Tails
|
|
| Okay Roger's Dad I've been biting my tongue and not jumped into the "To Shave/Cut or not" thread where you talked about the fall reducing light and information getting to Bobtail eyes but now you have hit a seriously raw nerve with both this poll and the one on changing the standard to trim the fall! It demands a responce!
The Breed Standard is NOT some esoteric document to be changed at a whim to meet "politically correct idealism" or to provide "quick fixes" for whatever might be the "problem de jour". (If this breed is suffering sight problems it is not due to the fall, but rather poor breeding practices which tolerate, even exacerbate PRA and other eye problems. Remember this breed has survived very well as it is, inclusive of the fall and bobed tail for over 100 years - long after most of them "left the fields".) Rather, the Breed Standard is very literally the blueprint which specifies the physical and temperamental characteristics necessary for the dog to perform it original function. Physical variation from the Breed Standard will compromise the dog's structural ability to perform his original task; and yes there are still a number of dogs actually used in herding and droving. Deviations from the the Breed Standard temperament could endanger the dog's charges or possibly even the shephard/farmer. Additionally the Breed Standard reflects the dog's development as a function of the people, time, place and culture in which it was developed and as such serves as a means by which the historical culture and character of the breed is maintained. The history of the breed and the people who developed it IS worth saving. To deny that through such arbitrary changes to the standard denigrates their life's efforts and their very positive contributions to our society. If the history and traditions of the breed and all that they reflect are not worth maintaining then what is the value in maintianing any pedigree breed? Beyond the history and traditions of the breed there are in fact health and safety reasons for tail docking and, perhaps equally so, the cropping of ears - something of no direct affect on us but of great political importance. There are also some enormous political implications of statements which challenge the breed standard on such grounds and I think it is especially important for us to all FULLY understand the threat posed by activist groups such as PETA and the consequences of loosing these battles. And this goes beyond docking to include ear cropping and the push-faced breeds; all of which I will defend both on their own individual merits and on the requirement for a "political solidarity" to preserve our right to freedom of choice. At stake is our absolutely fundamental right to choose what we do with our animals and how we care for them. While few if any of us here are as detached from our animals as is the law, in the eyes of the law animals are essentially chattel property and short of substantial cruelty we have the legal right to do with our animals much as we please. However there have always been, and will always be, people who think that by some divine call or self-deluded importance that they can better tell us our own business and dictate the means, ways and manner in which we and our families must live. If we yield on docking/cropping/pushed-faces then how long will it be before we thereafter either yield all our rights to overbearing politicians and radical single interest politically correct lobbyists or they are taken from us. (Remember the ageless truism that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".) To make such" liaise-faire" comments as represented in these two polls is to invite their intervention and direction into our lives and abdicates our rights and choices so fundamental to who we as free men and women are, for which so many have died in defense. Remember that AR groups want to eliminate all companion animals and ultimately domestic food animals as well. Do not delude yourself into thinking that this forum, other OES support sites and general animal husbandry sites on the web are the exclusive refuge of Bobtail and animal lovers in general. The subversive elements of PETA and other AR groups monitor all these lists, it is fundamental preparation to know your adversary prior to doing battle - in this case quasi-legal battle. If we, the supposed best of OES owners, breeders and exhibitors are not firm in our resolve and express such internal divisions then our battle is essentially over before it starts. Please learn and understand the history of this breed, the traditions of the people, times and locale from whence it came. If you decide that you disagree with it, as is your right to choose, then please choose another breed rather than compromise the breed for all it's true devotees. But also grant us our right of choice to dock, crop and push-face. Please also think of the potential propaganda value you are giving to PETA and other AR groups when you post in public forum against docking/cropping - you are agreeing with them and they will claim you as an ally if not an outright "member by agreement". If you don't like the practice of docking don't get an OES, Doberman or most of the terrier breeds, etc. If you disagree with cropping then don't get a Briard, Bouvier des Flandres, Great Dane etc. There are over 165 recognized breeds and varieties to suit virtually all individual tastes, preferences and requirements. Indeed a prime postulate of the PETA offensive is that beyond the un-necessary docking and cropping of dogs, since very few dogs of any breed perform their original work purpose there is no need for them to exist at all. Internal divisions about docking are only feeding the frenzy and success of these extremists. This is one of many reasons I fundamentally refuse to use the "cutesy" term Sheepie when referring to OES. Its use is noted by those who want to take these dogs from us and they will use the term "Sheepie" as an argument that we ourselves no longer understand or value the history of the breed. They will argue, probably successfully, that in an absence of such knowledge and understanding that their guidance is so much better. Their actions will be insidiously incremental, in many cases unseen. At first they will revoke our right to choose docking, and slowly almost without contest more and more will be taken from us until, before it can corrected, our beloved dogs will be gone. Our community's internal inconsistency WILL be used against us. THESE ARE THE BOBTAILS, WE MUST WORK TO ENSURE THEY REMAIN SO FOREVER!!! IF THEY DO NOT STAY SO THEY WILL SHORTLY THEREAFTER BE WHOLLY TAKEN FROM US. This is Carl's post only in spite of the signature block. If Michele wants to comment she will do so independantly so please direct responses to me exclusively. Thanks and Cheers Carl |
| Good Lord.
