Reply from No10 re permission to band dogs tails Controversial

Couldn't agree more Shona.
Personally and i know it's controversial, I absolutely LOVE rottis. I have to say, long term, I think having a tail will actually enhance their reputations, but again that's just my opinion. I love rottis, I esepcially love them with a tail.

Pod..I know, us agreeing is a habit now I think!:smt002
I appreciate why people sit on the fence on this one, especially when they don't 'work' their dogs (I dont 'work' mine either in this sense of the word.)
The thing that gets me is the 'just in case' no, we wouldn't amputate a leg when a pup was a few days old because of the trauma BUT there is trauma involved in amputating tails at a few days old, so I personally don't think it's okay to do on a 'what if'. I wonder,if a couple of decades down the line, the mention of the old days when docking was an acceptable practice brings horrified looks....

Yep, my thoughts exactly Shona, those Rita Heyworth types huh???
Look at those lovely doggys grinning with a waggy tail...as opposed to look at those scary dogs over there...

Aha ! Can`t let this one go past me - the vets who amputated my lads leg were a farm practice as well as pets. It was in Yorkshire where every other farm had sheep and working Collies. They told me they had done amputations on some of those working dogs, [ one they told me of was horrifically injured in an accident with a combine harvester ], and the average time for the working Collies which they had to amputate for to be back at work was three weeks after stitches were out.
In one case they had a tripod in who had injured another leg irrepairably so he became a two legger, [ both legs same side ], and yes he was retired from working but still enjoyed life with amazing mobility, learning to use walls, chairs etc to get up then to push off from to start momentum going and off he`d trundle.

Given the way a Collie works in physical movement terms, [ and having a Collie tripod myself on whom I can base a great deal of personal experience ;-) ] tripodism and working dogs rather knocks the instability notion on the head ;-)

What I can say without a shadow of a doubt is that a tripod with tail has a much easier time of it than those without because tripods absolutely catagorically without question use their tails with great proficiency and need, to balance well for all aspects of movement including getting up and laying down and everything they do physically in between.

Race horses are also a `tool` but can you imagine many, [ any ? ], owners being selfish and cruel enough to keep racing them repeatedly week after week with a known injury because those horses should be out there `earning their keep`....?
Or do they heed a vets advice, give them treatment and recovery time so that the problem does`nt re-occur time after time because a bit of time off will lead to long term recurring-injury free proficiency to do their `job` ?

The Wefare Act does include working dogs so if a dog with an injury is being made to work without giving an injury due time to heal, then not only are they morally wrong in every way but now they will be breaking the law - perhaps thats something for such types [ those working dogs knowing they have an injury which has not healed ], to consider as that will hit their pocket, [ if fined or if dog confiscated ], more than a couple of weeks off for an injury, [ any injury whether tail or not ], to properly heal up...

Military dogs, police dogs, airport sniffer dogs, SAR dogs, Ordinance sniffers, etc, do jobs upon which lives may and often do depend so for one of them to be rested for recovery after an injury the ramifications are potentially huge however those dogs whose jobs are considerably more important in the scheme of things, if injured any time, they do get the best veterinary care and as much time off as they need so that they can recover fully and go on to save more lives.

If such important working dogs can have medical `time off`, then dogs used for hunting certainly should be able to.

Despite extensive searching I have yet to find any historical evidence to suggest that docking was carried out to prevent injury.
If we start in the Roman times they used to bite off the ends of the pups tails to prevent rabies, they thought the tendons pulled out of the tail were worms that caused rabies, it then goes on down the ages with no mention of preventing tail injury but the next big one was the tax issue, it also meant that poaches who used lurchers etc would dock their dogs so as not to pay tax but then the dogs were not fast enough to run to catch the quarry for the poacher.
In the early part of the Kennel Club (late 1800's) there was a debate about docking back then, along with ear cropping. Ear cropping was banned but docking narrowly survived on the grounds that breeds such as OES, Schipperkes and other breeds with whole tail removal no longer had their tails 'gouged out' as that was deemed to be cruel.
Becky

It was originally believed by the Romans that if a human had worms, biting off and eating a puppies tail would cure the humans worms because the `tail worms`, [ tendons ], would kill off the humans worms then be passed through the system.

