She appears to have no firsthand experience about breeding or dog shows either but that doesn’t stop her. Clearly, watching “Animal Planet” is enough to make one an expert.
Oh, I was saying you need to, or that you have the burden of proof. We’re not in GD here. So if you’re withholding your sources as a matter of principle, please don’t. I’m just curious what they are, especially given how certain you are about this.
Maybe you just feel it makes sense and you don’t need any outside information. In that case, could you explain why it is so obvious to you? For example: Why is it “ripping the tail off”? That’s not what the procedure sounds like to me, so how did you reach that conclusion? Why is keeping all one’s original body parts so important? In what way is the dog’s quality of life hurt by this procedure?
You seem to be saying that it’s just obvious, but it’s not obvious to me, so if you would please take the time to explain, I would really appreciate it.
WASN’T saying.
Why did I say ‘ripping the tail off’? Because it seemed pretty close to what was said by the person who claims they’ve assisted in the act multiple times.
[quote]
Renee said:
ICropping the tail of a 2 day old puppy goes something like this: vet holds the puppy in one hand and clamps the tail, breaking the vertebrae, then cuts or twists the tail off. (bolding mine)[.quote]
What would you call it if I crushed the bones in your finger and then twisted it off?
[QUOTE=catsix]
Why did I say ‘ripping the tail off’? Because it seemed pretty close to what was said by the person who claims they’ve assisted in the act multiple times.
Do the bones of my fingers work the same way as the bones of a dog’s tail? Are the nerves the same? Do our brains process the pain the same way?
I’m not arguing with you, catsix, I’m asking you questions. You’re doing a pretty poor job of answering them so far, I have to say, and it’s not helping you win this potential convert to your cause over.
In my opinion, this thread has become quite a debate.
Off to Great Debates.
Cajun Man
for the SDMB
So you don’t think that crushing the vertebrae and then twisting off the tail counts as ‘ripping the tail off’ an animal?
What would you call it?
Unless there is a compelling reason to get rid of a body part, isn’t it best to keep the body in the default position? Would you be as accepting if someone were to cut one of the legs off their dogs, as long as they did it when it was newly born and painlessly? There are some of us who think that as long as a tail does not cause problems or is not likely to be broken or injured, that it should be left as is. The answer to someone’s question of “why” isn’t a juvenile “why not?” You can use that to justify anything. Why not cut the clitorises off infant girls? They’re not going to miss it if it’s done young enough.
Also, about dog breeding in general being cruel: every time I’ve heard someone defend breeding (for non-working animals), they say it is necessary to preserve the breed. But what is the objective worth of these breeds? Isn’t it just a huge expenditure of time, energy, and some cruelty, to produce animals that are in general far less hardy than their mutt counterparts? I guess I just don’t see the point in even breeding animals in the first place.
Someone else has said it’s not crushing, but simply snipping between vertebrae, which is in line with what I’ve read elsewhere. Anyway, I don’t call it anything. You call it something, and I wish to know why. But never mind that part, I’ll withdraw it. Here are my unanswered questions to you again:
Can you explain why you believe dogs do suffer during this procedure, then?
Do you have anything which explains the physical mechanism that causes this pain during the tail-docking procedure?
Why is keeping all one’s original body parts so important? Human beings don’t, if they are useless or dangerous.
In what way is the dog’s quality of life hurt by this procedure?
While I started off completely 100% against docking and cropping in non-working dogs, I have to say that the tales (ha!) of bleeding waggers and ears have me reconsidering. That does make it sound as if it’s not being done solely for cosmetic reasons. Of course, I’d like them not to have been bred like that in the first place, but that doesn’t address the problem of what to do now that they are.
I do wish it were possible to “wait-and-see” and perform the procedure later in life if the animal has trouble with his natural assets. But it sounds like that’s not always possible. So chalk me up as 90% against docking and cropping, but not sure that there’s a better alternative.*
Ensign Edison, the OP, one who is performing these procedures, used the word “mutilate”. In the OP. That was pretty loaded wording, revealing a lot about his feelings on the procedure right there. As far as I can see, he’s the only one in the thread who’s performed the procedure - others have watched it done. I’m not saying that gives him the final say, but it does tell me that at least some professionals who do it don’t think it’s no big deal.
