Boxer needs a docked tail!!!

Soubrette

I think, Mrs pbradley936;8981981, that you are arguing against a position that no one here is taking. I do not think anyone is saying that the reason that docking is wrong is because it is unnatural, I think the argument is that the tail is a natural and useful evolutionary tool and the benefits of getting rid of it (in most cases) are far less than the benefits of keeping it. Conversely the consequences of docking are far worse (in most cases) than the consequences of not docking.

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

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

That's how I see it. Likewise, when we make moral decisions regarding anything in a vulnerable position such as our children and elderly.

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Those things which we know (or which we are advised by professionals) are for the benefit of the animal are fine.

I prefer to look at it in as a pro/con exercise. Are the benefits outweighed by the disadvantages?

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

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.

What do you mean when you say personal views and tastes? Views and tastes seems to imply (to me) something relatively trivial such as preferred colour of your dog. If there is negative benefit to the dog such as not being able to fully communicate, inflicting of pain and possible infection then these are things that can be quantified and so are not really views and tastes are they? It is more to do with putting your wants aside for the greater good. Same as if you preferred an undocked tail but decided to have your dog's tail amputated due to injury.

When I say 'you' I mean you generally not you personally Mrs pbradley936;8981981, as I am aware that you are commenting on the apparent paradox that you see (but I do not) rather than the actual pros and cons of docking itself

Sou

Mrs_pbradley936

Soubrette wrote: »

I think, Mrs pbradley936;8981981, that you are arguing against a position that no one here is taking. I do not think anyone is saying that the reason that docking is wrong is because it is unnatural, I think the argument is that the tail is a natural and useful evolutionary tool and the benefits of getting rid of it (in most cases) are far less than the benefits of keeping it. Conversely the consequences of docking are far worse (in most cases) than the consequences of not docking.



That's how I see it. Likewise, when we make moral decisions regarding anything in a vulnerable position such as our children and elderly.



I prefer to look at it in as a pro/con exercise. Are the benefits outweighed by the disadvantages?



What do you mean when you say personal views and tastes? Views and tastes seems to imply (to me) something relatively trivial such as preferred colour of your dog. If there is negative benefit to the dog such as not being able to fully communicate, inflicting of pain and possible infection then these are things that can be quantified and so are not really views and tastes are they? It is more to do with putting your wants aside for the greater good. Same as if you preferred an undocked tail but decided to have your dog's tail amputated due to injury.

When I say 'you' I mean you generally not you personally Mrs pbradley936;8981981, as I am aware that you are commenting on the apparent paradox that you see (but I do not) rather than the actual pros and cons of docking itself

Sou

When I first started reading the thread my first thoughts were (and still are) why on earth are people so uptight about a practice which no longer takes place? There is absolutely no need to either defend or to lambast the procedure that has been confined to history (well in the UK at least).

My friend with the Doberman bought him with the tail already done (he honestly thought that they were born like that) and when my friend took him to the vet for a check up and vaccination the vet asked if he wanted to schedule him for his ears. So I think it is over the top to infer that anything we personally dislike is wicked if it is a perfectly legal and common practice and in addition done by a vet.

HC_2

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote:

When I first started reading the thread my first thoughts were (and still are) why on earth are people so uptight about a practice which no longer takes place? There is absolutely no need to either defend or to lambast the procedure that has been confined to history (well in the UK at least).

Yes, it does still take place. I went to purchase a puppy just before Christmas. She had had her tail docked. I can't begin to imagine the pain she endured.

Mrs_pbradley936

HC wrote: »

Yes, it does still take place. I went to purchase a puppy just before Christmas. She had had her tail docked. I can't begin to imagine the pain she endured.

