"I want one with a tail"

time lord

I was in my local pound today. A man came in looking for a small dog for a female relative. It could of been his daughter but he elaborated no further.
The warden took him out back to view the stock. After about 5_10 mins they came back in and midd conversation the man said that the terrier was ideal only he has to have a tail.
The mans sole rejection of the impounded dog was that, the dog had not got a full tail.
It's rare that I'm speechless but I was.

SillyMangoX

It's good to see people are finally accepting that terriers should not have docked tails, but to refuse to rescue one for that reason alone is just sad

kylith

I'd reject one with a cropped tail from a breeder, but not from a pound. Poor dog.

Gumbi

The man owes nothing to the dogs in the pound. He's entitled to choose a dog of his liking, I don't see the big deal. Sure, it's sad, but that's not the man's fault.

elusiveguy

True, he owes the dog nothing but its not a great reason to make what is, probably, a life or death decision for the dog....

Dunny

A dogs tail should not be docked.

Gumbi

elusiveguy wrote: »

True, he owes the dog nothing but its not a great reason to make what is, probably, a life or death decision for the dog....

Huh? But he doesn't want that kind of dog, it's not his problem. Like I said, sad, but irrelevant. You are asking to apply the same logic to someone who doesn't have a dog, and that it's sad that they don't get one from the pound to prevent a death.

Gumbi

Dunny wrote: »

A dogs tail should not be docked.

Again, true, but irrelevant.

aN.Droid

What about the dog that he will find eventually that he likes? He is saving that dog.

At least this man is actually attempting to foster a dog in need.

Whispered

Maybe he's so against docking that walking a dog with a docked tail would be totally against his ethics. If he feels that having a dog with a docked tail normalises it for other people who would see them out walking then maybe he feels he'd be doing more harm than good in the long run.

I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable having a docked dog, it wouldn't put me off a rescue (It would a breeder) but I can understand why he might feel that way.

Gumbi

Whispered wrote: »

Maybe he's so against docking that walking a dog with a docked tail would be totally against his ethics. If he feels that having a dog with a docked tail normalises it for other people who would see them out walking then maybe he feels he'd be doing more harm than good in the long run.

I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable having a docked dog, it wouldn't put me off a rescue (It would a breeder) but I can understand why he might feel that way.

I agree with your thinking, but it's irrelevant really. I think it's borderline ridiculous that the OP has an issue with this to be honest.

Whispered

Gumbi wrote: »

I agree with your thinking, but it's irrelevant really. I think it's borderline ridiculous that the OP has an issue with this to be honest.

It's hardly irrelevant given the thread?

elusiveguy

Gumbi wrote: »

Huh? But he doesn't want that kind of dog, it's not his problem. Like I said, sad, but irrelevant. You are asking to apply the same logic to someone who doesn't have a dog, and that it's sad that they don't get one from the pound to prevent a death.

But he did want that kind of dog, exactly that kind of dog.... It was ideal except for a few inches of tail....

Magenta

Anytime I see a dog with a docked tail, I see a dog who has had an amputation done on it for cosmetic reasons (or shady "health" reasons in the case of hunting breeds), an action that vets are not allowed to perform, and it bothers me. Perhaps this man feels the same and does not want to live with it.

By "shady "health" reasons in the case of hunting breeds" I mean- hunters say that springers, cockers, pointers etc should have their tail docked to prevent injury. If this is the case, why isn't the same procedure done on Labs, retrievers, setters? And if preventing injury by amputating body parts is so important, why are spaniels bred to have long floppy ears that can get caught in things just as easily as their tails could?

time lord

It would be an interesting poll to see who would leave a dog in a pound because it had a docked tail.
I don't think I would be on my own in my view and far from anything borderline I guess I would not stand alone.
Two more were destroyed/pts within 15 mins of that man leaving, terrible waste.

Gumbi

Whispered wrote: »

It's hardly irrelevant given the thread?

Sigh. It seems no-one is understanding what I'm saying. It is irrelevant. Why? The reason the man didn't want the dog doesn't matter, as I said in my first comment. The reason why is clearly stated in my first comment.

Gumbi

time lord wrote: »

It would be an interesting poll to see who would leave a dog in a pound because it had a docked tail.
I don't think I would be on my own in my view and far from anything borderline I guess I would not stand alone.
Two more were destroyed/pts within 15 mins of that man leaving, terrible waste.

Who's to say that the docked tail was the ultimate factor in the deciosion, or merely a tipping point? But I digress, this irrelevant due to my original reasoning...

Whispered

Gumbi wrote: »

Sigh. It seems no-one is understanding what I'm saying. It is irrelevant. Why? The reason the man didn't want the dog doesn't matter, as I said in my first comment. The reason why is clearly stated in my first comment.

I think people do understand what you're saying, you're saying you gave your opinion and anything after that is irrelevant.

Indricotherium

time lord wrote: »

It would be an interesting poll to see who would leave a dog in a pound because it had a docked tail.
I don't think I would be on my own in my view and far from anything borderline I guess I would not stand alone.
Two more were destroyed/pts within 15 mins of that man leaving, terrible waste.

Not if you stuck the poll up on an animal lovers forum like this.

Stick it somewhere that people a little bit closer to the mean might see it and I think you'll find your position marginalised fairly quickly.

Gumbi

Whispered wrote: »

I think people do understand what you're saying, you're saying you gave your opinion and anything after that is irrelevant.

Not really. Not at all actually.

Gumbi

Anything to do with rescuing dogs from pounds is relevant to this thread, of course. What I am saying is, and I quote,

The man owes nothing to the dogs in the pound. He's entitled to choose a dog of his liking, I don't see the big deal. Sure, it's sad, but that's not the man's fault.

