No its not , the law on dog fighting is clear cut.

Dog fighting is illegal!! with no exceptions!

The law on docking is not, its NOT illegal to dock certain dogs for certain reasons.



How can that be, if its a welfare issue , and the thinking behind the ban is mutilation and pain..why have an exemption.

Docking is docking, the procedure has not changed.

Why would one have to agree with those if they support docking??

Indeed you could. However, they weren't my sheep, so it wasn't my decision how they were delt with, I was there to do what my superiors told me, for once lol.

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!

Id dock them for preference anyway, less stressful than man handling them.

Sheep can get fly strike from flies attracted by faeces or urine deposited on their tails if not docked, dagged or not.

With sheep the law required they be docked long enough for the remaining tail when down to be able to at least cover the anus in rams and the anus and vulva in females.

Deferential or fearful dogs will clamp their tails down. This not only give a body language message but, by covering the anus and anal glands, it also gives different scent signals than a raised tail.

It can also enable the dog to feel better defended from unwanted intimate nasal investigation by other dogs. A dog docked too short cannot do this.

If docking is purely about function and split tails two points to ponder:

1) Why are long haired weims only docked at the tailtip while short coated weims are short docked? Surely the feathering increases, not decreases, the risk of catching and injuring the tail on brambles etc?

2) Some of the worse tail splits I have seen have seen have been in large dogs with long, thin, whippy tails when they knock them on walls, especially unprotected kennel walls e.g Greyhounds, Great Danes, but these are not prophylactically docked


Sorry OP, I think your thread had been hijacked beyond retrieval, prior to my contribution.

Regardless of this fact, docking has been done to death already. There are many threads about the morals and ethics of docking. Unless you have an opinion on the original topic may I suggest you start a new thread or find the correct one. Thanks.

Yes, but far less likely if they are dagged and kept clean, docked or not!

But docking isnt law!

Whats your point here? Are you saying naturally bobbed breeds cannot "communicate?" Seriously?

See above.

Id have thought that obvious, being much thicker coated with fur and feathering, its less likely to get damaged, same applies to many Springers, they have a 1/3 removed only.

Yes I agree, but now Boxers, Dobes, and Weimaraners join them in significantly higher numbers.


So you just hijacked some more?

Again sorry OP but feel this is still relevant to the thread. I dont agree with docking, even though I own a dog with a docked tail (re-homed her, the fact she had a shorter tail than she had at a few days old does not make a blind bit of difference to me, im 90% sure she was used as a working dog anyway).

But the original question was why one rule for one and not the same for the other in which i agree, the same standard should be set by all, and its the dogs who are doing the purpose they were intended to who cannot be shown, I dont see the logic especially if those docked before 2007 can still be shown. It is being managed legally so why punish those who abide by the law. If it is for purpose and not aesthetics then I dont see why they should be penalised. JMO.

[QUOTE=Jackbox;2103586]How can that be, if its a welfare issue , and the thinking behind the ban is mutilation and pain..why have an exemption. [quote/]

Pressure from the working fraternity at a guess. Like many of the Laws passed, by bowing to such pressures, loopholes are left that you can drive a horse and cart through, thus making them very difficult to enforce. Such is the case with the docking ban. However, now that the original screeming and shouting is over, more breeders are leaving their pups undocked and the public is not only getting used to both the idea and the 'new' appearance, but are leaning towards support for the ban on the basis that unnecessary mutilation is wrong.

Look at any forum where this is raised and the majority appear to favour leaving dogs undocked on ethical grounds. Rewind back to when the ban was first introduced and there appeared to be a more even split between the 'fors' and 'againsts'

One wouldn't, but a surprising number of people who support one type of mutilation abhor another type which I find rather strange, or may not because self-interest does play a part in decisions

I havent been here for a few days & have missed this interesting discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borderdawn

As I said I LIKE the way they look, the Dobe, Boxer, Weimaraner and so many others didnt suffer awful injuries on their tails when they didnt have them.


Hmm I have had Boxers nearly 30 years & never had an injured tail yet & yes some have had full tails. They can clear a coffee table with their tail & give you a good whiplash round the ear if you bend down at the wrong time but the dogs themselves have never had an injured tail