Well I have read it again and it still reads like supposition to me but then I have read so much about the horrors of docking that bears no resemblance to what I have witnessed and lived with. It seems to me if it was half what was painted in these articles the Government would never have permitted it to continue at all.

I have seen pups docked both ways, and yes they do feel pain as when the tail is removed by a vet they do cry. It can be quite disturbing to watch and that is mainly what all the fuss is about. People concern themselves with these poor tiny helpless pups having their tails walloped of, they are crying and of course it breaks your heart to see a puppy in pain. What most don't think of in that 30 seconds of pain, is that the procedure is evidentally saving the dog from much more extensive pain and torment by damaging it's tail in later life. If you have never seen a dog with a severely damaged tail I urge you to do some research. It can take months to heal, and even then it may have to be amputated anyway.

But like I have said before, I personally prefer the banding method. I have yet to witness a pup cry in pain when a band is applied.

I have had both methods done Random but had no problems with either, perhaps it varies with the vets technique but as you say the long term benefits are the issue. Babies cry when a vaccination stings but we don't regret saving them from the diseases they prevent.

You are joking right?
Your posts have always impressed me with their intelligence Hewey and I can't see that you can truly believe that chopping off a part of an animals natural anatomy is in any way comparable to an injection, where the discomfort is felt for approximately a second. To top it all, the vaccinations are not done because parents think their children 'look better' with it??????

The evidence is there, other pro dockers have admitted the pups feel pain...but not every undocked dog suffers a tail injury does it? In fact the percentage isn't that high is it?

AS for the government banning it outright, it will in the end. I believe they were only 11 votes short.

You can`t possibly be suggesting that an injection is comparable to having part of the spine along with muscles, tendons, skin etc cut off
Just when I thought I`d already heard all the false excuses going...

Long term benefits is also a crock. Some dogs of any breed or mix may injure a tail at some point during its lifetime. Very few actually do. It is not a valid argument for the wholesale mutilation of millions of dogs.
If it were, all dogs would have a leg amputated at birth, they get injured far more often.
There has never been a single valid argument to support wholesale docking of certain breeds as a `preventative` measure, if there had been then all dogs would be docked.
The origins of the practice relating to working dogs were never to do with preventing injury to anything but the wallets of poachers from paying taxes.

You can use what ever emotive language you like. It all hinges on what the nervous system is capable of conveying. The comparison I was making was in regard to the long term benefits but I actually think babies are more sensate and more mentally aware too.
I don't believe hard working country folk waste any time doing something that is not proving beneficial. It is over 200 years since the tax was repealed they must have experimented with undocked working dogs during all that time.
These points have all been hashed over many times if the arguement for not docking was strong enough they would have stopped it for all dogs. I think only the fact that most politicians do not seem to realise that even pet dogs, of the appropriate breeds, that live in the country and are exercised properly will frequently meet with the same conditions that they felt justified continuing the practice for the working brothers and sisters. Perhaps they should put on their gumboots more often and get out there.

I don't think Patch was using particualrly emotive language to be honest Hewey, just pointing out what happens.

As for the MPs, both sides had more than enough time to put their opinions before them. They were only 11 votes short of an outright ban (which I have no doubt there will be in the future).

Why would people experiment with undocked dogs, when docking is cheap and effective? Why would they have messed round doing that?

Please explain to me how it was emotive ? Tails are made up of spine, muscles, tendons, blood vessels, and yes, nerves. All are cut through to sever them from a pup, its physical fact :smt102

Which has been explained but you do not wish to believe it.

Newborns used to be operated on without anaesthetic because it was believed they did`nt feel pain. That went on relatively recently until the evidence proved otherwise.

So, do you believe the medical evidence regarding babies and pain ?
If yes, why ?
Because it was researched by medical experts ?
Probably.
Yet you choose to remain completely blinkered to the evidence regarding pain in neonate puppies which was also researched by medical experts...
Do you consider experts qualified in animal physiology to be less worthy of listening to than those in the human field :smt017

If they were only doing it to avoid a tax in the first place it seems obvious they would have dropped the practice again as they did for lurchers etc. Something made them continue with certain breeds. It takes more messing around to do the job than leave it.

Even the quotes you offered do not refer to actual nerves just the precursor to the formation of them.
I don't think I believe babies feel pain because some medical expert told me I think it might be because they cry from the first time they get a heel prick at hours old and certainly it is unmistakable when they receive injection at months old :smt001
What you have read has obviously convinced you but I am afraid I have read it all before and it has not done anything to convince me so pointless in keep telling me I ought to