Well do excuse me but I thought that the whole thread was due to a person wanting a docked Boxer and finding out that it was no longer allowed. Someone please enlighten me!

anna42hmr

these are the laws as they stand on docking (this is from the following site http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/ ):

Regulations for tail docking were debated in both England and Wales as a part of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and
these Regulations came into force on 28th March in Wales and 6th April in England. Under the Regulations,
in England and Wales:

• The cosmetic docking of dogs is banned . Therapeutic docking (treatment of illness/injury etc.) is permitted on all dogs
• There is an exemption for 'working dogs' as defined by the English and Welsh regulations to include those used by the police,
  armed forces, search and rescue, and gun dogs and dogs used for pest control purposes . The breeds covered by this
  exemption can be found below for England and Wales.
• Only a vet can dock an exempted puppy's tail, he must see the dam of the puppy and he must carry out the procedure before the
  puppy is five days old (although the vet's decision to dock is entirely discretionary).
• If the vet decides to dock the puppy he must certify that he has seen specific written evidence that the dog is "genuinely likely to
  work" in one of the permitted areas and the puppy has to be microchipped.
• The owner must also make a declaration that the dog is likely to work (a false declaration is an offence).
• Dogs born after April 2007 cannot be shown with docked tails at fee paying shows in England and
  Wales but can be in Scotland if they have been docked legally.
• The owner of the dog should have in their possession the legal docking certificate.
  
  Anyone seeing an advertisement which does not meet the above criteria should immediately report it with as much evidence
  as possible to the Local Authority in which the breeder lives (search the web for Local Authorities and then
  go to Animal welfare on these sites. They can also be reported to the RSPCA
  RSPCA cruelty and advice line tel. 0870 55 55 999. or use this link
  http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=MyRSPCA
  This link can help trace telephone numbers in adverts:-
  http://www.ukphoneinfo.com/cgi-bin-Phones/nng?GNG=01299266532&Submit=SubmitThe Local Authority, the RSPCA and any private individual can bring a case to Court. If a case is proven expenses can be
  re-claimed.
  REGULATIONS:-
  ENGLAND - The regulations for truly WORKING dog exemptions as from 6th April 2007
  (although some may be found not to be suitable for work later) are
  TERRIERS and their crossbreeds
  SPANIELS and their crossbreeds
  H(unt)P(oint)R(etriever)s .
  This does not apply to dogs bred as pets .
  There seems to be a consensus that these regulations must be reviewed between 2 and 5 years.
  also see these relevant DEFRA links:-
  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/20071120.htm
  http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/index.htm
  http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/docking.htm

WALES - The list of truly working dog breeds exempted and as amended in the Welsh Plenary as from 28th March 2007

(although some may be found not to be suitable for work later) is now as follows:

SPANIELS: of only the following breeds will be eligible English Springer Spaniel; Welsh Springer Spaniel; Cocker Spaniel,

but not combinations of breeds and

TERRIERS of only the following breeds will be eligible Jack Russell Terrier, Cairn Terrier (normally undocked!)

Lakeland Terrier, Norfolk Terrier - but not combinations of breeds.

H(unt)P(oint)R(etrieve) breeds remain as originally drafted. Bracco Italiano; Brittany; German Long-haired Pointer; German

Wire-haired Pointer; Hungarian Vizsla; Hungarian Wire-Haried Vizsla; Italian Spinone; Spanish Water Dog;

Weimaraner; Korthals Griffon; Slovakian Rough-Haired Pointer; Large Munsterlander; Small Munsterlander.

This does not apply to dogs bred as pets.

Also see this link:-

http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/a
hw/animal_welfare/Companiondomesticanimalwelfare/taildockingregulations

/?lang=en

Anyone who is cruel to an animal, or does not provide for its welfare needs, may be banned from owning animals,

fined up to £20,000 and/or sent to prison.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/draft/20075778.htm

SCOTLAND - The Animal Welfare Act bans certain "mutilations" which includes dog tail docking except

for therapeutic reasons as from 30th April, 2007. Scottish Executive:- 'If dogs are to be taken from Scotland for the purpose of having the tails of their

<B>

puppies docked, to be then brought back to Scotland for sale, it is likely that the courts would consider

this to be a journey in connection with an economic activity. As a consequence the provision of Council

Regulation (EC) no 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport would apply. The significance

of this Regulation is that the animals must be "fit to travel" and Chapter 1 of Annex 1 of the Regulation

states that pregnant female for whom 90% or more of the expected gestation period has already passed and

females who have given birth in the previous week are not considered fit for transport. Thus if a dog were to

be taken from Scotland to give birth, she would need to make the journey at least 6 days before the expected

date of the birth and could not be transported back for 7 days following the birth.'END

</B>

A review of the legislation may be done later. We approve of this legislation. Scotland has not banned the showing

of docked dogs.

