here, I know. But if the Fancy wants to survive, it needs to recognise that frivolous lawsuits like this will send it spiralling into the abyss faster than any animal rights activist.

121 comments:

  1. Exasperated working dog handler, trying to break through the crust of dog-fancy self-referential delusion. (We'll call her "Me" for brevity):

    "Hey, you know, you guys are really tone-deaf. You really play into PeTA's narrative. Normal people think you are crazy at best, sociopathic animal abusers on your bad days. This is the face you present to the world. This is not helpful. This makes it more difficult to explain rationally, to rational people, why breeding dogs for a purpose is a moral endeavor, not an immoral and abusive one."

    Dog fanciers:

    "ARGLEBARGLE BLRRGGH! Go away Ingrid Newkirk! You trying to took our dawgs! WE LURVE OUR SHOWDOGS! It's all lies! Snopes is owned by George Soros! AND EVERYBUDDY LOVES WATCHING DOG SHOWS ON TEEVEE SO THEY LOVE US AND YOU SMELL LIKE SHEEP SHIT."

    Me:

    "Some of you people have just filed a lawsuit to try to force others of you people to cut off the tails of their own dogs."

    Fanciers:

    "So? What's your point?"

    QED

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well put, Heather!

      Delete
    2. They'll never get it because they care more about appearance than health. They probably squish their battered ugly feet into high heels every day (it deforms the bones over time) and slather their faces with Chemicals in the sake of appearance. Many of them probably have plastic surgery in their later years.

      Why then would they do any different for their dogs? They probably suffer pain for their own appearance. To them pain in order to look good is normal.

      You will never change the minds of such people, sad but true.

      Delete
  2. "Conformation breeders" should be called "trivial cosmetic breeeders". The fact that shows have focussed on extreme, non-functional aspects of a dog's appearance should not detract from the value of conformation that supports health and function.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LOL Heather, I know I had that conversion

    ReplyDelete
  4. Back on topic, have you read the salavating drivel spewed by Bill Lambert from the KC in an article on cross breed dogs in the BBCnews online today?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26828364

    This article is very much in dire need of a counter argument, rational, some critical thought.

    Im a bit dissapointed by the BBC quite honestly given PDE was a BBC production, doing their homework couldn't have been that difficult!!

    How did they come up with this huge pile of fluff (its a long article) interwoven with Lamberts serious warnings about the evils of cross bred dogs?

    "The benefit of a pedigree dog is that you know what you'll get" Says Bill amongst other such gems.

    Absolutely yes you do, a crippled pile of expensive health issues, not to mention heart-break and animal suffering due to organisations like his.

    How can the man be so thick in the face of so much reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because he keeps getting reinforced for being thick. For example, like the BBC actually giving him a platform to spout his biased opinions. Where is the counter argument here? It badly needs one!

      Delete
    2. At least they had Beverley Cuddy from 'Dogs' Today' with some decent counter points. She mentioned adopting a mongrel which is a responsible welfare consideration compared to buying a puppy from a breeder.
      You can have fun making up the name of your 'breed':
      My dog is a Springcorstaff btw:
      Parents - English Springer cross Pembroke Welsh Corgi mated with a Staffy mix, according to the Wisdom Panel.

      Or a Corspringstaff; or a Staffspringcor!! What's in a name anyway? Like Beverley said, it's responsible breeding that matters, not pedigree snobbery. Crossbred or pedigree shouldn't matter IMO if you have the foundations of good breeding practices in place - health and function. And most dogs need to be good pets. A healthy temperamant is as equally important as physical health in this regard.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I agree. I found this article mostly OK. The Lambert quotes are to be expected. Was a bit thrown by the bit where it says that "mixing two very different breeds can lead to a conflict of personality within a dog - so when an independent-minded Husky is crossed with an obedient German shepherd it may not respond when called." Although not in direct Lambert-quotes, I suspect this is a paraphrase of what he told the writer as I've heard it from the KC before. You are likely - statistically - to get a half-way house in terms of biddability as well as type. But a "conflict"? Sigh...

      Delete
    4. "mixing two very different breeds can lead to a conflict of personality within a dog - so when an independent-minded Husky is crossed with an obedient German shepherd it may not respond when called."

      Oh, so the principles of animal learning don't apply here in the case of cross breeds then Mr. Lambert? How about, teaching the dog that coming when called is a really great thing to do anyway, regardless of it's breed? You tap into the breed characteristics to understand how to motivate and reward the dog, that's all. The principles are the same regardless of breed. After all, a dog is not an automaton because even if a breed is genetically (genotype) more likely to be obediant it doesn't necessarily mean it will be phenotypically. As an owner, the most responsible thing you should train your dog to do is to come to you when called. Don't rely on a breed having a certain disposition to obligate you of that responsibility. Mr Lambert clearly doesn't understand dogs very well....

      'You are likely - statistically - to get a half-way house in terms of biddability as well as type. But a "conflict"? Sigh... '

      Yep. That's all it means and all it could possibly ever mean. I'm chuckling at the prospect of some Husky GSD cross being in emotional 'conflict' over not wanting to come when called....because it knows deep down it really 'should.'

      Delete
    5. [[Why are "doodles" so popular? One reason is that buyers assume a poodle's offspring won't shed. But this isn't always true - only 30% of Labradoodles will be truly non-allergenic. Crosses are also cheaper to insure because of a lower risk of genetic and inherited conditions. However, simply crossing two dogs doesn't mean getting rid of such conditions. "Often when breeding crosses there is no proper health testing," says Bill Lambert, health and breeder services Manager at the Kennel Club. "And if there is a fashion, unscrupulous breeders will cash in to make a quick buck."]]

      This whole chapter reeks and reeks a complete "mish mash" to coin a phrase. Forget shedding "Frankenstein" doodles Mr lambert seems to be forgetting the devastating effects of line-breeding, inbreeding and breeding for exaggerations in pedigree dogs registered with his KC along with the almost instant hybrid vigour of a direct out-cross even to another breed?

      Its a Georgina states, defaming any breed to make pedigree registered KC dogs look better shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire issue or controversy surrounding pedigree show dogs.

      [["If you mix them, those guarantees are stripped away." ]]

      Thanks heaven, the guarantee of a blind, crippled, disease ridden mess.

      [[Moreover, mixing two very different breeds can lead to a conflict of personality within a dog]]

      This is not a f'ing species this a breed of domestic dog, it remains a dog what ever you cross it with. Try a completely deaf Chow chow for biddability or a blind Mastiff, Peke or Pug.

      [[ Lambert can't foresee a time when the Labradoodles will be a recognised breed, because they do not breed true to type - cross two first-generation Labradoodles and you get a real mish-mash.]]

      A better mish mash than a pedigree show mutt in almost every case. Besides as far as I know labradoodles are recognised as a breed by the AKC at least. And how does Mr Lambert think any breed of dog came into existence, fine tuning and mixing up of breeds is how in almost every case some even used wolves.

      Completely aside well almost this article in "Psychology Today" makes very interesting reading. I have a working caucasian shepherd no pedigree, but here the evolution of dog breeds is fascinating. Maybe Mr Lambert should broaden his horizons

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dogs-best-friend/201403/when-the-livestock-guard-is-dog-she-might-also-be-wolf-0

      continued....

      Delete
    6. continued........

      [[Cuddy thinks the row about pure and crossbreeds is a pointless diversion, when the real issues are irresponsible dog breeding and lack of health testing.]]

      Does she! I don't agree with this at all. Health testing is almost besides the point. "One" is testing inbred, weakened, disease and immunity compromised dead end genetics and the point of this is???? How does Cuddy see the injection of new blood into these breeds happening without cross breeding exactly?

      Breeds are not individual species to be maintained but types of a single species to be here "improved", because they are a complete mess.

      Yes it's totally irresponsible to be show breeding pedigree dogs using line-breeding methods to create exaggerated winning types. Its totally in almost all cases irresponsible not to be introducing different breed out-crosses at this point in pedigree dogs.

      It's not honestly a diversion but almost critically pertinent.

      There will always be irresponsible breeding there is enough of that even in the human species, but surely yes too many dogs are bred without any thought if they can be placed with a decent owner or even kept if need be.

      Here show breeders are certainly not an exception but the rule along with every other kind of irresponsible breeding. Line-bred litters are produced to create show dogs primarily. The rejects (the majority) passed off onto unsuspecting pet owners or put down.
      "Reverse snobbery"? Maybe a tiny bit but the real reason tends to be because people believe and often correctly that they are getting a healthier alternative.

      PDE wasn't a complete waste of time on the middle classes.

      The only saving grace of the entire piece on the BBC and even here interwoven between Lambert's mush is the small sentence:

      "Crosses are also cheaper to insure because of a lower risk of genetic and inherited conditions."

