Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alisonJ oh--glad you mentioned that....I think most docking is done for cosmetics, but there are 2 other "excuses"...to avoid tail damage and for hygiene reasons....Here are the arguements against those reasons. I didn't write all of this, but it makes sense to me....
Is avoiding tail damage a good reason for docking?? Any dog can damage their tail but not all dogs are docked. Why are some ‘working’ dogs docked and not others? Why aren’t any of the Retrievers or Setters docked? They’ve got waggier tails than most breeds I know. Why not the hounds? They were bred to hunt over all sorts of terrain, and yet they’re allowed to keep their tails. It doesn’t make much sense to me.
The BSAVA states that they do not believe there is any scientific evidence to show that undocked working dogs damage their tails any more than undocked non-working dogs and therefore see no justification for an exemption for working dogs. Surely this says it all?
Are Reasons of hygiene a reason to dock tails? Call me crazy but isn’t it more humane (though less convenient and time consuming obviously!) to wash or clip the hair away from a dog’s bottom than to chop off his tail? If a dog is regularly groomed, healthy and eating good quality food then there shouldn’t be a lot of muck around his bottom anyway.
The RCVS says that fecal soiling is not a disease or injury and so cannot be a justifiable reason for docking a dog. I agree. |
So, since you believe it is cosmetic, you will be out there protesting also...I think if you feel strongly about this and have a lot of answers, you should do something about it.