ear cropping/tail docking dogs
Just wondering what your opinions are on ear cropping and tail docking for dogs.
I live in Australia, where both practices have been banned since 2004(?).
I fully support the ban on ear cropping, as it is purely cosmetic and quite painful for the dog (commonly done on dobermans, great danes, boxers...probably others).
However, agree with tail docking in some cases. Since the ban, many dogs who would traditionally be docked are breaking or splitting open their tails by hitting it on something. Possible outcomes include pain, infection, gangrene, cast and/or stitches, and sometimes the tail needs to be amputated anyway (which is a major operation for full-grown dogs). Certain breeds have more trouble than others depending on the strength and length of their tails, but I think at least the ones that commonly have issues should still be allowed to be docked (humanely of course, which I realize is not always the case).
And for anyone who thinks docking is wrong because it's "not natural", keep in mind that injuries mostly happen when the dog wags its tail too close to a table leg or other sharp-edged, man-made object.
Btw, dew claw removal is still legal and regularly practiced here, because dew claws are prone to get caught on things and ripped off. So I don't see how tail docking on dogs prone to tail injury is any different.
Also, Any dog caught in PA that is docked or cropped-even travelling through that dog can be taken from the owner and destroyed. Rescues and shelters would have to literally destroy thousands of dogs it takes in a year because they couldn't prove that they were docked/cropped by a vet.
cute huh? This just burns my ass. Yknow what-Im all for making sure animals are safe, and making sure that they are not abused and welfare for animals and all that crap-but there's a point and time when it's just completely overboard. I refuse to label myself as an animal rights activist-it has a dirty dirty connotation to it in my dog world. I swear PETA and HSUS's ultimate goal is to eliminate pet ownership completely-they are supporting these laws that make it impossible for people to own dogs.
man, that is just crap! what is the point in a law meant to "protect" animals if they are going to euthanize every animal they see? it is often easy to tell a "home-dock job" as they are not as clean cut or as aesthetically pleasing.
i agree that it is pretty cruel to cut things off of animals just because HUMANS don't like the way they look, but killing every animal just because they look the way HUMANS made them look is just as bad as the Holocaust!
that would be like going throughout the country and finding every child under six with pierced ears and euthanizing them just because you think it's wrong to subject a poor, unconsenting child to that sort of thing just for looks!
or, an even closer comparison to your case, killing all of the adopted kids that came with pierced ears just because the parent couldn't prove that they were done by a professional.
Rainbow-yep you got it.
They want to penalize all dog owners who have dogs with these types of procedures done, unless of course if you have proof it was done by a vet. If not, their solution is to confiscate and euthanize them.
Im sorry but in another thread it was mentioned how it's terrible it is that we overlook the 10% of good that PETA does- well yknow what-I can't over look an organization that wants to take away many of my rights as a pet owner- and it's not just this- for example PETA is an organization that supports Breed Specific Legislation- the banning and destroying of certain breeds just because of the way they look- Ingrid Newkirk has straight up said in interviews she hates pit bulls and would like to see them gone.. The list just goes on and on and on about the crazy laws they want to implement against pet owners-and if you dont follow the law your dog gets confiscated and destroyed is usually the answer- It's like the Nazis- and I'm sorry but I coudln't overlook what the Nazis did just because they did "10% good" could you? Well I can't overlook PETA or the HSUS either.
They are trying to take my rights away to own the breeds I want, and to own them where I want them. I absolutely agree with making tougher laws against animal abusers, I agree with making it illegal to chain dogs, tougher laws against the treatment of animals-but the stuff that PETA and the HSUS wants to implement is above and beyond- Let me know when the confiscation and destruction of my dog because he has a docked tail is considered ethical and humane!
Here's a link to an article about these new laws it affects PA, TX and California:
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Articles/LegislativeUpdate07242008
If people want docking/cropping/dewclaws etc to be banned-whatever-I honestly don't have a problem with that-they did it successfully in germany and Im sure several other countries- On Germany's books it states all dogs born before this date are grandfathered in to the docking/cropping laws and will be accepted as such. All dogs born after this date may not be docked/cropped.
Much nicer than killing my dog because he's docked dont you think?
Majicka, where did you get the info about the dogs being confiscated and euthanized? I just read the bill and I can't find anything about what the penalty for infractions is.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2007&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=2532
Majika, where did you get the info about the dogs being confiscated and euthanized? I just read the bill and I can't find anything about what the penalty for infractions is.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2007&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=2532
They did revise part of the bill from the original bill to state some items regarding seizure..but anyway..
OK it says that the owner will be charged with cruelty to animals if they cannot produce proof their dog was docked/cropped/dew claws removed OR even birth via c-section by a veterinarian.