[ Researched by Roger Tabor ].

I believe the rabies issue came later, rabies in humans probably being blamed on the eating of the tails so that side of it stopped, which would tie the two pieces of research together as to why the tail removal continued as rabies `prevention`.

The dog tax was repealed in 1796. I find it a little hard to imagine that from that date to this the working dog owner did not at any point explore the possibility of working the breeds that are still presently docked, with tails on and discovering if that was practical. After all not all breeds are still docked that were then, such as the lurcher, and hard working country folk are not known for carrying out pointless tasks :smt001

If it were valid to dock working dogs, can you explain why ear cropping for working dogs in UK, ie ratting, was not made an exemption ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_(animals)

"The usual reason for docking dog breeds is to prevent injury to working dogs. For instance, it has been stated that a vermin's bite to the working dog's flop ears can lead to a systemic infection, a serious medical problem that wouldn't occur were there no flop ears to be bitten.

This is contested by a wide range of groups and is often considered a form of cruelty and torture. This has led to the practice being outlawed and made illegal throughout many countries, in some of which dogs are no longer bred for work, or used as working animals."

and

"Surveys carried out in Sweden since the docking ban with the attempt to prove the necessity of docking have failed to provide sufficient evidence that this is the case and so doing have strengthened the argument to the contrary — that docking does more harm than good."



CBD photo evidence of damage to an undocked dogs tail, [ of a traditionally docked breed ],




ADA photo evidence of damage to an already docked tail



Please can you explain to me how docking was beneficial as a damage `preventative` to the second dog ?

To use the Spaniel photo again [ source CDB ]



And another from ADA



Please can you explain to me how the damage done to the second dog pictured was justifiable to `prevent` something such as a `might possibly get a cut tail during its life` when the one pictured as injured, [ the Spaniel ], is an overworked, [ while already injured ], dog, certainly not the norm :?

Please tell me how it justifies risking such horrific dock damage, [ and worse, many pups including whole littlers have died from post-dock blood loss or infection, including `properly` vet docked...], as a `preventative` for an occasional or even rare occurence such as a tail cut, [ which could happen to any dog or any breed ], compared to cut pads or grass seeds or all manner of considerably more common injuries which could happen to any dog at any time ?

I'm sorry I don't understand your questions really :smt001 . Ratting dogs ears exempted from what?
Are you suggesting the docked dogs would not have sustained damage if they weren't docked? It seems to me unlikely and at least the injuries that will occur due to lack of docking aren't going to happen as well. Actually the first docked dog does not appear to have any damage to my eyes. Could just be a poor photograph but it just looks like the bald patch that some short haired dogs display at the end of the tail to me.
Anyway all these arguements have been gone over many times it was just this idea that there would not have been any re-evaluation done by the working owner since 1796 that I question, well clearly they has as not all working breeds are just routinely docked :smt001

Ear cropping as per the quote provided

I`m saying any tailed dog `may` damage it at some point, same as they `may` damage a paw, and ear, an eye, a cruciate, any other part of them any time. `Maybe` is not a good enough reason for the wholesale docking of millions of dogs over the years. No one knows if a dog will be unjured in some way today, tomorrow, next week, next year, or ever at all.

Its fact that docked dogs also have tail stump injuries under conditions which docking was supposedly to prevent.
Its fact that working dogs docks are *longer* than Show docks. Why ? Is`nt that the wrong way round as far as logic goes ?

If a comparative number of dogs of one breed, compared to a statistical proportion of Spaniels getting a cut tail from a bramble, get tail damage because of being caught in a door, should all of that breed then be docked `just in case` ?
I believe door trapping to be a far more common risk, [ and occurence of damage to dogs in general ], than brambles !

