Yup... and even further down in mine also

Even if it wasn't an absurd idea the answer is quite clear. A three legged dog is at a disadvantage to enjoying an active life in the countryside a tailess dog is not. When a tail is off it is off no question of injury when you take a leg off you have three left. It is unfortunate that dogs with tails and without must deal with injuries to other parts of their bodies but leaving a tail on does not save you from that either.
......but as you say this is dealt with elsewhere and my response to you was a genuine attempt to answer what I thought was a genuine question about why people were so concerned as to consider giving up a breed they love. If your question was, infact, just a rhetorical attempt to belittle their thoughts and fears I regret responding and wish to take that line no further with you.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone... I believe what I said, that injured tails are a lot less common that pro dockers would have us believe.. and that chopping off a body part "just in case" is wrong IMO...
The other point I made was equally serious... I trully believe that anyone who is fickle enough to stop breeding simply because they can no longer dock tails IMO will not be missed.

My tripod strongly disagrees

I'll repeat again as I have in other threads, the only shoot I've been on had a dog with a tail injury, it was a DOCKED one, when that happened it became clear to me that docking DOES NOT prevent tail injuries so why take them off, you might as well wait and see.
Still, the point is moot. The KC have to obey the law, as do all UK citizens and that's it. This thread was started on the incorrect info that the KC were going to refuse to register docked puppies and despite repeated requests no evidence for that staement was forth coming, nor indeed evidence to back up the massive 514,000 (alleged) petition which is more signatures than the estimate dog population in Scotland. There really is no further point in arguing about docking, it's over, pro-dockers failed to get their views across in a manner which made sense backed up be research. They've had plenty of time to do studies etc but they chose not to just relying on the 'freedom of choice' view when it's an animal welfare issue.
It's over, if you no longer want to breed so be it. I'm just so pleased that now I can enter the show ring and not be penalised because the dog has a tail.
Becky

Good posts Becky and Ian.

Hewey the point being made is that people thought in the past that babies didn't feel pain, in particular prem babies...it has since been proved that they DO (which must ave been obvious to anyone with any sense) in the same was as it has been thought that young pups don't feel pain, it has been proved that they DO.

Hewey I think the vaccination point we all made was that having a child vaccinated is in no way comparable to having a pups tail chopped or banded off.

Quite, it was obvious.

It's not if you take it from the point of view of pain, it clearly doesn't compare in that respect as we are all now thoroughly agree that babies feel pain but that wasn't my point I was comparing it to from the point of view of doing something that might be uncomfortable but was for a much greater good and I don't understand why that wasn't clearly understood at the time of stating it but there you go, that particular diversion from the subject has been laboured enough I feel.

no one has suggested that the 514,000 people who graciously signed the petition are dog owners ! the signatures were collected from citizens who support dog owners who have docked breeds. a lot of people put time and effort into collecting the signatures. they were asked to print their names & addresses on the forms and did so willingly. you're not going to tell me that all the MPs who voted in favour of the act are dog owners !!. also check with the KC yourself, get your FACTS right, for goodness sake !!