      In its context:
      "Crosses are also cheaper to insure because of a lower risk of genetic and inherited conditions. However, simply crossing two dogs doesn't mean getting rid of such conditions. "Often when breeding crosses there is no proper health testing," says Bill Lambert, health and breeder services Manager at the Kennel Club."

      Im wondering why the KC doesn't have a geneticist as "Health and Breeder Services Manager" myself, when we must listen to this tripe?

      The rest of the long article is fluff, but IMO the article coming after PED is a travesty (And I'm unanimous in that (: )

      Delete
  5. "Any tail substantially more than four inches shall be severely penalised"

    Ha ha that's just absurd in this day and age but then so is the death penalty.

    Can't accuse them of being size queens at least.

    I read a breeder of Dobermans in America on this issue of tail and ear cosmetic mutilation. He went something like this. "Even with drooping sagging ears and a long thin whippet tail it is after all folks still our Doberman, don't get excited"

    Is that too say people think a dog is no longer "their breed" if they can't literally have it cut into the desired shape? Cosmetic mutilation defines the breed for them?

    I find the "legally docked" in the UK a bit worrying. If you look on those web sites like "Preloved" and do a search on JRTs for sale many are "legally docked" and yet are not working dogs, bred as working dogs, sold with even a vague claim to be working dogs, heck some of them are F1 Chihuahua crosses?

    What's up with that, it seems to be just a loophole in the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes River P many people are using the working dog exemption to get ones bred only for pets docked. If the pups are of the exempted breeds the breeder needs to show one is likely to be worked to get the whole litter docked, which is apparently a statement to say they are one of the allowed breeds, and either a shotgun/firearm lience for the person likely to use them for lawful shooting or a letter from gameskeeper/land owner, lawful pest control, official club or national working terrier federation, stating that they know of the breeder and dogs they have bred have worked on there land/on there shoot/for pest control.
      So in theory if the breeder or a friend has a shotgun lience they can say they plan to work one of the pups have the litter docked then sell them all as pets claiming none were suitable for them to work.

      However a chihuahua terrier cross would not be able to be legally docked in the UK as in England the only crosses allowed are crosses of terrier types, crosses of spaniel types and crosses of hunt point retrieve types. In Wales no crosses are allowed and only certain breeds rather than any terrier, spaniel or hunt point retrieve. Scotland nothing is allowed to be docked. So it would need to be imported to have a chi cross docked.

      Delete
    2. Not as far as I can see its not illegal to dock a chiX in the UK. I suppose whose to say if its a Chihuahua cross or a Yorkie cross or in fact any cross?

      Shotgun license. hmmm

      Delete
    3. I think it is illegal to dock a ChiX in the UK. If it isn't, it should be.

      Shotgun licences? I know several perfectly nice people who have one!

      Delete
    4. Ahh yes how else would you bag a couple of ducks for dinner?

      They aren't lending out their license or abusing it neccesarily to have the tails of Chihuahua crosses cut off? Are they?

      ARE THEY???

      Delete
  6. This is spectacularly awful. Heather sums it up nicely - 'sociopathic animal abusers'.....

    Docking tails, even for working dogs is pretty pitiful. You hear vets supporting it, even with a lack of hard evidence to support the practice. The mutilation continues beyond the womb.....not just physical mutilation, but social mutilation too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Docking when their young is not exactly painful and doesn't effect the rest of their life,unlike diseases or otherwise unhealthy conformation. I find their to be more important issues with dogs myself. Still it is a choice,and dog breeders and even showers should be free to not dock or crop if they please. The fact that they care that much over a tailed dog winning shows,is just digging themselves deeper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15084038
      'Tail docking in dogs; can attitude be changed?'

      'A recent evaluation of this literature suggests that the practice has little to recommend it and that, in the absence of reasonable case-by-case justification, it may constitute an unacceptable abuse of a sentient species. Given this situation, it is difficult to understand why many canine interest groups, presumably representing those people who care most about the welfare of companion dogs, should continue to hold such strong attitudes in favour of tail docking.'

      'We argue that the theory of cognitive dissonance, popular among social psychologists, may provide a useful framework within which to understand, and attempt to alter, attitudes that persist even though they appear contrary to available empirical evidence.'

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24746107

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213011433

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201311/the-dogs-tail-tale-do-they-know-what-others-are-feeling

      Dogs tails - they are important to them and should be left intact IMHO.

      I'd like to see some recent, hard evidence from vets that tail docking working dogs is an effective pro-active measure against future suffering with injuries. I'd also like to see comparative research with same breed dogs (e.g. ESS) with docked tails and those without, communicating with other dogs and humans. It would be interesting to see if there is a marked difference in any interpretation. Personally, I would never have a dog without a tail due to the importance I place on being able to read my own dog's emotions and to enable her to express herself with her own species too...but maybe I'm weird...

      Where is the evidence regarding how many Gun Dog breeds, such as ESS, end up in pet homes compared to becoming working dogs? There is no justification at all for docking a dog's tail if it is to end up in a pet home IMHO. It is essential for healthy communication both intra and inter species (humans). Especially given the fact that this breed of dogs' ear movements are so limited...

      David Ryan, in his book, 'Why Dog's Bite and Fight' explains why so many dogs struggle to read each other due and end up escalating to conflict to breed differences such as this. Mostly this is due to pet owners failing to recognise canine body language and signalling communication but the conformation of some breeds most definitely hinders them too.
      Increasing dog-dog aggression and human aggression is a very real problem for behaviourists too. We need to do all we can to ensure that dogs can communicate effectively.

      As for the Silky Breed Club....Is this some sort of cult?! 'Either you are with us or against us and if you are against us, we will destroy you, even though we have no evidence that our practice is morally sound' is the vibe I am getting here..

      Nicola

      Delete
    2. I used to think this, but I now have a docked dog - or rather, one who had to have his tail amputated at the age of 6. Traditionally docked breed, working lines, though not worked, but nonetheless highly active. He came back from a walk with his tail tip raw and spraying blood up the walls when he wagged it.

      We spent three weeks trying to get his tail to heal, but since it was very long a cone-collar couldn't keep him off it and he kept reopening the wound. In the end the vet put him under and gave him a pointer dock. It took weeks to heal as the skin flap from the amputation didn't take. All in all, a lot of pain and discomfort for him (real pain, despite drugs: lying on the floor whining) and a lot of worry, hassle and expense for us.

      He now has a standard HPR-length dock. He is perfectly well able to express himself with the third of his tail he has left, we have no problem reading his mood and intentions, other dogs seem to have no problem reading his mood and intentions and he's never going to go through the misery of a trashed and painful tail-tip again.

      In short, if a dog is bred to work, even if it becomes a pet it will still have lots and lots of energy. Traditionally-docked working breeds were docked for a reason. Labradors are not docked as their tails are protected by a layer of fat and a layer of thick fur, and their tails are shorter compared to their body length compared to the undocked tail of say, a German Pointer - which is very long, thin, whippy, has no fat coverage and is very vulnerable to injury.

      I recently had a chat with a chap who has a working springer. Yeah, he said, mine's docked. You see undocked ones sometimes, come out of cover with their tails like sticks of rhubarb: it's horrible.

      Okay, all this is anecdotal and not real research, but it's pretty much convinced me that if we ever get another dog from working lines which is from a traditionally docked breed, it will be docked. For the dog's sake.
      Bex.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Bex. I think your experience would obviously shape your opinion in that way and understandably so. Obviously the law regarding tail docking is not extended to working dogs because of the reasons you describe above. The flexibility for people who breed these dogs ensures that once ‘docked’ at birth (tail tied, withers and drops off), if the dog does go on to become a working dog, then at least he doesn’t have to endure a docking when he has matured when it would be much more painful. I get it. There are stories about dogs perhaps experiencing ‘phantom tail syndrome’. A bit like where a limb is amputated but the nervous system still senses its presence. Again, anecdotes and I’m not sure how distressing this would be for a dog if he were to experience this.

      I have a very high drive mixed breed dog that has working lines in her parentage (including springer spaniel, terrier and a herding breed). She also has a long tail. She loves hunting - especially in cover such as hedges and bushes given the opportunity, but she gets walked in wide open flat areas, mostly to manage her prey drive, as it is safer for her to re-direct this elsewhere. That's my own opinion btw and I'm not for a minute dictating what anyone else should do with their pet dogs in this regard. She has not yet injured her tail when out and about exercising and as it is long and thin, it would be quite vulnerable according to your description above. She gets at least two hours exercise a day with most of that time engaged in alternative predatory outlets.
      However, I did trap her tail once accidentally in a recliner chair - right on the tip. Poor thing yelped and it bled a bit but it healed. Your post got me thinking – what would I have done if it hadn’t have healed? Amputate it? Perhaps I would have had no choice? But I don’t think that would shape my decision making and opinions regarding docking tails in the future for a dog like her. However, you don’t know until it actually happens to you, right? But we don't choose to amputate our dogs’ tails generally in case of an accident occurring in the future. Dogs can get their tails trapped in all sorts of stuff – car doors, doors, trampled on etc. Those are definitely the biggest risk areas for my dog anyway. I'm sure it would be easy for vets to find data on causes of tail injuries in pet dogs?

