There is no comparison between putting a sweater on a dog and cutting off part of its tail.
One more time: we have to make decisions for our animals based on our own personal preference, the good of the individual dog, and the good of animals in general. I give Thor baths even though he hates them because to my human nose, he smells better after one. This is a minor decision, as ones based on personal preference should be.
The more pain / limitation an action places upon an animal, the more carefully we should weigh it. Grooming: not a big deal, total freedom of choice. Yet we all seem to agree that certain types of tail docking are cruel, and should be illegal. We don't consider them legitimate choices for the owner to make on behalf of their dog. Putting an animal to sleep is obviously a very difficult decision that most people agonize over. And then there are some people who have their dogs PTS for really minor reasons, including, yes, looks. Do we consider these legitimate choices?
I can understand if someone believes that tail docking causes minimal pain and does not interfere with the dog's function, that it's okay to make the alteration just for aesthetics. I don't agree, but I can understand the perspective. I do have one question though: what recourse would I have if I receive a dog like Thor, whose tail has been docked way too short? His tail is not performing the function it should, because it's practically invisible. I don't think you could realistically put a restriction that tail docking must be done "properly", because how would that be enforced? I'm seriously asking here.
I am wondering about mommadog1's observation that yorkies seemed less distressed by the docking. Perhaps it depends on the thickness of the tail? |