# AKC stance on docking, etc.



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2878

Putting this up for discussion and to amuse our European folks.


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

I applaud New York's bill proposal!!
IMO I think a dog looks better the way it was born. Yes, a Dobie may look like a hound, to some, without it's tail docked and it's ears cropped, but I like the look. The public won't immediately think "dangerous animal" they'll think "AWWWW!" Same goes, IMO, with Pitbulls (AmStaffs,etc), Boxers, Schnauzers, Beaucerons, etc. I just think they look cuter without all the docking and cropping going on..


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

I crossposted this to some other (pet) groups I belong to, with your logic, Sarah, and pushed them to contact their representatives to vote FOR the bill instead of against it, as the AKC would like everyone to do. 

"Natural" dobies are adorable! Here are a couple from our SchH club, and a rottie, too:


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Taildocking is here forbidden since (I believe) 1999 and earcropping since 2002... Only for medical reasons and you can´t enter any kind of trial..


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Read this, taken from AKC's Mission Statement page:
AKC's Core Values: 
*We love purebred dogs* 
We are committed to advancing the sport of the purebred dog 
We are dedicated to maintaining the integrity of our Registry 
*We protect the health and well-being of all dogs* 
*We cherish dogs as companions* 
*We are committed to the interests of dog owners*
We uphold high standards for the administration and operation of the AKC 
We recognize the critical importance of our clubs and volunteers 

Those statements I made bold show why the AKC shouldn't CARE about banning docking/cropping! Sounds like SOMEONE on their board doesn't even know their own "Core Values"!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I really don't understand the anti docking/cropping folks. These are some of the same people that push for spay/nueter. Tell me which is more invasive? A tail/ear or nuts/uterus? Given a choice, I don't think having the tips of my ears cut off is all that scary. I never was real pretty anyway. On the other hand  8-[ . 
The Presa pup I'm training just had her ears done last Thursday. She has shown absolutely NO signs of missing them or feeling pain. 
I might add that two of my three dogs are spayed/nuetered. I've read to much against it to ever do again. 
Sorry, but a Dobe with natural ears and tail looks like a B&T coonhound with an ear crop.  JMHO! :wink:


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> I really don't understand the anti docking/cropping folks. These are some of the same people that push for spay/nueter. Tell me which is more invasive? A tail/ear or nuts/uterus? Given a choice, I don't think having the tips of my ears cut off is all that scary. I never was real pretty anyway. On the other hand  8-[ .
> The Presa pup I'm training just had her ears done last Thursday. She has shown absolutely NO signs of missing them or feeling pain.
> I might add that two of my three dogs are spayed/nuetered. I've read to much against it to ever do again.
> Sorry, but a Dobe with natural ears and tail looks like a B&T coonhound with an ear crop.  JMHO! :wink:


I'll be the first to admit that a Dobe with natural ears is not the most regal animal you'd ever see...that's the funny part about all of this to me. IMO, it boils down to, in a lot of cases, what people thinks makes an animal looks appealing and what they perceive the animal does/does not miss.

Although...tail docking is another thing altogether, right? Doesn't that cause pain?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Yes. crop/dock is all about visual perception just as spay/neuter is all about convience for the owner. I know! Both generalizations, but more the norm then not.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Yes. crop/dock is all about visual perception just as spay/neuter is all about convience for the owner. I know! Both generalizations, but more the norm then not.


I still maintain spay/neuter is a different deal. My opinion. That is not a cosmetic procedure...tail and ear docking are...even if spay/neuter is done for "convenience" there are downstream issues that are minimized as a result of it. 

Two different issues, two different sets of ethical considerations.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Researchers ar now finding that spay/nueter has many down sides to it, such as a higher rate of bone cancer. You could also argue that a dog wont get ear or tail cancer if they don't have them. :roll: Ok, ok, I'm streaching on that one.  :wink: 
Connie posted some of this info on another form. 
Connie?


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Yes. crop/dock is all about visual perception just as spay/neuter is all about convience for the owner. I know! Both generalizations, but more the norm then not.


