Quote:
Originally Posted by CouversMom  I find this argument hilarious. Of course there are more injuries with dogs that have their tails. If we amputated all infant hands when they were born, there would be fewer hand injuries... But what about the fact that you amputated the limb to avoid the injury!? Oh my goodness... |
That is an appeal to ridicule fallacious argument. Now can you address what has been found? That dogs of DOCKED breeds are having to have amputations when dogs of UNDOCKED breeds are not having the same issue.
What has changed?
We don't see a lot of GSDs and collies needing tail amputations. However, in breeds of dogs with thin whippy tails in breeds that have traditionally been docked, there has been a marked increase of amputations because these dogs are breaking their tails.
We're not talking incidental injuries, and because a full amputation is not being done in the first case, a number of these dogs end up having 2-3 amputations to their tail, to get the tail to the point where the dog stops breaking it. Two or three major surgeries, with all the accompanying pain and confusion that comes from an amputation.
Ironically enough, that point is just about where the breed was traditionally docked, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence, and has nothing to do with the originators of the breeds and standards knowing what they were talking about and setting that as the point of docking for a reason.