Leaving tails on traditionally docked breeds and showing them in AKC conformation...

[Megaladon]

I think the breed has a lot to do with how they handle injuries. For example, my Dobes ear leather was super thin, got injured very easily and bled etc…and I can see how if they had dewclaws, they’d be gone from running through the woods.

Now the English Mastiff however, keeps their dewclaws and they seem to be quite attached to the foot. My dog tears through the woods, romped really rough with other dogs and never lost her dewclaw/s. Their ear leather is super thick, infact, my dog has a scar in it from her sister (puppy teeth) that would have no doubt lacerated a Dobes ear, but she just had a mild reaction.

These are both considered working dogs but as you can see, they hold up different. Considering the Beauceron has a double dewclaw that is not removed, is a herding breed, I wonder how their dewclaws hold up. They are also a breed that is cropped or can be left natural.

[RHdobes563]

Tried to see this dog in person today, but the place was closed…

http://www.petfinder.com/petdetail/21055945

I would also like to check out this girl…

http://www.petfinder.com/petdetail/20999828

And since these two are halfway between…

http://www.petfinder.com/petdetail/21059686

http://www.petfinder.com/petdetail/21059460

[gloriginger]

coming from an agility competitors point of view, dew claws in front have proven to be an important part of the dogs body as it helps them to balance when turning after a jump- many dogs without their front dews suffer from front end injuries. Tails also aid in the balance over jumps, through weaves and when climbing. It is often said that the Aussie would beat the Border collie if they only had thier tails…
Corgi’s in agility often suffer from front shoulder injuries, as well as back injuries because of their long body, short leg conformation.
A good friend of mine has a pembroke with a tail- unlike her other corgi’s, she is able to swim. She loves her big fluffy tail and she lets you know it.

I personally would not get a dog with a docked tail-seems to me it is an important part of the body and helps them function in ways they would not be able to without the tail & I need a dog that can swim- and swim well.

I do believe in removing the hind dew claws is a wise choice, as they often will rip off and cause much more pain in the long run.

There are a lot of things that conformation showing encourages that I think is unhealthy for the breeds, the weight they carry is another issue- anyone checked out the labrador ring recently- they are obese. There is one that competes in agility and has to jump 2 jump heights lower because he is so fat he can’t really get over the jumps- is that really showing the breed in the best light?

IDK- to each their own.

[lauriep]

[QUOTE=wendy;5878401]
actually it “boils down” to the law- many countries have decided that cosmetic surgery is inhumane and have simply banned it. The breed standards then become rather irrelevant, as do “personal preferences” as to whether you want to subject your puppy to unnecessary surgery or not. Not like you can easily hide the fact you had your puppies ears sliced off, and it might become rather hard to find a skilled vet willing to risk their license just to perform unnecessary surgery on your pup.
Eventually the US will catch up in humanitarian terms and also ban cosmetic surgery. If the breeders/ breed organizations plan ahead they can start breeding now for acceptable natural ears and tails. It’s only a matter of time.[/QUOTE]

And most of the countries who have “decided” this run in fear of the AR people. It wasn’t unbiased research that decided this. It was an agenda, pure and simple. And it is headed our way.

[Kryswyn]

Gloriginger said:

coming from an agility competitors point of view, dew claws in front have proven to be an important part of the dogs body as it helps them to balance when turning after a jump- many dogs without their front dews suffer from front end injuries.

WHAT??? I have no idea what you’re basing this on, except perhaps anecdotal stories. Dew claws have NOTHING to do with balance. They don’t hit the ground, they are not weight bearing and if ANYTHING they would be a speed hindrance as they would catch the wind.

I have a friend who’s bred champion Welsh Terriers for years, always removing their dew claws and she has put MANY agility titles on her own dogs as well as dogs who’ve competed at the National finals with their new owner. She has never had a front end injury attributed to a dew claw. Of course she also makes sure her dogs are properly conditioned and well schooled, and runs her courses so her dogs don’t have to make impossible turns.

As far as tails helping to balance a dog, I’ll agree with that IF, and I mean IF the dog has always had it. A dog that is docked or born w/o a full length tail grows up learning to balance with what its got. If you take a border collie, and amputate its tail for medical reasons when it’s several years old, yes, that dog is going to have a problem with balance but will eventually adapt to its new conformation. Jack Russells are very competitive in agility and their tails are docked. BTW I know a border collie with a tail that competed in Agility but never really did well. All the tail in the world wasn’t going to stop her not picking up her hind end enough and trying to turn so quickly in the air that she would take down the top bar with her chest.

