cruzzi

The photos are misleading The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion. The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement. Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds. :) Yeah, that's been my experience. I don't like how some AST's look these days. Massive heads and chests like a brick sh*thouse. so, we're agreeing that they're two separate breeds? Those of us who know what we are talking about? No What we are saying is, as they are the same breed they should look the same & the photos are misleading. You wont see many well bred representatives of the "genre" that resemble the AST pic in a sanctioned show anywhere in the world. You will see them in the hands of the bovver boys as pitbulls however. Coarse & overdone. not really a good example of breed actually.

You need to look outside Group 2 a bit more often Dougie. It's called Field Trialling and quail are central to the sport. :) And just how many of the previously docked breeds are from group 3 And since field work is restricted to group 3 dogs I don't see how they would affected. But just out of curiousity, what percentage of the dogs that compete in ANKC trials suffer tail damage that requires amputation?

The photos are misleading The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion. The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement. Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds. :)

Wundahoo, The term Chinese whispers refers to a story whispered from one person to another as it snowballs as everyone adds their little bit to it. Anything else you'd like to know?

For the ANKC to retain creibility it shouldn't "encourage" members to break the law by turning a blind eye to it either. Anyone who is a showie would have heard chinese whispers similar to the allegations made of deliberate tail breaking to enable a "legal" operation to take place. The more the people whispered the louder it became. This proposal is the reaction of one delegate to the noise. It remains to be seen if others think the same way. It does seem a remarkable coincidence that the breeds most affected by the dreaded tail breakinjg syndrome are those of the previously docked variety however. "Chinese whispers" is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread, or, more generally, for the unreliability of human recollection. Would ANKC retain any credibility if it acted each time there was a wave of "chinese whispers" circulating within the dog world ? As a long time enthusiast of a breed affected by the change in docking laws I can tell you that there is high degree of heritability of kinks and bends in tails. I believe that this is actually one of the numerous reasons that my breed was docked originally, not just the "injury during work" argument. I also believe that these kinks are polygenic and that there is not just a single gene responsible for it. This makes it hard to breed away from. I have one particular bloodline which will always produce one or two puppies in a litter with kinks or deviations in the tail. I still retain that bloodline because of the many other desirable points within it which I believe are more valuable to the breed than possessing a perfectly straight tail. Since the change in docking laws I have needed to dock only 2 tails because of severe kinks that would lead to problems. However I can see how certain breeds, and bloodlines within those breeds, may have reached a point genetically where there was a large number of puppies born with kinks that would be a problem in adult life. The current tail docking laws retain the ability for these pups to be docked legally ie theraputically. It's quite possible that the supposed "large numbers" of dogs still appearing in the rings have come from quality bloodlines that do regularly produce a heritable form of kinked tails. In days past, this would not have been a problem because these tails would have been tradionally docked. With the current situation breeders and those who wish to obtain a quality dog would be faced with the possibility of moving away from those bloodlines and attempting to breed tails that are perfectly straight. Not an easy task if the gene pool for that breed is heavily saturated with the gene(s) which produce the undesirable trait. Also contributing to the percieved "large numbers" of docked dogs still appearing in the rings is the fact that the docking laws in Western Australia have only recently been changed (mid 2010) to remove the reference to prophylactic docking. Until that point there were many breeders all over Australia taking the option of prophylactic docking in W.A. Dogs that were prophylactically docked in that state would only now be reaching their prime as show dogs and I assume that they will still be appearing in the rings all over Australia for many years to come. I do believe what you believe is incorrect. Rubbish actually. But let's get one thing quite clear , I am pro tail docking. However I cringe at the inane excuses put forward that tail docking is a necessary for anything other than a medical emergency. A whole litter of puppies? Give us a break. Puppy has a crooked tail? Bad luck. Doesn't cut the mustard The story of a working dog running loose in a paddock & coming home with a broken tail. What that has to do with an ANKC registered dog is totally irrelevent. How many real working dogs actually compete in ANKC sanction events? If the answer is more than none I would be surprised. Face the facts people, lame arsed excuses aren't going to fly. They never have, they never will. What ever lame excuse you wish to put forward as to why a breed was previously docked is no longer valid. Reinterate. IMO this proposal is to distance the ANKC from any controversy regarding docked dogs. One in, all in. Or, more to the point. One out, all out. And would be too blame for this situation? Only those who are trying, have tried, have succeed to circumvent the law. They are the betrayers. A question. Have you personally witness a source of a chinese whisper relating to this topic? I have. About a year, give or take a month or two after the law was enacted, I attended a show where three baby puppy Swedish Valhunds, all litter mates, were competeing against each other. All were docked. The story was the whole litter suffered tail damage & were legally docked. You just can't help bad luck! Just where do you think Utility Gundogs find quails if not paddocks on farms? The dog I was talking about is actually a show titled Gundog Since when has "quail finding" be an ANKC sanctioned event?