I don't advocate keeping tails long because of cruelity, I just like tails on dogs, the standard in some countries allow them, I think it is good to have a choice. I don't disagree with cropping. Cropping, ears, tails etc is very similar to piercing an ear and is fine. As far as hair over the eyes you are wrong, they can't see. I am not talking about sight problems from breeding but from hair blocking their vision. It is correct and right to have the breed standard include cutting the hair over their eyes back enough to allow them to see. This is no whim and is not politically correct, but the right thing to do, in my humble opinion. I am only interested in the well being of the dogs. I asked the question to see if I was in the majority or not. In addition I am particularly amused by the arguments referencing the personal slanders, and the reference to safety. It shows the weakness of the argument in general and is typically used only in the stead of a defense that is right and true. I will stand for what is right regardless. It is hard to stand up for what you believe in as it was in 1966 when I lived in rural Alabama but guess what, I felt I was right at that point also regardless of the lack of compassion or vision of the majority. I look forward to civil good willed debate over the matter, and welcome any private correspondence you may like to send to help me understand your point of view as I always keep and open mind and am more than willing to conceed a point if I am convinced that I am wrong. In this matter at this point I feel I am right. I would like to also apologize to everyone for any stress this issue may cause my intention was to start a conversation not a fight. Perhaps I could have come up with a better way to ask. God bless you and Have Fun |
| AR groups want to eliminate all companion animals? Never heard that one before. I would think many of these people have pets at home. We would love our bobtail just as much if she had a tail. Many of the bobtails in Europe have tails and they are beautiful. I do agree that people should have a right to dock if they wish, but I can see both sides. I don't see where not docking a tail would change their genetics. IMHO. As to calling them sheepies...well it is one of our bobtail's nicknames. It is all in fun. |
| Adam Smith the father of classical economics, whose name more than any other is connected with British laissez-faire doctrines, believed that individual welfare rather than national power was the correct goal; he thus advocated that trade should be free of government restrictions. When individuals were free to pursue self-interest, the “invisible hand” of rivalry or competition would become more effective than the state as a regulator of economic life.
As Adam Smith believed the welfare of the individual is the correct goal and that rivalry amongst individuals is more effective than blind suborination and submissiveness to regualtion from the controlling body. |
| Chris,
You have stated that you look forward to a debate and yet you do not seem willing to look at the evidence. You have said: Quote: As far as hair over the eyes you are wrong, they can't see. Unless I have missed it you have never addressed the evidence that I and others have presented in support of these dogs being able to see through the fall. Quote: they can't see. I am not talking about sight problems from breeding but from hair blocking their vision. It is correct and right to have the breed standard include cutting the hair over their eyes back enough to allow them to see. This is no whim and is not politically correct, but the right thing to do, in my humble opinion. Look at the history of this breed. The fall is not something new, it has always been there to one degree or another. If there was indeed a problem as you continue to purport it would have been seen in the general population many years ago and would have been investigated, by at the very least the breed clubs, if not also by senior veterinary thesis students and other animal researchers which would have lead to changes in the breed standard. It hasn't happened so are you saying that the general consensus and observations amongst the breeders and exhibitors, who are truly the custodians of the breed, are all wrong? That is some opinion you have which I don't think stands up to the overall breed population experience. Sure some individuals have trouble with a fall just as some indivuduals have other problems, medical, behavioral and otherwise. Quote: I just like tails on dogs, the standard in some countries allow them, I think it is good to have a choice The Breed Standard in numerous European countries and Australia "permits" a tail because it was forced upon the national breed clubs by federal statutes (laws). Statutes which were adopted in responce to very small but well organized special interest groups who have forced their way onto the overall population. Not only did these statutes force the adoption of tails into the breed standard but they provide draconian penalties to anyone who wants to continue docking. This is exactly the sort of "imposition" and "direction" I decried in my previous post here. The Breed clubs as a whole DID NOT WANT to ammend their standards to permit tails. Now in many of those countries which permit tails not only are tails permited but docked (and cropped eared dogs) cannot be legally shown. That trend is continuing and there will soon come a day when docked dogs cannot be shown in continental Europe. If you have followed this over the years on OES-L, OldEnglishSheepdog list etc., you would know these facts. So where is the "choice" in those countries, a choice to which you "point" and claim to support but in fact does not exist in many of the identified jurisdictions. When law is imposed all choice is lost. - Ali Black would you care to offer further comment here as I know you keep yourself continually updated on these issues. Quote: I just like tails on dogs, I too like tails on dogs, but on breeds for which the standard permits and defines tails and their carriage. We have two Afghan Hounds with lovely long ringed tails. They look magnificent and regal in a manner that a Bobtail never could even with a tail, but they are NOT Bobtails and serve(d) a different purpose. We have a Chihuahua with a smooth mid-length straight tail - great for a Chihuahua just as Josie's heavily feathered tail carried over her back is great for a Papillon. Quote: I am particularly amused by the arguments referencing the personal slanders, Just what personal slander are you alleging? None was intended and I really can't see any even on re-reading my prior post several times. I vehomently disagree with you but I've made no personal commentary against you! Quote: and the reference to safety. My post was sufficiently long as is. If you want to discuss the safety issues of tails not only in Bobtails but in working/herding/sight hounds and sporting breeds in general that is another thread for another forum. Quote: It shows the weakness of the argument in general and is typically used only in the stead of a defense that is right and true and Quote: as I always keep and open mind Again back to your original claim to be intersted in a discussion. This first quote shows only dersion and dismissal of another's position/opinion and against the second you have already categorically stated that "you are wrong, they can't see". How can debate occur under such a pre-emptive comment? Quote: and welcome any private correspondence you may like to send to help me understand your point of view I would prefer to keep this in the public forum so it can remain transparent for all to see and join in as and when they may or may not choose. Quote: will stand for what is right regardless.