[gloriginger]

@Kryswyn;5881582

Gloriginger said:

WHAT??? I have no idea what you’re basing this on, except perhaps anecdotal stories. Dew claws have NOTHING to do with balance. They don’t hit the ground, they are not weight bearing and if ANYTHING they would be a speed hindrance as they would catch the wind.

well for starters, you can read this article by Chris Zink one of the most well known and respected vets who has researched agility dogs and written numerous articles and books on lameness and conditioning of agility dogs:

http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/documents/dewclaws-injury.pdf

As far as the tails, they very much help the dogs in weaving through the poles, and if you’d like, I can get you in touch with someone that will discuss this with you at great lengths and very specifically why a tail assists a dog in their ability to weave faster and more effectively, this gentleman has won the 60 pole weave challenge several times with his border collies.

[gloriginger]

and here is one more for you:

http://www.caninesports.com/DewClawExplanation.pdf

[irkenequine]

Board certified too? Bangin’! That article is an interesting read. The only form of cosmetic surgery I’m 100% fine with is rear dewclaw removal…honestly hadn’t given much thought if people had the front ones removed or even messed with them. I never considered them a hindrance at all compared to the backs, but I didn’t think of them as having benefits either.

[Kryswyn]

Gloriginger, thank you for the link to the article. It was an interesting read. Although I will point out that the initial injury that sparked the doctor’s interest was a dog jumping on rain slick turf, which can be just as dangerous for the handlers.

He may have a point that during the gallop the dewclaw can grip the ground during a turn, probably why dewclaws get ripped off (and hence, in my book a better reason to remove them). While his findings about arthritic changes are intriguing, even he admits that removing the dewclaw MAY contribute to eventual arthritic changes not DOES.

What this article brings home to me is that what Agility started out as (a course of natural obstacles navigated to have fun with your dog) has become a highly competitive sport where it’s all about the titles and drilling, drilling, drilling ESPECIALLY on weave poles, which unlike every other obstacle has NOTHING to do with a dog’s actual life. Face it, without weave poles, almost everydog would have a qualifying score almost every time. They’re just there to be a decider. If handlers didn’t have to drill them all the time, there would be fewer dog injuries. And the 50 weave competitions. Just how stupid is that? Those are all about the handler wanting to win. God bless the dogs who try to please their handlers by doing those. Watch how many dogs fail on the weaves, and tell me if you think the dog is really enjoying the weaves.

For the record, I showed 3 terriers in Agility (who jumped and weaved fine without dewclaws and with docked tails) until a slip on wet grass screwed up my knee, when Agility was just morphing into the overly competitive stuff you see today.

[Kryswyn]

[QUOTE=gloriginger;5881659]
and here is one more for you:

http://www.caninesports.com/DewClawExplanation.pdf[/QUOTE]

I love this one 1) because at the time it was written, he’d only seen 31 dogs, and there was no other common denominator indicated (ie same handler, same venue conditions etc); and 2) because what it says is (paraphrasing) your veterinarian will be happy to take your money over and over again when your dog injures his dewclaws.

I think if dewclaws catch on (pardon the pun) for agility competitors then you’ll see agility breeders leaving on dewclaws for dogs that normally would have them removed. But thousands more dogs will compete without them, and if they end up with arthritis there will be no way of proving it was the dewclaws being responsible, or whether it was over training, or over jumping.

But thanks again for the articles; they presented a new viewpoint to me. I firmly believe that a closed mind is a waste

[gloriginger]

[QUOTE=Kryswyn;5881747]
But thanks again for the articles; they presented a new viewpoint to me. I firmly believe that a closed mind is a waste :)[/QUOTE]

Ha, ha. Sure doesn’t seem that way. Anyway, I don’t really care if you agree with Christine Zink’s (she BTW) research and findings or not. I will continue to believe her research and findings, her bio is not to shabby IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Christine_Zink

You said a lot of very negative and quite frankly warped things about agility that I really don’t have the time or energy to respond to but certainly gives me insight into the amount your mind is open.

But I will say this, agility can be what ever you want to make of it- highly competitive, or a fun thing to do on a weekend with your pooches. And saying that almost every dog would Q almost every time without weave poles is about the stupidest statement I have ever heard.

That’s all, Carry on.

[Emryss]

@Mara;5875419

Not quite the same as docking and cropping, but it’s also perfectly within the rules to show a Poodle without giving it a totally ridiculous haircut. One more example of something that started with practical intentions but was taken to an insane extreme by the dictates of “fashion”.

My very first dog, and one of the best dogs EVER, was a Poodle. It’s really hard sometimes to convince people, particularly men, that Poodles are smashingly wonderful companions for just about anything you want to do with them. They cannot see past those dumb frizzy hairstyles.