You have an ulterior motive here, Bob, I bet you just like docking your terriers and can't stand all these generalizations. :twisted:

There's light years of difference between these two types of surgical alteration. The *first* is done for the convenience of the owner (by making the dog more amenable to their perceptions of attractiveness). The second is done for the overall betterment of the breed and dogs in general, given the individual situations and needs of the owner and the dog. 

Are there any dockings done anymore for utility? I thought partial docking, etc. for some terriers was done to pull them from holes or whatever...didn't know if there were still practical reasons to dock. I have never heard of a "legit" purpose for cropping other than minimizing "surface area" in dog fighting, right? No idea.


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> Although...tail docking is another thing altogether, right? Doesn't that cause pain?


Yes, the actual procedure performed on day-old pups is extremely painful. Here is how it's done:
The puppies are taken from Mom and far enough away so she doesn't hear their screams. In some practices they take them into the surgical room, but most just use the available counter space. Now, there are two methods vets commonly use for docking the tail. The first is to snap the spinal column at the correct docking location, then cut out the bone, and connect the tissues together. Second way is to simply cut the tail straight through (leaving a teeny amount of tissue) and then close the end. Unless the litter owner requests, no local is given, and no pain relievers. Vets will say to the litter owner "they don't feel it because their nerves aren't developed enough yet" but that is a blatent lie. It has been proven that their nerves are developed enough to FEEL the pain and agony of having their tail cut off, however the response is slower. The puppies will stop screaming and then they're taken whimpering and softly crying in pain (they've worn themselves out by this point) back to the litter owner, and the vet usually will proudly say "see, they're all right".
Ear cropping, though not MY cup of tea, is realatively painless if performed correctly. The dog more than likely doesn't experience any more pain than we do when getting ears peirced.



Woody Taylor said:


> Are there any dockings done anymore for utility?


I have seen quite a few GSDs and Mals with their tails docked for PSD work and Border Patrol work. I think it's a good thing in this case (and these dockings are done under anesthesia) because it does limit sensitive areas that a criminal can grab/yank.



Bob Scott said:


> Researchers ar now finding that spay/nueter has many down sides to it, such as a higher rate of bone cancer.


Very true, and early spays (less than 6 months old) are also to blame for older female dogs having urinary incontenance, and in some males bowel incontenance. Of course, vets push for it saying intact male dogs are at risk for developing testicular and prostate cancer, and intact females are at risk for uterine, ovarian & mammary tumors. I guess it's a case of "Damned if you do, Damned if you dont!"


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Now lets talk about circumcision on an infant. No let's don't. Lets talk about breast enhancement, no let's don't. Let's talk about face lifts or any other thing that humans do to humans. NO LET'S DON'T. Lets talk about cutting tails and ears off dogs which we do because some of us like the way it looks. Let's talk about cutting off a dogs parts to keep the amount of pups down. I want go there. Let's talk about anyother thing that we are going to allow the government to TELL us what to do and if we don't they will fine us and or send us to jail. Allow this law to pass and then expect anything else. You know who's fault it will be when they start taking our freedoms away? The next thing the government will do is stop all bite dog competition. Do we want that, not me. Give the government an inch and they will take it all. This law is stupid. It's coming from bleeding hearts that have no clue. If anyone likes the way a dog comes into this world and that's the way you want it to look that's fine with me. If I want to change mine by cutting tails and ears, leave me the H*%^%& alone
This is part of my freedom in this country and I dare you to try and take it or anyother freedom from me without a fight.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Well said Jerry! I have no problem at all with the people that make those choices, but let it be just that. A CHOICE! :wink:


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Heh. This is a good topic.

Jerry and Bob, what about obligating vets to use anesthetic during the procedures?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> Heh. This is a good topic.
> 
> Jerry and Bob, what about obligating vets to use anesthetic during the procedures?


Absolutely! I wouldn't go to a vet that didn't. That's still a big problem with a lot of the hardcore pit folks. :evil:


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Woody Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > Heh. This is a good topic.
> ...


