Reply from No10 re permission to band dogs tails Controversial

The thread was started by a pro-docker, you`d have to ask her why really, but that aside, do you really expect people to not talk about a topic [ any topic ], just because you dont see the point yourself ?
No one forced you to read it after all ;-)

im back
I posted this thread as I wondered how the government was going to enforce the microchipping/ docking rule I posted it on the gundog thread as I thought it might be of interest to those of us who have traditionally docked breeds.
Two of my last litter have gone to working homes, unfortunatly my next liter wont be docked so I'll having a contract drawn up to say the pups I sell wont be worked as I cant bear the thought that a dog I breed might end up with a tail injury

Good thread but the whole docking thing has been done to death numerous times.

At the end of the day folk that want to dock will dock regardless of the law.

My dog does all this too and this is his intact tail - no problems so far :

When you get a damaged tail that doesn't heal it can keep on 'ripping' again and again and again.

A dog can work for a lifetime without a single problem but if done young enough docking eliminates the risk.

Does nipping a wee tail off a pup who will be fine an hour later hurt more than this or needing to get it chopped as a result of this ?

Ouch! :-(

If I may draw your attention to Mahooli`s post,

As far as that old and much used photo goes Phil, when my lad cut an ear on brambles there was a heck of a lot more blood, on him, on me, and all over my kitchen walls and floor until I got a dressing on it before going to the vet. It was actually a very small cut which just needed a bit of medical glue on it and to be kept covered for a few days.
Perhaps that dog in the photo would have been better served by being given treatment instead of being kept waiting while being posed for a photo...

To your comment :
When you get a damaged tail that doesn't heal it can keep on 'ripping' again and again and again.


The owner of that dog says :
"Matty worked probably three days a week on average through the season and I appreciate this is more often than many dogs ".


So, is it any suprise the initial injury was not given a chance to heal like others would for their dogs which get a cut, [ anywhere on the body including tail ] ?

The owner also said :

"it soon became apparent that I will have to have her tail removed, a risky operation at her age involving a full anaesthetic".

If it `soon` became apparent, why did the dog continue to be worked so heavily with recurring [ alledgedly ], damage until the dog was of an age to be at higher GA risk ? [ The dog started working in 1995 ].

And frankly, having a dog whom I nursed through a leg amputation, compared to a friend whose dog had a tail amputation, [ a Lurcher, a scum bag broke her back and the tail was removed because the weight of it was preventing the spinal damage from healing ], well a tail operation is a heck of an easier and safer operation for a vet to perform with faster recovery for any dog than a leg amputation.


Even the CDB, [ probably without realising it was a shot in the proverbial foot ], acknowledges that non docked breeds and mongrels can have tail damage too. In other words, any tail *might* be damaged at some time, however its certainly not common compared to ear or pad cuts in pet dogs which have those things happen more than a few working dogs which get a scratch on a tail, [ and which are repeatedly still sent in to alledgedly hazzardous situations ].
The plain fact is, it was done to working dogs because of olden days tax laws, not because of damage, that never came in to it and is no more relevent now than it was then.


Also, do you have any comments to Kruse`s post about Greys and Staffies ? [ post no 13 ]

But that's just the point. A working dog could be required to work every single day of the week and not just for pleasure. Some folk rely on the dog for their job and can't afford to give the dog a few days off. To some a dog is quite simply a tool and (whilst I agree a dog can be injured anywhere on the body) docking minimises risk in one particular area.

..................

Thanks Patch!

Luke, I'm not mocking anyone, the point I have made repeatedly about cutting off a paw or an eye as they may be injured is NOT a joke form me, I am being honest, that is how I see it.

So you are saying we chop off part of a dogs body, because it would be inconvenient and costly if it gets hurt?????? That some people merely see their dogs as a tool and so that makes docking ok?
Sorry Phil...it's exactly that attitude that makes me stand my ground further. We owe all dogs more than that.

No, not for me it doesn't Kruse

Let me start by saying that I am totally against cosmetic docking. I have very little experience of working Gundogs, so I remain on-the-fence as far as docking of these is concerned.

I too have a fair bit of experience in caring for dogs in boarding and agree with your comments in that the breeds with long, fine, sparsely coated tails tend to suffer more tail injuries in kennels than other types.

No doubt undocked Springers, Cockers etc are less likely than Greyhounds to suffer injuries in kennels, but they do in the field. No surprise there..... different environment completely. Not just the cover, but the use of the tail and anyone who has seen Spaniels working should appreciate this.

