Tail Docking - Yes or No

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

You always amaze me with your ability to be the voice of reason!!!!

Will you please talk to my husband?

[gracielove]

I have seen the docking procedure in person, in the vets office on purebred Boxers. I haven't seen the YouTube video but what I saw was far from a cruel procedure. The pups did not whine as much as a puppy getting it's first vaccination and were back sleeping in their carrier within minutes. It is too late to convince me that this is a horribly cruel practice.

I do not believe that just anyone should be able to dock tails and certainly not puppy mill breeders and backyard breeders. The procedure itself is not dangerous or cruel when done properly.

[Cha Cha]

Are there countries that ban baby boy circumcisions because it is cruel, barbaric, or mutilation? To me, this debate is so much the same in comparison. I totally get the tail docking argument and realize this is not a human vs animal debate, but yet to me, it is because we put human value on our pets/animals, human emotion etc. There is plenty of research that shows foreskin adds a great deal of sensation. If circumcision is justified for sanitary reasons, that is the same debate some make on tail docking. How many men grow up to be angry with their parents for having the procedure if they're missing out on all that great pleasure? Could it not be interpreted to the same as the wag of a happy tail? Both procedures are done to subjects too young to have their own voice, and from what I understand, similar in procedure. I just want someone to tell me how this is ok for one species and not another. It might help me form another opinion on the debate. A human is ok having a body part cut off their infant, newborn child, but not a puppy. To say it sounds awful.

[jukeboxbri]

I don't really see a problem with tail docking or not docking. I'm just worried about what a change would do to the current "perfect" dogs and the programs they're in if they don't have the "right" undocked tail. It seems like it could be a big change, but I guess I could just be over-thinking it.

Totally random, but I wouldn't mind if my pinky toe had been docked off. I just hate that toe, LOL!

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by jukeboxbri

Totally random, but I wouldn't mind if my pinky toe had been docked off. I just hate that toe, LOL!

lol


I was born with half a big toe on my left foot...


trust me... you'd miss it

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Will you please talk to my husband?

hahaha only if you'll talk to mine about letting me get another puppy! deal!

[gracielove]

Originally Posted by Cha Cha

Are there countries that ban baby boy circumcisions because it is cruel, barbaric, or mutilation? To me, this debate is so much the same in comparison. I totally get the tail docking argument and realize this is not a human vs animal debate, but yet to me, it is because we put human value on our pets/animals, human emotion etc. There is plenty of research that shows foreskin adds a great deal of sensation. If circumcision is justified for sanitary reasons, that is the same debate some make on tail docking. How many men grow up to be angry with their parents for having the procedure if they're missing out on all that great pleasure? Could it not be interpreted to the same as the wag of a happy tail? Both procedures are done to subjects too young to have their own voice, and from what I understand, similar in procedure. I just want someone to tell me how this is ok for one species and not another. It might help me form another opinion on the debate. A human is ok having a body part cut off their infant, newborn child, but not a puppy. To say it sounds awful.

As the mother of 4 adult sons and having known many people of the male persuasion throughout my life I have never met one that was mad at their parents for having them circumcised. They seem to have quite active sex lives and have never complained about the amount of pleasure they obtain from them. My husband was circumcised and never once mentioned that this was a problem for him. You have unearthed a new reason for people to be offended. Thank you.

[Cha Cha]

Originally Posted by gracielove

As the mother of 4 adult sons and having known many people of the male persuasion throughout my life I have never met one that was mad at their parents for having them circumcised. They seem to have quite active sex lives and have never complained about the amount of pleasure they obtain from them. My husband was circumcised and never once mentioned that this was a problem for him. You have unearthed a new reason for people to be offended. Thank you.

That's the point. They have nothing to compare it to because they were never able to try it out, and I am sure if you ask your sons, they don't remember the traumatic experience either.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by Cha Cha

No, but that's the point. They have nothing to compare it to because they were never able to try it out, and I am sure if you ask your sons, they don't remember the traumatic experience either.

I do have to point out that I specialize in cognitive neuropsychology in HUMANS so the definition of "remembering" is debatable.......


Slippery slope!


I think the argument that we maim sentient beings on the basis that they may not remember it is, well.....strange. But, I do realize that it is a way to validate certain procedures. Familiarity brings comfort even if it is erroneous.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by gracielove

As the mother of 4 adult sons and having known many people of the male persuasion throughout my life I have never met one that was mad at their parents for having them circumcised. They seem to have quite active sex lives and have never complained about the amount of pleasure they obtain from them. My husband was circumcised and never once mentioned that this was a problem for him. You have unearthed a new reason for people to be offended. Thank you.

Foreskin regeneration is sought by millions of men around the world who had their choice taken away from them by their parents belief in tradition.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Anyone interested in this subject should definitely watch the tail docking videos on youtube, to decide whether this is a painful or not painful procedure...and to simply just educate yourself on the process.

As far as any data regarding tail injury increases in countries where tail docking is banned - I have a problem with this data. Let's say we docked the back left leg as standard practice -- well, okay, then we would not see injury reports on the back left leg...however if we then banned the docking of the back left leg - we would then see, of course (!), a huge increase in injuries to the back left leg bc those injuries didn't previously have a way to exist. Just bc there is a "potential" for injury, it does correlate (for me) to amputating that part of the body. No way.