Speculation m`lud

The docked dogs are the ones getting double trouble, they are injured from being docked, then can still have injuries to the stump anyway. They were saved from nothing in such cases.

I dont know any normally tailed dogs with such a bald bit as the norm. The Weims bald bit is how the Boxers bald bit will also look when healed [ as the Weims did ]... Therefore, nothing `extra` was prevented, they both had the same damage.

I would say it mostly comes under nothing more than custom and practice, when no one thinks much about why they do something habitually as a nation / group / colective etc, they just do it because its what they are used to.

I still don't understand how it is deemed to cruel for dogs, yet ok for lambs. And the lambs are not before 5 days old either...

I don't think it is.

Yes but exempted from what ear cropping law?
The point about tails as oppose to paws, ears, eyes, cruciate etc is quite obvious the dog works better with all those others :smt001 .
My friend breeds boxers and several of her have had visible bald bits. I suppose you could call that damage in that it results from the original scar tissue formed over the dock but it does not trouble them in the least.
If docking was just custom and practice why did it only apply to dogs that work in specific terrain and with specific tail action rather than all working dogs who were orginally docked prior to 1796. Again I am just speculating :smt001 but applying logic again, if valuable litters that the working man had spent his meagre resources on were lost to infection, bleeding etc it seems to me that in those 200 years it would have been attempted to rear a litter or two with tails on and when those working dogs were found to be perfectly capable without injury he would have continued and been joined by the next man to discover this and so on and so the practice would have passed away in evolution and yet it hasn't. We could argue all night about whether it benefits working dogs or not and I suspect neither would convince the other and so I did not post for that, just to question the use of this rather ancient law to suggest that is why things are done as they are. I really can't see it for the reasons I have given.

Patch the weimies already docked tail doesn't look damaged to me? Maddy has a bald patch like that on the end of her tail where the hair hasn't grown into the scar tissue from the dock. If you part the hair on a docked dog's tail you will find a bald patch where the dock was. Most dogs fur grows longer at the end of the tail and you don't notice it but on a weimy it sometimes is more noticeable as their hair is very short.

Sorry if i've missed something obvious it's been a long day. I just can't see the damage?

Yes, and now pardon this if it sounds cold but i'm stating the facts. I'm sure the fact the lambs had their tails banded at an age when they would probably feel it doesn't cross the mind of those who sit tucking into their lamb chops on a sunday!
With the exemption of some present company who I know are not meat eaters

The quote is self explanatory I would have thought. Cropping used to be done to `protect` ears, including working dogs `at risk` from infection / disease if bitten by rodents. Cropping was outlawed in UK including for those `at risk` working dogs...
The result of the ban has not meant people with working dogs being up in arms about `possible` damage to their dogs ears.

And with their tails, for balance, for turning, for communication etc.

My friend got a docked Boxer which has constant pain as a result, requiring treatment by the vet and pain meds and steroids, [ to stop him chewing the stump constantly ], for the rest of his life.

Because there is no logic to it.

No one said humans are logical as a species - far from it :?

Then we will have to agree to differ but I do thank you for an interesting and polite conversation :smt058

That'd be me then ;-)

Out of interest - why would they only feel it at a few days young and not older?

I believe its from a recovered adult injury :smt001

I dont think its ok for lambs nor do I believe its necessary in this day and age, [ funny how it always creeps in to conversation though ;-) ].


[ From studies on pain of tail docking and castration of lambs, and fly strike prevention ]

http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/Essays/2003/simon.html

"There are many alternatives available which have been shown to decrease or eliminate distress caused by castration and tail docking of lambs. Morris (2000) reported the success of organic farmers in controlling fly strike by placing flytrap bins in paddocks and regularly inspecting stock. These farmers do not dock lamb tails, or use chemicals to control flies. Many reported to have eliminated fly strike from their farms."