Sex God
If alterations are the cause of more suffering to the horses then perhaps the only alteration that can be made is cancellation
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Staggerlee_BB
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 62
Bisexual Female, 63
0 miles · Widdrington Station
Forum
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
You seem G to be labouring under the assumptions that all vets are competent, all dogs are cared for and that all dogs are docked by vets .... spend some time in dog rescue and you'll soon find that non of these are correct
Now you are suggesting that because there may be some who do not follow procedure and break the law, that the rest of us and our dogs should be punished because of them. That does not sound like logic to me. Some people have been clubbed to death with a hammer, should we ban people from using hammers?
As far as I can see now your argument has fallen down, it is an attempt to justify a surgical procedure based on your beliefs for what may or may not be best for the dog, bread, human race, rescue center.
No Blue I'm saying the same as I have done all along ,that docking is an unnecessary surgical procedure,that all surgical procedures carry a risk,that it is not a painless procedure (nip down to the hospital and have them cut your thumb off... I doubt you would enjoy the process).I was merely pointing out to G that docking is not always the clean clinical process that he seems to believe.
It is you Blue who is trying to justify a surgical procedure not you mean castration and spaying of dogs then I really don't need to justify them ... ban them by all means and then deal with the strays,abuse and neglect that would ensue,deal with keeping your kids and dogs indoors to avoid the increased number of dog attacks that would follow ... my argument hasn't fallen down or altered yours it would seem is skidding along on it's arse
Quote by GnV
@ Staggs:
That doesn't say a lot for doctors does it, as (I believe) vets spend more time in training than doctors treating humans do!
I think you might be a tad ungracious towards the vetinary profession. Given the current failures in the NHS, I think I might prefer to be treated by a vet these days.
It says nothing about doctors G ... they after all only need to learn to treat one species
Not ungracious just realism borne of experience as Rob points out there are charlatans and incompetents in most professions
Sex God
Quote by GnV
A well constructed counter argument Staggs, but it still doesn't alter my view.
I could certainly accept your view if it were the case that 'docking' is carried out in an 'inhumane' (if that is not a contradiction in terms) way - like using a rusty old pair of tin snips to undertake this procedure but when it is carried out professionally by, or under the supervision of a qualified person, it surely carries the same weight as spaying and castration does; procedures which you suggest are entirely common sense.
You seem G to be labouring under the assumptions that all vets are competent, all dogs are cared for and that all dogs are docked by vets .... spend some time in dog rescue and you'll soon find that non of these are correct
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
No responsible rescue would allow an un-spayed or neutered dog to leave their kennels .... this is to prevent further irresponsible breeding not for any health benefits it may or may not bestow upon the animal ... so not for the dog per se more for dogs in general
oops missed my edit Blue .... it is for the benefit of dogs in general it prevents us as rescues from having to deal with even more unwanted dogs and the dogs from suffering the abuse and hardship that comes with being unwanted or a stray ... kind of common sense really
Sorry post crossed in edit.
Me thinks you are now just playing with words. Double standards spring to mind. The end result is to stop the suffering of dog or dogs. Both surgical procedures and both in my view to benefit the dog. :thumbup:
No responsible dog owner would allow a working dog to enter cover without this procedure
No Blue I'm not playing with words ... I do not believe docking is a worthwhile procedure it does not in my opinion serve any purpose in the vast majority of cases (most of which will never come to light as they have already been docked).It is impossible to say whether a docked tail is less of a liability to a dog as it is a docked tail you will never know whether the dog would have injured its tail or not.
Spaying and neutering are common sense and any dog owner (who is not a responsible breeder) should insist that their dogs are 'sterile',unplanned breeding creates unwanted dogs and there are already far too many of is to anybody obvious.
There is little or no evidence to support docking you have been unable to show any other than your belief that it is the right thing to do,there will remain little or no evidence either way until docking is and has been banned in ALL cases for some time ... as I said earlier I am surprisingly unsentimental about animals soo I for one believe that it is an acceptable risk to ban docking in order to find out,you may even be right (I doubt it) but you'll never find out whether you and thousands of others are putting your animals through an unnecessary surgical procedure (with all the risks inherent in that)or not until it is banned ... so in short you may care for your dogs and their welfare ... I am in the position of having to care for all of them, and, cruel as you may see it, some may well have to suffer for the lasting benefit of all... it is indeed a dogs life
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
As promised, I have spent the day with many dogs, 99% with docked tails, no dogs were seen with tail damage.
