Labour has found something else to ban
Discussion
Fulfilling their quota for this week they have decided to ban docking of dog's tails for ALL dogs, including working dogs.
Telegraph said:
Fury over move to ban docking of dogs' tails
By Charles Clover Environment Editor
(Filed: 19/01/2006)
Countryside groups and dog breeders were in uproar last night after the Government announced in a U-turn that it would now support a full ban on docking the tails of dogs.
The ban will affect 58 traditionally docked breeds listed by the Kennel Club in England, including the Queen's Pembroke Welsh Corgis, whose tails are docked.
Docking is presently undertaken by a veterinary surgeon before a puppy's eyes open to prevent future damage to the tail.
Ben Bradshaw, the animal welfare minister, indicated after listening to the opinions of MPs in the Commons committee considering the Animal Welfare Bill that he would be introducing a statutory instrument banning the practice of docking at the Second Reading of the Bill.
In doing so he went back on his undertaking in the autumn, when the Bill was published, that the Government's preference was to maintain freedom of choice and not intervene because "sincere views were held for and against".
Mr Bradshaw told the Commons: "Going by the balance of opinion in the committee, we would bring forward a statutory instrument... which would implement a full ban on the tail docking of dogs."
Mr Bradshaw gave the Government's support for an unmodified ban despite support by a member of his own party on the committee, Paddy Tipping, who wants an exemption for working dogs. More than 90 per cent of vets have been in favour of a ban on the practice of docking and they have been supported by an alliance of animal welfare groups.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it would be launching a consultation on the total ban.
Countryside bodies said the decision was another assault upon the traditional practices of the countryside by a Government that had already allowed a botched attempt to ban foxhunting on to the statute book.
Simon Clarke of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation said: "This has dreadful animal welfare implications for upwards of 100,000 working gun dogs.
"Evidence from Sweden after there was a ban shows that 35 per cent will sustain an injury in the first two years. It is traumatic for the dog and can lead to amputation later in life.
"A small amendment in the Commons allowing docking for working dogs could save an awful lot of unnecessary suffering. We are struggling to comprehend why this has been done."
Graham Downing of the Council of Docked Breeds said: "Dog breeders are furious about the proposed ban on tail docking. They have been custodians of their breeds for generations. Tail damage does not just occur in the working field. It can occur in any situation. The breeds themselves will suffer and some people will simply stop breeding."
ing Labour townie shites. They want the traditional Factory Floor of the Country - our rural areas to be turned into some giant Countryside Theme Park run for the benefit of townies the way townies want it to be done. As a country we can't even feed ourselves any more - which means food has to be imported from
Peru in airliners spewing shite into the upper atmosphere instead of being dragged down the hill from the farm to the nearest shop. Our world is mad. Time the Country got back to feeding Britain and being left alone to do it how they see fit.
They ban because they can.
To quote Jesse Ventura whilst dispensing some 'Alibammee ticks' via rocket launcher, this minister exhibits all the usual traits one might ordinarily associate with a (and I quote) "Goddam slack-jawed faggot!"
It really is time Billy & Co were 'taken out...'
Lunacy.
To quote Jesse Ventura whilst dispensing some 'Alibammee ticks' via rocket launcher, this minister exhibits all the usual traits one might ordinarily associate with a (and I quote) "Goddam slack-jawed faggot!"
It really is time Billy & Co were 'taken out...'
Lunacy.
omohat said:
Why is it better for working dogs to have their tails docked? Not being difficult or anything, just curious thats all.
So they don't get tails snagged in undergrowth etc, also helps with rear end hygiene. Allegedly. Another theory was that it stops them chasing their tails. Absolute b
ocks my spaniel used to chase his docked stump anyway. M2PWMany breed of working, and other, dogs have very narrow and whip like tails. The have little fur covering and almost no flesh and are therefore very vulnerable to damage, from brambles, barbed wire, fences, hedges, etc, etc, etc. These injuries can cause great discomfort to the dog and many lead to infection and eventual amputation anyway. It has been common practice, for many generations, for certain breeds to have there tails docked, cut down to, normally, 1/3 of the original length early in life to prevent any problems in the future. The practice of docking tails for purely cosmetic reasons is another issue and one that should be dealt with separately. This is another instance of a large Nu Labia hammer being used to fix a, working, clock!
staceyb said:
I'm all in favour of working dogs having their tales docked, but not dogs from a working breed who are pets having their tales docked.
As I understand it the docking of the tail is done for certain breeds as health benefit. Same as circumcision on blokes.
Myself I wouldn't choose to be circumcised...but since its done when you're a baby its the parents who make the choice...not the bloke.
Personally I don't think the state should interfere with what the owners decide is the best course of action for their particular dog when their a puppy.