It is hard to stand up for what you believe in as it was in 1966 when I lived in rural Alabama Right according to what definition and whom? And you know as passionate as I am about Bobtails and the retention of the current Breed Standard Chris, aren't you are really pushing it when making even a passing comparision between this issue and the civil rights movements at the height of prejudice and inter-racial violence? Carl |
| Yet you continue to ignore physics. And the comparison was to point out that you may be as blind in your belief as those folks were in theirs. Because of your passion you ignore the laws of science. I could stomach what you are saying if you would acknowledge they can't see as well but you like them better that way and the standard is probably not going to change anyway. At this point I am mostly interested in the well being of the forum and not a political agenda. |
| By the way look at the polls you are in the minority at this point. 65 plus percent support tails and would prefer no hair in the eyes. Go figure. |
| Chris,
You are right in that the Breed Standard won't change for the fall, certainly not in the foreseable future of 30 years or so! And the only way it will change to accept a tail is if docking is made illegal by federal/state/provincial statutes. And as there is no motion on the table to amend the Breed Standard the poles have no validity as far as the breed clubs are concerned. As to ignoring physics and seeing through the fall. In my very first post to this forum I answered Debcram's question about whether or not Pirate could see through the fall. In that post I proposed the experiment of holding a loose weave fabric at arm's length and trying to look through it. Then bring it slowly closer to your face noting the change in visual density and how much one can actually see through the fabric as it approaches within 2 inches of your face or so. In a moment of boredom Saulmr tried the experiment and found that he could see moving objects readily. This experiment is a worst case scenario as fabric of course has threads woven at right angles to each other whereas all the hair in an OES fall is primarily parallel and much finer than most fabrics. Try addressing this evidence and the physics of a diffraction grating. I proposed that the fall acts much as a neutral density filter and offered the example of a reflecting telephoto lens or telescope having substantial elements in from of the primary mirror and yet we can see images in those instruments without distortion and "blind spots". Many involved with high school science or the photography hobby have looked through diffraction gratings and polaroid filter sets and been able to see what is on the other side as is the case with many other filters which at a glance look very opaque. You continually fail to address the issues and evidence presented, why? I would say that you are looking at a single factor and extrapolating it beyond it's legitimate application rather than looking at all the factors and how they relate with each other. It is you who are ignoring the overall "environment" and sum of the physics factors involved. Carl |
| Ok here goes, I agree that they can see through the fall to a limited degree and that I am exploiting one or 2 points to make my case as you are. I still feel they would, if given a choice cut the hair from the eyes as we have done. They are the most delightful creature on the face of the earth and we all love them dearly. I look froward to meeting you at some point and having a jolly laugh.
Cheers and heres to your success |
At the risk of sounding as if I'm making a joke, I just got a haircut yesterday that fringes my bangs across my field of vision. It's driving me nuts. I don't like the movement in my peripheral vision and I don't like seeing through a fall of hair. More than anything, it's just annoying. I can see but I'd be more comfortable with it out of my eyes. I guess I would apply that to any living thing. I, too, think that they look good with the fall but, then again, I also look spectacular with my new haircut despite the fact that it's in my eyes... |
| What fun. |
Personally I like the breed as it is. As for tails, when my son and daughter-in-law lived with me for two years, they had a 2 yr old unbobtailed bobtail, Maggie. A very vibrant and loving little girl, she could clear off a coffee table with her tail faster than a magician could make a rabbit disappear.  |
| In regards to tails, I would not want an undocked oes. It is not characteristic of the breed, and with good reason in my opinion. If a working dog had a tail with all that fur the constant injury, infection, not to mention filth, matting, and sores on the skin, would be cruel. Our dogs today may not all be working dogs, but still, I have seen some pretty horrible tail injuries, especially on a dog who was supposed to have been docked but wasn't for whatever reason. The hair of an oes would compound the risk of injury to include nasty infection of the anal region, if not the inablity to defecetate because it would lump in with the hair, mat to the poor dogs bottom, matting in with the hair and essentially gluing that now useless and painful tail to the dogs body. Now of course, no one would just allow those things to happen. Can you imagine the maintenance involved to prevent it though? There is nothing you can do to prevent these boisterous clowns from wagging that tail and snapping it, or tearing the skin on the end, a constant bloody stump, open to infection that could be fatal.
