The supposed "hygiene" reason is actually a good one. Not all males wash the area as often as they might and although it is now disputed by anti-circumcision groups, the scientific evidence for a link between smegma and cervical cancer is still strong.

I don't think the fact that someone might be lazy enough to not wash themselves properly is a good reason to remove part of their anatomy, which is there for a purpose.
:)

Can't agree JG. Try working in the third world or just an inner city hospital. You might be surprised at the levels of cleanliness you regularly see.

I disagree, its nothing to do with where you live or how much money you have, soap and water are very cheap to buy!
I think its more about taking pride in your appearance, cleanliness and health and anyone who doesnt do that has obviously either not been brought up very well, or is just downright lazy!!

I think tail docking should be banned :P

A shame to start off with such a post, however.......

If you think that simmo,  you really must have led a very sheltered life!  Whilst it's easy for those of us who have a house with running water and enough spare money to buy luxuries like computers etc.,  to think that water and soap are cheap,  there are many people in this world who know that reality is very different!  For many what you spend on soap and water would feed their whole family for a year!

Like the views against docking for working dogs it does show a single lack of knowledge.  Having seen a Spaniel, (owned by a do gooder who thinks docking is barbaric), cut it's tail to pieces whilst out on a WALK!  I can assure you that the pain and suffering it went through were not minor!  The op to remove the tail was very traumatic for the dog,  who now shakes in fear anytime it goes near the Vet.  But of course, the owner felt very good about not having a docked puppy!

I tend to agree with the view against cosmetic anything for dogs,  but do feel that those with knowledge are best placed to make decisions.

I do wonder how many of the anti docking lobby have dogs that have been 'modified',  or do they all have breeds that have never been 'selectively bred'.

However like so many issues where a minority want to dictate the rules, whilst not understanding the problem,  we will I am sure see a ban on docking.  Then we'll see the same people whinging about the 'bad' owners who let their dogs be injured.  And probably whilst they are letting off lots of noisy fireworks for their celebration party.

But of course,  cruelty only matters if the 'animal rights' and 'anti everything' lobbies don't enjoy it!

Good post Alan. Welcome to the board.

Hi Alan :D

Good points there ;) :)

I am anti docking and have been most of my life I am from farming, shooting family of jewish decent with a sister who's a midwife in the USA where most male babies are circumsised because the family are told it's needs to be done by their dr ------ wrong, the Dr's like vets earn more money performing this procedure which as the UK male populations clearly shows is not a necessity!

Comparing Circumsion to docking is not a good idea both are horrific, believe me I've attended a few jewish ceremonies of my cousins and boy do they scream blue murder, now that is just skin imagine what a puppy feels at the same age ie less than 5 days when you cut thru muscle, bone, spinal cord as well as skin, both go to the nipple to suckle for comfort afterwards if it was painless they wouldn't need the comfort feeding!

I now own breed exhibit and work a docked breed they go to ground like a bullet just like a terrier and they'll not give up till they've got their prey, they rat like mad things nothing gets across my yard if they're out and the odd male has been known to spoil the fun of our local hunt when the fox came on our land - schipperke 1 fox and hounds 0, good job we know the hunt master hmmm lol.  In 8 yrs of owning this breed and working them I've not had a tail injury on any of my undocked dogs and I only have 2 docked males the remaining 6 are fully tailed as they were born.

I made my decision not to dock based on my own experiences the worst area's from my experience to suffer injury are ears on springers, grandad had working dogs and stopped docking after losing a litter, odd really coz when my schips go in the cover at the same speed with heads down, tails and  ears up they never seem to have any foriegn body in their ears or damage when they come out.  As far as we're aware schipperkes are the same now as they've always been with just as many skills to their bow herding, hunting, guarding and loving nosey little monsters lol.

Alan, my friends Border Collie cut his tail out on a walk, does that mean we should dock them too? :-(

For that matter, ears and feet are in danger as well, how far does it go? Docking has become a tradition, it is not necessary in pet dogs. My collie keeps cutting his stopper pads because he runs and skids at high speed. I will not be removing them! :p

Do they seriously do that to baby boys with no anesthetic? Can't they wait until they are grown up?! :D :D :D

my friends collie had to have her tail sdocked after injury too!!!

Claire,
As with most things the anti lobby desperately seek stupid examples to try and prove their case!  If you actually bothered to read what was written,  you'd see that we are not talking about an odd cut!  But why let facts get in the way?

It may come as a surprise,  but not all dogs are pets living in people's houses.  Some actually get out and work which is something rather different.  One doesn't often find brambles and thorns in the living room!  There's a whole lot of them out in the country though!  And Spaniels seem to love getting in them.

If someone owns a dog whose breed is susceptible to injury and chooses not to do anything about it,  no-one will moan.  However,  because some breeds are docked for cosmetic reasons,  the anti lobby takes it's usual stand that everyone must be the same,  therefore those who may have a good reason for docking are tarred with the same brush as the show addicts who do it for cosmetic reasons.  Yet again they refuse to let facts get in the way of their argument.
'Far better to let a few of those horrid working types be injured than not get our own way.'