I would imagine that somewhere in the history of the development of these breeds, it was discovered by the people concerned with working gundogs, that docking was a suitable and convenient way of preventing injuries in later life.

What about Greyhounds? A breed developed along a completely different historical path and for a different purpose. Galloping is facilitated by the tail, for balance. Racing dogs would be far less efficient without it. And they don't traditionally work cover, so no need for docking.

Kruse, I think your argument would be valid if the decision to dock had been made by a central body and applied to breeds on an individual basis, and based on their then current niche in society. But that's not how it was.

I don't think the people who decided to dock Spaniels gave a flying fishcake whether Greyhounds were docked or not...... and maybe the modern day pet Greyhound would be better off docked! I don't know, but the reason it isn't is because of tradition.

You CAN NOT compare a working spaniel or HPR breed too that of any breed, a stafford doesn't work how a spaniel does..nor does a greyhound, its totally different. This is turning into yet another joke this really is

thanks patch, Yes Ramble and I have diff thoughts on docking, I will never change rambles mind on the issue so I respect her views and thoughts, truth is there are pros and cons on both sides, im sure ramble will agree (not)
the one thing I would say is ( since joining dogsey I have taken on board others views some have even managed to change my way of thinking Its helped me broaden my mind, ) thanks all, ps love a good debate with ramble she is so polite

The reason why working dogs are 'traditionally' docked has nothing to do with injury, it's to do with tax, working dogs weren't taxed so to differentiate between working dogs and the 'luxury' pets they docked the tails of working dogs!
Becky

Yes I realise there is the tax issue but are you sure this was the original reason and that it has nothing to do with injury?

Awwwwwwww.
Thanks Shona!
I love a good debate with you too.:smt052
I know everyone will be shocked by this, but I have some VERY strong opinions. I know it's hard to believe. I try however, to respect everyone elses opinions too and there are some people on here who I consider friends, who I have totally conflicting views to. That's what debating and discussing is all about though and it really is important that it is kept polite and friendly. We all have our own points of view and I love that, life would be boring if we all thought the same.
I also always try to remember 'walk a mile in my shoes' all our opinions are based on our life experiences so far, just because your life experience is different to someone elses, just because you have a set opinion...doesn't make you right, it just means you have one of many opinions...making life much more interesting.

Nope there is no happy medium here with pro and anti docking, but we can keep it polite and respectful. No one will change my mind on this particular issue, but I have (believe it or not) been swayed by other debates on other threads...

As for other breeds not being traditionally docked, as far as I can see, there is no other reason than it isn't 'tradition' to do it.:?

I appreciate working dogs may injure their tails, but not all do. I appreciate those dogs that do injure their tails may suffer an amputation, BUT I do feel that to take away a tail, just incase, is wrong. My opinion and in this case, I am well and truly sticking to it.:smt002


Now...group hug....

Well becky once again you have educated me, I had no idea it had anything to do with tax, feeling rather silly you would think owning docked breeds I would know this No matter I do now, thanks becky

DITO WELL SAID, RAMBLE,
I did manage to win you round on the horse poo thing so your not unflexable in your opinions, As the owner of docked breeds I tend to sit on the fence a bit re : docking, having raised two litters who were docked I have seen the other side of it, its not to pleasant when they get infected, or when the pup begins to sit, some times it sits bang on the stump and it hurts them, thus taking longer to heal, the litter out of kaos recently were fine but the mother raised them and this must make a huge diff, I had a really bad time with the tails on my hand reared litter, so I see the bad as well as the good, I will not change breed due to a tail, though many have said they will, to me they never loved the breed to begin with if a tail is all it take for them to move on, my thoughts on these top show folk, good riddence to bad rubbish, ha ha ha

Good post Ramble. Agree with most of what you say.....as usual

I think it's a case of weighing up the initial trauma and subsequent disadvantages of amputation against the risk of injury in later life.

In the case of removing a leg/s ...... a ridiculous proposition as the intial trauma, without anaesthetic, would kill the puppy. If done later with GA, would render the dog useless for working and possibly an increased chance of injury because of instability.

Tail docking; much less trauma but however little, is it enough to justify the outcome? Reduced chance of tail injury and no known disadvantage in working. May be some disadvantage within species communication. The answer for me would be in actual statistics for injury in working dogs.

Still on the fence. I'm getting splinters in the bum, but there's a much clearer view up here