      It's not black and white of course. However, what I think is important to emphasise is for us NOT to get brainwashed into practicing behaviour because 'that's the right thing to do for the breed' - either because other people tell you to do it or that the breed standard dictates it, which is the point of Jemima’s post I think. We need to make choices and actions for our dogs based on empiricism (and perhaps anecdotes in your example too) while honouring our dogs' inner world and remaining compassionate and empathic. The dogs’ tail is an important part of its communication system. It’s not an appendage to satisfy an aesthetic whim for us and even with working types of dogs, thought and care should be given before it is amputated, even if there may well be a risk of injury in the future.

      I certainly don't plan on amputating any of my appendages 'just in case'!

      Nicola

      Delete
    4. Cheers, Nicola: I understand where you are coming from. This was the third time our dog had had a tail injury: shut in front door when a puppy (gust of wind, bad luck), shut in tailgate of car, also when a puppy (thought he was well clear but he'd moved and he wasn't). Both those times there was no/little blood and it healed fine.

      I would love to find decent data on the risk of serious tail injuries in working and non-working field-bred dogs, and in pet-bred dogs of the same breed: it would let people make sane decisions. I agree about tails and communication, but a pointer dock is pretty long and coupled with all the other communication signals - ears, posture, hackles etc - I don't think our lad is speaking Double Dutch to other dogs.

      Likewise, I'd like to know the risk of a dog docked as a small pup having any sort of 'phantom tail', and the risk of the same thing for a dog docked as an adult. Have to say ours, now that it's healed, couldn't care less - you can poke and prod the scar and he's just not bothered, and he never seems to look for his missing tail or anything. He did lose his balance a couple of times directly after it was amputated, but that doesn't happen anymore.

      If I had all that information, and it said, field bred, kept as pet, low risk of injury, high risk of phantom pain, high risk of communication problems, I'd rethink. But on the basis of recent experiences... You know what I'm going to say!

      Anyway, thanks for responding. These sorts of exchanges help to clarify my own thinking, and maybe even change it. I absolutely agree on brainwashing: that's one reason why I read this blog!
      Bex

      Delete
    5. It's the 'traditionally docked' part of it that gets me.

      As a vet tech, I saw many tail injuries and man...talk about a bloody mess! You'd be finding blood on the walls and ceilings for days. Getting them to heal can be a huge hassle, requiring all manner of cones and ties to try and keep it still long enough.

      BUT...why don't we dock all tails, then? The breed standard doesn't care if the dog is working or not, not in the USA, anyway. So why is it acceptable to dock the tail of a house pet terrier but not a German shepherd? Do you think show breeders WOULDN'T flip if a breeder of shepherds docked every pup on the basis of protecting the dog? Some breeders say it's about the kind of tail. The doberman is the common example, as they tend to have thin, whippy tails. Well, so does a Great Dane or a greyhound, but we don't dock them (and again, breeders would heavily snub a breeder who did.)

      So even though I've witnessed plenty of tail injuries, including some that did require amputation after healing failed, I still believe that docking is about traditional and aesthetics, not the health and protection of the dog. That doesn't mean that individual breeders or owners aren't doing it for the right reasons, or reasons they at least perceive to be ethical and about saving the dog from distress. But the breed standards and breed clubs are just about preserving tradition at any cost, and that's just plain sad.

      I honestly don't know if I believe docking should be completely banned or not. But I certainly, absolutely don't think it should be forced. And I don't think we should brush the issue aside just because worse things happen. There's time and energy enough in the world to focus on all issues.

      Delete
    6. http://web.uvic.ca/~reimlab/robodog.pdf Ehem
      Studies done on how different tail lengths effect communication between dogs exists

      http://expeng.anr.msu.edu/sites/animalwelfare/files/Tail_Docking_2_(Noonan,_et_al._1996).pdf Study done on how tail docking affects puppies

      http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/133/8/177.abstract report on the relationship between incontinence and tail docking

      Delete
    7. She wades in again...
      Re Unknown's comment above about pet terries, agreed: I don't see the rationale for docking a terrier which will be kept as a pet, whatever its parents do, since terrier tails are robust and don't seem to put themselves in the way of disaster like long whippy HPR tails do.

      So it's not just about 'traditionally docked': it's about a) the type of tail and also b) whether the dog is from working lines. I'm sure that if you bred German pointers for 50 years you could end up with a dog as placid as the average* pet-bred labrador, on whom the whippy tail would be less of a liability since it wouldn't spend so much time crashing about in the bushes - and probably wouldn't crash about as fast, either. I doubt there'd be much of an argument for docking for such a dog.

      When we were having the tail issues, one vet did say, Oh, I see a lot more greyhounds with tail problems than HPRs. And I thought, yuh, sure: there are a lot more greyhounds in this neck of the woods than undocked HPRs. So any study would need to normalise for the proportion of dog breeds in a given population and, where relevant, break those breeds down into working/working-bred-but-not-worked/pet-bred to get a proper idea of what was going on.

      Daniela, thank you for the links: I'll have a read.

      Bex

      *Labrador owners please note: I said 'average'; I know there are exceptions!

      Delete
    8. Docking while young IS painful. A dog's nervous system develops in the womb and a puppy (just like a Human baby) is born able to feel pain. Cutting off part of the spine is a VERY painful procedure. Ear cropping is slightly less so but still painful.

      There is a hideous myth that puppies cannot feel pain when newborn - of course they can, all animals can. Just because something does not cry (although, they do) doesn't mean it is not feeling pain. Even fish feel pain when you cut them, they just do not have lungs or voice boxes to give voice to their pain.

      Delete
    9. Unknown, you mention dobe tails being 'thin and whippy'. I have a dobe boy with full tail. His tail is immaculate, not a mark on it, and is more robust than perhaps people realise; its nothing like a greyhound tail, more like a dalmatians (a breed no-one is calling to have docked). The other thing is that dobes naturally have a high tail set; his tail is naturally held up, in a gentle upward arc (sickle tail, I believe its called) and some undocked dobes actually have curled tails, some so much they are almost a double curl. This high tail set means my dog never hits his tail on things, even though he is an excitable, waggy dog. Its kinda up over his back rather than flailing about whacking on everything. I suspect this is why I have never known a natural dobe to have a tail issue.

      Greyhounds though.....oh yes, definitely. Seen a fair few of them in my time working at a vet, and a rescue kennel, and a dog track. They have a very different sort of tail to a dobe, much thinner with more movement in it. Dobe tails are kinda stiff really.
      But it does showcase the hypocrisy on this issue. My dobes tail is very much like the tail of a dalmatian, as are his ears, yet that breed is never docked or cropped. And as you say, there are plenty of 'thin' tailed breeds that we do not dock, and plenty of dropped ear dogs we do not crop. If people genuinely believe the procedure is done for the health of the tail and the ears, why are they not pushing for it to be done on all breeds with a certain type of tail or ear? If there was a genuinely a valid health concern, a real serious one that justified removal of body parts, and these people cared about ear and tail health, as they claim, why wouldn't we be removing them on all breeds 'at risk'.