The penalty for docking a dog's tail will be a fine of up to£5,000 and/or six months imprisonment. see this link for

the complete Act:-

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2006/20060011.htm

N. IRELAND - Still ongoing consultation as at June 2007 but law currently remains as it was pre 2006.

HC_2

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Well do excuse me but I thought that the whole thread was due to a person wanting a docked Boxer and finding out that it was no longer allowed. Someone please enlighten me!

You could just read the posts on the thread to understand what is being discussed.

tiamai_d

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.

Neutering dogs, both male and female has lots of health benefits for example reducing the risk of cancer. Controlling the population, reducing the number of unwated (because they have tails?) puppies born. It is done for the benefit of the dog as much as the owner.

Neutering and tail docking are as disimilar as contraception and a face lift.

Soubrette

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

When I first started reading the thread my first thoughts were (and still are) why on earth are people so uptight about a practice which no longer takes place? There is absolutely no need to either defend or to lambast the procedure that has been confined to history (well in the UK at least).

One reason could be that people fear that if they do not express disapproval then the practice will continue - like speeding, it's illegal but most people don't mind speeding a little bit and society in general does not condemn it.

Another reason could be that people don't like suffering, even theoretical suffering for no good reason. We don't have gladiatorial games either but I'll bet if someone suggested bringing them back then there would be a heated debate (although I'm sure some would suggest potential victims!!)

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

My friend with the Doberman bought him with the tail already done (he honestly thought that they were born like that) and when my friend took him to the vet for a check up and vaccination the vet asked if he wanted to schedule him for his ears. So I think it is over the top to infer that anything we personally dislike is wicked if it is a perfectly legal and common practice and in addition done by a vet.

Hmmm, I see I didn't explain my self very well the first time, it's not about personal dislikes is it? or views or tastes? Not for most people on this thread than I can see anyway. It's about inflicting pain and suffering for fashion. Some posters have explained why their dogs tails are semi-docked and nobody has lambasted them. I visited a rescue greyhound with a docked tail, he had injured it too badly for it to recover and so had to lose it, I'm sure no one would condemn these types of dockings. Conversely if you could come up with enough good evidence that the benefits of docking outweighted the negative in all cases then I'm sure that there wouldn't be the strong reactions against it. In fact if you were persuasive enough then it would be the non-dockers that would be lambasted as not putting the dogs needs first.

It's not docking per se that people are arguing against but the consequences and risks of that action.

Sou

Mrs_pbradley936

HC wrote: »

You could just read the posts on the thread to understand what is being discussed.

My understanding is that there has been a change in animal welfare legislation to the effect that only certain breeds of dogs may now be docked whereas previously other breeds could be docked. This tells me that in some cases docking is deemed to be for the benefit of the dog but that previously dogs were docked that would not benefit. Or else why not ban it all? Perhaps you can outline exactly what I am missing without resorting to sarcasm?

We could be having exactly the same moral debate about whether or not it is OK to smack a child. Years ago children got the cane in school and it was accepted practice to discipline children by smacking now people are against it and want to outlaw it altogether. Or we could be talking about abortions and instead of the photo of tails we could be treated to pictures of tiny babies torn from their mother’s wombs. Some people are for that and others against but you cannot ask questions (and receive sensible answers) and debate with people who are over emotional to the point that their judgement is clouded and their language advertises that fact.

DKLS

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Well do excuse me but I thought that the whole thread was due to a person wanting a docked Boxer and finding out that it was no longer allowed. Someone please enlighten me!

Have just done a web search to see how easy it would be to get a KC registered puppy with a docked tail., in less than 2 mins, I have found 4 litters of boxer and dobermann puppies.
Vets must be doing a roaring trade in ireland