We Have Been Betrayed

[Mjosa]

Reading this morning my electronic Dog World, the big show Windsor in the UK are allowing legally docked dogs to be exhibited at their upcoming show, so glad to hear this, it looks like a group of people with docked breeds have united, a few other English clubs also mentioned, at last it is great to see a bit of sensibility is occuring.

[Wundahoo]

Hi,

Go to the DogsNSW website ........Members section, Regulations (you dont have to log in to see this) Part 1 Section 22 and Show Section 14.4, and there is probably another section covering application for registering a docked dog in the Registration Section as there is paperwork available in the forms section to do this.

Thanks Showpony.

I have read the sections that are relevant and it seems to me that they are fair and reasonable. It addresses the situation very well. The DogsNSW rules allow for those breeders who have done the right thing and sought the procedure through the correct channels to be able to register onto Main, dogs that have been legally docked. A veterinary certificate is required. This then enables any vet who feels that there is something not quite right (ie interference with the tails prior to presentation) to refuse to certify the litter. No certification equals no registration. A vet who feels that there is a manufactured problem with the tails has the opportunity to report it to the proper authorities for further investigation.

If the breeders dont follow the protocol then that's their problem and they will suffer the consequence. I think that this is quite sufficient.

We dont have such rules in my state but when I needed to dock two neonates I followed a very similar procedure with recording and documenting.

Perhaps these rules are what should be adopted by ANKC.

[Salukifan]

Angelsun:

For so many that feel the need to comment, I would like to see only those with traditionally docked breeds involved in the debate, as to be honest, the rest of you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the charges of cruelty due to docking tails, and this is why we are in this mess to begin with.

This thread was about a motion to ban ALL docked dogs (lawfully and otherwise) from ALL ANKC events. Any owner of a dog with a tail could have been effected. So why limit the discussion to those who own formerly docked breeds?

The motion is dead. It has been voted down by every State outside Victoria that has voted. And quite a few of those who influenced that vote don't own docked breeds. Blaming those outside the docked breeds for the laws passed in this country is neither accurate nor fair.

And as for NZ? What laws have they had reversed??

Edited February 8, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Dellcara]

Reading this morning my electronic Dog World, the big show Windsor in the UK are allowing legally docked dogs to be exhibited at their upcoming show, so glad to hear this, it looks like a group of people with docked breeds have united, a few other English clubs also mentioned, at last it is great to see a bit of sensibility is occuring.

yes this is good news ... and the reason is because they have dropped the admission charge for the public.

in the UK that is what determines whether they can be shown ... if the society charges the public an

admission fee then they can not be shown.

[lils mum]

I knew I had left myself wide open.

Being in hurry I pressed send & then gave it some throught as I was cruising to my appontment.

I don't believe editing after replies have been posted.

I was miles off the mark. Lesson learned.

Curious though, Genuine question.how did you young dog hurt his tail so badly it may have to been amputated?

Cynical question, are the amputations usually performed at the same vertebrae the breed was previously docked at.

I'm glad that you've got some more information in your toolkit about other breeds/groups, their purpose and history.

FWIW, in 2009, the Hungarian Vizsla Club of NSW conducted a health survey. This covered all aspects of health, and if anyone is interested the correlated report can be seen on the club's website www.vizsla.org.au

Now, it's not a huge sample size, and the club doesn't necessarily have access to all Vizsla owners, but of the 229 dogs for which questionnaires were completed, 88 dogs were born following implementation of the ban, and 9 (10%) recorded tail injury as a problem. Just what percentage of those went on to amputation, I don't know.

For me, though I am probalby what could be considered 'pro docking' (I always say that if neonatal docking were the very worst thing people ever did to dogs, we'd be in a far better place!) , I think that fight is probably long dead. However the issue of this motion was the uninformed and show -centric perspective. 'Exhibition' was taken quite literally by many, excluding consideration of working/trial venues.

Where is therapeutic amputation performed - ie, what level of the tail? Where it is therapeutic I would imagine - it's performed by a vet after all. It would vary according to the site and severity of the injury in the individual dog.