I also wonder if, since they have been docked for so long, and breeders over time have bred to accentuate the rolling gait and topline on the breed, if a tail were left on now would that cause balance problems, hip problems, spinal problems? We have not bred to accomodate for that large tail, would they even be able to carry it and remain healthy and pain free? JMO.... less than 2 cents worth...lol.... I realize in some countries the tails remain, however, I wonder how many have had injury or infection, or have had to have it removed later when it is then an actual surgery requiring the dog be put under anesthetic, and have painful recovery time. I've seen several websites that document many of these cases in many breeds, including oes, so how many are not documented? To each his own, preference or not, the breed in North America at least, IS a docked breed. |
The cloth screen experiment was fun to make, it gave me a "BobCAM" view of the world for a while and was good for a laugh.  I always wondered how they could see with all that fur. My experience was simmilar to ButtersStotch's, but I can compare it to wearing glasses or contacts for the first time... Nothing bad really. I guess it's more shocking to the dog if he had a fall and then was shaved out of the sudden, rather that having it grow naturally and getting used to it. I love the way the falling hair looks on their faces, altough when Lennon is in full coat we like to put an elastic band on his bangs so we can see his eyes and to provide him a better look of the world.
I like the way they look docked and being the former owner of an indoor St. Bernard, I can really appreciate a docked tail. The point made by Carl is very good, there is a reason for the breed standard to be the way it is and any change made to it should be made with lots of consideration to later consequences, both to the health and the use the dog will have. They look cute with tails, but for me, I prefer them docked... It's easier on the house! Carl, you are very well versed in optics!  Are you an stargazer by any chance? |
| Ok I was done but here goes.
As a note of interest diffraction grating is an immensely useful tool for the separation of the spectral lines associated with atomic transitions. It acts as a "super prism", separating the different colors of light. An excellent example of diffraction grating is a cd. The tracks of a compact disc act as a diffraction grating, producing a separation of the colors of white light. The nominal track separation on a CD is 1.6 micrometers, corresponding to about 625 tracks per millimeter. Diffraction grating has nothing to do with measuring the ability to see through something only that it acts like a prism. When light from a point source passes through a small circular aperture, (like a pupil) it does not produce a bright dot as an image, but rather a diffuse circular disc known as Airy's disc surrounded by much fainter concentric circular rings. This example of diffraction is of great importance because the eye and many optical instruments have circular apertures. If this smearing of the image of the point source is larger that that produced by the aberrations of the system, the imaging process is said to be diffraction-limited, and that is the best that can be done with that size aperture. Mie Scattering in this case might the correct method of measurement because a hair shaft is larger than 1/10 of a light wavelength. The scattering from molecules and very tiny particles (< 1 /10 wavelength) is predominantly Rayleigh scattering. For particle sizes larger than a wavelength, Mie scattering predominates. This scattering produces a pattern like an antenna lobe, with a sharper and more intense forward lobe for larger particles. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ky.html#c4 This scattering is very similar to fogged glasses or the halo (corona) around the moon. A very low percent of fog or particle including hair can produce a very large halo (corona). I wear glasses and a single scratch can cause this halo. 100 scratches and you can’t read words on a page. Or see the television very well. If all parts of an imaging system are considered to be perfect, then the resolution of any imaging process will be limited by diffraction Visual acuity is typically measured with the use of a standard eye chart called the Snellen chart. It was devised by Dr. Hermann Snellen, a Dutch Ophthalmologist, in 1862. It was originally used at a standard distance of 6 meters, which is about 20 feet. Translated into U.S. common units, normal vision came to be characterized by the fraction 20/20, which corresponded to being able to distinguish the letters on the fourth line down at a distance of 20 feet. The A on the chart has a standard height of 88 mm and the other letters are scaled accordingly. The basic scheme is that the letters two rows down are half the size, and two rows up twice the size. The nominal designations of visual acuity as a number ratio could be based on which lines you could read. If you could just resolve the letters two rows up from the normal vision line at 20 feet, your acuity would be labeled 20/40 and if you could resolve two lines down it would be labeled 20/10. Another way of saying it is that if you vision is 20/40, you can just resolve at 20 feet what a person with normal vision could resolve at 40 feet. A visual acuity of 20/200 is a nominal condition for being considered legally blind. If the above describes the standard for normal vision, what are the factors which limit the resolution of human vision? To examine whether diffraction is the limiting factor, it is interesting to compare this standard of resolution with the limits imposed by diffraction. The Rayleigh criterion for diffraction-limited vision for an iris diameter of 5 mm and a wavelength of 500 nm equals: 1.22x10 -4power So 20/20 is about 8x the Rayleigh criterion. @=5x10 to -4 resolution limit for most persons @= 2x10 to -4 most acctute vision, optimum circumstances Sorry the formuals didn't translate I will post a link later. So basically you end up with less resolution a diffused and diffracted image. It looks to me like 40% blockage basically renders you legally blind. The cloth experiment is cool but I’m guessing only gives about 15% blockage. I'm going to step out here and say that you get at least 40% to 60% blockage from the fall. On to tails after the discussion on tails I think I prefer the Bobed tail also. |
| "Go, Carl, go!!!" I would just like to add that I prefer docking tails for health and safety reasons. It doesn't take much hair to make a nasty mess with a soft or loose stool. As for the hair over the eyes. I've had them both ways. They're beautiful with or without it. I think they sometimes run into things because they just aren't paying attention. I also think that when the breed standard was set, they were set for working dogs and the hair provided protection from the sun. Just as you would wear sunglasses.