I too know a Spaniel that has never had an injury in his 8 years,  strangely this doesn't stop other Spaniels getting injured.  Odd that isn't it?

I see Spaniels working most weeks and heve never seen one damage it's feet or ears in the field.  I have seen several cut their tails.

Alan - because someone has a different view point to your own does not make them 'stupid' :rolleyes:. The proposed legislation within the Animal Welfare bill allows vets to dock individual dogs which are going to be used for working purposes - the difficulty will be in convincing vets that this is indeed the case with a litter of very young pups - unless your vet knows you very well and knows for sure that you work your dogs (and is in favour of docking) then it will be very unlikely that docking will be allowed. Most people on here agree that exceptions should be allowed for true working dogs but the examples given by Claire and others are valid ones - all dogs MAY injure themselves at some point and we do not cut off other parts of their anatomy as a preventative measure.

Hi Alan,

Welcome to the Board ;)  Been lurking a while or just discovered it? 

What a pity your first input had to be on such a controversial issue although such threads have been in abundance in recent weeks.  As I don't know you nor you me, I will not make the assumption that you intend to be bombastic and hope that in turn you will respect my right to opinions which may well differ from those of yours  - as with anyone else.

References to >the anti lobby<  and >show addicts<  could so easily give the impression that you have no tolerance or respect for anyone who's opinions or hobbies differ from your own :(

Regards, Teri   

What a pity your first input had to be on such a controversial issue although such threads have been in abundance in recent weeks.



Perhaps this is the first thread Alan felt strongly enough about to post?  I didn't know it was compulsary to only stick to happy topics for your first post :D

And I said it was *compulsory* exactly where ??? 
Methinks you're stirring, Chloe :D :D :D

Moi? :D :D

Eh, Yep :D

Welcome to the board Alan :)

Most dogs have the instinct to do what they have been bred to do for years - just because one spaniel is actually worked as a gun dog does not mean another will not follow its instinct to charge through brambles on its walks, so where does "cosmetic" docking start? My terriers are not worked, but they still have to investigate whatever hole they find - we all know how terriers who got stuck in holes were removed in the past, so what new method have the anti dockers come up with?

Sorry dont understand your post Fillis - I would have thought that leaving their tails on would have made it easier to pull them out when they get stuck down holes :D

Also my Belgians also 'charge through brambles on their walks' - should I have them docked ???

Just out of interest.... Does anyone have any personal experience of any dogs suffering any ill-effects after being docked as a whelp by a vet?

No personal experience, and no knowledge of anyone else having any problems.

The only experience I've had of a dog suffering from incorrect docking (I don't know if the dog was breeder- or vet-docked; it was many years ago before the law changed) was a dobermann whose stump rubbed on the floor when she sat down and wagged, and it became ulcerated and infected, requiring further surgery to cure it.

The dog is pulled out by the base of the tail - to try to pull it out with the part which is normally cut off would cause injury to the tail and not get the dog out. Also if the dog backs out of the hole an entire tail is more likely to be damaged. My point is - why should dogs who are worked be exempted from the ban? Answer - to appease some, and help the ban go through with less fuss. I do not agree with the ban, but if it is passed, it should be all or nothing - no exceptions. This, I understand, is also the view of the CDB. I would still like to know why IF there are to be exceptions, why should it only be for dogs who are worked. 

Saw a vet programme set in Australia, where a puppy Jack Russell was docked and died under the anaesthetic. I thought that was b****y tragic. It was only a pet too, the woman just wanted it to look like other Jack Russells.

I'm against docking unless there's a medical reason, or possibly working dog (but I'm not really that convinced on that one)
Kat

Unfortunately that could just as easily have happened if the dog was anaesthetised for any reason. One of my dogs died as a result of having a GA. Nothing to do with the condition that was being treated. (Which is why I'm very anti any surgery for non-medical reasons.)

My breed is prone to anaesthetic problems, but also regular blood testing is recommended. My boy is VERY vet phobic and had to be sedated for his (only) blood test. He took over 4 hours to come round properly. It wasnt the tail docking in the Australian case which was the problem, it was the anaesthetic. If the dog had been docked originally, he would not have died, so this does not argue the case for not docking. This to me says that if the tail is at risk in some breeds, better to dock at 48 hours when anaesthetic is not needed. So the choice should be left open.

Hi Trevor,
I appreciate that holding a different view to me does not mean that someone is stupid, which is why I was referring to the argument that feet etc., may need including rather than suggesting that any person was stupid!

In fact I would suggest that the 'anti' lobbyists are anything BUT stupid.  They were very quick to realise that they could have the changes that they wanted made,  without the need to worry about considering all the facts and points of view.

Teri,

I have certainly lost a lot of patience with the anti lobby!  I very much respect the right of everyone to their own opinion,  however there are an awful lot of 'anti's' whose main interest is getting their own way.  I have met a lot of them who have little or no understanding of what they are complaining about, but want to be involved for somewhat selfish reasons.