If the Amstaff and the APBT are two different breeds APBT pedigree records don't apply to Amstaffs - their pedigrees begin in 1936 when they became a recognised breed. The opening of the Amstaff stud book to UKC APBTs no doubt means that some Amstaffs can trace part of their pedigree back further. Probably no different to the introduction of the bob tail gene to the Boxer. The Corgi part of the pedigree can be traced back further - doesn't make the Corgi & the Boxer the same breed though. Define bona fide - I consider the UKC to be a perfectly good bona fide registry. Rather than just accept as fact the regurgitated misinformation on sites people who really want to talk facts should do their own research before they step out their comfort zone. Firstly, the APBT & the AST are the same breed. It was a name change & a definative pedigree needed to have the breed accepted onto the AKC register by breed enthuiasts who wanted to preserve the breed for posterity. Still the same dog. Why would, until recently, the UKC accept AKC registered AST's onto their register if they weren't the same breed? for goodness sake, that should tell you something. Why doesn't a bobtail mongrel have corgis in it's "predigree"? & how can anyone declare after four generations they are now "pure" when they can't produce a uniform "bob tail"? If the DNA for fun topic is anything to go by the bobtail boxers DNA will come up "Mixed Breed" The boxer is one breed that will benefit from a no docked tails rule, as long the bobtail is declared to be not natural for the breed i.e. Secondly, To be bona fide you need to be recognised as genuine by someone other than yourself. A privately owned registry that is not recognised by any of the affiliated pure breed registery in the world isn't a bona fide pure breed registry IMO. A registry whose dogs & even some of it's breeds aren't recognised by any of the affiliated pure breed registry on the planet is not a bona fide pure breed registry IMO. So what' your opinion of the IKC?....bona fide?

Are you talking Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier? Doesn't matter which, it is good publicity for both.