      Delete
  8. RiverP, thanks for the post, I read and it is a travesty that a spokesman from the UK KC thinks it acceptable to defame ANY DOG. Beverley Cuddy is quite correct in her statement, forget the crossbreed nonsense and concentrate on the deformities and cruelty deliberately undertaken by members of the very club Mr Lambert tries to defend, the continued and deliberate breeding of some breeds that suffer in order to "fit" the KC breed standard. The breeders being endorsed by wins at the KC licensed shows, the more exaggerated, the more "beautiful, bred to type" is seen to be acceptance by the KC that all is well in that breed. They are deaf and blind, all that they are seeking at the end of the day is to continue their commercial interests in the dog world. BECAUSE IF IT WERE OTHERWISE, MR LAMBERT WOULD HAVE ENDORSED ALL DOGS, THEIR WELFARE ISSUES, THE OVERBREEDING, THE COMMERCIALISM, CONCERN AND ENCOURAGEMENT FOR HUMANS TO UNDERSTAND THAT DOGS DESERVE MUCH MORE THAN WE ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECTING THEM TO. To defend in the way he did is shameful. Perhaps he ought to revisit the KC site and understand what he reads, especially their flash banner, and bear in mind that he earns a very healthy living from dogs as an employee of the KC which was set up to protect dogs. No? Why am I so angry by this, a friend of mine has just brought a new Irish Setter puppy from a breed dedicated site. I went to see her yesterday, gorgeous little puppy, well reared, but not typical. Why? Because she didn't jump all over me, the house was tidy, she didn't grab the toy I dropped on the floor for her. I watched her move around the room, she moved like a hackney pony, she didn't raise her head unless we spoke. My friend then told me she had been sold the puppy at half price because she was cross eyed. I have suggested she goes to Edinburgh RoyalDick and get her tested and then go back to the breeder because heartbreakingly I think she is totally blind. Then I looked at the paperwork, the dam is a carrier of a very serious eye condition, stated clearly on her pedigree, the sire is a well known dog pursuing his final ticket. The owner of the bitch is a pet owner and just wanted a litter for "the bitches sake", the sire of the dog should not have used his dog, there was no need apart from the hefty stud fee of course. The fact that he must have seen the paperwork, asked if the bitch had been swabbed means that he knowingly took a huge risk for the health of his "much loved dog's puppies" Absolutely encapsulates why dog breeding must be more formal and stricter. The sire's owner is fully aware of the risk he undertook and if he denies it then he is a fool, that litter is now 50% likely to be affected. The puppies are KC registered, so they've had their slice of the cake, and the likelihood of the new puppies owners deciding to have a litter, in ignorance, has just spread a major problem to future generations. I absolutely despair of some dog breeders and their lack of moral fibre. Lovers of the breed, I don't think so, greedy for money, definitely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a tragic story of the start of a young puppy's life blemished by the selfishness of her owners.

      The KC shouldn't be registering pups of dogs with severe conditions however imagine how many more conditions would be hidden from paperwork if that was the case. It seems sometimes that it's entirely in the pet owners hands to be savvy dog shoppers.

      And that means asking the general public to be sensible.

      Delete
  9. It doesn't surprise me that some of the American clubs don't want people to stop docking and cropping. On a dog forum I'm on there is an American who has proudly stated they think its fine to chop pieces off the dog to make it look better and that the exaggerated American example are better than less exaggerated European examples as is doesn't matter that a dog may suffer problems due to exaggerations as dogs are on earth to look good for people.
    So if there are more people like that over there as I said I'm not suprised at the attitudes those clubs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you musn't speak out against the Americans otherwise you'll be labelled as an Animal Rights activist!!

      Delete
    2. Yes I have to agree with that. There is the tendency in some quarters to be immediately labelled a PETA supporter if so much as mention animal welfare. Im not sure its only American though.

      I happen not to agree with PETAS vegan and often extreme stance on everything but there is also a lot there that is very very worthy, certainly enough for me to say they have a definate place.

      I do think there is a place for activists, I fully support and help finance Green Peace for example.

      Somethings cant wait for dialogue, endless red tape and bureaucracy a lot of animal welfare and environmental issues fall into this category.

      It's PC to denigrate activists, I think that's plain brainless.

      Delete
    3. It's sadly true that when you speak up in defence of animal welfare you're immediately labelled a PETA activist. That says everything you need to know about the people who do this. They are not to be trusted with animal welfare...

      I think it's time to create an alternative universe where a KC exists for the true definition of health and welfare for pet dogs. I just don't think that some people who inhabit Dogdom 'get it' and I don't think they ever will. That's what concerns me....

      I think that we can and should continue to educate at grass root level, campaign and generally be a nuisance to certain people. But we have to create a safer world for dogs where these people's power has no value.

      Delete
    4. I think militant intervention is the way forward [blush] heck people will go to war over lesser things.

      That was a semi-joke naturaly but there is point where enough is enough! Im sure if dogs could speak thats what they would say.

      Delete
    5. When I hear the kneejerk "you PETA supporting animal rights extremist" I always think of the ecards that says "Look i'm trying to rant here stop with the 'facts' and 'reason". Using an bit of sense is just bursting their bubble, their cognative dissonance won't let them hear any sense.

      Luckily I've never actually been called an animal rights extremist and a PETA supporter. Honestly as an American I can say it isn't often I'm siding with PETA. Due to how well known they are I can accept when people cite PETA in specific circumstances as a reason for their animal policies. Like if they cited PETA as a reason why they don't want to offer discounts to places where elephants are hit with bullhoooks by people are forced to give people rides. For that I say sure, as long as they stop supporting those places that's what I care about.

      Delete
    6. Its funny you all say that, about being labelled a PETA fanatic if you oppose cropping or docking, because I ended up in an argument about the same topic last night.....and guess what I was called by an opposer in her FIRST comment to me? She said 'the AR bible thumpers sure are getting tired'.

      Yeah.......if Im an animal rights activist, Im a pretty shit one considering I eat meat, wear leather, and support ethical pet breeding. Now, animal WELFARE, oh yes, Im right behind that. But animal rights is very different, and most just don't realise that.

      But its far easier for someone to slap a label on a person with an opposing view than to actually consider what they're saying, and why they're saying it.
      I own an unfortunately 'traditionally' cropped and docked breed, so I end up in these debates often. I can't go to any page or video featuring a dobe without SOMEONE bringing the topic up. It gets frustrating.

      I've also noticed that a lot of the debates on cropping particularly end up as an attack on the UK (was told last night that I lived in a militant country who removed choice, because we've banned cosmetic mutilation of animals.....)

      The irony is that for all people in my breed bang on about 'tradition', very few of them choose the traditional crop. The original dobes had a very short military crop, virtually no ears at all. And it could be argued that the excuse of 'it prevents people grabbing the ears' is valid with such a short crop. Most dobes today, though, have a much longer show crop or pet crop, which is NOT what the breed creator intended or used. So much for 'tradition', seems they like to pick and choose which bits of tradition they continue with........

      Though at least its nice to come here and see sensible people who oppose unnecessary mutilation of their pets for fashion. Gives you some hope for the human race.

      Sadly, in the USA, some people don't get a choice in whether they have a cropped or docked dog. If you want a dobe from a good breeder, the choice on the ears and tails is usually made for you before you get your pup. I know a few people who actually WANTED a natural dobe, but could not source a decent breeder who would let them have one.

      I will find it immensely pleasing when docking and cropping is finally banned in the USA, which it will be some day, and will enjoy watching the idiots whining. It amazes me in this day and age that it would even be up for debate....

      Though, as pertains to the USA, it is something of a culture that likes cutting body parts off non consenting beings. Look at circumcision, after all. Its routinely done to baby boys, for non religious reasons, and there is almost a neurotic mindset about a natural penis with some people, like its horrific or alien. I find that so tragic. We have a long way to go as a species....

      Delete
  10. I do love the way the US calls conformation showing a "sport". According to the Oxford English dictionary, the only way this can be a "sport" is in the archaic term "A source of amusement or entertainment: 'I do not wish to show myself the sport of a man like Wildeve' "

    So that's an archaic term for an archaic institution. If, according to AKC Rules, no standard may "require, mandate, or otherwise prescribe docking or cropping of ears or tails" then how do they reconcile the Brittany Spaniels standard? Easy, it's written in modern terms stating inches and they don't understand inches, they're too modern! Now if the standard said the tail must be no longer than a hand they'd have forced the parent club to fix the standard ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I fully believe docking/cropping should be choice on the breeder. Standards should include descriptions for both natural and docked/cropped options in breeds. I like some breeds with tails where others look - off - to me.

    I think it should boil down to choice or else more and more people will be trying to do "hack jobs" themselves. In the States I see far too many terrible ear crops from people who have no clue what they are doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should it boil down to people's choice when it comes to essentially mutilating dogs ? As from the evidence we see, docking and cropping is cruel and there is no justifiable reason for it, other than some breeds who actually WORK, may get damaged tails. If you are suggesting that breeders are capable of making rational decisions in this regard when this is purely for aesthetic reasons only, then your reasons are unethical, immoral and down right 19th century. Pity you see that people are doing such a terrible job of ear cropping. Perhaps if they weren't sociopathic animal abusers they might leave them alone? Dog breeders who condone this practice to uphold breed standards and indulge in their petty little world of dog showing are getting away with animal cruelty.

      Delete
    2. Agree entirely Anon. It's clinically insane to consider cutting slices of healthy dogs ears and tail off. Unless of course it's been damaged.

      I begrudgingly accept that some working breeds may benefit from it. But I don't like it. I don't even like it in sheep and there's much more evidence of it being beneficial there.