So, that kind of data doesn't do anything to convince me that there is substantial and increased danger in having a tail. They're MEANT to have this tail, for pete's sake. If they weren't, evolution would certainly step in at some point.

In your argument saying, "lets say we docked the back left leg as standard practice", makes me think you think they originally docked tails for no reason, early breeders were not trying to produce beautiful dogs, but working dogs. Since working dogs are still exempt from the docking rule, doesn't this tell you there might be safety issues involved with docking?

It's my understanding that a tail break is much worse than a regular broken extremity because they can't immobilize the tail, and it not only doesn't heal well, it can cause lots of complications.

Wolves are meant to have a tail, but when we breed, we have taken evolution out of the picture. I doubt if a long haired dog would even survive in nature, too many things for the hair to grab on too. In nature, if the tail a dog is born with makes it vulnerable, such as in dog fights or the way it gathers food, those animals with suitable tails will survive and those whose tails have broken will die. Nature has a tough standard, but if you can survive, you can produce offspring.

[Cha Cha]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

I do have to point out that I specialize in cognitive neuropsychology in HUMANS so the definition of "remembering" is debatable.......


Slippery slope!


I think the argument that we maim sentient beings on the basis that they may not remember it is, well.....strange. But, I do realize that it is a way to validate certain procedures. Familiarity brings comfort even if it is erroneous.

I was not suggesting that the procedures are "ok" because they won't remember, but I was suggesting that if we call it "maiming" in one species it is the same in another.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by Cha Cha

I was not suggesting that the procedures are "ok" because they won't remember, but I was suggesting that if we call it "maiming" in one species it is the same in another.

Apologies then for misunderstanding the first part but I totally agree with your statement in bold.

[gracielove]

Originally Posted by Cha Cha

That's the point. They have nothing to compare it to because they were never able to try it out, and I am sure if you ask your sons, they don't remember the traumatic experience either.

Oh, so they don't know they are missing out on some sort of sexual gratification they are lacking?
I know a lot of men. I worked with plenty throughout my life and none ever complained about lack of sexual sanctification. they may have had issues with their parents but this was not the problem.
I guess one would have to be enlightened about such things in order to know they are missing out. Such a shame. They THINK they are enjoy sex but they actually don't know they are not.

Working in the medial profession for more years than I would like to admit I saw MANY families coming to their family doctor regretting not getting their sons circumcised. Continual infections in their male children was very distressing. Teaching proper hygiene is important and most were discouraged from having the procedure done at such an advanced age but they chose to have subsequent babies have the procedure.

There is no winning on either issue. Everyone is going to hold their own opinion. I don't believe in making laws that restrict people from doing what they feel is best but I do believe in making sure that such procedures are done in the best and safest medical conditions available with the Jewish bris ceremony being the exception for circumcision.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Anyone interested in this subject should definitely watch the tail docking videos on youtube, to decide whether this is a painful or not painful procedure...and to simply just educate yourself on the process.

As far as any data regarding tail injury increases in countries where tail docking is banned - I have a problem with this data. Let's say we docked the back left leg as standard practice -- well, okay, then we would not see injury reports on the back left leg...however if we then banned the docking of the back left leg - we would then see, of course (!), a huge increase in injuries to the back left leg bc those injuries didn't previously have a way to exist. Just bc there is a "potential" for injury, it does correlate (for me) to amputating that part of the body. No way.

So, that kind of data doesn't do anything to convince me that there is substantial and increased danger in having a tail. They're MEANT to have this tail, for pete's sake. If they weren't, evolution would certainly step in at some point.

The dog doesn't need his tail to be happy, healthy, run, work, play, live his life - he needs his legs.

Your argument of keeping statistics on missing parts vs. present parts is a non-starter, as tails are not vital to the health or well-being of a dog's life as a leg is. Since legs are actually used as part of daily life when arising, lying down, walking, running, jumping, sitting, etc., their injuries would by far surpass that of tail injury. Besides, in the real world - the whole world over, statistics of tail injury only work if the injuries are actually reported by owners and reported by the vets - and likely rural, farm and deep urban and third world country areas where dogs get little care have very few tail injuries cared for by anybody, let alone vets and very little vet reporting to any oversight or fact-gathering agency. Broken legs even get left to self-heal, so imagine how little a tail injury gets tended to professionally and pain medication given.

Dogs are changing in the natural selection process of breeders, not actual natural selection/evolution, except maybe the few wild packs in deepest Africa and South America and even there game wardens govern some aspects of their lives, which nature would normally govern, usually removing them from the gene pool. In the past, as hunters, dogs used tails as rudders when going into water after prey or during migration of the pack across water or to communicate from afar but very few toy Yorkies today need to hunt through water to live, migrate or to communicate to another field as part of their daily lives.

In 100,000 - 200,000 more years, if left to pure natural selection, dogs might very well lose their tails as they are now living lives of domestication and don't need them to function in their current incarnation. But as breeders are taking over the role of natural selection in dog traits, actual evolution has nothing to do with their appearance and structure now as Mother Nature has been replaced by breeders choosing which features they want in dogs. One day, Yorkie breeders may decide they want shorter muzzles, larger eyes, tinier frames and curly tails - as dogs today nor Mother Nature govern their physical attributes. It's entirely up to us what our dogs look like and the qualities of their lives.