A question for UK members

[PanzoN88]

Why is it illegal to crop the ears and dock the tails of dogs? Boxers and Rottweilers look too weird all natural.

 

[basin79]

Why is it illegal to crop the ears and dock the tails of dogs? Boxers and Rottweilers look too weird all natural.

I prefer the natural look of dogs myself.

It's legal to dock the tail of a working dog, ie a springer say as long as it's carried out by a vet.

 

[PanzoN88]

Boxers with natural ears look alright but the natural tails look out of place. Rottweilers just don't look right with natural tails, the tails look thin (like you would see on a doberman with a natural tail) compared to the rest of its thick frame.

 

[basin79]

Boxers with natural ears look alright but the natural tails look out of place. Rottweilers just don't look right with natural tails, the tails look thin (like you would see on a doberman with a natural tail) compared to the rest of its thick frame.

It's a personal thing. After getting used to seeing them I prefer their natural look now.

 

[Polenth]

Docking and cropping laws aren't about what people think is pretty. They're about what's good for the dog. It isn't good for a dog to have unnecessary surgery. It isn't good for them to have parts removed that they use to communicate with other dogs. The exception is for some working dogs, where a caught tail could cause serious injury, but that's a tiny minority of dogs.

You only see it as odd because you're not used to seeing dogs with ears and tails. For me, it's odd to see them without them, and I'd assume a dog had a medical problem if they didn't have ears or a tail. But that's irrelevant really, as what we're used to has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea for the dog.

 

[Katiekooleyes]

The law in the UK is there should be no unnecessary pain or suffering to a vertebrate animal. Seeing as neither the cropping of the tails, or the docking of the tails are necessary, but cause pain & suffering to said species of dogs, it is illegal.

 

[Katiekooleyes]

It's a personal thing. After getting used to seeing them I prefer their natural look now.

100% agree. The snipping of the tail etc has no benefit to the dog whatsoever. It's completely a human preference, set on a "standard" of what the breeds "should" look like. It's purely cosmetic.

 

[Chris LXXIX]

100% agree. The snipping of the tail etc has no benefit to the dog whatsoever. It's completely a human preference, set on a "standard" of what the breeds "should" look like. It's purely cosmetic.

I do completely agree with you. Senseless, and for a sort of aestheic matter only. But I wouldn't say that, such a practice (when perfectly legit done by vets, I mean, and not by wannabe, and when the dogs are puppies) would turn into something that will pose as an 'handicap' for certain breeds.

We had (my family) waaay freaking back then, a Mastino Napoletano (when I was a baby/toddler) and a French Bulldog (when I was a teen, and I'm 39 today). Both had their tail 'cut' because, back then, in Italy that was "the mandatory practice".

They lived a wonderful life, without issues

 

[Katiekooleyes]

I do completely agree with you. Senseless, and for a sort of aestheic matter only. But I wouldn't say that, such a practice (when perfectly legit done by vets, I mean, and not by wannabe, and when the dogs are puppies) would turn into something that will pose as an 'handicap' for certain breeds.

We had (my family) waaay freaking back then, a Mastino Napoletano (when I was a baby/toddler) and a French Bulldog (when I was a teen, and I'm 39 today). Both had their tail 'cut' because, back then, in Italy that was "the mandatory practice".

They lived a wonderful life, without issues

Of course, the procedures can be done very well and safely by vets etc. And you're right, it's not a handicap. However, it's still completely unnecessary. Which is the point of the law. Unlike say, getting spayed etc (which had a legitimate and responsible reason behind it), there's no need to put a dog through a (even though it's simple) surgical procedure for, as you say, aesthetics.

May I ask, why was it mandatory in Italy back then?

 

[Chris LXXIX]

Of course, the procedures can be done very well and safely by vets etc. And you're right, it's not a handicap. However, it's still completely unnecessary. Which is the point of the law. Unlike say, getting spayed etc (which had a legitimate and responsible reason behind it), there's no need to put a dog through a (even though it's simple) surgical procedure for, as you say, aesthetics.

May I ask, why was it mandatory in Italy back then?