Still a problem with a lot of cheap-ass folks. My buddy's family raised Rotts...backyard breeders of the idiot kind in OK...it was pretty brutal as he described it. Not a lot of margin to play with on a little of pups you sell for $50 a piece.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

A lot of terrier people still do tails themselves. Supposidly, at 3 days old, the pain is no more then a quick pinch because the tail isn't much more then cartalage at that age. I don't know about that, so I'd still opt for anesthetic.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> Now lets talk about circumcision on an infant. No let's don't. Lets talk about breast enhancement, no let's don't. Let's talk about face lifts or any other thing that humans do to humans. NO LET'S DON'T. Lets talk about cutting tails and ears off dogs which we do because some of us like the way it looks. Let's talk about cutting off a dogs parts to keep the amount of pups down. I want go there. Let's talk about anyother thing that we are going to allow the government to TELL us what to do and if we don't they will fine us and or send us to jail. Allow this law to pass and then expect anything else. You know who's fault it will be when they start taking our freedoms away? The next thing the government will do is stop all bite dog competition. Do we want that, not me. Give the government an inch and they will take it all. This law is stupid. It's coming from bleeding hearts that have no clue. If anyone likes the way a dog comes into this world and that's the way you want it to look that's fine with me. If I want to change mine by cutting tails and ears, leave me the H*%^%& alone
> This is part of my freedom in this country and I dare you to try and take it or anyother freedom from me without a fight.


ah, the old slippery slope argument. the difference between the selective surgeries you described for humans and dogs? in the case of the human, the subject to be altered made the choice. and what happens if it goes wrong? they sue. liposuction is the classic example. we've all seen the oprah horror stories. there is a risk. people should know that going in and if they still make the choice, any possible side effects should be viewed as "oh well, you made your choice". but what happens when an ear crop goes bad? what recourse does the dog have for a surgery that they didn't choose? NONE. they are problems that can occur. when i was a child, the neighbors across the street got a boxer and when they had it's ears cropped problems arose from the surgery. it does happen and for what? so the dog looks pretty to the owner? sorry. i'm not buying it. now if there is some legitimate reason for the surgery such as the dog is going to be worked in a way that the surgery makes it easier for them to work (such as the tail cropping for the terrier to be pulled from a hole or something similar), then i can see that. but ONLY for cosmetic reasons? it's unnecessary cruelty IMO.

i'm just thinking out loud here. i'm no tree hugger by any stretch, but i think a line should be drawn. do i think the gov't should dictate where this line should be drawn? probably not, but maybe so....


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

So when I pinched those nasty looking tails off Rott pups, I was cruel and unusual?? Just like I so vividly remember my foreskin being cut off. Over thinking this stuff is foolish. I don't remember pups being that pissed off, and I don't remember it at all.

It is a dog. I really haven't seen any complete misery from them missing a tail, or holding it against me for doing so.

This is the same discussion as culling. Do you let your junk puppies go out and possibly breed? When linebreeding, typically to see what recessives you are going to be up against, you inbreed, father/daughter or mother /son. Half the litter is gonna be trash. They are scrap so that you can see the recessives and figure out whether these dogs are truely worth line breeding on.

It is a dog. Hundreds of thousands are killed every year for no reason other than they were born. When you start thinking of them as anything but, it is the downfall of the breeds. Crop their ears, and maybe they will stay in the home, dock the tail, it is not the big deal you are SOOOOOOOO making it. I cannot believe how much crap info is out there. I have had pups that I docked be asleep, or busy feeding, seconds after I did it. How many tails have YOU docked???


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> How many tails have YOU docked???


perhaps a more appropriate question would be: How many times has YOUR tail been docked?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

There isn't much to dock in the first place.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Wow what good posts! Just to throw something in the mix, when I was grooming, the lady that owned the shop raised & showed standard & toy poodles. I saw her dock a number of tails on newborn toys. Each pup was taken away from the mother only as long as it took for the lady to hold the pup in her hand & dock the tail, about 30 seconds. The mothers never seemed bothered by it & the pups were never out of the mothers site. The pups cried for about the same amount of time, mom would lick them, they would start to nurse, all was right in their little worlds! Also, just in case anyone was wondering, it was never a bloody scene or anything. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just sharing my personal experience.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

An old terrierman I've hunted with down in kentucky said he bit the tails off of his pups. Had some dern good hunting dogs too. :lol: :lol:


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Oh eeewwwwww!!!! spit spit spit....Hope he remebered to floss! :lol:


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> Now lets talk about circumcision on an infant. No let's don't. Lets talk about breast enhancement, no let's don't. Let's talk about face lifts or any other thing that humans do to humans. NO LET'S DON'T. Lets talk about cutting tails and ears off dogs which we do because some of us like the way it looks. Let's talk about cutting off a dogs parts to keep the amount of pups down. I want go there. Let's talk about anyother thing that we are going to allow the government to TELL us what to do and if we don't they will fine us and or send us to jail. Allow this law to pass and then expect anything else. You know who's fault it will be when they start taking our freedoms away? The next thing the government will do is stop all bite dog competition. Do we want that, not me. Give the government an inch and they will take it all. This law is stupid. It's coming from bleeding hearts that have no clue. If anyone likes the way a dog comes into this world and that's the way you want it to look that's fine with me. If I want to change mine by cutting tails and ears, leave me the H*%^%& alone
> This is part of my freedom in this country and I dare you to try and take it or anyother freedom from me without a fight.


also jerry, if you want to start using the slippery slope argument....what if some breed of dog out there, let's call it breed X started to show a propensity to 3 legged dogs and people liked the look of it so you started seeing people get one of their golden retrievers legs amputated because they liked the looks of it. or breed X started to show up with only one eye then people started having one of their dog's eyes surgically removed. would these surgeries be OK? farfetched? yes, but if you're going to start using this slippery slope argument, then you must realize that coin has a flip side...


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> Jeff Oehlsen said:
> 
> 
> > How many tails have YOU docked???
> ...


based on Jeff's statements, I think it's safe to assume he was docked at least ONCE.

8) Thanks folks, I'll be in town all week.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

There no slippery slope. I said it like I meant it. Like Jeff said , IT'S A DOG. Let the government do what they want and see what you get down the road later on.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> There no slippery slope. I said it like I meant it. Like Jeff said , IT'S A DOG. Let the government do what they want and see what you get down the road later on.


whether or not YOU want to label it a "slippery slope" is of no consequence. when you make an argument like "if they take away our right to cut up our dogs, the next thing you know they'll take away biting sports" (paraphrased), you are extrapolating or using a "slippery slope" argument. as such, using the same logic, i made my own slippery slope argument to show you how that can be a dangerous, paranoid, and hasty thing to do...


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

I like floppy eared rat tailed dobies. I also like my friends floppy eared great dane.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Tim, 
With all due respect. I said it exactly the way I meant it. I will not back up from what I believe. Example: Vietnam vets were promised full benefits when enlisted. They retired and many beneifts were taken away and the government wants to take more away. Thankfully people have stepped up to try and stop this.
If the government could they would take away our rights to own weapons. (People allow this to happen ) No if I can help it.
I won't go into all the other crap that they want to take away. Just look at what they have taken,just a few, prayer in school, ten commandments. I'm not a big drinker but this is also stuiped. You have to be 21 in order to purchase alcohol yet you can vote and die for your country at 18. 
*IT'S JUST A DOGS TAIL AND EARS.* The government should have no part of this issue. What those people that want this changed, should be on the front rows of the real dog abuse. There's more than enough for them to get involved in there. 
Very respectfully,
Jerry


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

This is a great discussion, I'm really enjoying everybody's thoughts here. I especially liked that post about Jeff being docked. (That was funny! Man, you guys are a tough crowd...)

In all seriousness, thanks for your perspectives. 



Jerry Lyda said:


> There no slippery slope. I said it like I meant it. Like Jeff said , IT'S A DOG.


This is the problem, Jerry, I think...while there are animal rights people out there who think dogs should have some of the same rights as people, there's probably a greater number who think it's a dog...and deserves some kind of stewardship on our part that would make docking wrong or at least something that should be controlled. And to a certain extent, my guess is most of you all feel the same way (i.e. that "just a dog" actually implies some obligation on our part to protect lesser species)...think about things like dog fighting, even old school training methods, my guess is there is a general feel of revulstion that brings up in your throat (I hope nobody here is neutral or pro dog fighting! That's one I cannot be objective about, sorry admin).

Just to play devil's advocate...the government should (I don't think a lot of you would disagree with this) have rabies and vaccine and leash laws...there is a precedent.

