TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Dog tail case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dog tail case

post #1 of 7
2/8/04 at 7:09pm
Thread Starter 
Remember that thread about the case vs AKC well, here's the update:

Dog owner loses court fight over length of pet's tail



ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) ? New York's highest court says a dog fancier is barking up the wrong tree.

The Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Jon Hammer can't force the American Kennel Club and the American Brittany Club to change breed standards for Brittany spaniels.

Hammer argued that the standards ? which require a Brittany spaniel's tail to be "docked," or clipped ? are illegal. He claimed that clipping dog tails violates state laws against mutilating animals unjustifiably.

The court found that since Hammer didn't claim that either dog club is cruelly mutilating dogs, the groups didn't break the law. And the judges ruled that private citizens can't bring a claim under the animal cruelty law.

A lawyer for the American Kennel Club says the ruling vindicates the group's standards.

My question: How can mutilation in this case NOT be cruel?
Reply
post #2 of 7
2/8/04 at 9:10pm
Personally, I don't hold with tail-docking or ear-cropping. Other than spay/neutering, pets hould be left the way that nature made 'em.

As for the AKC, they ARE a private organization and can make whatever rules that they want, within the law. It appears that requiring docked tails IS within the law.

As a taxpayer, aren't court dockets crowded enough, without cases like this? It seems that the proper thing to do would have been to lobby the voting membership of the AKC, to alter the standards.
Reply
post #3 of 7
2/9/04 at 6:48am
Quote:
Originally posted by katl8e
Personally, I don't hold with tail-docking or ear-cropping. Other than spay/neutering, pets hould be left the way that nature made 'em.
Exactly how I feel. I don't even feel 100% comfortable with neutering, if Im honest. But I do it because it's a necessary evil and in the long run is of benefit to the animals. I don't like wing clipping or de-barking either.

Tail docking is not of any benefit to the dogs, despite what breeders will tell you to justify keeping their 'tradition' going. I made a rant about this in the declawing thread so it would be stupid to re-post it here.
Ear cropping is illegal here, thank god, and tail docking can ONLY be performed by a vet and ONLY for medical reasons, ie, injury. Not for cosmetic reasons. We're seeing more and more traditionally docked breeds with their tails in the UK and I couldn't be happier. Hopefully, in the furture, it will completely abolished and people will wonder how we ever justified mutilating animals like that.
Reply
post #4 of 7
2/9/04 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Ziggy
Tail docking is not of any benefit to the dogs, despite what breeders will tell you to justify keeping their 'tradition' going. I made a rant about this in the declawing thread so it would be stupid to re-post it here.
Ear cropping is illegal here, thank god, and tail docking can ONLY be performed by a vet and ONLY for medical reasons, ie, injury. Not for cosmetic reasons. We're seeing more and more traditionally docked breeds with their tails in the UK and I couldn't be happier. Hopefully, in the furture, it will completely abolished and people will wonder how we ever justified mutilating animals like that.
I couldn't agree more. Ziggy has also described the current situation in Germany, and I believe it was a smart decision to outlaw cropping and docking.
Reply
post #5 of 7
2/11/04 at 8:35am
I don't agree with docking/cropping either. I think it's barbaric. I remember hearing somewhere that spaniels have their tails docked because it prevents the tail from getting caught in underbrush and getting full of burrs. Right. So why do the Setters and Pointers get to keep their tails natural??? My dad's first dog, a brittany, was docked before they brought him home (done by the breeder. Not my dad's choice), and his current dog, a french spaniel, has a natural tail. I just don't get why they make the distinctions in the Sporting group?

What about the other breeds that are used for hunting and retrieving? Goldens, Poodles, etc...

Just my 0.02$
Reply
post #6 of 7
2/11/04 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally posted by thh20

What about the other breeds that are used for hunting and retrieving? Goldens, Poodles, etc...

Just my 0.02$
Thats why the argument that it's done for the benefit of the dog is so glaringly inconsistant. Theres LOADS of breeds who have skinny, whiplike or easily damaged tails who are never docked, greyhounds, dalmatians, whippets, lurchers, borzois, irish wolfhounds etc. Then you get dogs who, in comparison, have thicker stronger tails who ARE docked: rotties, old english sheep dogs, spaniels etc.
Reply
post #7 of 7
2/11/04 at 1:11pm
I just found a page that echoes what most of us are saying:

Ear cropping/tail docking

If breed clubs decided that tail docking was a way of protecting against damage from working in the field, why then did they not choose to have a Cocker Spaniel's ears cropped, too? Seems to me the ears are in as much "danger" as the tail. And WHY do they think that the cocker clip would be practical?!? You won't let the dog have it's natural tail, but you want it to go running around with long fur on the legs, skirt and ears??? Doesn't make sense to me...

I was very happy to read that "In Great Britain and Canada, cropped ears are no longer considered an acceptable breed standard and has been officially banned by their respective kennel clubs." Now if we could only make it ILLEGAL do have it done, then we'd be on the right track...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Dog tail case