My personal opinion is: If you get a dog and you plan on showing it in any way, get one that you're comfortable with the standards set for that breed. If you're not showing, trim the hair, keep the tail, whatever is best for you and your dog, putting health and safety first, above personal preferance. Yes, you just asked a question, but it involves much more. Mankind has a hunger for power and control. They see a closed door and start shoving until it's completely open, only to discover they wish they'd left it closed. |
| In my opinion, hair over the eyes in the history of the breed is certainly not something that has been established. As I read the history the dogs had shorter and much less dense hair. I think the breed fanciers have bred in long dense hair which substancially deviates from the original standard. As I pointed out in an earlier comment on the OESCA website, you will see that the working dogs pictured DO NOT have hair in their eyes.
As safety has been mentioned, Although I know others will ignore science and reality it is safer for the dog to trim the hair from the eyes. That is why 99.9% of all sheepdog owners clip the hair out of the eyes. When I posted this series of polls no one was chatting so I though I would give folks something to look at. It was about that simple. |
| Both my dogs are bobbed, but I do think tails are cute. But since my dogs are companion dogs tails are not a good idea, my grandmother had her water filled legs broke open by a wagging tail. So my dogs are perfect for people who have medical problems (such as retaining water). |
| I would like to state my opinion on the whole ear cropping and tail bobbing controversy. I personally get tired of hearing that the end of the breed will come if they outlaw ear cropping and bobbing. The problem here is that people who agree with this and think in terms of a dogs ears being cut or tail being cut off means the eventual end of the breed is this...you are seeing your dog as an object to show off. The fact is...your dog is not an object. It is a living breathing life, and it has emotions and feels pain just as you do. I myself have had my ears peirced but it was MY decision to do that, not to mention that I cant believe anyone would think that cutting a dogs ears partially off would even be close to the same as having a tiny hole put in them. You also need to keep in mind that the age most puppies ears are cropped are at an age when they are highly sensetive to pain. At least tail bobbing is usually done right after birth and doesn't cause AS much pain. It boggles my mind how a human can have a loved one go into surgery and the first thing you ask them is " Are you ok, are you in alot of pain" but they just take it as FACT that a dog doesn't feel the same pain a human does when coming out of a surgery...especially one where they are getting somthing cut off! Sure it might mean that it will be the end of being able to SHOW that breed of dog in some dog show, but ANYONE that would discard their dog or simply not want anything to do with the breed simply because they cant SHOW their dog, has no business having ANY animals of any kind in the first place. The reasons for getting a dog should NOT be solely on being able to make a buck off them and show them! Furthermore the reasons for breeding a type of animal should not be solely on making a buck either but should also be based on wanting to keep the breed alive because of just how GREAT the breed is personality wise. I certainly hope none of you who selfishly go through life causing pain (and YES cropping from even a medical opinion is PAINFUL and any vet who tells you otherwise is simply not wanting to give up the lofty income he/ she receives on doing a crop of the pinnas) for the sole purpose of VANITY dont treat your children the same way as you do your pets. God have mercy on your soul if you do! How hard is it to wrap your heads around the idea that if everyone would stop insisting on certain breeds of dogs to look a way they were NEVER INTENDED to look in the first place and instead just appreciate the beauty of how your dog was MEANT to look like then their wouldn't even be a debate over this topic in the first place. VANITY! That is all cropping and bobbing is good for. There are NO medical reasons for having either of those surgeries done! That is proven in the world of vetrinary medicine. There are in fact some vets (with morals) that gladly give up their extra income on cropping and bobbing because there is not one single medical reason for it and the ONLY reason for it is VANITY, and SELFISHNESS! I am certainly glad that humans dont live in a world where we are FORCED to have something on us "corrected" simply because of a few people out there that dont like the way we look! Good GRIEF...is this what you teach your children...if something on you isn't good enough for you to be a model then you MUST get it altered!! I will leave you all with this.....please...as a TRUE animal lover and a TRUE friend of them, I beg of you all who think that this vanity is acceptable to try ...just TRY and love your dog for being what they were born as. If you cant do something as simple as that...then what on earth are you doing with a pet in the first place?! Please do not EVEN try to sit here and reply to this with " I DO LOVE MY DOG i love my dog every bit as much as you!!" The fact is..NO..you DON'T! If you are causing your dog pain and having