For the ANKC to retain creibility it shouldn't "encourage" members to break the law by turning a blind eye to it either. Anyone who is a showie would have heard chinese whispers similar to the allegations made of deliberate tail breaking to enable a "legal" operation to take place. The more the people whispered the louder it became. This proposal is the reaction of one delegate to the noise. It remains to be seen if others think the same way. It does seem a remarkable coincidence that the breeds most affected by the dreaded tail breakinjg syndrome are those of the previously docked variety however. "Chinese whispers" is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread, or, more generally, for the unreliability of human recollection. Would ANKC retain any credibility if it acted each time there was a wave of "chinese whispers" circulating within the dog world ? As a long time enthusiast of a breed affected by the change in docking laws I can tell you that there is high degree of heritability of kinks and bends in tails. I believe that this is actually one of the numerous reasons that my breed was docked originally, not just the "injury during work" argument. I also believe that these kinks are polygenic and that there is not just a single gene responsible for it. This makes it hard to breed away from. I have one particular bloodline which will always produce one or two puppies in a litter with kinks or deviations in the tail. I still retain that bloodline because of the many other desirable points within it which I believe are more valuable to the breed than possessing a perfectly straight tail. Since the change in docking laws I have needed to dock only 2 tails because of severe kinks that would lead to problems. However I can see how certain breeds, and bloodlines within those breeds, may have reached a point genetically where there was a large number of puppies born with kinks that would be a problem in adult life. The current tail docking laws retain the ability for these pups to be docked legally ie theraputically. It's quite possible that the supposed "large numbers" of dogs still appearing in the rings have come from quality bloodlines that do regularly produce a heritable form of kinked tails. In days past, this would not have been a problem because these tails would have been tradionally docked. With the current situation breeders and those who wish to obtain a quality dog would be faced with the possibility of moving away from those bloodlines and attempting to breed tails that are perfectly straight. Not an easy task if the gene pool for that breed is heavily saturated with the gene(s) which produce the undesirable trait. Also contributing to the percieved "large numbers" of docked dogs still appearing in the rings is the fact that the docking laws in Western Australia have only recently been changed (mid 2010) to remove the reference to prophylactic docking. Until that point there were many breeders all over Australia taking the option of prophylactic docking in W.A. Dogs that were prophylactically docked in that state would only now be reaching their prime as show dogs and I assume that they will still be appearing in the rings all over Australia for many years to come. I do believe what you believe is incorrect. Rubbish actually. But let's get one thing quite clear , I am pro tail docking. However I cringe at the inane excuses put forward that tail docking is a necessary for anything other than a medical emergency. A whole litter of puppies? Give us a break. Puppy has a crooked tail? Bad luck. Doesn't cut the mustard The story of a working dog running loose in a paddock & coming home with a broken tail. What that has to do with an ANKC registered dog is totally irrelevent. How many real working dogs actually compete in ANKC sanction events? If the answer is more than none I would be surprised. Face the facts people, lame arsed excuses aren't going to fly. They never have, they never will. What ever lame excuse you wish to put forward as to why a breed was previously docked is no longer valid. Reinterate. IMO this proposal is to distance the ANKC from any controversy regarding docked dogs. One in, all in. Or, more to the point. One out, all out. And would be too blame for this situation? Only those who are trying, have tried, have succeed to circumvent the law. They are the betrayers. A question. Have you personally witness a source of a chinese whisper relating to this topic? I have. About a year, give or take a month or two after the law was enacted, I attended a show where three baby puppy Swedish Valhunds, all litter mates, were competeing against each other. All were docked. The story was the whole litter suffered tail damage & were legally docked. You just can't help bad luck!

For the ANKC to retain creibility it shouldn't "encourage" members to break the law by turning a blind eye to it either. Anyone who is a showie would have heard chinese whispers similar to the allegations made of deliberate tail breaking to enable a "legal" operation to take place. The more the people whispered the louder it became. This proposal is the reaction of one delegate to the noise. It remains to be seen if others think the same way. It does seem a remarkable coincidence that the breeds most affected by the dreaded tail breakinjg syndrome are those of the previously docked variety however.

this has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. It is another matter all together. This directly related to the topic since Jed introduced it. I am of same opinion that the docking laws won't be repealed. However mentioning is no more ridiculous than the post it was in answer to. I am not a lawyer, but I can see where the proposal to ban all docked dogs from an ANKC sanctioned events is coming from. Given the no docking laws, the ANKC could possibly face charges of aiding & abetting a crime by allowing illegally docked dogs to participate in their events. Also given the apparently dubious reasons for some dockings it easier ( & safer) to just place a blanket ban on all docked dogs.

It would be better for all concerned to just repeal the no docking laws. From memory, it's was illegal to transport a pregnant bitch, registered & resident in a non docking state to a state where it was legal, whelp, dock the puppies & then return home. Said puppies were still banned. I would imagine the same would apply to flying them out of the country & back. Which would also bring animal cruelty into the equation. Isn't 16 weeks the minimum age to "export" puppies?....maybe it's 12? What ever, pain is a factor. Silly idea anyhow.

The fact is.....I don't like it. Maybe i'm just old fashioned because I think when you cross two different breeds you get a mongrel. MONGREL n animal esp a dog of mixed breed. Obviously those who own them & breed them don't have dictionaries. Then again, dictionaries may not be all they don't have.