If 99% of them have had their tails removed, doesn't that mean 99% damaged
Whether they are damaged by choice or by accident it has still gone
Dave_Notts
No Dave, it means that an unacceptable 1% have the potential to suffer avoidable injury.
Or indeed G that 99% have already suffered an avoidable injury
Or indeed that 99%, have had a surgical procedure to avoid injury, for the benefit of the dog.
I am sure you will be familiar with other surgical procedures performed, we are told for the benefit of the dog.
We are constantly told that Neutering will make a better and more affectionate family pet. It is a medical fact that in some cases spaying and castration can prolong the life of our pets and may reduce the number of certain health problems in later life.
Females may benefit from spaying by reducing the incidence of uterine, mammary, and ovarian cancers. It can also reduce the incidence of infections such as Pyometra.
Castrating a male dog we are informed reduces the risk of prostrate cancer. This, like many other claims for the benefits of neutering is a total fallacy. In reality castrated dogs have a 4 times greater risk of developing prostate cancer than intact animals. spayed or neutered dogs also have a 1.5 to 3 times greater chance of developing bladder cancer
We are also told that they are less likely to develop unwanted behaviour's such as marking, sexual aggression, and mounting, they are also less likely to escape, roam, or fight with other male dogs. I will accept that these are in some instances correct, castration can help reduce some of these problems.
Some vets recommend that our dogs are spayed or castrated anywhere between 5 to 16 months. In America some are being done as early as 8 weeks and they routinely neuter at between four and six months. Many of the Vets, Trainers and Behaviourists in both America and the UK are recommending this course of action without understanding the numerous problems this advice may create.
Some rescue centre's such as the RSPCA often spay and neuter as a matter of course, whatever the age.
What is the policy at your rescue center?
No responsible rescue would allow an un-spayed or neutered dog to leave their kennels .... this is to prevent further irresponsible breeding not for any health benefits it may or may not bestow upon the animal ... so not for the dog per se more for dogs in general
Sex God
Quote by GnV
As promised, I have spent the day with many dogs, 99% with docked tails, no dogs were seen with tail damage.
If 99% of them have had their tails removed, doesn't that mean 99% damaged
Whether they are damaged by choice or by accident it has still gone
Dave_Notts
No Dave, it means that an unacceptable 1% have the potential to suffer avoidable injury.
Or indeed G that 99% have already suffered an avoidable injury
Sex God
curiously of all the dogs I met over the last weekend only one had an injured tail ... a spaniel with a docked tail
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
I got a proof for ya. Is the insurance premium for a docked dog less than for an intact one? It isnt, therefore the risk reduction is minimal.
I have no idea, but it would seam, if true, that the insurance company also thinks docking help prevent suffering to the dogs. but there is no question on the form I filled out which asks if the dog has had its tail docked
Can you provide any thing to back this up, or is anecdotal?No the insurance company thinks that it will reduce the risk of it having to pay out on tail injuries...it is right,it would also be correct in thinking that leg amputation would reduce the risk of paying out on leg and paw injuries...this does not mean that amputation of either tails or legs is best for the dog
Sex God
Quote by GnV
The fact that some working breeds have always been docked for centuries, for good reason, now seems to be being borne out.
All for preventing animal cruelty, don't get us wrong, just that docking is markedly less traumatic if done at birth rather than years later following injury/trauma and the obvious post-op care required whilst they re-learn walking/running without a tail (which upsets their balance in many cases).
worth revisiting this earlier post Staggs. It's the view to which I subscribe without having had an earlier one tbh.
This like all the other pro docking arguments is predicated on the notion that a tail injury is a near certainty in working dogs and that is quite patently a nonsense
Lets look at Blues' earlier post (or parts thereof)
Dogs with docked tails significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries says Veterinary Record
Dogs with docked tails are significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries, finds research published in this week’s Veterinary Record.
Well no shit... did they also discover that castrated dogs were less likely to suffer testicular torsion ??
Among the 138,212 dogs seen by vets at the 52 practices during the study period, 281 were treated for a tail injury.