However, we do know of a number of dogs where (?)overly conservative treatment was the initial choice, and after months of attempting to heal the splits/damage, dogs were frequently subjected to inadequate initial amputation, requiring a second surgery due to failure to heal. The longer the injury is in place and fails to heal, the further the extent of damage to surrounding tissues. Circulation can become impaired within the indurated tissue and chronic low grade infection can also be present. consequently, a number of these dogs have required amputation of significantly more tail than would traditionally docked.

More than one vet has expressed the opinion to the owners that had they realised the traumatic and prolonged potential for tail injuries, they would have been far less opposed to tail docking.

It should also be considered that most vets don't have a lot of some particular breeds in their practice demographic - they may only ever see one or two tail injuries, perhaps none.

As there is no centralised data collection of this issue, it's basically impossible to know the full extent of the problem within the pet/companion/working/showing combined community.

Regardless, the motion that has created the flurry of discussion was a poor one.

Edited February 8, 2013 by lils mum

[cruzzi]

Angelsun:

For so many that feel the need to comment, I would like to see only those with traditionally docked breeds involved in the debate, as to be honest, the rest of you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the charges of cruelty due to docking tails, and this is why we are in this mess to begin with.

This thread was about a motion to ban ALL docked dogs (lawfully and otherwise) from ALL ANKC events. Any owner of a dog with a tail could have been effected. So why limit the discussion to those who own formerly docked breeds?

The motion is dead. It has been voted down by every State outside Victoria that has voted. And quite a few of those who influenced that vote don't own docked breeds. Blaming those outside the docked breeds for the laws passed in this country is neither accurate nor fair.

And as for NZ? What laws have they had reversed??

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

Some of the dogs being titled here now don't meet the standard in most countries.

http://www.cdb.org/countries/nzealand.htm

Edited February 8, 2013 by cruzzi

[Salukifan]

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[cruzzi]

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is.

No, it's silly because the KC made the amendments without consultation with the SBT clubs & despite their protests.

Among others, they added "desirable" to the height & now dogs bloody near as big as AST's are being titled here.

That's why it's silly.

But of course it doesn't matter to anyone who has no affiliation or affection for the breed.

And isn't affected by BSL.

Silly to think you would give a damn anyhow, now that was really silly.

[Salukifan]

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is.

No, it's silly because the KC made the amendments without consultation with the SBT clubs & despite their protests.

Among others, they added "desirable" to the height & now dogs bloody near as big as AST's are being titled here.

That's why it's silly.

But of course it doesn't matter to anyone who has no affiliation or affection for the breed.

And isn't affected by BSL.

Silly to think you would give a damn anyhow, now that was really silly.

Your breed is no more affected by BSL than mine are.

What SBTs and BSL have to do with this thread sure beats me.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[patterdale]

Finding it interesting to read all these postings. We have the same heated discussion in New Zealand at present as the Animal Welfare is currently being reviewed (again) and tail docking is on the agenda (again).

However, it is fascinating to see so many people fighting the cause when there are so many other dog issues for all breeds, not just those docked, that are of a more pressing nature.

So it is allowed to breed litter after litter out of bitches, regardless of age, back-to-back breedings, bitches that have 2 litters on the ground by the time they are 2 years old,etc, etc?

That to me is a real issue and breaches animal welfare.

[espinay2]

Finding it interesting to read all these postings. We have the same heated discussion in New Zealand at present as the Animal Welfare is currently being reviewed (again) and tail docking is on the agenda (again).

However, it is fascinating to see so many people fighting the cause when there are so many other dog issues for all breeds, not just those docked, that are of a more pressing nature.

So it is allowed to breed litter after litter out of bitches, regardless of age, back-to-back breedings, bitches that have 2 litters on the ground by the time they are 2 years old,etc, etc?

That to me is a real issue and breaches animal welfare.

You will find plenty of other threads on these topics. They are the subject of much discussion. They simply have nothing to do with this thread!

[lils mum]

Deleted response as agree it has nothing to do with this topic

Edited February 8, 2013 by lils mum

[feenix]

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is.

No, it's silly because the KC made the amendments without consultation with the SBT clubs & despite their protests.

Among others, they added "desirable" to the height & now dogs bloody near as big as AST's are being titled here.