Elusivrguy said:

True, he owes the dog nothing but its not a great reason to make what is, probably, a life or death decision for the dog....

While I agreed that it was a nice sentiment, I said that the reasoning for not choosing the dog is irrelevant, as the person in question is under no obligation to choose.

What's not to understand?

kylith

I've seen a couple of ads on The Site Which Must Not Be Named wherein it is claimed that the bitch has bitten off the puppies' tails. I generally get very angry when I see those, but has there actually ever been a case of a bitch doing that?

Gumbi

kylith wrote: »

I've seen a couple of ads on The Site Which Must Not Be Named wherein it is claimed that the bitch has bitten off the puppies' tails. I generally get very angry when I see those, but has there actually ever been a case of a bitch doing that?

WTF?! Doesn't sound right at all, sounds horrible. It may have happened, but I'd say it's certainly not common at all.

Ayla

I don't know why the "irrelevancy" keeps getting mentioned here...I've yet to see why it's irrelevant.

When anyone goes to a shelter they select an animal that fits their criteria. Yes, it may be unfortunate that he chose not to select a dog purely b/c the dog's tail was docked, but it's no more unfortunate having that selection criteria than anything else that is just as much out of the dog's control.

How often would one hear "I want a white/black/brown/spotted/unspotted dog" or "I want a dog that doesn't shed" or "I want a big/small dog", and if they don't find a dog that ticks their boxes then they leave emptyhanded?

It's all selection criteria. As others said at least your man was attempting to rehome a dog instead of going straight to a breeder/puppy farm.

Whispered

Gumbi wrote: »

What's not to understand?

The OP started a thread to discuss something which obviously surprised and upset him or her.

It is relevant to some people who post in this forum.

The OP never suggested the man in question has a responsibility to that particular dog, just that they were shocked at what was said. I assume the thread was started to discuss what others think of the situation. The fact you think the OP's opinion, or anyone's opinion is irrelevant is besides the point. I don't see why you feel the need to quote 3 different posters to tell them that their posts/opinions are irrelevant.

Gumbi

Ayla wrote: »

I don't know why the "irrelevancy" keeps getting mentioned here...I've yet to see why it's irrelevant.

When anyone goes to a shelter they select an animal that fits their criteria. Yes, it may be unfortunate that he chose not to select a dog purely b/c the dog's tail was docked, but it's no more unfortunate having that selection criteria than anything else that is just as much out of the dog's control.

How often would one hear "I want a white/black/brown/spotted/unspotted dog" or "I want a dog that doesn't shed" or "I want a big/small dog", and if they don't find a dog that ticks their boxes then they leave emptyhanded?

It's all selection criteria. As others said at least your man was attempting to rehome a dog instead of going straight to a breeder/puppy farm.

I totally agree. Because of that, I don't think you're understanding me :pac: What I'm saying is that beyond the fact that there is a selection criteria (that is, the criteria itself) it doesn't matter. You may disagree with the selection criteria (as the OP has with the docked tail), but that shouldn't matter. The potential dog owner has a right to choose, and as long as he treats the dog with love and affection he can have whatever the hell criteria he likes.

Gumbi

Whispered wrote: »

The OP started a thread to discuss something which obviously surprised and upset him or her.

It is relevant to some people who post in this forum.

The OP never suggested the man in question has a responsibility to that particular dog, just that they were shocked at what was said. I assume the thread was started to discuss what others think of the situation. The fact you think the OP's opinion, or anyone's opinion is irrelevant is besides the point. I don't see why you feel the need to quote 3 different posters to tell them that their posts/opinions are irrelevant.

See my previous posts. Thread is completely open for discussion about it, I was just proposing that really the main issue is the OP's approach as opposed to the specific situation

Magenta

I guess at the end of the day, is choosing a dog based on whether or not it has a full tail, any different to choosing one dog because it's a nicer colour, or another because it sheds less, all other things being equal? None of these things are things the dog can help. Just throwing that out there!

mosi

time lord wrote: »

It would be an interesting poll to see who would leave a dog in a pound because it had a docked tail.
I don't think I would be on my own in my view and far from anything borderline I guess I would not stand alone.
Two more were destroyed/pts within 15 mins of that man leaving, terrible waste.

When I got my girl from the pound, she had a docked tail that had not been clear in the pictures. It didn't even register to not to take her because of that.
To turn down a rescue dog because it has been docked is just as superficial as wanting a docked tail from a breeder. I get the feeling that the man didn't have ethical considerations about docking - it would be a strange logic seeing as the rejected dog could be facing a death sentence...a dog that is already docked is better off dead? It was probably either an excuse, or he didn't like being able to see the dog's bum in the absence of a tail (I've heard this from people before with regard to dogs that have high set tails:()

Gumbi

mosi wrote: »

When I got my girl from the pound, she had a docked tail that had not been clear in the pictures. It didn't even register to not to take her because of that.
To turn down a rescue dog because it has been docked is just as superficial as wanting a docked tail from a breeder. I get the feeling that the man didn't have ethical considerations about docking - it would be a strange logic seeing as the rejected dog could be facing a death sentence...a dog that is already docked is better off dead? It was probably either an excuse, or he didn't like being able to see the dog's bum in the absence of a tail (I've heard this from people before with regard to dogs that have high set tails:()

The potential owner is under no obligation to get the dog, and as such it follows that for that very reason, the reason behind the choice doesn't matter (provided the dog's interests are to the fore).

ISDW

kylith wrote: »

I've seen a couple of ads on The Site Which Must Not Be Named wherein it is claimed that the bitch has bitten off the puppies' tails. I generally get very angry when I see those, but has there actually ever been a case of a bitch doing that?

We had a rescue litter born and one of the pups only had half a tail from birth, looked like it had been docked.