Click here to Register

K9Mania.com - Forums By Dog Lovers for Dog Lovers > Other Issues > Legislative and Regulatory » Possible law against tail docking
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-20-2009, 05:22 PM   #11
turfgirl
Been Around A While
 
turfgirl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,907
Send a message via MSN to turfgirl
I too agree, I do not see any reason to put a puppy through pain for any reason other than for it's health. It sounds to me like it is all cosmetic. Just my humble opinion. Hugs Susan & Lexcee
turfgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2009, 05:59 PM   #12
Labman
Been Around A While

 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 966
Cosmetic? No, it is part of improving the breed.
Labman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2009, 06:06 PM   #13
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labman View Post
Cosmetic? No, it is part of improving the breed.
Cosmetic as perceived by some humans. I personally love the wagging dog tails of all shapes and sizes. I understand that tail docking was originally intended for some dogs who, when they were working dogs, damaged their tails quite frequently so it WAS a health issue back then. But now, given that most dogs don't do that work, I would think that this is no longer necessary. Ear cropping in large dogs was originally intended to make an animal look more dangerous...mimicing the wolf's pointed ear and detract against attack or theft (guard dogs). In little dogs I don't really know the originating reason behind ear cropping, but it was probably a cosmetic reason.

But yes, neither improves the breed.

Furbs
All messages have been lab tested and approved!
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2009, 06:26 PM   #14
turfgirl
Been Around A While
 
turfgirl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,907
Send a message via MSN to turfgirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labman View Post
Cosmetic? No, it is part of improving the breed.
ok, please don't take this wrong but how does doing this to either the ears or the tail improve the breed in this day and age. I agree with furbs yes years ago when they were working dogs, but is it not now only for the show ring? I am just curious. Thanks Susan & Lexcee
turfgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2009, 08:23 PM   #15
Labman
Been Around A While

 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 966
Oh, I shouldn't have said that. I see it is just one more negative to the whole conformation picture.
Labman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2009, 08:24 PM   #16
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by turfgirl View Post
ok, please don't take this wrong but how does doing this to either the ears or the tail improve the breed in this day and age. I agree with furbs yes years ago when they were working dogs, but is it not now only for the show ring? I am just curious. Thanks Susan & Lexcee
I took his comment to mean, to improve the look of the breed.

To me, if shorten or stronger tails; pointy versus floppy ears are the desired traits then they should be selectively bred for those particular traits not surgically altered. IMHO But then selective breeding for asthetic characteristics, which has been debated frequently of late, has its drawbacks as well.

Again, I think unless it is necessary for health (damaged tail for example) then leave dogs as Mother Nature intended.

Wagging tails and big floppy ears unite! The coffee table needs dusting anyway. LOL

Furbs
All messages have been lab tested and approved!
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2009, 08:50 PM   #17
turfgirl
Been Around A While
 
turfgirl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,907
Send a message via MSN to turfgirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furbilator View Post
I took his comment to mean, to improve the look of the breed.

To me, if shorten or stronger tails; pointy versus floppy ears are the desired traits then they should be selectively bred for those particular traits not surgically altered. IMHO But then selective breeding for asthetic characteristics, which has been debated frequently of late, has its drawbacks as well.

Again, I think unless it is necessary for health (damaged tail for example) then leave dogs as Mother Nature intended.

Wagging tails and big floppy ears unite! The coffee table needs dusting anyway. LOL

Furbs
Thanks for the info Furbs, I agree. I just did not understand why change the natural look of a dog. It is too bad Lexcee is not tall enough to dust my table lol
turfgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2009, 09:58 PM   #18
Jr_K9_Expert
Been Around A While
 
Jr_K9_Expert's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: California, USA
Posts: 4,285
Send a message via AIM to Jr_K9_Expert
Hey sounds like a good idea to me, a dog looks awesome with it's natural look. It is indeed, no longer needed nowadays.
-Steven



My dog article site - K9Domain
My dog blog - Dog Notes
Jr_K9_Expert is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

K9Mania.com - Forums By Dog Lovers for Dog Lovers > Other Issues > Legislative and Regulatory


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:54 PM.