Still relatively neutral on this, by the way.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> Oh eeewwwwww!!!! spit spit spit....Hope he remebered to floss! :lol:


Hope the pups are wormed really good before he does this. That's awful close to the wormy end of a pup.  :lol: :lol: :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> susan tuck said:
> 
> 
> > Oh eeewwwwww!!!! spit spit spit....Hope he remebered to floss! :lol:
> ...



YIKES!


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

This has nothing to do with mean and crule torture to animals. If so, so is circumcision. We elect to do this. We don't get fined by the government nor do we get put in jail. We have a chose to do it or not. 
Do we have a choice to put an animal down? Do we have a choice to put old people down? Why because dogs are dogs, not human. Yes, we have the responsibility to take care of our animals from harm. Docking tails and cropping ears doesn't put the dog in harm. Take the energy used on this issue to stopping dog fighting and the like and I'll be right beside you all the way. This issue I'll have to step back away from you and even fight against you. Oh well that's what makes the world go round. You have the right to fight me for this and that's ok with me but you're not seeing the big picture. The government has it's paws in too much now. Spank a child in public, you'll go to jail.
I've said all I'm going to say about this. You know how I feel and I know how you feel and that again is ok with me. I will even bet you this, I bet if we really knew each other we could be really good friends. What I don't like in a person is one that will back down on his commitments when things start to get ruff.
Have a good night my friend and we can agree to disagree,
Jerry


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> I've said all I'm going to say about this. You know how I feel and I know how you feel and that again is ok with me. I will even bet you this, I bet if we really knew each other we could be really good friends. What I don't like in a person is one that will back down on his commitments when things start to get ruff.
> Have a good night my friend and we can agree to disagree,
> Jerry


Not sure if this was directed at me? Jerry, I really don't have much of a position on this. I posted it in the first place to generate the discussion it did, and quite frankly, because it's funny to me that the AKC would be so hyped up about this because I think it's because they'd hate to have to break out the white-out for their standards descriptions (I know you are a part of the AKC, I respect that, I still find their positioning on this ironic). I put up the initial statement about the Europeans enjoying this because I know it's illegal in many places there and it's simply one of those things--for many Europeans--that they cannot understand, like cat declawing.

Having said all of this, let me just reiterate what I said a few posts ago..people both for and against this issue think they are acting on behalf of the dog. That's it. Which explains a lot of the emotion around it.

Make sense? My apologies if you were addressing this to someone else, I have always respected your opinion and will continue to do so.

Last thing...I'll point out...is even though I'm pretty comfortable with my thoughts on this, I'd also be very comfortable if you all put up convincing arguments to make me switch to whatever side you're on. Last thing any of us need is to stick to one side just for the sake of doing so. Too much of that going on in the world, anyway. I hang around here because you all educate me, I fully expect my opinions on dog-related stuff to change the more I learn from you.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

I answered your PM


> Not sure if this was directed at me?


 Yes it was directed to you.



> I posted it in the first place to generate the discussion it did, and quite frankly, because it's funny to me that the AKC would be so hyped up about this because I think it's because they'd hate to have to break out the white-out for their standards descriptions (I know you are a part of the AKC, I respect that, I still find their positioning on this ironic).


 I am a part of the AKC but I didn't take my stand on this because of them. I took it because, Ilike the looks of the cropping, and the government has no place in this as well as in other things they mess up.


> Having said all of this, let me just reiterate what I said a few posts ago..people both for and against this issue think they are acting on behalf of the dog. That's it. Which explains a lot of the emotion around it.


 I'm not acting on behalf of the dog. I'm acting on behalf of a citizen that don't want government in everything. As I mentioned before on some items they have no business in.(Spanking a child in public etc...)


> My apologies if you were addressing this to someone else, I have always respected your opinion and will continue to do so.


 Thank you and I alsorespect your opinions and I too will continue to do so.


> Last thing...I'll point out...is even though I'm pretty comfortable with my thoughts on this, I'd also be very comfortable if you all put up convincing arguments to make me switch to whatever side you're on


 I'm sorry, I quess that's where I failed. I too am comfortable with my thoughts on this. I like the looks an don't need the government to tell me I can or can not to this. I feel it's not their place.


> Last thing any of us need is to stick to one side just for the sake of doing so. Too much of that going on in the world, anyway.