      Delete
    3. So its acceptable to remove a limb from a being because it 'looks off' to you? Wow.
      Maybe it only 'looks off' because its what you're used to? Maybe after a few years of seeing dogs left natural, it is the amputation stump that will begin to 'look off'. I honestly cannot look at a docked dog without seeing a surgical stump. It doesn't look 'natural' it doesn't 'flow' with the dog, it just looks like an ugly decapitated limb. I can't see it as anything else. I get the same feeling I get when seeing a human with an amputated arm: theres a stump there, because something dreadful has happened to them.

      My dobe has full tail, and its glorious. He certainly doesn't look 'off'. He looks far nicer than having a little thick lump of butchered bone.

      Delete
    4. Heather

      You are brave to admit that you like the look of a dog with an amputated body part. Doesn't seem normal to enjoy that honestly........

      Delete
  12. http://web.uvic.ca/~reimlab/robodog.pdf Ehem
    Studies done on how different tail lengths effect communication between dogs exists

    http://expeng.anr.msu.edu/sites/animalwelfare/files/Tail_Docking_2_(Noonan,_et_al._1996).pdf Study done on how tail docking affects puppies

    http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/133/8/177.abstract report on the relationship between incontinence and tail docking

    https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/FAQs/Pages/Frequently-asked-questions-about-canine-tail-docking.aspx
    And this just has a lot of links an info on tail docking

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201202/long-tails-versus-short-tails-and-canine-communication

      Another bit on the study done on the robot dogs with different tail lengths

      Delete
  13. As if Silky Terriers are, or ever were used for earthwork!

    ReplyDelete
  14. How does one justify a "nip & tuck" for aesthetics on dogs is unethical while condoning (and even celebrating it) it for humans?

    If dogs require tails for communication, does this mean dogs cannot read the body language of dogs born without tails or the body language of humans?

    For the record I do not believe body alterations for aesthetics (for humans or dogs) are necessary in the absence of medical reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because humans can give consent and be made aware in advance of the pain and consequences

      Delete
    2. Where is your evidence that people condone cosmetic procedures on humans and criticise the practice on dogs? You are making an assumption for the sake of an intellectual argument that is not rooted in compassion. Human beings and dogs are different species. Human beings can be vain. They posess an ego. Dog showing is a legitimate outlet for human vanity, inflicted on dogs. Dogs do not care what they look like. They are canids, not primates. But they may find it distressing if they think they are outwardly communicating (with their docked tail and cropped ears) and are receiving no cut off signals or engagement from another dog in return. Because that dog can not understand it clearly. Dogs read our body language clearly enough. They know we don't posess tails and they know we are not dogs! They look for other signals....read the links people have posted on this.

      Dogs are irrational immoral beings who have to exist in an alien world where they are often misunderstood by the species that controls them.

      Give them a break....

      Delete
    3. @PipedreamFarm
      In case you didn't see what I sent I'll just post it here
      http://web.uvic.ca/~reimlab/robodog.pdf Ehem
      Studies done on how different tail lengths effect communication between dogs exists

      Dogs have their own sort of morality that's different then ours of course.
      About doggie morals no contempt, guilt, pride, or shame. Those emotions are too complex for them. Dogs are incapable of being vain.
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201303/which-emotions-do-dogs-actually-experience There was a brain scan done on dogs. While they DO have many emotions they don't have all the emotions we have. Dog's sniff the genitals of one another, if a human did that it would be a social fauzx pas. Proper dog play involves "role-reversal" and "self handicapping". There is such thing as rude behavior in dogdom, but it is different then what's rude to humans. We choose to get a nip and tuck a dog doesn't decide to have his or her tail docked or his ears cropped.

      Delete
  15. What about the pain and consequences of spay&neuter and the lack of consent by dogs for these procedures?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is true, Pipedreamfarm however there are health and social benefits to spay and neuter procedures which simply do not exist within the tail docking and ear cropping argument.

      It's a vaild debate, but a wholly different subject.

      Delete
    2. Spay and neuter is not satisfying a breed standard or cosmetic procedure is it?

      The PC policy to spay and neuter your dog is highly questionable from a scientific perspective. Not much data to support it other than the fact too many dogs are being bred that people don't seem to want. Hence, shelter dogs exist. They really shouldn't if we really addressed the heart of the problem....Intact reproductive hormones are beneficial for the health of the dog. We all know the overwhelming effect on the adrenal system from spaying and neutering, particularly with very young dogs. Also, it doesn't really protect against cancer...only one or two particular sub types.

      As far as I understand, the reason people are manipulated into spaying and neutering their dogs is due to 'irresponsible' breeding due to poor ownership. And how ironic is THAT when you see what travesties so called 'responsible' breeders are churning out and getting rosettes and ribbons for....

      Delete
    3. Spay/neuter do not fall within satisfying a breed standard or cosmetic procedure but they do fall within the counter argument of "Because humans can give consent and be made aware in advance of the pain and consequences" of body mutilations which are forced upon dogs without their consent.

      A better argument against cropping & docking than "Because humans can give consent and be made aware in advance of the pain and consequences" [and dogs cannot] needs to be found.

      Delete
    4. Yes but what has that got to do with docking and cropping for cosmetic reasons? Dogs do not have a human brain and can not make decisions based on rational intent. With spay/neuter issues, at least there are reasons to do this that are rooted in societal and canine population concerns.....again, this is not a black and white area. Allow sensible and rational people to make decisions for their dogs and themselves that are based on empiricism. It should not be mandatory to spay and neuter a dog, because responsible ownership is not simply about whether your dog's reproductive system is intact is it? Indeed, it should not be mandatory to crop a working cocker spaniel's tail if you intend to keep it as a pet and provide alternative predatory outlets for it that don't involve getting it's tail ripped in gorse and brambles on a daily basis.....however, if you WERE going to do that with your pet pointer, then a docked pointer puppy may well be a sensible option. However, it should not be mandatory to amputate and chop off bits of a dog because you think it looks pretty or because some dog breeder will sue you if you don't. It's unethical, inhumane and immoral. That's the issue here.


      Delete
  16. I find it hypocritical that the only way for people breeding for appearance to meet that appearance standard is to alter the appearance of their dogs (docking, cropping, powdering, painting, etc). Then they put these altered dogs up as genetically appropriate examples of the appearance standard.

    But I also find it hard to get all worked up about docking & cropping of dogs by owners who are providing daily care and interaction for their dogs in light of all the unwanted dogs being euthanized or left alone at the end of a chain in the backyard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's absolutely no point in having a breed standard that cannot be achieved by genetics. You're right here.

      There will always be people who are cruel to their animals - what I get worked up about is people who say they care about their animals and go ahead and chop 2/3 of their pets ear off.

      Delete
    2. Pipe dream farm - they are knowingly chopping bits off the anatomy of a dog that they are supposed to love. For what reason? These parts of their anatomy are used to signal and communicate. It is irrational!
      There are many dogs who are uncared for by people who unfortunately do not understand how to care and interact with a dog that benefits its emotional wellbeing, we may probably never fully understand the nature of that problem because unfortunately, dog ownership is not viewed as a privilege. People buy dogs on a whim and the consequences are suffered by sentient beings. No point whining about that because society does not value dogs enough to make changes necessary to protect them from that human behaviour, otherwise dog breeding, owning and training wold be regulated.. I agree with Slinky! Chopping off your dogs ears when you purport to love them does not make sense.

      Delete
    3. Whose definition of "care about their animals" is society going to use: your's, their's, PETA's, mine, Hunte Corp's, Michael Vick's, etc?

      Isn't that what you're really talking about; your definition of care animal/abuse is different then their definition?

      Delete
    4. What we are talking about is caring for animals as you would children but without the commonplace negative impact of turning them into hairy, little babies. We're talking about respecting them, assisting them in fulfilling their natural desires (within reason) and enjoying the interspecies interaction.

      Delete
    5. You make it sound so easy so why not be specific about what is proper care. In other words draft what could be a law that would apply to all (all cultures within one country and all dogs). How should they be cared for; what is allowed what is not. What will happen to the owner and dog if they do not comply? What will happen to the owner and dog if they cannot afford your proposed level of care? Make sure what you are proposing can be supported by science not just emotion.

      Painting pretty images is easy, making it work on the ground is the hard part.

      Delete
    6. Not sure what your point is Pipedream farm. Slinky is making a lot of sense. You just seem to want to be argumentative and are not making much sense with your counter arguments. There are some things that do not have to be fully supported by science. Compassion, empathy, respect and ethics. These abilities contribute to our humanity and our moral responsibility to respect and honour the companions we choose to share our lives with. We don't need a scientific study to understand that.