Read your code of ethics. At least the "unverified" parentage are thought to be the same breed. What breed is involved in the current controversy?...wolfhounds? And aren't the ethical breeders against it? If progeny of a registered pure breed mated with an unregistered pure breed of the same breed wont be registered how can you justify the progeny of a boxer x corgi being registered. Now that really is ridiculous. As soon as the x was made the pedigree lines of both the dogs involved effectively ceased....according to our code of ethics. We are either breeding pure breeds or we are not. Alternatively, at least the criteria for a new breed application should been made & the standard rewritten to include a definitive description of the tail. For e.g. The tail to extend straight & no farther than the 3rd (4th) vertebae. This to be observed to occur, without a miss, for 5 generations. I have seen one "bobtail" puppy with a tail that looked like it was set by someone with the D.T's weilding a curling wand. How many "failures' would you think don't get to see the light of day?

unless the testing has come a long, long, long way in the last couple of years the only thing it will tell you with any certainty is that it's a dog. People in the USA had the test done on bona fide pure breeds with known pedigrees & the results were not even close.

This is again the opinion of one judge on the day - don't think it means that the dog is a very poor specimen of the breed - it is that dog on the day & that judge. I've had one dog almost refused a class at the Melb Royal because in the judges opinion that dog lacked bone. Yes, he is an elegant dog and the dogs that went up that day were more of Rotty type. But that same dog went onto win BOB & PIG under Int Judge at Sunbury that same year (with a breed entry of 35+ dogs) and won multiple BOB's under Breed Specialists - & multiple class in All Breeds & Specialty shows(& was never refused a challenge). If he'd been non-awarded multiple times then you have to question obviously, I would love to have the critique system it would really show how much or how little the judges know of your breed standard. Sorry - I should have clarified further on that - yes, I agree the judges can refuse for any reason and given that they aren't obliged to provide a critique we sometimes don't know (although often the judge may make comment when refusing) but the perception created amongst the exhibitors and any spectators watching when a dog is refused is generally that it's a poor specimen because let's face it, challenges are hardly ever refused even to dogs where it is evident that there are some issues.......fully accept it's the judges decision of what they think is outstanding but looking at what goes through, there are a lot of outstanding dogs. Basically the judge is saying that, in their opinion, the dog is not of such outstanding merit to worthy of the title " Champion" While I believe you should be entitled to be told the basis of the opinion, I.M.O. is uncontestable.

According to every rule of animal husbandry as soon as one pure breed is crossed with a another pure breed of a different breed the result is a cross breed. Bob tail boxers should never, ever have been allowed onto a pure breed register. Thank goodness the ANKC vetoed the application for an Australian breeder to do the same "trick" with dobermanns.

If their pedigree goes back to the start of either registry then a APBT would have a longer "official" pedigree than an American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier - both not recognised as breeds until 1935 (and so admitted into an "official" studbook). Food for thought there :) SBT was recognised by the K.C in 1935 but not until 1974 by the AKC. The AST was accepted by the AKC in 1936. So if the SBT was recognised in the UK in 1935 it's official pedigree stretches back to 1935 - the Amstaff wasn't recognised in Australia until the late 80's/early 90's - was still a recognised breed in 1936. I had always read that Amstaffs were recognised the same year as Staffords, will have to remember we got in first :laugh: Also, the AKC briefly opened it's books to selected UKC registered APBT's to boost the AST gene pool. So it's reasonable to assume a diligent search would trace the AST back to the earliest UKC registered APBT's, maybe even to Bennetts Ring. To assume the APBT has a longer pedigree than the AST may not necessarily be correct. & then to absolutely pedantic, as the APBT isn't recognised by any bona fide pure breed registry on the planet, is their pedigree really "official"

