Quote:
Originally Posted by gracielove  There are about 19 recognized breeds that are naturally born without a tail or with a very short tail. They are just as happy and healthy as any dog with a tail.
As previously stated a tail docking done properly is far less painful and stressful than many optional medical procedures done on pets by veterinarians.
In the past and even today there have been abuses of the procedure preformed by incompetent breeders.
When the breeds that are docked today were first developed there were good reasons for the docking that had to do with the job the breed was created to preform. Long ago dogs were pets only to the wealthy. Most other owners of dogs kept them for a purpose such as hunting and ratting. Docking was first developed as a necessary procedure.
Breeders today continue to dock in order to preserve the historical distinctions of the breed. Many of the docked breeds are still used by many for their original purpose. Basically good breeders respect the original conformation of their breed.
I agree with Gemy in that there are far worse abuses of the breed than docking or dew claw removal. Such practices done at an early age under proper sanitary conditions by trained hands are very minor practically painless procedures. The things purebreds are suffering at the hands of puppy mills and other uninformed and careless breeders is shameful and should be against the law in civilized society. Ridding the country of such abuses should be the first priority if you are really interested in relieving the suffering of any purebred breed. |
Fair enough.
However, how would you respond to the following:
Opposition to this practice began very early in the history of the breed;
Hugh Dalziel, writing about Yorkshire Terriers in 1878, declared that "There is no reason for mutilating pet dogs, and perfect ears and tails should be bred, not clipped into shape with scissors."
source:PETS: Yorkshire Terrier
I ask because, I wonder, if the practice was frowned upon even at the beginning of the standard, why have breeders not bred to conformity as an alternative to docking? Is it incompetence, challenges associated with natural conformity, no requirement; so no need? or some other reason I have not mentioned?
Keep in mind - this question is not an indictment or judgment (although I admit biased in my opinion as I do not agree with the practice) but genuine curiosity. If the breeder wants to conform to standard, why not breed for it as is done with color, size, teeth, coat etc?
For clarification, Hugh Dalziel was an expert in exhibition, breeding etc of British dogs and wrote many books, some of which can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/Hugh-Dalziel/e/B00IRHRFP6
Obviously, I have great respect for breeders and the breed. Without breeders, I would not have my Teddy! So, please educate me! If there is no answer, fair enough. If you want to pm me and answer, fine. But, if I don't understand, I will question and I hope that is ok!