Docking tails and ears

[Xisiqomelir]

So I was sitting in my chair practising T5 as usual, when one of my roommate's high school buddies comes over, with a doberman pup. I glance over and the dog happily still has his ears, but the poor thing's tail has been docked. I pull off a few more 4xEWGF, then I hear them talking about it

Roommate: That's a nice dog
Friend: Yeah I like him a lot
Roommate: When did you get his tail done?
Friend: A while ago, it was tricky finding someone who'd do it.
Me from other room: That's because it's essentially a purposeless procedure.
Friend (agitated): No, if you don't do it then when they go around the house their tails knock everything over. (So...get a dog with a smaller tail/put your vases up/take a creative writing class so I believe this shit?)
Roommate (diplomatic): Well, it's the classic look.(dumblarity...)

I don't bother attempting any further conversation.

My attitudes towards docking tails/ears comes from my mother, who told me that it was pointless and did nothing except stroke the vanity of clueless owners. Was she in any way wrong, and are the lives of dogs improved by removing bits of their ears and tail?

[Pcm979]

If having tails and ears was bad for dogs, they wouldn't have them. It's fucking barbaric.

[Frank Hipper]

The purpose of docking ears comes from the time when many breeds (Great Danes being the breed I have experience with) were used for hunting things like wild boar, the dog's floppy ears gave prey something to latch onto and damage.

Docking tails probably served some similar purpose in the past.

Today, docking anything is done purely for aesthetic reasons, and no reputable kennel or breeding association recomends it. It's cruel, and if memory serves, it's outright illegal in Britain.

[Tsyroc]

About the only thing that still might be worth "docking" on a dog is their dew claws. They do tend to get caught on stuff a lot but it's still not a necessity to have them removed.

[wilfulton]

Rottweilers will sometimes dock their own tails. Every rot I've ever known likes to bite tails. Because of this, many owners have them docked.

My parents' dog, a border collie, does have a tendency to knock things over with her tail, especially when she gets excited. It is for that reason that we try to avoid exciting the dog while her tail is in the vicinity of anything that could get knocked over. And to boot anything running the risk of being knocked over is either pretty durable or pretty expendable.

[Ford Prefect]

In all my time living with a dog breeder, he told me the only reason you would crop a dog's ears is if you wished for it be a) A pit dog or b) A pig hunter. I've never actually heard if there are such reasons for docking a dog's tail, but it could be as Frank said, to avoid it getting latch onto.

[Drooling Iguana]

My own dog had a large portion of his tail cut off, but that was because it was badly frostbitten when he was a pup and had to be amputated (this was before we adopted him.) We also had his dewclaws removed on the advice of the people at the SPCA. They told us that they served no useful purpose and could easily get caught on things and injured (makes you wonder why they have them in the first place, but I guess it could just be a vestigial thing from an earlier evolutionary stage.)

Cuttong off a dog's tail just for aesthetic reasons, on the other hand, does seem incredibly barbaric, and cutting off their ears is even worse. I really despise those people who get pets for show.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that they use such a ridiculously non-descriptive euphemism indicates to me that people know deep down that it's cruel.

What the fuck does "docking" a limb mean? It means nothing. If I went up to a kid and said "I'm going to dock your arm", he would have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

The correct term should be "cutting off their tails", not "docking their tails". Or perhaps the more accurate term should be "dismemberment". A dog's tail is not an unfeeling structure like hair; it's a living, feeling, functional appendage.

[Pick]

I always thought docking was sick.

It serves no useful purpose that I've heard for any animal that was going to have its primary purpose be as a pet.

I've also heard tales of how sometimes it's done "cost effectively" but the poor naive side of me writes them off as mere rumors until I have done more research.

[Edi]

My blood pressure always shoots up when I see dogs with cut tails or ears. Fortunately that's been illegal here for years now, so you don't see much of it anymore.

As for the dew claws, some breeds of dog have some problems with them due to them being so large. I don't know how it is with dogs in general, but for cats the dew claw is essential in hunting, it allows them to hold prey down so that it can't escape. Without the dew claw their hold might slip. I've also noticed it sometimes when I've played with one of our cats and he grabs my arm with his paws, once the dew claw latches on, extrication becomes a lot more difficult.

Edi

[Drooling Iguana]

It was the dew claws on my dog's hind legs that were removed, not his front legs. Do they serve any purpose?

[CaptainChewbacca]

The fact that they use such a ridiculously non-descriptive euphemism indicates to me that people know deep down that it's cruel.

What the fuck does "docking" a limb mean? It means nothing. If I went up to a kid and said "I'm going to dock your arm", he would have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

The correct term should be "cutting off their tails", not "docking their tails". Or perhaps the more accurate term should be "dismemberment". A dog's tail is not an unfeeling structure like hair; it's a living, feeling, functional appendage.

Its "bobbing a tail", actually, which means "to cut short". See: Jingle Bells Bells on bobbed tails ring

[A Big Flying Fish]

Docking tails can have a purpose for dogs that are used as working dogs, although typically only terriers. This is simply because if a terrier goes into a animal burrow, the only way you can get it out is to grab it by their tail, and grabbing the very end of a dogs tail will fuck it up seven ways from Sunday. However, it should only be the bottom 2-3cm at the most.

Some of the dogs I've seen with a tail about 3 inches long serve no purpose other than some fucked up aethetics. And it seems to be mostly dogs sold as pets or show dogs that have the tails docked to this rediculous length, and it's increasingly large dogs, not terriers.

Dew claws aren't so bad, seeing that as long as they're removed when the dogs are puppies, there shouldn't be any problems with pain or infection. It also removes the possibility of the dogs catching the dew claw if they jump onto cloth or the like, which can be exceptionally painful for a grown dog.