The anti hunt lobby is a very good example.  I have had countless lectures about how the hunt ban will save foxes from suffering,  save many foxes lives etc., and all from people who have no idea of what they are talking about.  Several have told me quite catagorically that each fox needs an area of approx 5 square miles,  therefore you will only find one fox in any area of that size!
Others have told me that no fox has ever killed more than it needs to survive!  That the idea of a fox killing every hen in a hen house is a myth created by the pro hunt lobby!
Still others have assured me that the fox in this country is an endangered species and without the hunt ban would be extinct within 5 years!!!

Getting back to the docking subject,  we see that there may be an exception made for working dogs that actually work.  Now that is big of them.  At the end of the day it still boils down to 'I want my way and if dogs suffer as a result that's OK.'

You are right,  I should have defined 'show addicts'.  To me these are the people who will do anything in order to win a show/rosette/cup.  In most cases these people tend to be much more interested in the cups etc.,  than their dogs!
I wouldn't want you to think that I object to the people who enjoy shows and also have the best interests of their dogs high on their mind.  I know many such people.

Don't you think it would be a better idea to legislate against the organisations that have a docked tail etc., in their show standards?  Surely this would have solved the problem without the need for those who have a genuine reason for docking tails having a problem finding a vet to do it and having to wait for the dog to need surgery?

Hi Alan,

I can't help but see your post as having very cut and dried opinions of people who share views different from yourself.  We could each lose patience with anyone holding an opposing view to our own but assuming that everyone from the other side as ourselves is only out to get their own way is a sure fire way of closing communications down and will get no-one anywhere - regardless of stance on any issue.  :(

While I am very much against fox hunting as a *sport* I am open to the belief that the fox population in certain parts of the country needs to be controlled.  Like many of the "anti-lobby" it is specifically the *sporting aspect* of fox hunting which is an issue and that is on animal welfare grounds.   Also like many of the above I don't see everyone involved in hunting as being *blood thirsty* blah blah blah  -  BUT, *some* of them are ;) just like some of the anti-hunt protestors are *misguided* as to what foxes do.

Please try and remember that as in every walk in life there are always undesirables - thankfully they are not the mainstream.

Regards, Teri

Teri,

I'm sure that Alan is more than capable of answering, but I'll just chip in, in his defence.

I'm very much inclined to agree with your post. Most 'anti' people I have come across have the best of intentions and you yourself seem a sensible, pleasant person that I just happen to disagree with.

However, much of the frustration in issues such as this is caused by the fact that we just dont get the chance to 'agree to differ'. Most docking & hunting people fully respect people opposing these activities, but it doesnt end there, as those opposed are seeking to stop these activities altogether. Thus, those who are 'pro' have much more to lose if the debate doesnt go their way.

Additionally, virtually everyone has an opinion on this type of issue, whether they have any experience or knowledge of the subject or not. Everyone is entitled to their view, but it does get frustrating when the views of those with no knowledge receive the same weight from politicians than those that have 'lived and breathed' a subject all of their lives.

Hi Havoc,

As with any issue that ends up in a Bill or Law being drawn up, there is no >"agree to differ"< option  -  that's something that, even in a democracy, we all have to accept or risk prosecution.

I'm from Scotland - I didn't want a Scottish parliament, seen it as a total waste of money, think most of the SMPs are "wannabees" - but can't do much about it.  It's happened, moneys been squandered already (and that's ongoing) and we have the smoking ban :D - not going down well with me at all, so I can empathise to a degree :D - however, I can't CHANGE it.

There has been so much repetitive debate on the foxhunting issue and it always boils down to pro - having liveliehoods forcibly removed from them;  anti - protecting animals from an outdated traditional bloodsport.   You see that's the thing about *views* - they are VERY personal.

Argument that veers from either of these issues becomes twisted, or corrupted and even blatantly falsified by both sides - there is very little credibility left and so the powers that be will make a ruling and we'll just have to get on with it. 

Regards, Teri ;o)
destined to put on about 3 stones when she gives up the ciggies !!!

I would love a smoking ban as I have bronchial ashtma that is brought on by second hand smoke I have no objection to people smoking but I don't want their second hand smoke so why should I have to sit breathing in a cancer causing substance ? because someone else ones to indulge in this deadly habit

I would like to ban

1. Idiots with car alarms that no one ever listens to

2. Burglar alarms that don't turn off after 15 minutes

3. Non smokers :D

4. Drunks

5. People who sit next to me on the bus and then insist on talking

6. People who phone me trying to sell something

7. Email spam

Ooh, don't get me started! ;) :D

I would like to ban me - then it wouldn't matter about anybody/anything else :D :D :D

Daisy

Naw, ban everyone else - then REALLY do what you like :D :D :D

Teri

So move North - sorted :D

Teri

This seems like as good a point as any to lock this thread. It is now far too long and has changed topic about 5 times.