things on him/her altered for vanity then NO you most certainly do NOT love your dog. Loving your dog means loving them for being THEM...FLOPPY EARS, LONG WAGGING TAILS AND ALL!...as for the person who had their dogs tail bobbed and suggests that it's good for people who can get hurt by swinging tails...how about simply trying a dog with a tail not quite so large and painful...they DO exist naturally ya know! Causing your animal pain just so you can have the comfort of not getting a tail across the leg is nothing but SELFISH!! GET A DIFFERENT TYPE OF DOG...dont go PAINFULLY changing the beautiful one you have just because you WANT that type of dog. Plain and simple...if the dog isn't right for your lifestyle (this includes people with excessive water) then DONT GET THE DOG!! That dog has just as much right to be comfortable as you do! Odds are everyone of you who think that cutting a dogs ears or tail off is OK are probably the same type of disgusting people that takes an infant into a mall and has it's ears peirced as it sits SCREAMING because it is in PAIN just so you can play "dollhouse" with your own KID, and have the idiocy to think that doing that is just OK!! People like that do NOT have any business having children and people who think cutting things off their animals for vanity's sake or so that you can pad your wallets a little more have NO business having animals!!! |
| Do you also not believe in human circumcision then? You could make a similar argument that it's very similar to tail cropping yet because it's unnecessary but is perfectly acceptable in society. Most tail docking is done at a few days old and is not an invasive procedure.
Quote: Odds are everyone of you who think that cutting a dogs ears or tail off is OK are probably the same type of disgusting people that takes an infant into a mall and has it's ears peirced as it sits SCREAMING because it is in PAIN just so you can play "dollhouse" with your own KID, and have the idiocy to think that doing that is just OK!!
In that scenario, children scream out of fear, not pain. If you've had your ears pierced, you know that the sensation is not so intense that you'd scream. The pierce scares the child, the child screams. It's built into the human condition that children cry out of fear so that their parents will hear them and know that the child needs them. You are certainly allowed your opinions but unless you've spent time as a 3 day old dog, or done serious research on pain receptors in newborn animals, I really don't think that you can make assumptions as to how much pain tail docking causes a dog at that age. It is admittedly irresponsible to dock the tail at an older age and only makes sense that the dog would suffer more pain since the thickness of the tail would increase substantially. No responsible OES owner would suggest doing so. |
ZsaZsa's girl wrote: The reasons for getting a dog should NOT be solely on being able to make a buck off them and show them!
I also would like to correct you on the above statement. I am currently showing my dog. I will not be breeding, and even if that was in the plans, it would never cover the cost of money I have spent so far doing this. I have spent tons of money on tools to groom him myself, entry fees, hotel rooms, handling classes, not to mention the time involved that I spend which takes me away from my graphics business. Why am I doing this? Because it's a different type of activity I can do with my dog and he enjoys it. He loves meeting people & dogs and so do I. I also feel I can educate people thinking about this breed where they can find accurate information and how much effort is needed to own an OES as a pet. All of the OES breeders & owners I have met at shows are there because they LOVE DOGS, especially their breed. They are not there to "make a buck" as you put it. |
| Thank you Deb, I was just about to make the same point.
It costs an amazing amount of money to show a dog. I had an idea of costs but until you actually go out there and do it, you have no idea. It starts with the dog itself and moves upward from there. Entry fees, hotel rooms, food, gas and that's just the actual 2 or 3 days of the show. Equipment, tools, training it all costs money and dedication. If I didn't absolutely love my dog and this breed, there would be no way I would ever go through all of this. Another thing, I have not met one show breeder who makes money doing what they do. Even those who charge very large sums for their pups don't break even. I would also have to say that almost every single show breeder whom I have met has an intense passion for bettering the breed. They also do a very good job at weeding out those who are in it for unscrupulous reasons. Bottom line: People who are looking to make money off dogs are not generally showing their animals. The overhead is too great to make profit. The ones making money are millers, brokers and uneducated backyard breeders. |
| I had Boxers. My female came to me pregnant. Her tail was docked, but her ears were not cropped. She had anxiety when we would leave the house so she had to be crated. Everytime she stood up she would shake her whole body from tiny tail to her ears. Everytime her ears would flap to the side she would hit the metal crate and her ears would get cuts from her doing this. She constantly would get small tears up the ear from hitting them against the side or top of the crate....or the wall or the door.
The Vet said to eliminate this problem her ears should have been cropped as a puppy. When discussing the tails being docked I was with the pups. They were 1 week old. The Vet explained that the dogs don't feel pain because the bone on the tail is still cartlidge and not hard bone yet. I was in the office when it was done. Snip, a small whimper when the Vet clamped the tail, then two stitches and they are fine, I didn't even see any blood. I asked about keeping the tails and he said that their tails are like whips and as with the ears they will shred when they repeatedly hit it against something and it never gets a chance to heal. Then they have to take the tails later on when it is painful and when the bone is hardened. This is very painful. My hubby's boss had to have his Lab's tail removed due to this type of injury. Boss decided only to remove the end of the tail which was shredded. Well the dog was still able to smack what was left of his tail against the wall and shredded it more. Finally they had to almost completely remove the tail. I think with dogs that have short hair and tails like whips this is something that should be done when they are a week old instead of later. There are reasons that people have decided to have a dog look a certain way and most likely because it benefits the dog in some way too.... A Boxer with Shredded Ears and tail to match isn't exactly show material... Nor is it a comfortable situation for the dog to have cuts all over. |
| I also like to say that what Verveup and Maxmm stated is so true, just because you show a dog does not mean you are breeding for big bucks. You usually show your dog to learn about the breed as showing teaches you so much, care and maintenance and health of the dog. It costs a fortune to show, but also it is worth it as you have the dogs that you love in top A1 condition. We don't have the puppy mills here that you have in the states so the rescue of OES in Australia is usually a very rare occurance and breeding no one makes dollars usually a breeder is breeding for themselves to preserve the breed and improve on each generation. Take into consideration all the testing that is required before breeding and the only ones that make Mega-Bucks is the vets. Responsible breeders spend big money on health testing to ensure that the puppies they have are HEALTHY & SOUND.
Don't get me started on tails, if you take the time to read the scientific studies on docking a pup around 3 days old you will know that the pain receptors are not present or developed in a puppy at that age, it is a shame that so many AR groups put out false information to the public emphasising that breeders torture their pups by docking. NOT TRUE, also if you look at the European Convention Animal Cruelty Act out of 34 also Eurpean countries only about 9 or so countries have banned this pratice. SO if it is suppose to be cruel why only such of small number of countries have banned it 
Tails or not are at the moment not a choice here anymore, but that could change again & yes our OES are becoming a rare breed because of this. Tails or no tails is an individuals choice, what I object to most highly is the radical uninformed misconceptions of small minded minority groups imposing their views on us all. |
| i'm sitting here with my mouth wide open at the ignorance of the post i just read.
While it won't be the 'end' it CERTAINLY WILL be the end of some breeders! I for one will no longer breed if I cannot have a BOBTAIL! That is what makes this breed Eunique! I won't bother to repeat what the others have so eloquantly put into words with their wisdom and knowledge. I doubt the person that wrote that long post will even bother to read them anyways. (shaking my head in disbelief at the thinking). Right now a letter writing campaign is underway to the PM's in the UK as a vote is coming up to continue to allow docking. They are even accepting letters/emails/faxes from breed fancier's/ breeders from around the world. As was stated, the cost from breeding a litter, to showing and doing all health clearances to Finishing a dog and then if you chose to Special a dog is astronomical. You have no idea and until you have walked in OUR shoes........................... Ali |
Ali wrote: Right now a letter writing campaign is underway to the PM's in the UK as a vote is coming up to continue to allow docking. They are even accepting letters/emails/faxes from breed fancier's/ breeders from around the world.
Would a note from oes.org mean anything? Should we send a poll out to all of our members and take a position, one way or the other? |
Quote: While it won't be the 'end' it CERTAINLY WILL be the end of some breeders!
Thankyou Ali for your input and YES we are suffering here in Australia big time, we are loosing our mentors, teachers, long term breeders, genetic gene pool etc. etc. because of this ban. I am also interested to see if this person who wrote this post even bothers to read the replies. Personally, I took great offence to what was written. |
| I strongly considered removing the post or editing it for style, as did Willowsprite. Believe it or not, we actually discuss how to handle certain posts... we're not superhumans with all the answers!
Just some. 
