Boxer needs a docked tail!!!

dmg24

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Since it is not allowed anymore what does it matter? If you want a Boxer you have one with a tail. BUT I am in the USA right now and a friend has recently bought a Doberman that had the tail docked and at 10 weeks (two weeks after my friend picked him up) the ears were "done" so that they are erect. The dog is still wearing a collar so that he cannot mess them up. I doubt if it is cruel if the vet did it but necessary? No way, still plenty of humans have cosmetic surgery so it is hardly something to get worked up over.

But humans have a choice to have cosmetic surgery. If someone was ugly and was therefore sedated without their consent and operated on, would that be 'hardly something to get worked up over'?

Incapuppy

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Since it is not allowed anymore what does it matter? If you want a Boxer you have one with a tail. BUT I am in the USA right now and a friend has recently bought a Doberman that had the tail docked and at 10 weeks (two weeks after my friend picked him up) the ears were "done" so that they are erect. The dog is still wearing a collar so that he cannot mess them up. I doubt if it is cruel if the vet did it but necessary? No way, still plenty of humans have cosmetic surgery so it is hardly something to get worked up over.

Plenty of humans do have cosmetic surgery but that is the human's choice. What choice does a dog have about being mutilated for the sake of what it's owner considers to be 'fashionable?' :mad:

Mrs_pbradley936

Someone else over here had their dog's vocal chords cut because he kept annoying the neighbours and it was that or get rid of him. BUT if you follow the line of logic from a few of you on here then spaying and castration should not be allowed either. That is usually only for the benefit of the owner not the dog - interfering with nature and all that. Sometimes you have to interfere with nature or pets would have worms, fleas, distemper etc. If a vet is happy to do something that ought to be good enough because I cannot imagine that they would be unkind.

dmg24

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Someone else over here had their dog's vocal chords cut because he kept annoying the neighbours and it was that or get rid of him. BUT if you follow the line of logic from a few of you on here then spaying and castration should not be allowed either. That is usually only for the benefit of the owner not the dog - interfering with nature and all that. Sometimes you have to interfere with nature or pets would have worms, fleas, distemper etc. If a vet is happy to do something that ought to be good enough because I cannot imagine that they would be unkind.

Would you cut a child's vocal chords because they annoyed the neighbours? This just gets worse ...

Spaying is done for a specific reason, and that is because the animal population would become uncontrollable without such a measure, and if this happened, it would be the animals that would suffer.

I have no idea what purpose anything that you have suggested would serve?

Mrs_pbradley936

dmg24 wrote: »

Would you cut a child's vocal chords because they annoyed the neighbours? This just gets worse ...

Spaying is done for a specific reason, and that is because the animal population would become uncontrollable without such a measure, and if this happened, it would be the animals that would suffer.

I have no idea what purpose anything that you have suggested would serve?

I think you are mistaking my meaning. I am not advocating these procedures, simply pointing out that other people in other places do not share your views. I could care less if the OP cannot find a docked Boxer and since it is against the law anyway why are you so het up about it?

bathgatebuyer

Tan007 wrote: »

Thanks for all your kind replies. looks like I will have to get one with a tail then, my husband is sharpenning the meat cleaver as I type!! Get real, dogs have been docked for hundreds of years.

Slavery existed for many years too, didn't it? That you would even contemplate putting an animal through unnecessary suffering for the purposes of YOUR own vanity suggests that you should not have the responsibility for any animal.

Leave owning a dog for those that would look after it rather than mutilate it.

Mrs_pbradley936

bathgatebuyer wrote: »

Slavery existed for many years too, didn't it?

Yes, quite. Docking is not allowed any more so nobody needs to carry on about how dreadful it was.

Incapuppy

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

BUT if you follow the line of logic from a few of you on here then spaying and castration should not be allowed either. That is usually only for the benefit of the owner not the dog - interfering with nature and all that.

You do seem to be somewhat under-informed.

Have you heard about the increased occurrence of mammary tumours in unspayed females or pyometra which can often cause a very rapid and painful death - usually because by the time the owner realises that their old girl is suffering from it, it is far too late to save them?

Spaying and castration also prevents the occurrence of accidental litters.

Mrs_pbradley936

Incapuppy wrote: »

You do seem to be somewhat under-informed.

Have you heard about the increased occurrence of mammary tumours in unspayed females or pyometra which can often cause a very rapid and painful death - usually because by the time the owner realises that their old girl is suffering from it, it is far too late to save them?

Spaying and castration also prevents the occurrence of accidental litters.

So, and do correct me where I am wrong, some things that interfere with nature are fine but others are not. Those things which we know (or which we are advised by professionals) are for the benefit of the animal are fine. Those which some of us find distasteful (but that others don’t mind at all) are only fine (or not fine) depending on our personal views and tastes OR those of our professional advisors.

Incapuppy

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

So, and do correct me where I am wrong, some things that interfere with nature are fine but others are not. .

You are correct.

Some things that interfere with nature are fine as they are procedures carried out with the welfare of the animal in mind.

Procedures that are carried out on animals for cosmetic reasons are not fine.

Imho.

PS: I have noted your comment that you are not advocating these procedures, merely commenting them.