I don't know if this goes Lounge--or anywhere--tail-bobbing.

I saw a pretty dog today--I'd say a Rottweiler-Boxer mix--just an all-over black and tan dappling with the sweetest brown eyes. She was so friendly and sweet, that I couldn't help but notice the stump of her tail, just three inches of tail wagging to beat the band. She obviously liked being petted, and still had a little tail to wag, but part of me wondered if it wasn't unfair that she did not have the full tail she was born with. If it was missed--for whatever reason a tail might exist. Does anyone else feel like tail bobbing, even in breeds where it's common, like Rotties, think it's a bad thing? I don't favor it myself, or see any aestheic improvement. To me, a dog's tail is like hula for dogs--it's how they tell a story. Anyone else feel weird about it?

I'm opposed to it obviously.

It's not like they make unwanted puppies or something...

Why put an animal through an amputation for aesthetics alone? I can't see any point in doing that.

The really sad part is, people who get it done through a vet normalize it, and people just think it's expected and normal for certain breeds, so then you get people who can't afford a vet (or who are just old-timey and rustic) DIYing it with rubber bands or who knows what else, and a lot of those dogs get infections and die.

I do remember reading once that some breeds are so wild with their tails that they frequently break them. Sounds like hogfooey to me. It seems more likely that what was getting broken were knick knacks and lamps. I can imagine a frisky Great Dane causing a fuss. But it's still people's fault. There's nothing wrong with the dog. People should at least make a little effort to understand enough about the breed or type of animal that's going to be their responsibility at least the next 10 years or more. There's a shitload of people out there that have no business owning a pet. I bet they're pretty crappy at raising kids too.

I mean, there's something that's just not right about looking for an animal, bringing it home, giving it a name, and then making plans to cut pieces off of it. No good reason, just for the hell of it I guess. It must be step 3 of owning a Doberman.

I don't want to suggest I think these people are evil, I don't, I just think they're ignorant and if they understood more, they wouldn't be doing these things.

not necessarily whole breeds, individual dogs, get what is called "happy tail syndrome". I've seen dogs that have injured their tails with their wagging, splitting the tip and sometimes even more than that, and the injury sometimes never gets a chance to heal due to their continued "happy tail". In those cases, when all options have been exhausted, I think docking for quality of life reasons is more than acceptable (and the whole tail doesn't need to be docked, usually the end 1/4 is enough). It's usually not a life threatening injury (it can be if it gets infected or gangrenous), but it is chronic, and is painful. A breed caveat is that greyhounds and danes seem to be a bit more prone to this, but any shorthaired thin tailed dog can do it to themselves.

If it's medically necessary, sure, go ahead and do it. But I love seeing waggly tails and floppy ears, and even Agatha's very painful (to us) whip-like tail is a delight. I wouldn't ever choose tail-docking or ear cropping for my pets.

that's what I read. And I agree with what you said about it sometimes being the wisest and safest thing to do in those cases.

Ear cropping is common among certain breeds too. I think people are getting away from this but not totally. Until the AKC stops mandating ear cropping and tail docking in order to show certain breeds, it won't stop.
I had a boxer and know that AKC required ear cropping and tail docking for show. I'm just about positive that Dobermans also have to have their ears and tails done. Rotties at least don't have to have their ears cropped.

It can be done painlessly, I'm sure, but dogs have tails for reasons, and one of these is communication with other dogs. I can't believe that it's entirely coincidental that some breeds whose tails get docked also wind up with reputations for viciousness.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to always convince new pet owners how wrong it is, imo. I do get through to them sometimes though.

What gets me is that some cat/dog "breeders" mandate all these things as part of buying the critter. Burns my ass.

:grr:

Which I generally support. The only time I agree with de-clawing is when a devoted cat owner has tried absolutely EVERYTHING to change their cat's destructive clawing (scratching posts and pads, soft paws, trimming, squirt bottles etc) and nothing else works. If it's between de-clawing and making them an outdoor only cat or getting rid of them, I say declaw, because their life expectancy is far shorter with the other two options. At the rescue that I work with we don't adopt out cats with claws to prospective owners who say they want to declaw. If they want a de-clawed cat, we will only offer them older cats that were de-clawed by previous owners.

My three have all of their claws, and no troubles at all in five years!

What is odd is that it seems like more cats that come in "old" are declawed. Maybe 3 in 5 over the last year. It makes me wonder why.

Keep up the good work!

