borderterrier 0 Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Don't you just love Ben Bradshaw & the RSPCA. Tail Docking The RSPCA says dogs rely on tails to communicate with each other. Depriving them of this removes their ''best means of expression and balance - cosmetic tail docking is brutal and unnecessary.'' I think Mr Bradshaw's sexual preference is "brutal and unnecessary'' :sick: , but they ain't banning that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tommy Gunn 0 Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I cant see any reason to dock the tails of dogs like boxers and rottweilers but there is a case for spaniels/pointers etc if it can be justified that the pups from the litter are going to be going to working homes where the risk of tail injury is more than one where they are going to be a pet. Boxers have a thin tail which due to the nature of the breed (Mad as hatters) is often broken when left undocked leading to a painful amputation later in life. This is why they also need to be docked as pups, along with most of the other docked breeds. They were never selectively bred to have a thick strong tail. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RobW71 Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I can see every reason to dock a tail off a Boxer or Rottie, they look silly with one, just like a Terrier with a daft curly tail. I dock my Terriers and I haven't got an opinion against anyone docking anyother breed. Objection against someone else doing something = Anti Regards Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RobW71 Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Prehaps you're not overwhelmed with unwanted dogs, out on your remote island, with only a hatch to worry about. Regards Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bullsmilk 2 Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dogs DO use their tails for balance and expression though The politics of the issue aside, there isnt much justification for tail docking for cosmetic purposes in the non-working dog breeds. Its mostly done for traditional reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the dogs tail being likely to be damaged. The original reasons for docking dogs when you trace it right back were because it was thought to be a preventative measure for rabies, and also to avoid having to pay taxes, Only later did the issue of docking to prevent tail damage to working gundogs etc come into play. I cant see any reason to dock the tails of dogs like boxers and rottweilers but there is a case for spaniels/pointers etc if it can be justified that the pups from the litter are going to be going to working homes where the risk of tail injury is more than one where they are going to be a pet. Its going to be interesting to see how this debate pans out. can you really imagine a boxer/rottie with a tail?...what about a bulldog wiyh a tail ?????would this interfear with the kc standard Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bullsmilk 2 Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 They only look silly because your used to seeing them without. If boxers and rotties have not been bred to have strong tails then maybe breeders should work on that as part of their list of things to improve Interestingly enough there is a guy called Bruce Cattanach who has bred a strain of Boxers with natural bob-tails he did it by crossing them with a strain of corgi known for their natural bob tail and then crossed back to the boxer for a few generations, the KC allow dogs from this breeding to be registered as boxers. how the f**k do you breed a boxer to a corgi.?tall/short did he dock the boxers legs?surely introducing corgi has gotta f**k the breeding/type right up can u imagine if somone bought a boxer pup 2 generations down the line and at 6 months it was 12" tall and only awnserd to the queens speach.docking is a1 to me.dont know about you guys but ive never seen a jack rustle in counciling because he cant tell the fox how angry he is feeeling lol bullsmilk.but good discution boys Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bullsmilk 2 Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 yes lock very strange [bANNED TEXT].must admit i love my dogs docked even though my 2 aint{staffs}docked 2 me= looks better within reasone ....can you imagine a docked lurcher ooowwwwwwwww dont want to seem ignorant but most of them look like they have been docked the others look like they have been done but not verry well Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chartpolski 23,794 Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Had my Lurcher pup at the vet's today for a couple of stiches in her foot, nothing serious. While I was waiting I saw a poster for the anti-docking campaign. There was 'photos of various docked breeds with full tails, some indeed looked strange, Jack Russell, Rotweiller, for instance. But the one that caught my eye was the Doberman, the tail made it look racier. My own Doberman is docked, but after seeing this photo I wouldn't mind if she had a tail. One of the arguments for docking is that terriers that go to ground should be docked, erm, what about the Bedlington? The goverment should keep out of it and it should be up to the individual owner/breeder to dock or not, IMO. Cheers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tommy Gunn 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 3/4 Boxer 1/4 Corgi This is not a Boxer as it is all white! This would fail the breed standard as more than 2/3 of body colour is white. White Boxers are not KC registrable Breeding of a white was banned due to deafness and traditionally whites were put down. The white Gene is a through back to the Bulldog (I forget his name ) that was used in the early breeding. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tommy Gunn 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 The site is good though and his articles very interesting. Pity you used a white as the example most of his are standard colours and look like very good dogs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mick 7 Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 NOTHING WRONGE WITH THE DOCKING TAILS OR THE CROPPING OF EARS IF YOU LIVE OVERSEAS WITH THE EAR BIT. AS FOR THE BOXER BIT,ITS NOT A BOXER ITS A MONGREL CANT SEE HOW HE GOT TO REGISTER THEM WITH THE KC? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kiwi 4 Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 well i breed boxers and run boxer cross pigdogs and i know that a undocked boxer will give you a whippy tail that gets jamed in doors and has very little muscle movement. been there bred that. surely the docking of a dogs tail is the right of the breeder, white pups tend to run stronger in different lines, one of my bitches throws them quite regular, nothing wrong with them and they make great dogs, that bulldogs name was tom. using a smithfield collie would have been better than a corgi but those dogs look pretty good and i'd run them on the pigs Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stevo Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 its personal preferance as to if you want to dock the tail or not but some people ask it the vet did it or not when they come to buy a Jack Russell and arround us there only one vet that does it now at very high prices and if the vet does not do it the RSPCA can get involved Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest It's Me! Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 We have a docking*** in Holland for 4 years. Believe me you get used to the looks and they hunt just as good with a tail. I've spoken to Scandinavian and German hunters they also have no problem with their terriers. Jolanda Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stollen 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) Edited January 29, 2009 by stollen Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.