 I couldn't agree with you more.

Like I said in the PM, Thanks for being a gentleman and for being so gracious

I like you more and more. I like the stuff you're made of. I bet we can agree on other things and sooner or later they'll come up and I'll be with you.  
Regards, Jerry


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote...think about things like dog fighting, even old school training methods, my guess is there is a general feel of revulstion that brings up in your throat (I hope nobody here is neutral or pro dog fighting! That's one I cannot be objective about, sorry admin). 

Interesting thing about dogfighting, is when it was more prevalent, you didn't hear about all these pitbull attacks. Dogmen had no tolerence for human aggression whatsoever, and the dog was dispatched right then. What made the breed so spectacular was exactly what people are so against. Harsh, harsh culling, and no tolerance for "skippy's emotional problem" I am not a dog fighter, and I am not into it at all, but it is undeniable that the softer society gets, the more breeds like this go in the shitter. This has always been a hard one for me, I like pitbulls, but they were created to fight. All I ever see is Mr. All animals should be free and wander the earth's ictures of a dog urt real bad, and or was starved to death. Don't even ask me about BSL, that is a different shtstorm.

Oldschool training methods. Most of what I see out there today is "old school". I am not sure what you all think we were doing back then? Do you think we were just beating them stupid???? Some people were, but some people are today.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Interesting thing about dogfighting, is when it was more prevalent, you didn't hear about all these pitbull attacks. Dogmen had no tolerence for human aggression whatsoever, and the dog was dispatched right then. What made the breed so spectacular was exactly what people are so against. Harsh, harsh culling, and no tolerance for "skippy's emotional problem"


I agree with this 100%. My guess is APBTs would be incredible service dogs in much greater numbers if they had not been bred to be so devoted to people (i.e., PSDs and MWDs, etc. seem to have a core element of aloofness (different from aggression) to strangers). In terms of breed management, I guess you could argue that pit fighters did a great job of producing out a superlative breed.



> Oldschool training methods. Most of what I see out there today is "old school". I am not sure what you all think we were doing back then? Do you think we were just beating them stupid???? Some people were, but some people are today.


Oldschool...I thought you guys used to load up food bowls with hot sauce and gunpowder? 

I'm kidding. Oldschool was a bad choice of words. Should have said "abusive training methods." Chain gangs, etc.


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

This is how it is (IMO):
I have assisted or done myself, dews, dockings, and crops on over 150 pups/dogs. I know the ins and the outs of the procedures commonly done at vet clinics, good and bad.
Believe me, the puppies feel pain. If you know how to listen to the subtle difference in the "I'm hungry" scream and the "OUCH!" scream you'll know. Like I explained above, it is not the usual pain you are thinking of. They feel the pain after it is done, and their reaction is delayed. A young puppy's way to cope with pain is to cry/whine, feed, sleep, etc.
I am not arguing that the act of docking/cropping is cruel and inhumane, however I am saying that doing this without any sort of pain reliever is! How 'bout we all cut a finger or toe off, then say it doesn't hurt! My opinion is simply that once pain relief/anethesia is used in ALL dockings/cropping, I may re-examine my opinion.
All this boils down to is this : Your opinion is your opinion. If you want to dock tails and crop ears, you're going to. However, my opinion, equally put into this conversation, is that the practice of docking tails, or shaving dew claws, WITHOUT pain killer is not right.
Think about this: cutting off a dog's ear (ie-pitbulls) without pain reliever is TORTURE and that'll get you arrested in most states; chopping the tail or dews off of a dog without pain killers isn't.
Everyone has the right to disagree with someone else's beliefs, and a right to voice that opinion on here. A dog discussion is for the exchange of beliefs. I know some topics will get heated, because people have THEIR opinions and don't much fancy other's opinions, but we all must still respect those for their decisions.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> I am not arguing that the act of docking/cropping is cruel and inhumane, however I am saying that doing this without any sort of pain reliever is!


This I do agree with, I don't see the point of doing it without anesthetic. And your points around how a pup would manifest pain are good insights.


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Thank you!  
Also, I want to add that this debate is just like the plastic surgery on humans as mentioned before. It boils down to a matter of personal taste.
Everyone's is different, and I respect that.


----------