      Delete
    7. Thank you, Anon. I have no idea what Pipedreamfarm is after either. From my perspective, the response they are looking for is "Hang on a second whilst I carve you up a faultless, nonnegotiable slice of legislation!"

      The premise of animal care is very simple, the only barriers are cruelty, ignorance and the terrible combination of the two.

      Delete
    8. Once, in a cropping and docking debate on a dobe forum, someone said this in response to why she should still be permitted to dock and crop:

      'some people just have a more finely tuned sense of aesthetics. Life is too short to live with ugly dogs'.

      Seriously. I was nearly sick. Ugly dogs........good god. Like a dobe with its natural anatomy is 'ugly', like a boxer with a full tail is 'ugly'. Horrendous attitude, but she actually got likes on her post, and people agreeing. I cannot, and will not ever, understand that mindset of people who think like that.

      I didn't even choose my breed for appearance; I chose it for temperament and nature. The look of them just came as part of the package. In my ideal world, I prefer thick coated prick eared large breeds, more wolfy looking. I ended up with a short coated, drop eared 'houndy' looking breed, not a dog I ever imagined I'd have when I was young.

      But its the temperament of the dobe that drew me in first and foremost. Yet I've known dobe people say that if cropping and docking was banned, they would quit involvement with the breed. I mean, these are big show and breeder people who have been in the breed for years, and they say something like that. Clearly, the nature of the doberman doesn't matter to them a jot.

      My own breeder had a relaxed view of cropping, he owned imported cropped dogs, my own dogs dad was cropped and docked. But when the law came in here, he went along with it without fuss. If he wanted to still do stuff with cropped dogs, he did it abroad.
      Oddly, though he was happy with cropping and docking, he was very opposed to removal of dew claws, and wouldn't do it. He maintained it was extremely painful, and unethical.

      Delete
    9. Dobes are more beautiful and balanced with tails in my opinion.

      Delete
  17. Why is it that with "compassion, empathy, respect and ethics" you have deemed some biologically relevant bits of a dog are acceptable to be chopped off and tossed while others bits cannot but you cannot see the hypocrisy in saying the bits another group has decided can be tossed is unethical?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I cannot.

      Personally, I feel it is more compassionate to remove a dog's desire to mate if you are not going to allow it to do so rather than lock it up unfulfilled. Along with some health benefits, neutering and spaying is already leagues ahead of docking and cropping in welfare. It's not resolved either and my opinion could be swayed, but this is where it lies just now.

      So far the only positive argument to docking could be applied to the amputation of any limb - in case anyone possibly breaks their legs, why not remove in advance! Obviously ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. Because of the reasons stated above! Doh!

      That's what ethics is! It's understanding the choices, the reasons behind choices and the resulting consequences. There are reasons and choices to castrate a dog that impact on the health and welfare of the dog. But also SOCIETY of which you a part of btw. The jury is still out on spaying and neutering as discussed above.

      A dog does not have the cognitive ability to mope about missing out on being a parent and feeling 'unfulfilled if it has been altered. But if a bitch gets pregnant after an unplanned mating and the owner hasn't got the resources to look after the puppies, abandoning the dog would be more stressful. PTSD inducing.....

      Chopping off a dog's ears because you think it LOOKS better is not an ethically sound choice based on the principles described is it? Come on!

      And you can provide alternative predatory outlets for a working dog if you are a committed and compassionate owner. A Cocker isn't suffering because it can't flush pheasants if he's exercised, mentally stimulated and loved and cared for...

      You're black and white Pipedream farm and the world is a delicate shade of grey.....

      Delete
    3. My dog is intact, and he certainly doesn't seem 'locked up unfulfilled'. Using emotive language where it isn't accurate doesn't help your argument. My boy is no different to any dog that is neutered; in fact, he is less randy than some neutered dogs I know! I chose not to neuter purely because of the health risks, nothing more.
      In a wild setting, not all dogs would get to mate anyway. The idea that all dogs are designed to have sex all day long every day and are somehow sitting frustrated in little rooms wishing they could have sex is a very human way to view it. Dogs don't think like that. In the wild, they may not get the chance to mate anyway, they certainly don't sit there thinking 'this is so unfair!!!' They only think about what is happening at that exact time.

      I choose not to neuter because I don't believe it is healthy, and Im responsible enough to own an intact dog without causing puppies, its not rocket science. If I thought my dog was at all sad or miserable for having his balls, I'd consider removing them. He isn't.

      HOWEVER. I am against docking, and don't see the comparison with neutering, to be honest. At least, not fully. While I don't believe routine neutering is that great, or healthy, I do at LEAST recognise that people do it generally for what they believe is the best interests of the animal. People don't cut the balls off for appearance; they do it because they personally believe it is better for the dog. Whether it is or not is hugely debated, and we know what side Im on. But at least their intentions are for the dog's benefit. Not so with docking, at least not in many breeds. In my breed, the ears and tail and removed traditionally, and its all about appearance today. I don't think cosmetic removal of ears and tail for fashion can be compared to neutering for supposed benefits to the dog.

      Docking and cropping done to 'potentially prevent future injury' is asinine, to me. That logic could be applied to ANY body part, including any of ours. Unless the rate of 'potential injury' is hugely high, as in, there is more chance of it happening than not happening, across the board, then its nothing more than an excuse to justify what is, basically, a cosmetic preference.

      Delete
    4. Ziggy, I believe we do agree on every point actually. If you have read the full discussion you will see that I don't feel that docking and cropping is comparable to spaying and neutering either - for the same reasons.

      On the subject of neutering - excuse my emotive language. For me, I always seem to end up adopting someone else's agressive, randy cast-off animal and I've always seen a vast improvement in mental health. I appreciate that not all animals need it.

      Please bear in mind though, any argument on dog behavior which uses "in the wild" as a base point will self destruct. Dogs are not wolves. We have studied them enough to know that archaic beliefs in the "dominance theory" are moot.

      Delete
    5. Most people spay/neuter because they have been convinced it is in the best health interest for the dog (science has not settled this). The possible health benefits were a tool to push an agenda to avoid having to teach humans how to prevent their dogs from breeding. Society found it easier to alter dogs than to train humans.

      Dogs are being docked & cropped for aesthetics.
      Dogs are being spayed&neutered because society found it an easier path to deal with pet overpopulation than training owners.

      Both groups think they are doing something acceptable; both groups are needlessly cutting bits off their dogs.

      Time to go home and deworm 200 sheep with the help of my dogs. Enjoy your weekend.

      Delete
    6. Slinky, one thing: I never said they were wolves. Wolves were not mentioned in my post, nor was dominance theory, as I do not believe in it and am aware dogs are not wolves. I specifically didn't mention wolves for that reason.
      What I was referring to was dogs left to their own devices and allowed to live as 'wild' as possible. Generally, feral dogs are the best indicator for how a dog, not a wolf, acts without man's influence, and in said situations, the fact remains that not all dogs would get the opportunity to breed.

      Delete
  18. Personally, I feel we sell dogs short to think they cannot feel fulfilled if they do not mate and still retain reproductive organs. Just the same way I feel dogs bred to do a function can feel fulfilled if they never do that function.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you have pretty high expectations of them. Even herding breeds try to fufil themselves by herding their family.

      And I certainly wouldn't be happy as a sexually mature adult mammal without being able to make the choice to breed or not on my own. On that note, I am totally against forced breeding too.

      I get what you're up to, Pipedreamfarm, you're just playing Devil's Advocate. Why don't you just give us your genuine opinion?

      Delete
    2. Where is your evidence that dogs feel unfulfilled if they cannot mate?
      It's just your opinion isn't it? It's not grounded in any facts. Dogs may well feel frustrated if they are intact and are interacting or can smell a bitch in heat. But if they can't, they won't! You simply manage the behaviour like everything else. Your expectations are not realistic or grounded in understanding how their brain works. Personally, I'd rather spay a bitch than manage her when her hormones are raging in heat. You could argue that if she is not allowed to mate and has access to other dogs, that could be incredibly frustrating.

      Delete
    3. Slinky, you are a human, you cannot compare what makes you feel 'fulfilled' with what makes a dog feel fulfilled. I wouldn't be too fulfilled chasing a tennis ball about for an several hours then sleeping til dinner time and then gorging myself on raw cow parts, but my dog seems to think all those things are just brilliant.

      Dogs have different priorities to us. Trying to debate something using the mindset of 'I wouldn't like it, so why should I dog?' is doomed to fail from the start.
      There are lots of things we prevent dogs doing that are natural to them, and they probably would, given the choice, prefer to be allowed to do. Unless you have no boundaries or rules for your dogs and allow them to indulge every desire they have, every time, then you are also restricting them. Must be very frustrating for them, no?