Although, these are some of the less fucked up things that I've seen dog breeders do. I have two dogs that a breeder was going to have killed, a mother and one of her puppies, simply because the one puppy was deaf. The mother had had 4 litters by the time she was 4 years old, and the majority of dogs were kept in dog boxes in a garage. Shock horror, both of these dogs have had their tails docked to the point of being non-existent, and these are two terriers, whose tails would likely have been only about 7 inches long anyway.

[Justforfun000]

The one argument I heard in favour of the ear cropping was that it was better for dogs ears to be naturally erect as this IS the natural state when traced back to their wolfish ancestry. I've been told that floppy earred dogs have a much higher incidence of ear infections because of the unnatural moist environment that occurs. We HAVE seriously altered the canine species in many many ways, and not all changes have been beneficial. Ear cropping also enables them to have control over the ears, and they lift them forward, lay them back, etc. after the "classic" shape is created.

So if there is a kernel of truth in this, it can be argued to be more then just an aesthetic change. Tail docking is obviously unnecessary. No true benefit can be pulled out of that one to my knowledge...

[Dakarne]

Okay, I'm now going to cut off my own arm, if I slip I could knock something over with it, WTF?[/immense amount of spite]

I don't like it when you mutilate any animal, removing a Dog's Tail is immensely cruel, and ears are even worse.

I'd just pay the money to fix any items that the dog broke, but I certainly wouldn't alter a living being just to suit my own vanity.

It's on the Hannibal Lector side of Morality.

[Pcm979]

Ear cropping also enables them to have control over the ears, and they lift them forward, lay them back, etc. after the "classic" shape is created.

So I've been hallucinating when my dogs move their ears?

Tail docking is obviously unnecessary. No true benefit can be pulled out of that one to my knowledge...

Well, one of my dogs had to have her tail removed because of recurring cancer at the base. It is an exception to the rule, though.

[Dakarne]

Well, one of my dogs had to have her tail removed because of recurring cancer at the base. It is an exception to the rule, though.

I heartily agree with removing a cancerous tail, I'd much rather have a dog with no tail than a dead one at least.

I'm only opposed to it when it is done for Vanity reasons.

[Justforfun000]

So I've been hallucinating when my dogs move their ears?

Lol. Now come on..you know what I mean.

When cut, the ears will respond to the animals impulses of movement in the same fashion as the original "wolf ears" for lack a better term. I'm sure some dogs with long floppy ears can move them to a degree, but that's irrelevant to the point I was making.

Well, one of my dogs had to have her tail removed because of recurring cancer at the base. It is an exception to the rule, though.

Considering we were discussing the morality of aesthetic surgery, yes the medical side of things is not relevant to my statement. Naturally illness affecting limb and life changes priorities in terms of what is "necessary" or "cosmetic".

[Pcm979]

Seriously, I don't know about your dogs, but mine can move their ears through their full range. Additionally, the ear flaps evolved to keep flies out.

Even more additionally, they're sensitive and you'd still be mutilating the poor things. It's like the appendix-removing fad in humans from a while back; They can lead to problems, but only rarely, and they do serve a purpose.

[wolveraptor]

When you remove a dog's tail and ears, you're doing more than just mutilating it. You're hampering its ability to communicate with other dogs. Canids always use physical gestures to speak to each other. The wagging or drooping tail, the perked or flattened ears; all of these things are crucial to dog-speak. It'd be like cutting a human's tongue or lips.

Personally, I think that some broken stuff that you were too stupid to put above the dog's level is something that you have an obligation to deal with when you buy a dog. If you can't live without your precious vase being 3 ft off the ground, then buy a display case instead.

[Edi]

I think the reference to floppy-eared dogs having higher ear infection rates etc was in relation to critters like spaniels who do not have a similar range of full ear movement as e.g. German or Belgian shepherds do. Sure, they have the same muscles with the same range of movement, but those are not going to lift the whole hanging flap of pretty useless skin and move it around like perky dog ears do.

There is a definite reason for why floppy ears are the first thing to disappear within one or two generations when you let a dog population of various breeds produce offspring without outside controls. That reason is that perked up ears are healthier, because an untreated ear infection will eventually result in deafness, secondary complications and possibly death, and will therefore count as a big negative trait in the wild where there is no ready treatment available.

Of course, this does not justify us cropping dogs' ears just for being floppy. We have bred them that way, and therefore it is our responsibility to take care of them appropriately, including cleaning their ears and treating any possible infections that do happen despite best efforts.

Edi

[Justforfun000]

EDi

<snip>

Yes, that's precisely what I was referring to. However because of the improvement to their mobility with their ears and the lesser chance of infection, I still don't see anything wrong with reshaping the ears providing there is no pain or discomfort to the animal. I'm honestly not familiar with the procedures and how they do so, but I'd be honestly surprised if it was done without proper anaesthesia.

[Chardok]

Well...according to my sources. Spaniel tails (like my precious Milo) are cropped/docked/removed because when tracking game in the field, they are furious tail-waggers (I can attest to this, sometimes, when Milo is chasing my pen laser; when he loses sight of it; and is looking around for it, his little Quiggy tail wags so hard and so fast his entire ass shakes back and forth.) and, with spaniels' long, natural tails, they would beat down the tall grass and scare away potential game. At any rate, My Milo came from a respectable breeder, and I'm sure they took all precautions necessary to make sure the procedure was as painless as possible. I equate it to being circumcised, I'm sure it sucked, but I don't remember. For the best, I suppose.

[Naaman]

Wow! Couldn't believe the guy used "Knock stuff over" to justify docking the tail
If your dogs tail is knocking stuff over or off tables then clean up a bit, I grew up with two Newfoundlands and a medium size mongrel - it's a pretty easy lesson to keep breakables out of the way