|
Location: UK
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,114
|
29-11-2010, 09:26 PM
Originally Posted by Ripsnorterthe2nd 
Ok, one more time...........
Please read the link in the OP, this is not about the ethical or moral issues of docking. If you want to debate these issues, please start your own thread!
- I did read the list when you first posted it and to observe relevance and reply to your point, it does seem stupid to exclude legally docked dual purpose dogs from shows where the public pay an admittance fee. I think because it is Crufts they feel it has more importance. Crufts is reported worldwide to a generalised public and they perhaps believe jo public maybe offended to see docked dogs there when docking has been banned. Obviously they do not seem to have thought it through properly. A working dog should also be able to compete as a show dog and eventually the show world will have to make a better and fairer decision. Just to add (because it is more interesting to discuss
) I fall into the camp of thinking docking is wrong for any reason - working, esthetics, showing, whatever.
|
|
Location: Co. Durham, UK
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,213
|
30-11-2010, 12:26 AM
Originally Posted by aerolor
OK - I'll come to heel
- I did read the list when you first posted it and to observe relevance and reply to your point, it does seem stupid to exclude legally docked dual purpose dogs from shows where the public pay an admittance fee. I think because it is Crufts they feel it has more importance. Crufts is reported worldwide to a generalised public and they perhaps believe jo public maybe offended to see docked dogs there when docking has been banned. Obviously they do not seem to have thought it through properly. A working dog should also be able to compete as a show dog and eventually the show world will have to make a better and fairer decision. Just to add (because it is more interesting to discuss
) I fall into the camp of thinking docking is wrong for any reason - working, esthetics, showing, whatever.
|
|
|
|
Location: Co. Durham, UK
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,213
|
30-11-2010, 12:34 AM
Originally Posted by rune
Several people have tried to explain to you that the ethics are obviously a part of what you are complaining about re the showing.
You justy as obviously can't understand that.
I have no reason to grasp at straws---I am happy with the law as it stands---I could be happier but I have learnt that you can't always have what you want in a democracy.
As I have said I happen to be one of the people who could well be affected adversly by the law---but I won't argue it, I'll support it.
rune
Show me some proof that there are gundogs out there that are docked, shown but not worked………
|
|
|
Location: U K
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,588
|
30-11-2010, 01:03 AM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
Why,/ one type of mutilation (as you put it) is not the same as another, some may say chopping a dogs balls off is equally mutilation, (which is done for ones self interest)
|
|
|
|
Location: uk
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,552
|
30-11-2010, 07:11 AM
Originally Posted by Velvetboxers
Not always Jacqui, Harvey was done because he had an undescended testes which the vet said could very well cause problems i.e. of the cancerous nature. Not worth taking a chance.
|
|
|
|
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
|
30-11-2010, 09:17 AM
Originally Posted by Ripsnorterthe2nd
Yeah you've lost me, explain again, purlease!
Show me some proof that there are gundogs out there that are docked, shown but not worked………
rune
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
30-11-2010, 09:26 AM
Originally Posted by Tass
That is definitely what I was told. He said at that age the tail has a well developed bone that you have to cut through, but the dew claws are virtually just skin folds.
Maybe he meant rear dew claws though?
Those are often less developed that fronts, but front or back, either have much less bone that the tail at that age.
I shall have to clarify that with him, next time I see him. Although I can see why anyone supporting docking, vet or breeder, would put it that way, to justify the tails when the (according to them more painful) dew claws aren't banned.
I doubt it, as far as I am aware, the breeds that have their front dew claws removed, generally dont have back ones
And those that do have back ones, they are not removed!
There is plenty of information for you to read on the net, to explain the difference between dew claw and tail removal, was just surprised to hear a vet tell it the other way round.
Originally Posted by Velvetboxers
Not always Jacqui, Harvey was done because he had an undescended testes which the vet said could very well cause problems i.e. of the cancerous nature. Not worth taking a chance.
|
|
|
|
Location: Wiltshire UK
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,404
|
30-11-2010, 10:48 AM
Hair protects the tail from injury, and whilst I know several breeds which have had their tails docked due to injury that DO have hair, eg GSD, Labradors etc, it is more likely in dogs with little covering such as Boxers, Dallies, Great Danes, English Pointers etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
|
30-11-2010, 11:30 AM
Originally Posted by smokeybear
The clue is in the title.............
Hair protects the tail from injury, and whilst I know several breeds which have had their tails docked due to injury that DO have hair, eg GSD, Labradors etc, it is more likely in dogs with little covering such as Boxers, Dallies, Great Danes, English Pointers etc etc.
Be interesting to see how often it happens now they are left on.
rune
|
|