      Delete
    4. Anthopomorphism is useful when understanding emotions and outward behaviour in another species. But we have to remember that the cognitive processing that goes on in dogs is limited compared to humans. There is no real evidence tat dogs mentally time travel, tat they can contemplate the future or feel unfulfilled or unhappy if they don't get to reproduce. It's human beings who carry that emotional baggage. Not point being anthropocentric as it doesn't help you understand the canine species.

      Delete
  19. Yes, I have very high expectations of my dogs and most often they come up to the expectations I set for them.

    I know a little something about herding breeds and I can assure you they do not need to herd something (or have ever herd something) to feel fulfilled. Doing what you call "herding their family" is just inappropriate behavior no different than allowing a bully breed to mouth someone.

    I told everyone my opinion; I see no need to crop or dock for aesthetics. I also see spay & neuter as a lazy human approach to controlling the breeding of dogs.

    Why is it shepherds can prevent their loose (not on leash) Border Collies from breeding with just verbal control when pet owners must resort to S&N to prevent their leashed dogs from breeding?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because not everyone who owns a Border Collie understands canine behaviour or has good handling skills and experience. For some people they are just a pet and are not invested enough. That doesn't make it ok, it's just the way things are! You may have high expectations for yourself but don't inflict them on other people. Idealism. Black and white thinking. Pragmatism and realism?

      Delete
    2. To use your own argument.....

      Not everyone has the same aesthitics as us and so they crop and dock. Doesn't make it right; it's just the way it is.

      Delete
    3. And that is where ethics and morals come into the equation....

      Get it yet?

      Delete
    4. Isn't everyone here trying to inflict their idealism upon those who dock & crop?

      Delete
    5. No they are trying to stop cruelty.

      You clearly don't get.

      Delete
    6. Actually, it's cropping and docking that is idealistic. Because you are inflicting an unnatural shape on a dog that pertains to a made up breed standard. An ideal. One that is not grounded in nature and natural selection.

      Delete
    7. This discussion is supposed to be about docking. Cropping does go hand in hand with that but the discussion about spay and neutering is really a separate debate, I'm sure we all agree. We know there are actual grounded reasons that people select to S&N and reasons of equal value that you may choose not to. It is a separate debate because people who have chosen to do it believe they have the best interest of their pet in mind - which is occasionally the case with docking and never the case with cropping.

      There's some reasons you might dock a working dog, but other than that I cannot fathom it. And I really cannot come to terms with cropping at all.

      Delete
  20. Someone needs to play Devil's Advocate in one sided discussion boards because without different opinions or ideas no one is ever forced to think about why they hold their opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the primary function of biology. All organisms have a primary function of reproduction. At no point here am I trying to suggest that dogs are seeking sexual gratification....

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ethics are being used as the foundation for many people’s arguments against docking & cropping; in fact the point of this blog was the use of ethics by a kennel club for docking. Many here have stated that it is obviously unethical to dock & crop.

    I submit that what is ethical and what is unethical is not obvious. If ethics were obvious, then why do some people find it ethically acceptable to eat animal species that other people find unethical to eat? Certainly if what is ethical and unethical were obvious these would be consistent across all cultures and all times. If ethics were obvious (absolute and universally constant) western society would never have found blood sports (or docking & cropping) ethically acceptable.

    I have chosen to lump spay & neuter in with docking & cropping because, ethically, I see no difference between cutting off one part of a body vs another for reasons other than the health of the animal. Ethically, I see no difference between using aesthetics or easier animal management to justify any of these procedures.

    I suppose now I will have to read people telling me that my ethics are wrong because they do not match their ethics; eventhough I do not believe their ethics are wrong for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sensible determination and application of ethics involves looking at the needs of wider society and not just your own thoughts and feelings.

      Docking a dog, removing it's tail for aesthetics ONLY, will limit it's social abilities in canine society. That may create problems if owners are not skilled in reading their dogs' other signals to avert aggression. The tail is a very important aspect of communication.

      There are wider societal implications when it comes to unwanted puppies. As anyone can own a dog, regardless of whether they understand the species or not, society has deemed that it is more effective to therefore prevent this occurrence castrating dogs. If people had to have a demonstrable level of knowledge of behaviour and biology before being allowed to own a dog, then perhaps the mentality would be different. I would rather keep my dogs intact personally, but then I have a level of knowledge and understanding that affords me to make choices that will not affect society. I'd never own a dog with a docked tail or cropped ears. It's cruel.

      It's why we have to legislate against docking. Because there are people also in the Fancy who think they are experts, but are actually abusing dogs in the name of aesthetics.

      Sorry to ramble on but I do know where you are coming from. There are an awful lot of people who haven't a clue about canine ethology and biology...and a lot of them own dogs. I want it taught in schools. It needs to get in at a grass root level so the next generation will no longer tolerate even what we are discussing now....

      Delete
    2. "I have chosen to lump spay & neuter in with docking & cropping because, ethically, I see no difference between cutting off one part of a body vs another for reasons other than the health of the animal."

      This is what we're talking about. I knew deep down, you agreed with what we're talking about. SOME people feel that evidence points towards there being health benefits to S&N.

      Delete
    3. "Docking a dog, removing it's tail for aesthetics ONLY, will limit it's social abilities in canine society."


      I guess you think that all of these breeds with genetically bobtailed dogs are disabled in terms of their social abilites:

      Australian Shepherd
      Austrian Pinscher
      Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog
      Braque du Bourbonnais
      Brazilian Terrier
      Brittany Spaniel
      Croatian Sheepdog
      Danish Swedish Farmdog
      Jack Russell Terrier
      Karelian Bear Dog
      Mudi
      Polish Lowland Sheepdog
      Pyrenean Shepherd
      Rottweiler
      Braque Francais aka Savoy Sheepdog
      Schipperke
      Spanish Water Dog
      Swedish Vallhund
      Pembroke Welsh Corgi
      Boston Terrier
      English Bulldog
      King Charles Spaniel
      Miniature Schnauzer
      Parson Russell Terrier
      Boxer
      French Bulldog
      McNab (dog)
      Miniature Fox Terrier
      Old English Sheepdog
      Rat Terrier
      Tenterfield Terrier

      Delete
    4. Yes I do! Because we have artificially selected them!

      Delete
    5. Did you read the articles cited that Daniela posted specifically aimed at you?

      You keep pontificating without reading any evidence!

      Delete
    6. If a stranger’s eyes were all we had for reading body language (like a robotic dog with variable tail positions), obscuring the view of the eyes would have significant impacts on reading body language (like a cropped tail). However, humans view more than just eyes when reading body language just like dogs read more than just tails. The authors clearly state this, but since this was not part of their hypothesis they did not dwell on it.

      From the discussion section: "Although our model does not provide the large numbers of social cues that socially complex animals use...."
      (dogs use many more cues that just tails)
      "....it defines specifically the attributes of individual signals such as the tail length and tail motion."
      (the authors looked at just one cue with the other cues eliminated)

      Did you not read this part of the evidence?


      Of course removing one of several body features used in communicating body language will have SOME impact on communication in much the same way reading bodying language of a human wearing sun glasses. But I don't think the impact is as great as you all are making out. I guess this is just another place where we will continue to disagree.

      Delete
    7. Or botox in their foreheads....unable to read basic emotions.
      You don't think the impact is as great as you are making out....

      How convenient! You might as well say, I don't think the impact of a Pug having no muzzle is as bad as you are making out. It has a nose. It can breathe therefore......

      Your twisted logic is actually amusing me now. I'm wondering what else out can come up with next. You'll be saying that deliberately breeding dog's with spinal deformities for bobtails is fine because at least they don't have to have their tails docked next!!

      You're twisting my melon man!

      Delete
    8. @PipedreamFarm

      you seem to be deliberately leaving out the fact that some of those breeds also have natural full tails. There are bobtails yes, but there are also dogs with full tails. The bobtailed variety may very well be socially disabled. You can't say the ENTIRE breeds is if the ENTIRE breed isn't entirely composed of natural bobtails.

      Australian Shepherd
      Austrian Pinscher
      Brazilian Terrier
      Danish Swedish Farmdog
      Jack Russell Terrier
      Karelian Bear Dog
      Mudi
      Pyrenean Shepherd
      Rottweiler
      Braque Francais aka Savoy Sheepdog
      Schipperke
      Spanish Water Dog
      Swedish Vallhund
      Pembroke Welsh Corgi
      English Bulldog
      King Charles Spaniel
      Miniature Schnauzer
      Parson Russell Terrier
      Boxer
      McNab (dog)
      Miniature Fox Terrier
      Old English Sheepdog
      Rat Terrier
      Tenterfield Terrier

      ALL come in non-bobtail variate as well.