If their pedigree goes back to the start of either registry then a APBT would have a longer "official" pedigree than an American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier - both not recognised as breeds until 1935 (and so admitted into an "official" studbook). Food for thought there :) SBT was recognised by the K.C in 1935 but not until 1974 by the AKC. The AST was accepted by the AKC in 1936.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was. Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections. damn right. Talk about the doomsday mob. Who would import a dog they knew or even suspected they may not be able breed from?....no one with half a brain. All the checks & balances would be in place before the dog even left its kennel. Rabbiting on about can't pick the puppy you want because....because why? How many puppies are purchased sight unseen every year. It would be in the tens of thousands at least. The breeding attracts the buyers. Rights?....just what rights are being impinged? When you sign up you agree to abide by the rules & by-laws of the organisation. You have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice from your particular area. If you have a concern you can then exercise your rights. You can write a letter of protest to the board, you can vote, you can even stand for election or you exercise the ultimate protest & walk away. Until you decide on any of the above, honour the terms you agreed to when you joined up. Hey it's just like living in society, you exercise your right to vote & when it rolls around you exercise your right to vote again. If you candidate isn't elected? Thems the breaks. if they introduce a carbon tax, they will pay. That's the way it is. I woud not take a puppy with undefended testicles, I wouldn't take a puppy with a crappy bite or missing teeth. I wouldn't take a puppy that was east west in the front or had cowhocks. If I am spending 10k to get a pup I want the lines and the quality in the pup itself and even with Australian puppies when I put in an order I say that I only want the pup if its a good quality specimen. So my puppies are not picked before 8 weeks of age and I may be looking for specific lines but a crap dog is a crap dog and I dont want crappy puppies with good grandparents. There are things I am happy to overlook but there are plenty of deal breakers that I would refuse to have in my lines and I trust the person to make sure my pup doesnt have any of them but how could they know at 2 days of age? I am quite disappointed with the ANKC but since I am only a member of Dogs NSW then apparently my opinion isnt worth much. It would be really nice if this could all be based on proof and scientific evidence rather than emotion and politics. But considering I want to compete in Rally O, Obedience and Herding I guess I just have to accept that I am likely to get shafted by my own organisation some time in the future. It would seem you don't "take" puppies at all. Everything you mentioned is not obvious in a puppy. Espectially undefended testicles (sic)

Melzawelza, I think you are referring to the UKC. Which was raised specifically to register APBT's after the AKC steadfastly refused to recognise them as a "pure" breed. The APBT isn't recognised as a pure breed by any affiliated pure breed registry in the world.Not Just our ANKC. It's ADBA btw.

I've spoken to a number of people deeply involved with BSL in the UK and their take on it is that as the Amstaff is recognised by the AKC the KC would recognise the breed however it is unlikely any Amstaff would have made it through quarantine prior to the amendments to the BS laws allowing "new" 'pitbulls' (this was 4 or so years ago from memory) to be put on the register rather than automatically PTS. Not sure where it stands at the moment but my guess would be it's pretty much a vicious circle really - the KC won't recognise a breed that isn't in the country and their quarantine is unlikely to let a "suspect" breed in which isn't recognised by the KC. My take is they are two separate breeds - they have separate registries and separate breed standards. The 'pit bull' is a long long stretch from the American Pit Bull Terrier. 25 years ago these same generic yellow mongrel dogs probably would've been called Labradors. The Brit Gov considers the AST is another name for the APBT & is therefore banned. Which is the reason it isn't recognised by the K.C. Which doesn't mean there aren't any there of course. The K.C. doesn't recognise the Jack Russell Terrier either. Go figure. Australia was first to recognised the Border Collie & actually wrote the original standard but has never claimed it to be an Australian breed.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was. Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections. damn right. Talk about the doomsday mob. Who would import a dog they knew or even suspected they may not be able breed from?....no one with half a brain. All the checks & balances would be in place before the dog even left its kennel. Rabbiting on about can't pick the puppy you want because....because why? How many puppies are purchased sight unseen every year. It would be in the tens of thousands at least. The breeding attracts the buyers. Rights?....just what rights are being impinged? When you sign up you agree to abide by the rules & by-laws of the organisation. You have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice from your particular area. If you have a concern you can then exercise your rights. You can write a letter of protest to the board, you can vote, you can even stand for election or you exercise the ultimate protest & walk away. Until you decide on any of the above, honour the terms you agreed to when you joined up. Hey it's just like living in society, you exercise your right to vote & when it rolls around you exercise your right to vote again. If you candidate isn't elected? Thems the breaks. if they introduce a carbon tax, they will pay. That's the way it is.

