*Sigh*
Either you definately have`nt bothered to read that info, [ which I posted for you specifically as you said you have not seen that relevent information discussed so I provided it for you ], or you have and did not understand it, or you have but don`t accept it because its contrary to what you choose to believe irrespective of facts

As you say every one is entitled to their views :smt001 Actually this thread is about docking but people can read it through again and refresh their minds as exactly why some people hold a different view as to whether this will be detremental to type of welfare if they wish so probably not worth starting another one :smt001

Noooooo do it on this thread

I'd like to hear your reasons why you think the docking ban will improve type. As I've stated previously I'm not pro or anti docking but I'm interested in your views on this type issue.

Debs

This thread was about KC obeying the law regarding docking... The debate about the rights and wrongs of docking was in another thread.
But it's turned out an interesting thread anyway... Just a little surprised as I said, that people are willing to stop breeding simply because they can no longer hack off bits of their pups

As am I. Now, about this type thing....

Debs

Patch, with respect, I think you have to reread where the baby reference comes into the discussion to see the relevance or not to the data you have kindly provided. You have chosen to take my comment about knowing about the foetus research as excluding neotate, and premature neonate research because I did not specifically include that as seperate to maturer babies but it is a red herring, not relevent, nobody is disputing babies feel pain at vaccination. :smt001

It's just my opinion really.. dogs are born with tails.. so IMO should have tails...

If you want to see my reasons for supporting the ban, then you may find it somewhere in the discussion thread that was posted before the ban became law. Sorry can't remember it's title but it's there somewhere.
This thread I believe was started to debate whether the KC were right to obey the law or not

Perhaps I can explain it from one point of view anyway :smt001 Because it is a worry to send out puppies that you feel are disadvantaged to enjoy the sort of lifestyle that you would wish for them to enjoy if causes you concern that they may suffer unnecessary damage and pain during the course of their lives.
Now you can argue whether they are wrong to worry about that or not but I don't think you can argue that they don't have a genuine care for those puppies that they might otherwise choose to bring into the world.

Well they had no choice did they. The HAVE to obey the law just like everyone else. To be honest, if they flouted any laws and willfully broke them they'd definitely go down in my estimation.

Debs

Then I'll answer in the way I did in the other thread.....

According to the peeps I know who work their dogs (springers mostly) the majority of injuries that they sustain during working is to their legs. Pads mostly but also some quite bad injuries from catching trailing leg as they jump over fences and/or barbed wire etc.... So should we perhaps consider hacking off their legs to protect them from "possible" injury... I think not