*Of course, as always, I reserve the right to change my mind as new data comes to light.
I am always embarrassed when talking to European veterinarians, where for the most part, cosmetic alterations are illegal (ear crops, declawing of cats, tail docks).
Personally, I have done thousands of tail docks, but I will not crop ears. In fact, fewer and fewer veterinarians in the US are doing ear crops, leading to a huge sellers’ market. I know a veterinarian who wanted to stop doing ear crops. So he raised his fee by $100. No effect. The next year he raised it another $100. No effect. He is now the only one in his area doing ear crops and what began as an $80 surgery is now getting him $600. Oh well.
I’m sorry, did someone else come post under my name that they are accepting of this procedure? I’m trying to understand the arguments against it, and all I can seem to get is a lot of rhetoric. But to aid in our conversation, I’ll try to answer your questions. Obviously removing a leg would have a dramatic impact on the quality of the dog’s life. If removing part of the tail does likewise, you should be able to show me so without any problem.
You can also assert anything. I say that your skin is a lovely pale green color. I insist that this is true. Would it be wrong for you to ask me why I think so, and how I think skin might turn green, and what makes me think your particular skin has done so?
In what way is it juvenile to ask someone to explain their reasons for their statements?
Just tell me why it should be left as is by default, as you say, if there is no loss of quality of life as a result (as there certainly is with a leg or clitoris), or else show me that there is such a loss. We already agree that if there is a loss of quality of life, the procedure should not be done.
Someone upthread said their dog constantly licked its stump to the point of bleeding and had obvious irritation from it. So clearly, it can have some health problems.
Just a quick note…
Most Australian Shepherds are born with a naturally docked tail . With rescue I have seen them with anything from a full tail to 3/4 to a stump. Now I’m sure that there have been full tailed pups that have had their tails docked, but most aussies come with the little bear butt.
Just an FYI.
Barrels
How about morbidity/mortality? Years ago I worked for a veterinarian who did ear crops. He had a few fatalities. It is a surgery where blood loss is moderate to severe regardless of technique. It is done at an age when physiologic anemia is often present.
I don’t deny that it can have some health problems in some cases. Do you have a cite to show that this is common? Did you hold your opinion before you read that person’s post? If so, what did you base it on then? Will you answer my question about why ‘default’ is always best, or any of my other ones?
We’re talking about tails, not ears. I’ve seen much more evidence on the subject of ear-cropping, enough to say that it may very well be a bad thing. Are you also against tail cropping, and do you feel that many animals suffer significant pain during the procedure and a loss of quality of life after it? If so, why?
And for the triple post: I meant docking, and I see it was included in your snippet of a source. That’s a start, thank you. Do you have a link to the whole thing or information about the organization referenced? Does it explain anything about what exactly is done and why exactly it is bad?
Ahhhh, then I’ll back out. I do tail docks in 2 to 5 day old puppies. My son had circumcision done at around the same age, so I cannot hold any moral high ground.
The AVMA is the American Veterinary Medical Association (think AMA for veterinarians). I do not really like the organization, but their site may have some info:
http://www.avma.org/
So do spay and neuter procedures.
snip (pun intended)
Where’s the cruelty in it? I don’t see it. All the people who I have associated with over the years loved their dogs and would never hurt them. I’ve seen lots of happy purebred doggies. Then again, I have a breed which is pretty close to it’s original wolfish form.
Apparently I’m “disgusting” because I showed my dog even though I’d wager he lives better than most people. Whatever.
With a purebred, you have a pretty good idea what you’re getting - temperment, size, herding aptitude, shedding, etc… Dogs have been bred for centuries to hunt, herd, guard and their form follows function. If you want a mutt, fine, but a lot of people want a purebred so get over it. Animals end up in the pound because of shitty people - and they’ll dump a purebred just as fast as a mixed breed.
I think your last sentence puts you firmly in the PETA camp - no pets at all - so I’m not sure why I’m even bothering to reply.