Well there's a nice positive figure it's obvious to me now that non docked dogs are an absolute shoe-in for a tail injury. I would refer you to the fact that 100% of animals with docked tails have suffered a tail injury at the request of their owner
The owners of 224 of these injured dogs, as well as a random sample of 799 owners whose dogs had not been treated for tail injury were sent a questionnaire on dog tail injuries and docking.
Only 97 of the owners whose dogs needed treatment and 227 of those whose dogs had not been injured replied.
So now we have a huge sample of 97 dog owners ... these figures are it would seem positively definitive
But their responses indicated that around one in three tail injuries (36%; 35 cases) had occurred at home as a result of the dog knocking its tail against a wall, kennel wall or other household object.
A further 17.5% (17 cases) were sustained outdoors, while 14.4% (14 cases) were caused by the tail being caught in a door. In 15 (15.5%) other causes were cited; and in 16 (16.5%), the cause was unknown. Almost half of the injuries (44%) were recurrent.
Over half the cases were treated with drugs and dressings, but in almost one in three cases, amputation was required. Eleven dogs did not need any treatment.
So from an original sample of 138,212 dogs we come to a grand total of dogs who needed a tail amputation... with figures like that Andrew Landsley would be arguing that all women should have double mastectomies at the age of 18 to prevent breast cancer
Blue you may well believe you are acting in the best interests of your dog and that your motives have no financial basis....
The original owner of the three legged springer I mentioned earlier (his name is Tyler)loved his dog and worked him ,when the dog broke his leg he had the vet set it in the hope it would heal and he would be able to work this was shown not to be the case he contacted N.E.S.S.R. and issued an ultimatum 'take this dog or I will shoot it,he's no use to me if he can't work',they/we took Tyler and one of our members adopted him and spent a large amount of his own money on vets fees (Tyler is now uninsurable)to try and save the leg, when this proved to be impossible he spent more to have the leg amputated Tyler is now a happy and (albeit three legged) healthy dog ... now whilst this may or may not have any bearing on the debate in hand it does go a long way to explaining the mindset of many who own and use working dogs (I am not suggesting it is one you share Blue)A working dog is to many who own and use them no more than a tool and if it breaks it is discarded,I will never believe that this is the case ( and I believe it or not am in no way sentimental about animals)
I would suggest to you Blue that the reason you have your animals tail docked is no more than it is the norm in the culture you are a part of ... much the same as your previously stated preference for certain headgear... if you actually have some concrete evidence for the benefits of tail docking I would love to see it but thus far your have presented nothing more than you belief that it is better
Sex God
Quote by GnV
a dog is a dog is a dog Staggs.
I don't have one but did many many years ago. She was a labrador.
she injured her paw once on a family walk through the woods. We weren't hunting, or beating or anything like that but nonetheless, she injured her paw. Dogs go roaming about and get into difficulties.
Before you ask, she didn't have her paw amputated but I can see where Blue is coming from on this. You expose your dog to risks by walking it down the street near your home. You are duty bound imho to do what you can to minimise the possibility of injuring it.
In our case, we took her choke chain off in the woods or other open areas so she might not be strangled if it (the choke chain) got caught on a fence, tree branch - whatever. The paw injury was probably as a result of some mindless moron breaking a glass bottle, or something similar. It didn't matter at the time.
Some dogs are working animals. That's what they are bred for. There is no escaping that fact.
Docking a working dog's tail so that it is not injured in circumstances where the risk is high that it might is an act of sensibility, not cruelty.
You are not now going to persuade me to an alternate view. Sincere apologies.
And I would ask where the figures are that show that the risk of injury is high ... I don't object to people working their dogs ...I object to them using that as an excuse to make a financial choice to dock the dogs tail and prevent the POSSIBILITY of higher vets bills to treat any POSSIBLE future injury ... if you are going to dock your animals tail admit to yourself at least why you're really doing it
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
Why would I wish to be cruel to my dog?
are you saying then blue that your dog felt nothing when its tail was cut off? nothing afterwards either?
if it did then sorry that is cruelty.