If I am charged with cruelty to animals-my dog is taken away from me- Where do you think my un-veterinarian documented docked rottweiler is going to go? I'm not stupid- I know the breed I own and I know shelters around here are quick to PTS those considered "dangerous" breeds even thought BSL isn't allowed to be practised in PA. My rescue friend got involved in a true cruelty case-the dogs were seized-the owner turned them over to her-otherwise they would have been taken to the pound and put down within several days-or if they were lucky they would have been held in a cage longer for evidence in the cruelty trial. Luckily for these 2 dogs, my friend was able to take them, not all of them are so lucky.
Does my dog deserve the same possible fate because he has a docked tail and I can't prove where it was from? My dog who's on the couch sleeping next to me, who I provide a home, a yard, excellent food, training, love and companionship to? Do I deserve to be lumped in with the same people who starve/beat/abuse a dog? Should the one single Dog Warden in my county have more responsibility on her already over burdended lap with having to cite/seize upstanding citizens because they can't prove a procedure vs dealing with a true cruelty case?
Whether or not they kill my dog after confiscation- They will still charge me with ANIMAL CRUELTY. This bill will absolutely destroy rescues and shelters who take these dogs in- they will be charged with animal cruelty. What do you think is going to happen to all these docked/cropped dogs that have no where to go?
Let me know when these laws make sense-and perhaps I won't be so (over)passionate about how it affects my life and my dogs lives.
How does euthanising a dog for having a purely cosmetic procedure done in its past protect any dog/breed/standard/person? How does it help to punish (ie kill) the animal for what was done to it by so-called superior intelligent beings?
How does euthanising a dog for having a purely cosmetic procedure done in its past protect any dog/breed/standard/person? How does it help to punish (ie kill) the animal for what was done to it by so-called superior intelligent beings?
the problem is, it doesn't.
Like I had said- If the governments want to pass laws against docking cropping-they need to do it in the fashion Germany did it- i.e. grandfathering. It makes sense- Sure there will be folks who are for keeping their breed a docked/cropped breed screaming and yelling about it- but at least it won't be putting our upstanding citizens in danger of being labeled animal abusers, and ultimately having their dogs taken away.
I really in my heart believe that PETA's ultimate goal is for the extermination of pet ownership. The laws they back really truly make it difficult for the average pet owner to enjoy their pets, and even harder for show/working people like me to show and work my dog, who are also my beloved companions.
Oddly, there's a grandfather clause in there for the ear cropping, but not the other stuff.
It seems to still be a work in progress. Maybe they'll do the same for the other sections.
I also noticed that in some places they've struck out "owner" and replaced it with "person who procures ." It also places a lot of emphasis on unhealed wounds and kennels. It really seems like they're going after puppy mills. I agree, though, that it really needs to be tightened up so that it couldn't be abused.
but will it actually be enforced?
are the police really going to pull aside every person with a cropped/docked dog and ask for proof & then seize them if they are unable to provide proof?
there are lots of laws that are meant to help the helpless, however a lot of them are not actually enforced.
Im sorry but in another thread it was mentioned how it's terrible it is that we overlook the 10% of good that PETA does
1) That was me and you've Bush Administration-ed what I wrote.
2) Do you really think the reg will be enforced the way you are saying? I doubt it. But if so, people could contact their vet who could give them a copy of the record.
Im sorry but in another thread it was mentioned how it's terrible it is that we overlook the 10% of good that PETA does
1) That was me and you've Bush Administration-ed what I wrote.
2) Do you really think the reg will be enforced the way you are saying? I doubt it. But if so, people could contact their vet who could give them a copy of the record.
that was kind of my feeling about it. i, personally, think that peta does a lot of good & i support it. i don't always agree with 100% of everything that they do, but i agree with a lot of it. the only way i'm going to agree with anyone 100% is if i'm the one doing it & i'm agreeing with myself!
I just read the whole page and then I went online. Did the bill pass? In a June article it said it was going to be voted on during the coming week, but I didn’t see anything else.
I found an article on Yahoo news about it that says that, “Tail docking would be allowed by individual owners until the dog is three days old, after which point it must be done by a veterinarian.” Even if the bill passed I’m not sure what the problem is. (Well, personally I do, but the opportunity is still there for people who want to do that.)
It also said, “Currently, a kennel owner can choose to confine dogs in small, stacked, wire-floored cages with no heat, no opportunity for exercise, and no routine medical care. There are commercial breeding kennels operating with those conditions today, and it is completely legal under the current Pennsylvania Dog Law, said Wolff. Swift passage of these bills will significantly improve the conditions in Pennsylvania’s commercial breeding kennels.” That sounds like a good thing.
