Talk:Docking (dog)

Discussion

I wrote: "Show dogs of many breeds are still routinely docked in the UK." and miss-spelt "routinely". My spell checker corrected it to: "Show dogs of many breeds are still rottenly docked in the UK." - which sums up my views quite well I think ;) Which is another way of saying - "please check for NPOV"

I've tried for a pro/anti balance in the links, but they are rather UK centred so some more worldwide links would also be useful

The article is rather dog based too (not surprising considering the first two authors). Maybe this needs more on docking in other animals too (sheep? pigs?) but most of the discussion on the subject relates to dogs so I'm not sure what we can say on that subject.

-- sannse (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Just N-pov'd the 'criticisms' section and pegged it to two published sources. The preceding version asserted some of the critical argument's evidence as if to treat it as fact. Since all those claims about animal behaviour and physiology are reputably in dispute, I think it's fairest to 'outsource' the disagreement, with plenty of reference. Adhib 16:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good work Adhib, that's nicely done, thanks -- sannse (talk) 17:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also like the addition of the list by country. Very helpful. Elf | Talk 19:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Information for NZ is incorrect. Information on why some breeds of gundogs have tails docked is incorrect (fighting with other animals??) Simple to find the correct information, I'm surprised as this is an "encylopedia". souces UKCDB. NZCDB. Docking is carried out on a pup at 2-4 days of age when nervous system undeveloped (pups born blind, deaf, unable to toilet without help from mother) other animals like lambs which are docked at weeks of age are born with fully functional nervous system. [user MC]

My theory of a main reason for the popularity of docking the tails of dogs is that it became very popular in England over 200 years ago as a means of avoiding the dog tax. English laws were enacted at that time which stated that dogs that work for a living were not taxed, and "working dogs" were distinguished by docked tails. [user CG]

(In)Human Punishment?

What is the purpose of the (in)Human punishment section? Since the article is "docking (animals)" isn't ear cropping as a form of corporal punishment outside it's scope?

• Man IS an animal, of the zoological order of Primates, and when he practices docking for such arbitrary reasons as esthetics a particularly 'beastly' one; when suffering similar maiming (or branding etc.), he's also treated like just another animal.

This section is clearly misplaced. I am not commenting on its validity, simply on its placement here where it clearly does NOT belong. Humans are not animals in the sense intended here. Surely there are much more appropriate Wikipedia articles? Anyone interested in cruel and unusual human punishments would NOT look here! Quill 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• We've had such emotional hickups before (cfr. supra), but the fact is man IS an animal and probably the only truely 'beastly' one, as shown precisely by such cruel mutilation which aimsexactly to humiliate and mark like cattle; my original section title was (IN)human punishment, but got edited away- feel free to reinstate it Fastifex 12:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is not an 'emotional hickup'(sic). The emotional argument is yours: you're mixing concepts, in this case human bestiality and animal husbandry---adding a non sequitur in a ridiculous manner in a ridiculous place. Do not let your repugnance blind you to logic: the fact is that no one would reasonably look for your concepts in an article with this title. This is why Wikipedia is not taken seriously. Quill 22:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I directed it here because the same terms -such as the synynymous emaning of cropping- are exclicitly used in sources on the punishment, clearly recognizing the physical identity of the actions; obviously the reasons differ, but that goes just as well for other physical markings, e.g. brandingv(has two articles, but much larger ones). Fastifex 10:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fastifex, what does this mean "such as the synynymous emaning of cropping- are exclicitly used in sources on the punishment"? Is English not your first language? Docking of animals and human ear mutilation ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!

Removed section- Make a Human docking article if you want to-and rewrite it, it is not very clear. FancyPants 16:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fastifex, you are either incredibly confused or in blatant violation of WP:POINT. Either way, please cease from adding nonsense to articles and pushing POV about the beastial nature of man. The title (In)Human Punishment in and of itself is a blatant WP:NPOV violation, to say nothing of how off-topic your supposed content is. --tjstrf 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the confused one. My punishment section says nothing about man in general, it treats only the use of docking on man, just as on animals, but for other, intentinally cruel reasons. It is quite impossibe to push a POV, even if there were one, by a title which leaves it to the reader to fill in either Human or Inhuman. Nor is bestiality -non even mentioned a no sensical concept, but a common word specifically constructed to brand some of the worst human behovior as at least as bad as what zoological 'beasts' sometimes do that seems cruel to ignorant human observers. Fastifex 09:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This section has a large amount of dispute on this talk page. It should not be in the article until agreement is reached here. The first thing I would suggest is to show some source where the term "docking" is used to refer to the items disscussed in this section. Please do not add this section back to the article without such sources.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong

Reading this made me feel sick, how the fuck can people do that too dogs??? What the fuck is wrong with the Paris Hiltons of this fucking world! 58.107.175.127 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A small note

At least in the case of boxers, the tails are docked to prevent them from injuring themselves-- boxer tails are very thin and thus if left undocked could easily be broken. Jtrainor 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is mainly because breeders always docked the tails of this breed so there was never a reason to breed for a stronger tail... if breeders start selectively breededing dogs which are not so prone to fractures in the tail then within relatively few generations this problem would be reduced. It would of course be difficult to simultaneously select for both "a strong tail" and "reduced chance of hip displasure" (along with whatever characteristics are already in the registers interests)Garrie 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dog vs agricultural docking

throughout most of the article it seems as though it is assumed the topic is Docking (dogs) rather than Docking (animals). Especially in regards to the legal status section - which is most likely a list of the legal status of docking dogs tails (certainly in Australia it is legal to dock sheep and pigs). This bias needs extensive reworking to remove, or most of the content could be moved to Docking (dog) leaving a more general article behind.Garrie 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a second proposal: Move /*Docking in Agriculture*/ to just below /*History of Docking*/, then below that make a section /*Docking of Dogs*/ and downgrade every heading relating to dogs by one level.Garrie 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of dissenting comment - I will follow on with my first proposal. It is easier to implement (will move the article to Docking (dogs), recreate Docking (animals), move required content back to this article)Garrie 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this article (obviously!) - if you look at Docking (animals) you will see it is quite a small article and no noticable content has been removed from this one. Yet everything on this article relates to Dogs, not other agricultural animals.Garrie 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

New UK Status

Hi there. I will do this myself this weekend if no one else does, but is someone aware that this article talks about the UK laws on docking very incosistantly? The Animal Welfare Act (which has now come into force) has been mentioned, and the country's stance has been changed in the list, but no one as altered the main sub text which covers it in more detail (it currently says docking is allowed under certain loose conditions, which was the status before and has now changed). Also, a small point, but its the Animal Welfare Act *2007* not 2006. --The Wizard of Magicland 09:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unclear wording

The few hunting breeds that are not docked, including English Pointers and the Setter breeds, may have chronic injuries to the tips of their tails. Such injuries cause continuing pain and discomfort and are at risk of infection throughout their lives.

Does this mean that undocked hunting dogs may sustain chronic injuries because their tails are long, or that they are not docked because docking may cause chronic injuries? —Michael Z. 2007-08-13 19:11 Z

It means that these breeds are at greater risk for chronic injury because their tails are not docked. That statement could use a reference. --Joelmills 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have sources to cite, but I have to say as a veterinarian who's been practicing for almost 15 years with a patient group that includes a lot of hunting dogs that this statement is not consistent with my experience. I don't see an inordinate number of tail injuries in hunting dogs with undocked tails. NotThatKat (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nepal: Unbanned

Does this mean "unrestricted"? The inconsistent term implies that a previous ban was lifted. —Michael Z. 2007-08-13 19:14 Z

Removed paragraph

I've removed the following paragraph:

Some people believe that docking a dog's tail is a cruel practice. They believe that if a dog is performing its job—such as hunting—then it is fine to dock the tail; if the dog of the same breed is in a home where it doesn't do the job, however, then docking is not necessary. Some people believe that, if a newborn puppy's tail is docked without the use of anesthesia, the puppies are put through much pain. The newborn can't express pain clearly, so most breeders seem to think the puppies don't feel a thing.

It had very little to do with the "History of docking and cropping" and uses weasel words. The criticisms are addressed in the "Current status" section anyway. Benstrider (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

surely the simplest solution would be to just breed dogs with short tails from birth? Then everyones happy. --86.144.102.226 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It would make a portion of current "breedable" dogs become unsuitable for breeding. Everyone happy, but breeders.--165.21.154.89 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It would presumably take many generations. The current dogs would form the original stock, but by the time it's finished that original stock would have all short tailed descendents. --86.135.178.19 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Check this out. Naturally docked boxers bred by crossing boxers with corgis. Might be worth adding something about it to the article. The articles are supposedly published in Dog World Magazine (UK), so would probably satisfy wp:rs. --220.255.7.247 (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What do they do with the animal parts?

do they feed them to cats? do they feed them to little shrimp heads? do they put them in big stew pots (little boys are made of..)? do they regenerate them? wheres that book? Why don't they answer the question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.239.230 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

2 Republic of Ireland sections in the law list

There are two Rep of Ireland sections. One says "Unrestricted", the other says, "Unrestricted in dogs". Neither section is referenced so question is which is it. ~ R.T.G 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Include breeds that are docked for medical reasons?

Some of the countries have banned docking if done for cosmetic purposes. Some breeds, however, are docked for medical purposes, such as Vizslas, whose tail tapers too thinly past about 70% the length of the tail, or as was mentioned up higher, Boxers, who often have a thin tail. Perhaps a mention could be made within the article of some more medical reasons for docking, for a more neutral point of view within the article. While some people oppose docking and some people advocate it, some more still support it only for medical purposes, where docking inarguably prevents more harm than it has been argued to cause. 99.146.100.166 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not enough references

The whole page seems to be lacking references, especially the 'Legal Status' section which only has one citation (not including the 'Legal status of dog tail docking and ear cropping by country' table). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.248.117 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting edit.

Black and tan Cocker Spaniel, 3 days old, whith cropped tail

My edit got reverted by Montanabw, as all my edits usually are. The edit was quite all rigth and was NOT poor quality. I think the reversion was of poor quality. The picture sowed a poor, but not poor quality picture about a puppy, and the damage that the docking did to the dog. Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

POV, you present no evidence FOR your edits, only a whine. The puppy photo was too dark to be clear, the boxer photo shows each type of ear clearly. As for the rest, some may be useful, but justify the other material you wanted to add. Montanabw^(talk) 01:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• The edit was quite all rigth, puppy photo is not too dark to be clear, (only the puppy is dark) and calling my comments to whine is clearly not Wikipedia:Civility. Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. It applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians. Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

I can't even tell there are two puppies in the photo, it's dark and it's small. The boxer photo in the article is far more clear about what docked ears are and are not. And the above is not germane to article improvement, it is just more whining; that isn't a personal attack, it's honesty; sorry your feelings are hurt, but time to move on. Now, let's discuss the other content edits, some of which had some validity had they been phrased neutrally. Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK; move on. We don't put the picture in the article. But, are you sure that , I mean, and this is really NOT meant as an offence, please belive me, and don't missunderstand this, but when my aunt got problems with her vision, she could not see any more the details in dark pictures. I mean, this picture is not that difficult to see. Hafspajen (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not on a big monitor, but on my laptop, about all I can tell is that it's a very small puppy being held with its tummy up, it's black on black. I had to blow it up 3x or more to see the tail stub had an open wound. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I got that now. Hafspajen (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in restricted/banned application

The table (and associated image) seem to be inconsistent in their use of banned/restricted. For example, England and Wales are listed as restricted (working dogs may be docked by a vet) and Germany is listed as banned (except gun dogs). Would there be objections to changing England and Wales to the banned with few exceptions? Previous discussion of the status in the UK issue in talk: seems to be many years out of date, it certainly isn't considered normal now. MatthewWilkes (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

...

There is also the issue of countries with a mishmash of bans. Canada should definitely not be listed as "unrestricted" as the veterinary associations in seven provinces have banned docking for non medical reasons. I think we need a better graph. Beyond my abilities. Thank you. --Tallard (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Docking (dog). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scottvet.co.uk/tailwag/docking1.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109203423/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c42371b7-8b74-4e75-8d85-e19bbf161361&k=67117 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c42371b7-8b74-4e75-8d85-e19bbf161361&k=67117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125121912/http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking.asp to http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215232942/http://www.wsava.org:80/Taildock.htm to http://www.wsava.org/Taildock.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209090436/http://zakonodaja.gov.si:80/rpsi/r08/predpis_ZAKO4018.html to http://zakonodaja.gov.si/rpsi/r08/predpis_ZAKO4018.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126050347/http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk:80/page_18.htm to http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_18.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040401105655/http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk:80/index.htm to http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Naturally Occurring Bob Tails

Proposed new section or new page "Naturally Occurring Bob Tails in Dogs" which occur as a homozygous embryonic lethal dominant mutation in some of the breeds that have been historically docked when born normal-tailed.24.129.225.118 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Docking (dog). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130403141947/http://193.48.79.10/cg06_v3/cms/mission_animaliere/index.php?id=16 to http://193.48.79.10/cg06_v3/cms/mission_animaliere/index.php?id=16
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304074643/http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dard-151012-oneill-announces-ban to http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dard-151012-oneill-announces-ban
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/page_18.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://anti-dockingalliance.co.uk/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ear docking

Hi, wondering if we should add a paragraph about Ear Docking of dogs, not just tail docking? What do you think? Blockhouse321 (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Docking a tail so it can be pulled on?

"terriers can become stuck underground, necessitating being pulled out by the tail, in which case the docked tail protects the dog from spinal injury or trauma."

this line makes literally 0 sense, and reads like some really brain dead justification of this practice. They need to be able to pull on the tail in emergencies, and don't want to cause injury.... So they cut it off beforehand? Is this magic? 47.54.237.189 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)