That's why it's silly.

But of course it doesn't matter to anyone who has no affiliation or affection for the breed.

And isn't affected by BSL.

Silly to think you would give a damn anyhow, now that was really silly.

Your breed is no more affected by BSL than mine are.

What SBTs and BSL have to do with this thread sure beats me.

How are whippets at risk from the BSL?

[yarracully]

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is.

No, it's silly because the KC made the amendments without consultation with the SBT clubs & despite their protests.

Among others, they added "desirable" to the height & now dogs bloody near as big as AST's are being titled here.

That's why it's silly.

But of course it doesn't matter to anyone who has no affiliation or affection for the breed.

And isn't affected by BSL.

Silly to think you would give a damn anyhow, now that was really silly.

Your breed is no more affected by BSL than mine are.

What SBTs and BSL have to do with this thread sure beats me.

How are whippets at risk from the BSL?

I think you will find the point is ANY breed is at risk of BSL. However this is a bit of the topic and probably should be elsewhere.

An example is the law requiring greyhounds to wear a muzzle in public. This is a breed specific legislation as it relates to a specific breed.

Edited February 9, 2013 by yarracully

[SkySoaringMagpie]

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is.

Actually, for my breed, I think it should.

There are many countries of origin (COO) but only one has FCI affiliation. Expansionists would also include Morocco, I would only include Bahrain when it comes to COO. It is not a surprise that predominantly Muslim countries don't go for canine sports. And I am unconvinced that the FCI has the corner on breed wisdom. Their standard was certainly not the first.

Our country of development is England. The English breed clubs are attempting to fix problems with the registry by changing the standard. Whatever you think of the standard or the registry problems, this is a bit of a fraught escapade. Their standard has also watered down some of the fundamental working characteristics of the breed.

In Australia we have the 1923, I think of all the standards it is the best, and should remain unchanged. So control questions become a bit redundant.

[feenix]

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is.

Actually, for my breed, I think it should.

There are many countries of origin (COO) but only one has FCI affiliation. Expansionists would also include Morocco, I would only include Bahrain when it comes to COO. It is not a surprise that predominantly Muslim countries don't go for canine sports. And I am unconvinced that the FCI has the corner on breed wisdom. Their standard was certainly not the first.

Our country of development is England. The English breed clubs are attempting to fix problems with the registry by changing the standard. Whatever you think of the standard or the registry problems, this is a bit of a fraught escapade. Their standard has also watered down some of the fundamental working characteristics of the breed.

In Australia we have the 1923, I think of all the standards it is the best, and should remain unchanged. So control questions become a bit redundant.

Agree, the breed clubs should be the only bodies able to effect standard amendments & only then after much consultation, debate & unamimous agreements.

Not some shiny bum bureaucrat who may or may not have any connection with the breed at all.

Funny how people unconnect with a breed always seem to bray the loudest.

Edited February 9, 2013 by feenix

[teddywaddy]

Wow this seems to be a very touchy subject.

Are rules and laws not to be abided, if we speed driving and get caught we get charged.

This ruling has been in force for years now, but there seems to be the elite few who can afford to not follow these laws. Really is sending a bitch to NZ to whelp just so that you can dock her puppies tails really worth it, after all the purpose is really only cosmetic. Also I have noticed a Doberman breeder who was showing a couple of young dogs that were not imported and had docked tails, how was this allowed to happen?? When you see these top breeders flouting the laws and getting away with it, is this fair to all those people doing the right thing??

This motion could be re worded in a way to allow imports genuinely bred overseas, I.e maybe if the bitch had resided there for up to 2 years.

I agree with this motion, it will bring equality to the show ring and award people who are doing the right thing by following the laws.

Edited February 9, 2013 by teddywaddy

[feenix]

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is.

No, it's silly because the KC made the amendments without consultation with the SBT clubs & despite their protests.

Among others, they added "desirable" to the height & now dogs bloody near as big as AST's are being titled here.

That's why it's silly.

But of course it doesn't matter to anyone who has no affiliation or affection for the breed.

And isn't affected by BSL.

Silly to think you would give a damn anyhow, now that was really silly.