Sorry you are incorrect
It had local anesthesia, pain would be minimal, far better than the pain suffered every time she works if it is not done, culminating in an operation in adulthood, far more painful and dangerous
So Blue your logic is ... I will cause my dog pain because what I am going to train it to do will (and I doubt that this is a certainty) cause it pain... The solution Blue if you truly wish to prevent your dog suffering any pain is to not use it to flush game
What you're actually doing is gambling on the possibility that your animal may injure it's tail
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Does anybody know the proportion of dogs and people who do not hunt that are injured in hunting accidents ?? as spurious statistical arguments go I'd suggest this is a good one for banning hunting ... what do you think ??
No more so than banning the sale of matches because they are used to light fires....
Or perhaps even docking a dogs tail because it might injure it
Sex God
Does anybody know the proportion of dogs and people who do not hunt that are injured in hunting accidents ?? as spurious statistical arguments go I'd suggest this is a good one for banning hunting ... what do you think ??
Sex God
Quote by GnV
I assume you mean these reasons Blue .... so a small number of dogs sustain tail injuries whilst working (a very small number) therefore all working dogs should have their tails docked .... a small number of dogs break their legs whilst working (leading to amputation) should all dogs then have their legs amputated as a precaution??
Blue I am a trustee of a dog rescue and have just returned from the N.E.S.S.R. Easter dog show (that's a Springer rescue organisation of which I am a member ) I do have a little knowledge myself ... and in my experience the docking of tails when argued down to the core, boils down to 'they just don't look right with tails'
What a totally ridiculous comparison, if I may say. Most unlike you Staggs...
I have spent the weekend in the company of a three legged springer ... he broke his leg in a rabbit hole whilst flushing game,he developed an infection in the bone which made amputation necessary,as I said a small number of dogs break their legs a small number of dogs injure their tails,tail docking is in the vast majority of cases an unnecessary mutilation
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
if nature wanted certain dogs not to have a tail , then nature would have intervened. i find it a horrid practise in any circumstance to remove a dogs tail.
I would agree with the sentiment, but there is good reason, based in my view on animal welfare grounds to dock a small amount of tail on certain breeds.
Dogs with docked tails significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries says Veterinary Record
Dogs with docked tails are significantly less likely to sustain tail injuries, finds research published in this week’s Veterinary Record.
Among the 138,212 dogs seen by vets at the 52 practices during the study period, 281 were treated for a tail injury.
The owners of 224 of these injured dogs, as well as a random sample of 799 owners whose dogs had not been treated for tail injury were sent a questionnaire on dog tail injuries and docking.
Only 97 of the owners whose dogs needed treatment and 227 of those whose dogs had not been injured replied.
But their responses indicated that around one in three tail injuries (36%; 35 cases) had occurred at home as a result of the dog knocking its tail against a wall, kennel wall or other household object.
A further 17.5% (17 cases) were sustained outdoors, while 14.4% (14 cases) were caused by the tail being caught in a door. In 15 (15.5%) other causes were cited; and in 16 (16.5%), the cause was unknown. Almost half of the injuries (44%) were recurrent.
Over half the cases were treated with drugs and dressings, but in almost one in three cases, amputation was required. Eleven dogs did not need any treatment.
Certain breeds seemed to be more at risk, with springer and cocker spaniels almost six times as likely to sustain a tail injury as labradors and retrievers
Pros and cons
I assume you mean these reasons Blue .... so a small number of dogs sustain tail injuries whilst working (a very small number) therefore all working dogs should have their tails docked .... a small number of dogs break their legs whilst working (leading to amputation) should all dogs then have their legs amputated as a precaution??
Blue I am a trustee of a dog rescue and have just returned from the N.E.S.S.R. Easter dog show (that's a Springer rescue organisation of which I am a member ) I do have a little knowledge myself ... and in my experience the docking of tails when argued down to the core, boils down to 'they just don't look right with tails'
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
There are no good reasons for docking any dogs tail
I dissagree
What are your reasons ?? non of those you've stated in this thread hold up to examination
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
well Star...I have read the easy bit..which is " at a glance " button on the link you provided......I don't see any of the above....perhaps you could cut and paste the bit...I looked threee times now and don't see it !!!
dean do you reely want me to do all the hard work for you?
what i have stated above are facts within the treaty and are happening everyday because of the treaty. for europe to be able to do the things it does, it must have some kind of legislation behind it, would you not agree dean?
then i am sorry i have done all that you have asked, the harder part obviously is you finding it. the easy bit you have achieved, now see if you can find the hard bits that europe did not want us to see. go on.
