Boxer needs a docked tail!!!

garom_2

I like other posters cannot believe that in this day and age that someone would want there dogs tail docked just so it looks pretty.
I have a springer who has had his tail docked and was done when i rescued him for a breeder who was about to put him down because he had a hernia.

But after reading some comments i can assure you he still 'smiles' with his tail!!!

ailuro2

Vets declaw cats in the USA, leaving them unable gain traction and to climb trees in event of a doberman (or coyote-it's the U.S.)getting into their yard and wanting to have them for lunch.

So U.S. vets don't carry out cruel mutilations to please fickle pet owners?:mad:

For those of you who prefer the 'cut' dogs here's a thought for you-

Are your kids are very beautiful - perhaps if they are not you could save up for some surgery for them?

No? You wouldn't do that to a family member just to make them pretty?

Well,my pets are family members, and get treated like one and offered the same love and care.

I suggest anyone who wants to take on a pet dog tries thinking along the same lines.

Docking TROLLS' tails or amputating their fingers to stop seeming so ugly- that's another debate for another day!:p

suki1964

quidsin wrote: »

Well Kirsyj would it turn your stomach seeing a dog with an injured tail??? thats the counter arguement, its worse docking an older dog with an injured tail than it is a 3 day old puppy!!!!

So dock ALL pups on the off chance of one in a hundred or so getting an injury?

Maybe we should put humans down as well , just in case one goes on to get a serious illness

suki1964

TheShrew wrote: »

hello all.
I'm just replying to be awkward really as I don't agree with tail docking at all.
But I've thought about this argument a lot in the past and I still haven't completely come to terms with it myself. So I'm throwing my thoughts into the mix to see what comes out!
If tail docking, i.e. putting a pet through an unnecessary surgical procedure for cosmetic reasons, is wrong; then why is it acceptable to remove warts or take off fatty lumps/lipomas(assuming they're not causing trouble by their position and rubbing etc) when they are benign and we just don't like the look of them?
I'm just curious as to what everyone thinks about that,
Thanks!
Sx

Personally I wont/havent.

My last cocker was covered in lumps and each time one came up, when we were next seeing a vet I had them aspirate to check it was benign and if so left it be. The few that needed to be removed (rubbing and causing hair to matt) were done so when he was being put under for treatment that was needed for health reasons

Debt_Free_Chick

suki1964 wrote: »

So dock ALL pups on the off chance of one in a hundred or so getting an injury?

Or simply allow those at a higher risk of injury to be docked - which is what the law currently allows.

Some dogs are bred for working purpose and working through brambles, undergrowth or - heaven forbid - around barbed wire :eek: places them at a greater risk.

If you've never lived around working dogs this can be difficult to appreciate, but Springers, for example, are bred in two "strains". Working or non-working. Working Springers are generally acquired by those who really do intend to work the dog e.g. on a shoot when the risk of an injured tail is very, very real and, sadly, happens all too often.

suki1964

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Or simply allow those at a higher risk of injury to be docked - which is what the law currently allows.

Some dogs are bred for working purpose and working through brambles, undergrowth or - heaven forbid - around barbed wire :eek: places them at a greater risk.

If you've never lived around working dogs this can be difficult to appreciate, but Springers, for example, are bred in two "strains". Working or non-working. Working Springers are generally acquired by those who really do intend to work the dog e.g. on a shoot when the risk of an injured tail is very, very real and, sadly, happens all too often.

You are preaching to the converted here - spaniel owner (or should I say owned by spaniels)

The one thing that Ive never ever understood with the "working docking " rule is, how comes a working cockers dock is much longer then a show cockers dock?

I had a show cocker with a full tail years ago and believe me you certainly didnt want to get a smack in the mouth from it but you usually did cos he wagged it constantly. Now although not a "working dog" by any stretch of the imagination, there was still enough retrieving trait in him to go off into the brambles and gorse hunting out birds, andeven with full tail and full feathering - not a single injury. Yet when he died and I went looking for a show cocker undocked, I couldn't find one and had to go with a docked cocker with a tiny stump of a tail (still love him), This was a dog bought from a reputable SHOW breeder, so well bred from lines of SHOW cocker's, that he wouldn't know how to chase a bird if his life depended on it.

The working springer I was fostering came from a long line of working dogs and the litter was bred with the intentions of getting a good worker. Of course the whole litter was docked yet the majority of the litter went as pets and will never be worked. And I still would argue that a 3/4 dock as working spaniels are given has to be (if following the argument that tails get injured when in the field) more liable to injury then a show cocker who doesn't have much of a notion of working yet ends up with a short dock.

And not all "working bred" dogs end up in working families. Here there are very very few show bred springers or cockers, but the small ads,the pounds, and the rescues are full of working strains - all looking family homes as they are ones that are surplus to requirements when a litter was bred looking that one special dog - and the whole litter are docked as no breeder can tell on day one which pup is the pup they are keeping.

relay

The op still hasn't answered why she can't stand the thought of a Boxer with a tail.

I wonder if she has ever seen one with a tail before & what she finds so horrifying about it?

Mrs_pbradley936

allycat999 wrote: »

Though nothing beats the day we did a caesar on a boxer !!!!! and saved 5 beautiful puppies only for the breeder to demand that we put them down as they were white!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I find that hard to believe. Not because white boxers do not happen now and then but because if a breeder was as fussy as you claim this one to be then they would make sure that neither the sire nor dam was white. A whole litter being born white when neither parent is white does not ring true.

pboae

Not at all, flashy coats are extremely fashionable at the moment, and interbreeding 2 flashy parents dramatically increases the chance of a white litter. Often pups are euthanised because breeders don't want it to be known that they have non-breed standard coats in their lines, rather than because the pups are actually deaf.

Rough/long coated Rotties suffer the same fate even though there are no health defects that specifically co-occur with it.

MrsTinks

It can happen if both parents carry the recessive genes... And unfortunately white boxers are usually deaf - for the breeder to have the pups euthanised though is very heatless if you ask me and the only reason I can think of is to "hide" the potential of the white gene in the parents. I don't know if the white gene would affect their breeding price or more likely the stud fee's of the dog and the potential price of the b!tches offspring...
Still utterly heartless!