Your breed is no more affected by BSL than mine are.

What SBTs and BSL have to do with this thread sure beats me.

How are whippets at risk from the BSL?

I think you will find the point is ANY breed is at risk of BSL. However this is a bit of the topic and probably should be elsewhere.

An example is the law requiring greyhounds to wear a muzzle in public. This is a breed specific legislation as it relates to a specific breed.

Give me an honest opinion.

What do you consider are the chances of the whippet ever being affected by a BSL anywhere in the Universe?

Racing Greyhounds are required to wear muzzles because they are trained to chase & kill small furry animals.

They were, & some probably still are, trained to do this by using live small furry animals.

It's called "blooding"

[espinay2]

It isn't only what has been reversed in NZ that is good, it is what has not been amemeded.

Such as the SBT standard.

As far as i'm aware only the silly ANKC followed the K.C's 1987 amendments that will end up destroying the breed as we know it.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is.

No, it's silly because the KC made the amendments without consultation with the SBT clubs & despite their protests.

Among others, they added "desirable" to the height & now dogs bloody near as big as AST's are being titled here.

That's why it's silly.

But of course it doesn't matter to anyone who has no affiliation or affection for the breed.

And isn't affected by BSL.

Silly to think you would give a damn anyhow, now that was really silly.

Your breed is no more affected by BSL than mine are.

What SBTs and BSL have to do with this thread sure beats me.

How are whippets at risk from the BSL?

I think you will find the point is ANY breed is at risk of BSL. However this is a bit of the topic and probably should be elsewhere.

An example is the law requiring greyhounds to wear a muzzle in public. This is a breed specific legislation as it relates to a specific breed.

Give me an honest opinion.

What do you consider are the chances of the whippet ever being affected by a BSL anywhere in the Universe?

Racing Greyhounds are required to wear muzzles because they are trained to chase & kill small furry animals.

They were, & some probably still are, trained to do this by using live small furry animals.

It's called "blooding"

You can start here: http://tnpetlawnews.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/memphistn-targets-dachshunds-whippets.html

[Wundahoo]

Wow this seems to be a very touchy subject.

Are rules and laws not to be abided, if we speed driving and get caught we get charged.

This ruling has been in force for years now, but there seems to be the elite few who can afford to not follow these laws. Really is sending a bitch to NZ to whelp just so that you can dock her puppies tails really worth it, after all the purpose is really only cosmetic. Also I have noticed a Doberman breeder who was showing a couple of young dogs that were not imported and had docked tails, how was this allowed to happen?? When you see these top breeders flouting the laws and getting away with it, is this fair to all those people doing the right thing??

This motion could be re worded in a way to allow imports genuinely bred overseas, I.e maybe if the bitch had resided there for up to 2 years.

I agree with this motion, it will bring equality to the show ring and award people who are doing the right thing by following the laws.

I dont really want to see this topic degenerate into yet another debate about the necessity of tail docking for certain breeds, but for confirmation that it is not "only cosmetic" is the the fact that in most countries where tail docking laws have been invoked there has been the retention of legal neonatal prophylactic docking for designated working breeds. Australia is one of the few countries that have not permitted this. Even in the Scandinavian countries where the animal rights movement is huge and powerful leading to the situation where even sterilisation of a dog for anything other than an existing medical condition is illegal, there are rules which permit prophylactic docking for working breeds.

Also, please be aware that tail docking in Australia is only illegal for prohpylactic purposes. It is STILL a legal procedure for theraputic reasons.

Saying that tail docking in Australia is illegal is (to continue your analogy) like saying that it's illegal to drive a car. Of course everyone knows that it is illegal to drive a car ...... unless you have a drivers licence !!! When requested by the authorities a person must be able to produce that licence as proof that they can legally drive.

And so it should be with tail docking. A breeder of a litter should be able to produce the proof that the tail docking procedure has been performed within the current laws. If that's provided then the dogs should be permitted to compete just as any other dog would be able to. To prevent a legally docked dog from competing, in spite of sufficient evidence which proves that the procedure was performed within the law, is unfair and may in fact be open to legal challenge.

Let's hope that sense will prevail and that this motion or anything similar, will not ever surface again.