:yourock:

In Delaware we have several TNR cat rescue groups (Trap-Neuter-Release). Their goal is to help reduce the ferrel cat population without needlessly putting cats to death. They'll trap the cats, have them fixed and then return them back to their original colony. Unfortunately most of these cats (including my Evita who was one of them) are almost impossible to adopt out to a family (Trust me - 3 years later and Evita will maybe give me 10 minutes a day to pet her but in general she avoids everyone - a lesser cat owner would have returned her in a few weeks after adoption for something friendlier).

Along with getting the cats fixed, they will also give them vaccinations.

Because there are so many of these rescue groups AND it's impossible to tell which cats have been fixed (unless you get them right after they were fixed the first time). So before releasing the cat back into their colony, the cat will have the top of their right ear snipped - just a small section so it's an obvious mark.

This snip is a sign to TNR groups that the cat was already rescued. It saves unnecessarily reopening up a cat and finding the work was already done. Evita was suppose to have her ear snip that day but I took her home instead.

I'm sure someone here will call this cruel but I think the overall reason behind it justifys the small clip

It's not cruel as it's necessary. It's not cosmetic but an aid to the overall goal.

The procedure is done while fully under anesthetic, and if you're good, you'll nary see a drop of blood.

I also took her home about 3 hours after the surgery. But the rescue center had dozens of other cats that were snipped in the ear.

Ours was almost military in form. Cats come in cages, get knocked down. Cleaned, shaved, spayed/neutered. Cat (still under) goes to the shots table, then gets groomed, ears cleaned, overall inspection (teeth, growths, wounds, etc). Then the ear is snipped. While the ear tip is still closed off, they get Frontline and one last look over. Cat goes back to cage to gradually wake up.

Sometimes, if the cat was going to be kept, the owner would request the ear stay intact, but it was rare.

She's this gorgeous silky grey long-hair, looks to be of a Nebelung mix (long-hair blue russian). She was so tiny she looked almost kitten like and would have probably been adopted very quickly IF she was friendly.

This cat doesn't have a friendly bone in her body but she has opened up her heart just a lil bit for me

That takes "you cant save 'em all" up a notch making it possible. I'd prefer a nip in my ear to repeat surgery or death any day.

:hi:

so I did a little research on the breed. Two things caught my eye; A: the suggestion that a lot of cocker spaniels have a nasty disposition and B: that it is routine to dock their tails. Hmmm, I wonder if A is connected to B!

If they do have a tail, it's usually very short and sometimes deformed.

They wiggle their fannies in a very cute fashion.

causes no pain or discomfort.The owner that I got my dog from does this to all his dogs. http://www.bravadobe.com.au/tail_docking.htm

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

are actually using them for herding? What proportion of Americans with terriers are actually using them to hunt rodents?

Small and smaller, are my educated guesses.

So if there's no functional reason to do it, it's just an aesthetic choice -- don't try to make it seem like it's anything else.

Perhaps when I was an infant I could just chop that thing off with minimal pain. I mean - it's all just to make the owners happy.

Mine was actually a needed surgery (correcting a birth defect that couldn't wait) but these days people know better and it would still be done with pain control measures. We know now that just because babies don't have any good way of expressing pain, that doesn't mean that they don't feel it acutely.

If the dog is "lucky" it's done at the vet. Usually, it's done by the idiot breeder with little more than fingernail clippers or a rubber band.

Can't imagine why it's banned in parts of the world. *SHOCKED* that a Doberman breeder that you link to defends it.

For that matter, people who buy from breeders when perfectly good animals are being killed for lack of homes are asshats.

What breeders happen to think is a good idea tends to have no real relation to what actually serves a dog's best interests.

And we loves our Vinnie


and Brigi


and Charlie


As much as we love Sneezer


And Jack


We are not asshats.

Your house can only take so many dogs. The three that were bred mean you couldn't take in three from a shelter or rescue. As long as homes are finite, every dog churned out by a breeder means one more dead at the shelter. It sucks, but it's a reality- as long as there aren't enough homes to go around, breeding more dogs means dogs in need of adoption will die for lack of homes.

Companion Animals (to some of us) are a relationship as if they were family members, and breeds are as different as day and night.

To suggest one just "PICKS UP" a Companion is the same as ordering a Mail Order Bride from the Sears Catalog. Chances are, there will be problems. Even with the rescues, much time was spent with the decision.

We are "Corgi People," and we exercise our dogs like the herders they are, and their personalities suit us.

The were also not "Churned out." They came from two single litters in homes where the parents were also both Companions, not some pet store or puppy mill.

We will have to live with being 2/5's of the rescuers some may think we should be, and we will continue to contribute food and other supplies to the local "No Kill" rescues.

By the way, all 3 of our living cats (the the 3 deceased) were all rescues.