Many dogs are registered on main overseas and can only go on limited - including non recognised colours etc. How do you think they will limit which dogs can be shown if they dont put all docked dogs on limited register? Easy, The steward disqualities them at the gate. However their progency shouldn't, & don't, suffer for the sins of their progenitors. You don't really think every cropped import is automatically placed on the limited register do you? They are imported for their bloodlines with no attempt to enter them in a show. There are cropped imports listed in the the D.O.L breed profiles as available for stud duties. Bitches whelp whole puppies (most of the time) & this proposal is to ensure they remain whole if they are to be part of the ANKC show scene. Any breeder who imports a dog from mismarked parents or those of highly undesirable colours would be stupid wouldn't they? Locally bred puppies with mismarks or colours are placed on the limited register anyhow, so what's the difference? While I don't agree with the law, there are still quite a few docked exhibits in the rings & I imagine this proposal is a one size fits all solution to cut thru the bullshit. "No docked exhibits will be allowed to be exhibited at ANKC sanctioned shows....end of game" So just as any dog which suffers a malady & has to be neutered for any reason is ineligle to compete in the real section of a dog show, so will any which need their tails docked for any reason. Sure makes sense so why would anyone want to stand up for their rights or be concerned they are being judged as lesser beings and potential animal abusers anyway - right? I don't for one minute think you are naive enough to think all the docked dogs still being exhibited are the victims of ''accidental'' tail damage either. Some exhibitors have had a terrible time....every dog they own has had some sort of "accident". you just can't help bad luck.....right?

Totally agree. It's almost like on one hand you have someone who has a AST and acknowledges it, and the other you have someone who claims that they have a APBT- so are they admitting that there dog is dog aggressive or what's the motive behind it- other than the ego boost they get? That's how I see it too. The original dog was the APBT the AST originated from that. Not unlike the GSD and the SWS (though that was to do with coat colour, and not temperament- but same kind of thing). I agree with this. I'd dare say that the majority of the so called "Pitbulls" are either generic "staffy x's" or unpapered AST's with moronic owners. someone said that the courts ruled that APBT and AST were the same breed...is that a bit like Clark Kent and Super Man (you know- stick some glasses on and no-one knows who you are?) call it a different name and you're all good....? Isn't that like sticking your head in the sand!? lol. I don't agree that they are the same breed though- the separation between the two has been quite a while. Actually the plantiff introduced expert testamony from an American APBT expert who stated that AST was the show name for the APBT. Shot right in the foot. Although was end of game the much maligned GCCC then immediately withdraw so the court didn't really have to make a ruling. Imagine the catastophe through out the country if the ruling had have actually been handed down. Every AST would have then been an APBT regardless of ANKC papers or not. You mention the GSD & the SWS. The standard & the name was change to allow the SWS to be added to the pure breed registries. Same deal with the AST. Britain doesn't recognise the AST. It is just another alias for the APBT as far as they are concerned.

Many dogs are registered on main overseas and can only go on limited - including non recognised colours etc. How do you think they will limit which dogs can be shown if they dont put all docked dogs on limited register? Easy, The steward disqualities them at the gate. However their progency shouldn't, & don't, suffer for the sins of their progenitors. You don't really think every cropped import is automatically placed on the limited register do you? They are imported for their bloodlines with no attempt to enter them in a show. There are cropped imports listed in the the D.O.L breed profiles as available for stud duties. Bitches whelp whole puppies (most of the time) & this proposal is to ensure they remain whole if they are to be part of the ANKC show scene. Any breeder who imports a dog from mismarked parents or those of highly undesirable colours would be stupid wouldn't they? Locally bred puppies with mismarks or colours are placed on the limited register anyhow, so what's the difference? While I don't agree with the law, there are still quite a few docked exhibits in the rings & I imagine this proposal is a one size fits all solution to cut thru the bullshit. "No docked exhibits will be allowed to be exhibited at ANKC sanctioned shows....end of game" So just as any dog which suffers a malady & has to be neutered for any reason is ineligle to compete in the real section of a dog show, so will any which need their tails docked for any reason.