Actually - the adult poodle must be shown in the traditional (Continental or English Saddle…but the English Saddle is more popular for dogs with a not-so-good rear, FYI) clips:

"(b) Clip– A Poodle under 12 months may be shown in the “Puppy” clip. In all regular classes, Poodles 12 months or over must be shown in the “English Saddle” or “Continental” clip. In the Stud Dog and Brood Bitch classes and in a non-competitive Parade of Champions, Poodles may be shown in the “Sporting” clip. A Poodle shown in any other type of clip shall be disqualified."

-AKC breed standard

Poodles are an underappreciated breed. They are really very clever, sporty dogs…with or without the topiary.

[Bacardi1]

I agree. Years ago, a neighbor of mine had a pair of snow-white standard-size poodles that were unclipped (but always well groomed). Spectacular dogs in both looks & personality.

[Bluey]

Our poodles went in a puppy clip all their lives, even when showing in obedience.
The only time special clips are necessary is when showing in conformation, where showing is about looks.

[RougeEmpire]

[QUOTE=Emryss;5888949]
Actually - the adult poodle must be shown in the traditional (Continental or English Saddle…but the English Saddle is more popular for dogs with a not-so-good rear, FYI) clips:

"(b) Clip– A Poodle under 12 months may be shown in the “Puppy” clip. In all regular classes, Poodles 12 months or over must be shown in the “English Saddle” or “Continental” clip. In the Stud Dog and Brood Bitch classes and in a non-competitive Parade of Champions, Poodles may be shown in the “Sporting” clip. A Poodle shown in any other type of clip shall be disqualified."

-AKC breed standard

Poodles are an underappreciated breed. They are really very clever, sporty dogs…with or without the topiary.[/QUOTE]

Personally I love the look at a CORDED poodle!
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=corded+poodle&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&biw=1013&bih=614&tbm=isch&tbnid=KxRIJeB0mRIbVM:&imgrefurl=http://www.groomers.net/discus/messages/126/1989.html%3F1188956917&docid=L38kW6TVt2wZnM&w=372&h=500&ei=c0WUTu6ZOMP40gGO-fWNCA&zoom=1

[Hannahsmom]

Back to the OP’s question. In my opinion you can leave the ears and the tail but you will be just point fodder for the other people taking the points. Unfortunately conformation is basically a fashion contest and if you aren’t showing whatever is in fashion, you won’t win. I rarely see dogs with ears or tails on breed they are traditionally cropped or docked win but I’m sure sometimes the non-cropped dogs do. Not sure about non-docked. FWIW, my JRT didn’t have a docked tail. It was fine with me and I liked it but she wasn’t a conformation dog.

[Anne_FS]

If your breed standard does not penalize it, go for it. Simply don’t enter under judges you KNOW won’t look at your dog. If your dog is spectacular, then I’d show under them, too, and make it obvious that you didn’t get the points because of a faulty prejudice on the part of the judge.

I admit that uncropped/undocked Dobies just don’t have the “look of eagles,” imo. I love Dobies, and when making the final choice between Dobermans and GSD for my own self, the final tipping point was the natural tail and ears of the German Shepherd. (Not saying that’s your breed, just giving an example of a breed where the whole purpose of the breed is to look powerful and commanding, and floppy ears & a Labrador tail don’t cut it - lol - so it might be harder there). ETA: Dobe standard says “ears normally cropped” but “tail docked.” Pembroke Welsh Corgis apparently have to be short-tailed, too.

But I see more & more Great Danes with natural ears, and since England went au natural, the USA I think is much more accepting.

When I specialed my beagle years ago, I left her whiskers on. Anathema!! I got such criticism from other people, but the judges put her up just the same. Commented on it, smiled, but put her up. She was a very good dog conformation-wise, and of course an untrimmed dog is not nearly as “shocking” or obvious as docking/cropping, but the point is, if your dog is quality, it should win, and it will win.

Good luck to you!

[Kate66]

[QUOTE=irkenequine;5877432]
I’m going to be blunt and harsh but this is a subject i am so tired of hashing out.

If you’re breeding Dobermans, and you leave the ears and tail natural and it looks like a Coonhound–THEN YOURE BREEDING CRAPPY DOBERMANS. If the only identifier it has is a man-made on added later, then clearly that line is lacking the essence of whats required of that breed.

There are so many dog breeds out there that look intimidating without cropped ears. I don’t buy that people must get their dogs ears cropped for some sort of security measure or pious health precautions of a cut ear on the owners part. :no: It is human aesthetics, period. Which doesn’t make you a bad person–thats part of the reason why we own the breeds we own, why we breed for chrome, abcdefg. I personally just cannot imagine surgically altering my dogs in an invasive way for visual satisfaction.