      Delete
    9. Daniela. I'm starting to think he's just liking the attention!

      Great point!

      Delete
    10. There is a major flaw in the "evidence" of impact of cropped tails on the communication between dogs. The researchers’ interpretation of the subjects' reactions to the model were due to subjects' ability (or inability) to read the signals from the two length tails. If the dogs were reading the signals from the model's tail they were also reading the signals from the rest of the model. The signals from the rest of the model were not changed while the signals from the tail were. Therefore, one or more of the test conditions likely were giving mixed signals (this would be analogous to a human saying yes while shaking their head no).

      In the mixed signals situation can one interpret the subject's reaction as being due to the signal from just one body part or is the reaction to the mixed signals from the entire body?

      Would it be normal canine behavior to be giving mixed body signals?
      Would a dog's reaction to mixed body signals be considered normal canine behavior?
      If it is not normal canine behavior, can the reactions observed be used to assess the impact of tail length on canine communication?

      I found the article as "evidence" less than compelling because while the hypothesis is good; the experimental design has significant flaws which makes interpretation of the observations difficult.

      An appropriate design to assess the impact of tail length would be when the entire model is giving off the same signals and the impact of tail length is measured.

      Delete
    11. I did not write these entire breeds were bobtailed, I wrote "with genetically bobtailed dogs". I guess you needed me to write "with genetically bobtailed individual dogs".

      Delete
    12. Pipedream Farm - where is the evidence that it is in the dog's best interests to cut off it's tail for aesthetic purposes?

      And I am nor referring to 'because that's because the breed standard directs it and I better do what my breed club says or I'll get sued..'

      You know, actual evidence that it is in the best interests of the animal's physical health and emotional welfare to remove a tail that evolution figured was still a good thing for it to hang on to.

      There isn't any evidence is there? so your endless quest to be 'right' is really your own ego desperately cliniging on at all costs.

      Delete
    13. There is unreliable evidence that it is in the best interest of the dog to remove the tail (some poor studies on the injuries to tails in working dogs) and unreliable evidence that it is bad for the dog to remove the tail (study on body language communication discussed above). There is no reliable evidence to require tail removal or to require retention of the tail. Since there is no evidence I personally (with my libertarian leanings) see no reason to mandate/legislate tail removal or tail retention.

      Delete
    14. How about the evidence that docking causes pain? That is enough to reject docking as an elective procedure given the lack of benefits.

      Delete
    15. Of course there is a requirement to mandate against cruelty (tail docking) when no hard evidence exists to promote the practice. It's why people risk assess! Your Pipedream thinking may work in Pipedream land but not in the real world. How would you feel if someone insisted on injecting your forehead with botox because there was unreliable evidence that you would 'look better?'

      Delete
    16. Your analogy of forcing an injection upon me does not fit with my stand on not forcing either tail docking or tail retention upon owners.

      Most of the arguments for and against docking are nothing more than emotional opinions which both groups wish to force upon others. Tail docking is unnecessary but where is the proof it crosses into animal cruelty?

      If causing short term pain for an unnecessary procedure is all that is needed to define animal cruelty then most vaccine boosters must also be considered animal cruelty.

      Delete
  23. "...society has deemed that it is more effective to therefore prevent this occurrence castrating dogs."

    It is a sad commentary on our society when society has decided that humans cannot learn or society is too lazy to try to educate; therefore, dogs must pay the price by going under the knife.


    "It's why we have to legislate against docking."

    In other words your ethics are right and other people's ethics are wrong and since they will not accept your ethics, you will legislate your ethics. How would you feel if people who do not eat cow (or who do eat dog) or think it is unethical to keep pets decided to legislate their ethics upon you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pipedream Farm.

      Common sense has to prevail at some point with the evidence people have to hand. We already have legislated against docking actually.

      I think you are too idealistic and too black and white and you will suffer in your thinking. You have a very naive if noble view that everyone should think idealistically about dogs the way you do. Life just ISN'T like that.

      You keep repeating yourself.....

      Delete
    2. ....while you think since everyone does not think the way you do about dogs you'll legislate they are required to do so.

      Not much is learned when people are simply told you cannot do something as opposed to educating them why one way is better than another.

      "You keep repeating yourself....."
      You're doing the same thing. We will continue to dissagree.

      Delete
    3. Pipedream Farm - you do not understand human nature!

      Delete
    4. What is your probelm!? do you not rear these comments?

      Everyone knows that education is the key to everything! It's just not a priority when it comes to dogs...and the people on here DISAGREE with that!!

      Delete
    5. What was the point of PDE; if not to educate?

      Delete
    6. They disagree that SOCIETY has chosen not to PRIORITISE this! And that it takes campaigners like PDE to get it in the public profile.

      Dear oh dear....

      Delete
  24. " SOME people feel that evidence points towards there being health benefits to S&N."

    Just like SOME people feel that evidence points towards there being health benifits to docking.

    ReplyDelete
  25. In my mind the best argument against dock & cropping is if the KCs want their dogs to look like this (tailless/short tailed and small erect ears) do what your standard says and breed them this way. If you cannot produce dogs that look like your standard you're either a failure as a breeder or the standard is unattainable (so change it). In my opinion this is the best argument because it works within their own ethics as opposed to trying to force my ethics upon them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear god.

      On the 29th May you posted "I find it hypocritical that the only way for people breeding for appearance to meet that appearance standard is to alter the appearance of their dogs (docking, cropping, powdering, painting, etc). Then they put these altered dogs up as genetically appropriate examples of the appearance standard"

      .......AND EVERYONE AGREED WITH YOU!

      Sorry for the caps but I feel it's justified in this case.

      Delete
  26. I'm feeling a little annoyed, Pipedreamfarm. It doesn't appear that you read any of my comments fully before considering a response.

    "Just like SOME people feel that evidence points towards there being health benifits to docking."

    .... I have accepted and agreed with the fact that docking for a health benefit is, in my opinion, acceptable on a case by case basis. Which is the same opinion I have for S&N. And for a matter of fact the same opinion I have for making an incision in any animal or child.

    Just because you would carry out an operation to remove a tumor on a young, mostly healthy dog does not mean it would be ethically acceptable to perform the same surgery on any dog.

    As you can see, putting a weak and already compromised older dog through a long and laborious recovery with poor prospects is not necessarily in the animals best interests.

    This is where we fall with tail docking.

    For some dogs, there is a viable health benefit. For some people, even considering to follow through with the docking - even based on that health benefit - seems inherently cruel.

    But so long as there is a viable health benefit, we can't legislate against it! Not until we can show that it is more detrimental than beneficial.

    So in short, I am confused as to why you are quoting me when I say that some people feel there are health benefits to S&N.

    Why do I feel as though I have to defend my own opinion on a subject not discussed in this article? Why do you make seemingly condescending remarks which come across as directed at me about the fact there are positives to docking when I have already accepted and expressed this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slinky, part of our issue is my responding to multiple posters in one post because of me not keeping every discussion separate. My apologies.

      The bottom line for me is I prefer education over legislation for improving how people treat their animals. Legislation removes the need for people to think about why they are following certain animals care practices. Education if done right will cause people to think about why they are following certain practices which may stimulate critical thinking about other aspects of their animal care practices.

      Delete
  27. and then took it even farther to say it should be banned legally.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gee, how do wolves and dingoes ever survive in the wild without someone to chop off their ears and tails? Don't their tails get all bloody when they are hunting? Don't their ears need to be chopped off?

    No. Wolves and dingoes have natural ears that don't drag the ground, and their natural tails are not so fragile as to bloody up while out in the bush.

    So if a dog has ears that drag on the ground or a fragile tail that bleeds uncontrollably after a run in the woods, this is a fault in the fitness of the dog, often a true sign that the dog has a genetic weakness or genetic fault that causes him to need surgery which usually is not required even in canines which live outside summer and winter, and who run hunting in the bush daily. So maybe the comments about spaying and neutering are spot on, maybe these dogs which need preemptive surgery should be neutered/spayed so not to pass on this weakness to future generations?

    But most lopping off of tails and ears is done for fashion. One person said he liked dogs with bobbed tails or tails over their backs so that he could look at the dog's anus when the dog was facing away from him. He said he thought it was the cutest part of the dog. I'm not going to comment on his statement, but his words gave me pause to think about why do some people insist on boobing the tails of their pet dogs?

    ReplyDelete
  29. It is cruel to cut off a dog's ears and tail. Just plain mean. Amputations are painful while they heal, and leave 'phantom' pains ever afterwards. Dogs do need to have these two types of movable limbs to communicate well with other dogs - especially strange dogs they are newly meeting. It is like cutting off someone's tongue.

    ReplyDelete