It's like the Nazis- and I'm sorry but I coudln't overlook what the Nazis did just because they did "10% good" could you?
I said the 10% thing about PETA because the grass roots people aren't the same as PETA administrators. In particular, Capture has protested at KFCs and I was thinking of her. If you want to lump them all together, then you're insulting my friends (who I know can defend themselves).
I encourage you to read more threads on the News & Debate board. You will see that we can disagree without calling someone a Nazi. PETA ran a Nazi ad once, so you have that in common with them. Overusing the Nazi analogy dilutes the atrocities that they committed and trivializes a lot of evil.
I do read the news and debate boards and i didn't call anyone a Nazi- so how bout you don't bush admin my posts either. I dont trivialize what the Nazis did-what they did was absolutely terrible- but your going to tell me that destroying thousands of dogs via BSL or some other super strict animal rights law that PETA pushes and supports isn't along the same vein? Do you have any idea what went on in Denver regarding Pitbulls? Entering homes and forcefully taking family pets because they "might be a pitbull" and euthanizing them? It happens in Canada daily- in fact they can point to a dog say it looks like a pitbull, confiscate the dog and put it to sleep. Sounds like a familiar tactic, no? So yes, while it's the descruction of dogs and not humans- it's still profiling a group that has similar traits and destroying them for it. Once all the pitbulls are gone what breed is next? Rottweilers? GSDs, maybe even poodles. who knows what the "dangerous" dog du jour will be for these people. And yes, PETA has been behind several BSL laws that have been snuck into supposed bills supporting animal rights and several that were straight up bans. Ingrid Newkirk hasn't made her support of BSL a secret, in fact she's been very upfront and very public about her support of breed bans, specifically pitbulls.
But i digress-
Will they enforce these laws? who knows-but I can tell you they might-and the fact that they MIGHT enforce these laws is absolutely terrifying. What if some jackass decides he doesn't like living next door to a rottweiler and he hears about this law- he complains to the county that there's a docked dog living next door?
How is my vet going to give me a certificate for docking my dog, which he didn't do? My dog is a rescue from NJ- no one knows where his dock was done. Rescues and shelters are going to suffer for lack of proof-
The bill hasn't passed yet, its supposed to be going to the house for Vote. The article I linked back was the original article in regards to these bills passing. If you read the bill tail docking, ear cropping, dew claw removal, declawing and c-section births are included.
yes, the bill was originally intended to stop puppy millers from doing hack-jobs-- but I guess for some strange reason since they can't very well say "anyone operating a puppy mill" vs "average joe" in bills the law applies to everyone. The 2nd part that you said the Yahoo article stated isn't even in this bill (re the small stacked cages). Veggydog I believe posted a link to the bill. It's not very long, and it's fairly straightforward.
I dislike PETA. I dont dislike Capture, heck I barely know her. If Capture or you, or someone else has a cause that they are passionate about and they pursue that passion, good for them-passion is a beautiful thing. but I don't have to agree with it, nor do you have to agree with me about my passions- thats what makes this world wonderful.
One of your digressions is interesting, though. Outright bans never solve anything. The reg passed in Denver, but instead of confiscating drug and fighting dogs, they started by going to the homes of the people who had registered their dogs - which were confiscated and killed. They're treating a symptom. Pit bulls are used for fighting. If they're banned, then another dog will be used for fighting. Going down the line and banning dogs doesn't make any sense.
It reminds me of the Chinese government beating 50,000 dogs to death in 2006 because three(?) people got rabies from dog bites. They grabbed dogs out of people's arms, and beat dogs to death while they were being walked on leashes.
It reminds me of the Chinese government beating 50,000 dogs to death in 2006 because three(?) people got rabies from dog bites. They grabbed dogs out of people's arms, and beat dogs to death while they were being walked on leashes.
:o :'(
One of your digressions is interesting, though. Outright bans never solve anything. The reg passed in Denver, but instead of confiscating drug and fighting dogs, they started by going to the homes of the people who had registered their dogs - which were confiscated and killed. They're treating a symptom. Pit bulls are used for fighting. If they're banned, then another dog will be used for fighting. Going down the line and banning dogs doesn't make any sense.
It reminds me of the Chinese government beating 50,000 dogs to death in 2006 because three(?) people got rabies from dog bites. They grabbed dogs out of people's arms, and beat dogs to death while they were being walked on leashes.
I absolutely agree with you. Outright banning solves nothing. We need much harsher penalties in place for those who fight dogs and abuse animals. The people who commit the crimes need to be held responsible for their actions, but instead the animals and the innocent people suffer the consequences.
Pages