As probably everyone knows, all opinion is welcome here, but it must be put forward in a civil manner. I didn't think that this post was very civil, and I found it difficult to read from both a civility standpoint as well as a style standpoint. However, I thought that the content and the style were important components of this particular post; I think that the style gave insight to the content, so I let it stay. |
| Ron and Willo,
Thank you for allowing a post 'such as this' to go through....... we NEED that every now and then to REMIND us of the Animal Rights groups that are out there! It never fails to amaze me at the uneducated responses that they tend to give on these situations. They are not well versed by the actual facts. And this is something the rest of us have to remember! AND WHEN WE DO REMEMBER.......... to be sure when the time is there to SUPPORT where we are needed. Be it in the OES breed, or any other breed that is under fire from these extremists! Okay, I'm off to bed now. Later tater's!! Ali |
| First, Ron, thanks for keeping the post in.
With all do respect to breeders, most of the OES's out there are bred by breeders who do not show. That is very unfortunate, but it is fact. Look at the poll on whether folks here bought or rescued their OES, and is is a close 50%. Let's assume that the rescue dogs were not bred by show breeders, as they would take them back, correct? And out of the folks that bought, how many bought from a showing breeder? So the reaction from show breeders is very understandable, but may also skew the opinions. I would bet that breeders that do not show would LOVE not to have to bob tails to sell a pup, but they do in order to keep up with the breed standard, that is kept up by the showing breeders. I am all for breeding within the standard, and if a breeder does not take the effort to show, to prove theyr are trying, then perhpas they a breeding for another purpose. Back to the question at hand, I am not an animal rights activist at all, but I love animals and would do whatever it takes to protect them from pain and communication difficulties that result from mutilation of body parts. That is what is is, whether it isi cropping ears, docking tails or removing dew claws...(and claws from cats, also), for that matter. I understand why it is done, but that doesn't mean I agree with it, and if I gould vote it out of the standard I certainly would....for the dog's sake. |
| I would bet that breeders that do not show would LOVE not to have to bob tails to sell a pup, but they do in order to keep up with the breed standard, that is kept up by the showing breeders.
As a SHOW BREEDER I can assure you your statement is totally incorrect! I personally don't know of ONE breeder that want's anything to do with tails being left on. In fact, I know may OES breeders that have turned down owners due to the FACT that the potential puppy owner wanted a tail left on. I don't care WHO you are, nor how LONG you have been breeding there is NO POSSIBLE way to know WHAT puppy will be show quality at birth vs 3 days vs 2 weeks vs 6 weeks! Tails must be done to be done properly to cause the least amount of trauma before they are 3-4 days old. We can only HOPE which puppy would be show quality but until they are up on their feet and growing It takes a good 8 weeks to be somewhat sure......... and then not until the second set of teeth have come in and they have grown into themselves do we know they are going to be showdogs. Any breeder that tells you they can tell 'at birth' is full of you know what. Ask ANY breeder that has been in the breed with good dogs and they will tell you the same! HOGWASH!!! |
| "Back to the question at hand, I am not an animal rights activist at all, but I love animals and would do whatever it takes to protect them from pain and communication difficulties that result from mutilation of body parts. "
But by makikng these statements you ARE an animal rights activist! Look at and READ the studies that have been written. We are not 'MUTILATING' anything. That is your frame of mind. Docking a tail is no more traumatic than circumcision. The STUDIES show that the nerve neuron's are not connected at this time of birth up until the second week. THEY DO NOT FEEL PAIN this falisy has been thrown out the window. NEITHER DO THEY NEED THEIR TAIL to communicate. What an idiotic stupid comment. Does your bobtail not wiggle his whole being? does he not look up at you with a twinkle in his eyes and bark at you in different tones to eat, play or go outside? GIVE ME A BREAK people. GO AND READ THE STUDIES!! The Council for Docked Breeds has given the following site to dispell these stupid rumors. Read them for yourselves. Recent arguments for banning docking demolished: www.cdb.org/news24.htm |
| Ali,
I don't think that expressing an opinion makes anyone an "activist" for a cause. |
| ZSA ZSA!!
You have no idea what you are talking about! The reason my dogs tails are docked are not because they help take care of handicapped people, they are docked because that is how they where purchased from the breeder. I do not make a penny on my dogs. I they are both fixed so there will be no breeding, I do not show them so no money is made there. I did not even buy my dogs as they where inherited from my grandfather when he passed away. And he purschased them from a breeder with their tails already docked!! He did not buy them for any other reason then that he loved animals and he just wanted a dog and he thought that OES's where cute, tail or no tails, he liked their expressive faces, which have not been altered!!! If you knew how to read, you could have read that the dog looks the way it does because of their origin. They come from England DUH! And in England farmers used to be taxed on the length of their dogs tails. So farmers used to cut the tail off. I think that would be more inhuman way of doing it then the way they do it today. You need to have all your facts before you start to berate a person for the kind of dogs they have, the way a dog is, or the way the breed started. As for it being abuse!! I think I am abusing my dog on a daily bases because he likes to herd my diningroom table, my friends, my family and the living room chair, because I can't give him sheep to herd. Maybe for this breed it is abuse to not give them what they have been breeded for all their lives! |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|