Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver  Last time this was hashed out, someone said the most sensible explanation that I've heard, which was that working dogs were taxed, and dogs with tails were considered working dogs. Actualy, now that I write that, it doesn't seem to make a tremendous amount of sense - why would a dog only be taxed if it had a tail? - but, well, there you go.
Nancy, where have you seen a yorkie that's had trouble holding up its tail? All the ones I've seen with full tails have lovely long ones that gently curl up over their back.
FYI to the poster above, dobermans do not have docked ears or tails in Europe, and they do perfectly fine. The "fragile" tail explanation does not hold water to me. It seems like a pretty self serving argument, there is very little evidence to support it, and it doesn't make a tremendous amont of sense anyway. Yorkies have trouble with LP, does that mean we should remove their knees, just in case?
IMO, it is only a matter of time before it's outlawed in the US. You can see the way the wind is blowing. |
Hmm that doesn't make sense to me either, but who knows? The point I'm making is that natural length of tail, has never been taken into consideration when breeding, so there will be great variation. The outlawing of docking is fairly new, and yes it's not a 100 percent thing where every undocked tail breaks, but it is being studied by some, how can you assume it's safe in such a short time? I don't think the correlation between LP and removal of the knees is appropriate, after all tail docking doesn't impair them in any way, whereas removal of the knees would seriously impair them. I really hope that more of our civil liberties aren't being taken away from us, and I hope the wind isn't blowing that way. I'm sure bans on dewclaw removal would come next, and how many ripped dewclaw threads have we read? Not many, perhaps, because most dogs have their dewclaws removed, but I've read enough threads about ripping, that I would always want them removed.