I think Dean was asking for evidence of these 'facts' I would be more than a little curious to see some myself
Sex God
It is nice to see that sometimes people are able to see past the propaganda and misrepresentation of the renews my faith in my fellow man .... what next?? an honest assessment of John Prescott ... I wont hold my breath
Sex God
Life without a car is not difficult, it just requires a little more planning
And seconded Ben (not sure I've missed the curmudgeon too much though
)
And seconded Ben (not sure I've missed the curmudgeon too much though
) Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
Personally not bothered about the rights and wrongs of this situation for both sides, but I have checked the long term dry food stock in my cellar, topped up on my fresh water supplies and increased my stock of everything to get me through a period of "unavailabiliy"
hmmmmm let me guess mids.
you have 100 jerry cans worth of fuel in your garage " just in case ".
dont you think you are over reacting just a wee bit
no wonder our petrol stations run out, as the old British can be a bit paranoid at times. :doh:
not a strike in sight for fuel and we are behaving as though it is the end of the world, and obviously some peeple think the end of the world could possibly be nigh. where is the swoon emotion again?
Sex God
Quote by Max777
No idea why you quoted me Midscouple as I said absolutely nothing about building anywhere. My comment was about Gulson's non sensical claim that the population of Europe is contracting.
As an aside and by way of clarification ... the figure I found is from 2010 and is for a net growth of % (this includes those migrating to the E.U.) Given how small a number this is I'm sure that different readings of the statistics give negative and positive growth rates.
Sex God
Quote by flower411
As a fellow P.E. reader HnS you know as well as I do that this is common knowledge and has been for a good while .... nice to see a proper bit of public spirited journalism for a change though,and always a pleasure to see horsey Dave with egg on his face
No need to read Private Eye to understand how things work. I`d say it`s simply common sense.
Could somebody tell me why else an individual or company would donate six figure sums to a political party ?
It would certainly appear naive to suggest that they do it on the off chance that they`ll receive some advantage. If I was handing over a quarter of a million quid, I`d certainly want assurances that I was getting something in return. But then I wouldn`t be handing over that kind of money to a politician, I`d give it to someone with some power !
As to the public spirited journalism ! It`s all just a smoke screen giving the voting public the impression that they can affect things at the ballot box.
No but they do give you a good idea of the tariff
Sex God
Quote by Ben_Minx
Oh dear .... no privatised industry offers better service or better value for money than it's nationalised predecessor... I mean you don't even have to look very hard to see that :doh:
I would suggest that BT did and does a far better job than Post Office Telephones did or would.
I must in that case assume you are not and have never been a customer of BT
Sex God
Oh dear .... no privatised industry offers better service or better value for money than it's nationalised predecessor... I mean you don't even have to look very hard to see that :doh:
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
The Govt wont be happy until they control every aspect of our existence, they want us tucked up in our homes in an evening where they can snoop on our internet actvity, monitor our mobile phone calls and see what we're viewing via our subscription services ( sky , virgin ) , they'll know what we're spending our money on via credit ref agency computers talking to their computers, they'll know how much money we have to spend with bank computers talking to their computers and they'll know who we're emailing and what we're discussing.
Higher fuel prices will eventually keep the majority of us at home, just what the Govt ordered.
Some of those responsible for the fuel protests from a few years ago have had their lives picked apart since by way of investigations by Hmrc to keep them busy and presumably out of the way.
Conspiracy theory? possibly but one thing is for sure, something will eventually have to give.
Andy
he knew as he predicted it.
No he didn't .... it's not a prediction it's a satire ffs
Sex God
As a fellow P.E. reader HnS you know as well as I do that this is common knowledge and has been for a good while .... nice to see a proper bit of public spirited journalism for a change though,and always a pleasure to see horsey Dave with egg on his face
Sex God
Fuck 'em I'll organise a riot on twitter and firebomb the lot of them ....
Anyone know how twitter works ???
Anyone know how twitter works ???
Sex God
Quote by Ben_Minx
This land is your land................
I believe that machine kills fascists