I don't know why, in all honesty. I was a teen so I've never went deep in that... I'd trusted those stories as a teen that cares for his/her dog would

Such practice was anyway greatly accepted and welcomed by vets (ah ah, obviously... money) and the average talking was that 'Molosser' dogs lives better with their tail cut

 

[basin79]

100% agree. The snipping of the tail etc has no benefit to the dog whatsoever. It's completely a human preference, set on a "standard" of what the breeds "should" look like. It's purely cosmetic.

It actually does have some benefits for working dogs. Stops them getting it caught in brambles etc. Although genuine working dogs are very few and far between.

I've also recently read that having a dog's tail docked actually affects them mentally and physically. Dogs had to stand differently to feel balanced and with not being able to use their wagging tail fully are more likely to end up in fights with other dogs as they can't see the signs.

Not sure if the above is actually true as I only read this 1 piece. There very well could be other articles stating it doesn't have any affect at all.

For me though a dog without a tail doesn't look right.

 

[boina]

I'm not from the UK but I'll chime in anyway. Dog language is a body language and ears and tails are a large part of that. Dogs without them are hampered in their communication with other dogs - which a lot of human owners will never notice since quite a few are completely ignorant of how dogs communicate with each other. Cutting off ears and tail is like partially muting the dog.

Yes, a dog without ears or tails is more likely to end up in fights. Just look at all the breeds that traditionally get their ears/tails cut: many are large, heavy breeds that are likely to win fights, so historically nobody was really bothered by more fights. The cutting practice has been mandary for many breeds to fulfil the breed standard - make the dog look like the breeders wanted it. There was a huge outcry by breeders when a law was passed to forbid the practice (in Germany, too, btw.), but now most have gotten used to it.

Btw., the most ridiculous reason to cut a tail off is for Poodles: It's only so they can have a pompom at the tail end

 

[The Snark]

I'd like to see solid substantiated evidence that there is any benefit to the dog to have tail docked or ears trimmed. The tail will get caught. Horsefeathers. If that could happen it would be far less likely than a dog getting trapped in a bitch during copulation and there is no preventive surgery for that pretty common foop.

 

[PidderPeets]

Unfortunately in America, we tend to care more for aesthetics or our own convenience than what's best for the animal. Ear cropping and tail docking serves no purpose other than our own preferences, yet it's commonplace here. The declawing of cats is another common procedure here, and that is arguably worse because that eliminates one of their means of defending themselves as well as causing pain.

While it may initially look odd in the states to see a long tailed Rottweiler or one with full ears, I'd much rather see a natural looking dog than one that's been deformed because we're selfish humans that don't care about what's best for the animal.

 

[basin79]

Unfortunately in America, we tend to care more for aesthetics or our own convenience than what's best for the animal. Ear cropping and tail docking serves no purpose other than our own preferences, yet it's commonplace here. The declawing of cats is another common procedure here, and that is arguably worse because that eliminates one of their means of defending themselves as well as causing pain.

While it may initially look odd in the states to see a long tailed Rottweiler or one with full ears, I'd much rather see a natural looking dog than one that's been deformed because we're selfish humans that don't care about what's best for the animal.

I can't believe the states allows cats to be declawed. That's barbaric.

 

[PidderPeets]

I can't believe the states allows cats to be declawed. That's barbaric.

I completely agree. But there's idiots here that want animals but don't care enough to look into the proper needs of the animals, or aren't willing to work with the animals when certain problems arise. If little baby Becky wants a cat but the parents don't want it scratching up the furniture and can't be bothered to teach her to respect it instead of annoying it to the point of scratching her, in their minds declawing is the proper fix. When I had cats when I was little, a proper scratch to the face is what taught me to respect an animal's personal space. Nowadays, if the animal reacts like an animal, it gets punished instead of the human. It frustrates me to no end.

 

[Minty]

Why is it illegal to crop the ears and dock the tails of dogs?

Because it's barbaric.

Boxers and Rottweilers look too weird all natural.

Disagree. I hate the docked tail look.

 

[Potatatas]

When you say it out loud it sounds like a ridiculous thing to do. Let's cut off this dog's body parts because I think it'll look better.
If an owner does that to their dog without a good reason I think the dog should be able to choose an equal number of body parts to cut off it's owner.