(which I don’t even know how that will play out over the next 40 years which as I am told by the vets I work with, they no longer even teach cropping in vet school).

We have been able to manipulate dog genes in INCREDIBLE ways over such a short period of time–from Great Danes to Pulis to Chihuahuas to Borozois to Bull Terrier. I have great faith that we could breed upright ears or docked tails into Dobermans/Boxers, whatever if that was TRULY wanted.[/QUOTE]

This totally. I think both practices are inhumane unless there is a true working reason for a dog to be altered.

Why would anyone debark a dog - how is that even possible, what do they do??? I am from the UK. I had never even heard of declawing a cat until I moved to the US. Then again, I had also never heard of a dog being “crated” - bizarre things to do to animals that we purport to “love” so much.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Kate66;5893171]
This totally. I think both practices are inhumane unless there is a true working reason for a dog to be altered.

Why would anyone debark a dog - how is that even possible, what do they do??? I am from the UK. I had never even heard of declawing a cat until I moved to the US. Then again, I had also never heard of a dog being “crated” - bizarre things to do to animals that we purport to “love” so much.[/QUOTE]

That is why I say we need to keep our rights to do what we decide is best for our animals, because not everyone agrees what is good animal management.

We have already decided we are going to use animals.
We have already decided where the abuse line is, what is proper basic care and what is unacceptable, abusive practices.

Past those basic requirements, how we care for our animals and what we do to do so, that is up for discussion, but that we do have animals and our ways to manage them, that is not inherently abuse.

You bring debarking and crating as examples of how to you, that is appallingly bad animal management when you first encounter those practices.
Then, if you put them in context, you may realize that for some, in some circumstances, maybe debarking and crating is acceptable as, for that owner and dog and their situation, those are letting the owner keep it’s dog.

Now, animal rights proponents are all for banning outright any use of animals by humans because of abuses that may and do happen.
Sure, debarking can be abusesd, crating can be abused, owning animals can be abused, sadly that is true.

My position on this is, animals in this world are part of what makes this world what it is.
All of us happen to evolve as part of a whole system and in that system, animals are to humans one more natural, renewable resource we have made to work for us.
That process of using animals is what made us who we are.

So, we have the concern of all about abuses and we need to define and explain what we do and why.
We have the concern of some that just wants us to quit using animals at all, forget we both have evolved by nature to be used by each other.

In the end, we need to not get on high horses about what others do, but try to understand how that fits in what we do.
Dog fighting is clearly wrong to anyone, serves no purpose and only creates a situation where animals are harmed.

Debarking, in today’s world, for some dogs, may be the difference between staying in their home or ending euthanized in a shelter, a bit harder to make a blank statement about banning debarking.

Crating? Well, to be appalled that so many use crates to confine dogs is a bit like being appalled that humans spend as kids so many hours in a school, or adults in offices, etc.
Sure, that is not ideal, but for the purpose we want, we consider less than ideal acceptable, doesn’t become abuse until it is clearly misused, as would be to keep a dog crated all day and night all their lives, as in some puppy mills.

Every dog I had for the past 30+ years grew up with crate time here and there, until they were adults and no one complained, they love thei crates.
Example, all will go in there to sleep with open doors any time, night or day.
Hard to consider that abuse, I think.

It is good to ask questions and debate issues, makes all better, more informed caretakers, if we learn from the discussions.

[didgery]

[QUOTE=Bluey;5893360]
That is why I say we need to keep our rights to do what we decide is best for our animals, because not everyone agrees what is good animal management.

We have already decided we are going to use animals.
We have already decided where the abuse line is, what is proper basic care and what is unacceptable, abusive practices.

Past those basic requirements, how we care for our animals and what we do to do so, that is up for discussion, but that we do have animals and our ways to manage them, that is not inherently abuse.[/QUOTE]

The problem with this argument is that there is NOT an objective standard for “where the abuse line is,” for “what is unacceptable, abusive practices.” I would absolutely put padding a TWH, disbudding a goat or calf without anesthetic, or cropping a dog’s ears for aesthetics in the “unacceptable, abusive practices” basket but all three are common and legal here in the U.S. There was a time when child labor was legal, where burning one’s wife was legal, and when chaining and whipping a slave was legal. Without the push of concerned, compassionate people against the social standard of “where the abuse line is,” those standards would never have shifted. I hope that animal welfare advocates keep pushing on some of these issues. I realize there are folks who go further—who say I shouldn’t milk my goat or ride my mule—and I don’t know the answer to that dilemma. If riding my mule were made illegal but at the same time I were promised that no more animals would be subjected to the agony of a factory farmed life and death, I’d take that trade.