Do you think its right for the state to interfere with the parents' decision to have their son circumcised?
puggit said:
Do you think its right for the state to interfere with the parents' decision to have their son circumcised?
Naaah. Its too obviously anti-semitic. It just ain't PC - so it won't happen.
My point is that its irrational to allow one thing and not the other - and that state interference is just that - interference based on some strange judgemental fluffy-animal fetish - rather than genuine concern for the wellbeing of dogs.
Me - I love dogs - and if doggy experts (like the Kennel Club etc) - tell me something is good for a dog I'm inclined to give some credence to their views over that of government busybodies.
Don said:
I'm all in favour of working dogs having their tales docked, but not dogs from a working breed who are pets having their tales docked.
As I understand it the docking of the tail is done for certain breeds as health benefit. Same as circumcision on blokes.
Myself I wouldn't choose to be circumcised...but since its done when you're a baby its the parents who make the choice...not the bloke.
Personally I don't think the state should interfere with what the owners decide is the best course of action for their particular dog when their a puppy.
Do you think its right for the state to interfere with the parents' decision to have their son circumcised?
But where does that stop? Oh I can pierce my dogs ears cos its my dog, or my dogs doesn't need its ears and they might get caught.
staceyb said:
I'm all in favour of working dogs having their tales docked, but not dogs from a working breed who are pets having their tales docked.
As I understand it the docking of the tail is done for certain breeds as health benefit. Same as circumcision on blokes.
Myself I wouldn't choose to be circumcised...but since its done when you're a baby its the parents who make the choice...not the bloke.
Personally I don't think the state should interfere with what the owners decide is the best course of action for their particular dog when their a puppy.
Do you think its right for the state to interfere with the parents' decision to have their son circumcised?
But where does that stop? Oh I can pierce my dogs ears cos its my dog, or my dogs doesn't need its ears and they might get caught.
Nothing personal - but you haven't answered my question. And the parallel is very exact. This is something done for the dog's benefit - NOT for some cosmetic fancy.
I'd understand if they said there should be a ban on shaving poodles - its more rational and logical - but equally silly.
Remember - they cut bullocks bollox off at a young age. No-one seems to be objecting to THAT. Completely irrational.
We have a Weimeraner and she was docked as a pup (as are the vast majority of the breed).
Breed standard states:
Tail: Customarily docked so that the remaining tail covers scrotum in dogs and vulva in bitches. Thickness of tail in proportion to body, and should be carried in a manner expressing confidence and sound temperament. In longhairs tip of tail may be removed.
People want dogs that are standard (ie a healthy, correct specimen of the breed).
Are the government going to force the Kenel Club to change the breed standards?
Breed standard states:
Tail: Customarily docked so that the remaining tail covers scrotum in dogs and vulva in bitches. Thickness of tail in proportion to body, and should be carried in a manner expressing confidence and sound temperament. In longhairs tip of tail may be removed.
People want dogs that are standard (ie a healthy, correct specimen of the breed).
Are the government going to force the Kenel Club to change the breed standards?
Don said:
As a country we can't even feed ourselves any more - which means food has to be imported from
Our world is mad. Time the Country got back to feeding Britain and being left alone to do it how they see fit.
Agree with all that but I think Labour would really rather see the countryside completely built over - Labour is the party of the urban sprawl, of the ghettos and the sink estates. They don't want anyone educated to live beyond a basic standard of burger-flipping mediocrity. I hate Labour to the very core of my being.
Don said:
I'm all in favour of working dogs having their tales docked, but not dogs from a working breed who are pets having their tales docked.
As I understand it the docking of the tail is done for certain breeds as health benefit. Same as circumcision on blokes.
Myself I wouldn't choose to be circumcised...but since its done when you're a baby its the parents who make the choice...not the bloke.
Personally I don't think the state should interfere with what the owners decide is the best course of action for their particular dog when their a puppy.
Do you think its right for the state to interfere with the parents' decision to have their son circumcised?
But where does that stop? Oh I can pierce my dogs ears cos its my dog, or my dogs doesn't need its ears and they might get caught.
Nothing personal - but you haven't answered my question. And the parallel is very exact. This is something done for the dog's benefit - NOT for some cosmetic fancy.
I'd understand if they said there should be a ban on shaving poodles - its more rational and logical - but equally silly.
Remember - they cut bullocks bollox off at a young age. No-one seems to be objecting to THAT. Completely irrational.
I think that unless there is a medical reason baby boys shouldn't be circumcised. Same for the dogs.
Like I said earlier dogs that actually work I have no problem with them having their tails docked. Its the people who have their dogs tails docked when all they would be doing is prancing around a show ring - exactly the same as the poodle.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff