Theme Layout

Rightsidebar

Boxed or Wide or Framed

Theme Translation

Display Featured Slider

Yes

Featured Slider Styles

Display Grid Slider

No

Grid Slider Styles

Display Trending Posts

No

Display Author Bio

Display Instagram Footer

Dark or Light Style

Search This Blog

Do you Believe in Dog? (2018). Powered by Blogger.

Copyright Do You Believe in Dog (2018)

The content on Do You Believe in Dog? is copyrighted. If you are interested in using any content produced on Do You Believe in Dog? please email a request.

Strap line

It started when two canine scientists decide to become pen pals in an era of digital media...

Translate

Showing posts with label tail docking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tail docking. Show all posts

10 October 2012

Size matters. ‘Specially when it comes to your tail

Size matters. ‘Specially when it comes to your tail


Hello hello Mia!

I'll come back to "cute" next week, but I want to stick with the topic you brought up.


As you mentioned, tail docking and ear cropping regulations differ across the globe. Both practices are common here in the States, but the American Veterinary Medical Association, “encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.”

Even so, docking and cropping are often seen as normal parts of dog pedigree and sometimes built into breed standards:
AKC Boxer Breed Standard: "The tail is set high, docked, and carried upward. An undocked tail should be severely penalized." When it comes to Boxers' ears, they "are customarily cropped, cut rather long and tapering, and raised when alert."
Some might not even notice that this dog was not born this way, that the tail has been docked.

Hello tail!
"But who cares about tails?" some might ask. You mention that "Tails are major communication tools for dogs," but some might wonder, Where's the proof?
The Bark

My latest article in Bark Magazine directly relates to this topic. The article's called, Skin Deep: Looks Do Play A Role In Intraspecies Communication, and you can view the article here. I know it sounds like a face cream advertisement, but it's not. It's about dogs. I promise.

The premise is, "Looks aren’t everything, but they do play a role in communication." Here's an excerpt from the article about tails:

"When researchers went to explore how dogs respond to other dogs’ tails, they pulled out the big guns: a model robot dog resembling a Labrador Retriever. Apart from its tail, the 'dog' was motionless. 

The researchers found that when the robot dog had a long wagging tail, it was approached more than when it had a long still tail, which as you probably assumed, suggests that the tail conveys emotional state, and that wagging is more inviting than not wagging. When it came to short tails, the story changed. There was no difference between how the robot dog with a short/still and a short/wagging tail was approached. It appears that the longer tails were most effective at conveying emotional information, and since short tails are hard to read, they might not be read at all."

Left (short tail); Right (long tail). Leaver, & Reimchen. Behavioural responses of Canis familiaris to different tail lengths of a remotely-controlled life-size dog replica
Tails help dogs assess one another's emotional states and contribute to overall behavioral expression. Tails are not unnecessary add-ons like our appendix.

(For more details about this study, Con Slobodchikoff wrote a longer summary on his Dog Behavior Blog, and the post is accurately titled, Size Of Tail Messes Up Dog Language).

For any skeptics you might know, I too was surprised that a stuffed, robotic dog could offer insights into dog-dog communication. But stuffed animals and robots, particularly those covered in fur, are used in dog behavior research every now and again, and they seem to have good results. 


While tails are not the beginning and end of dog-dog communication, they certainly do contribute to the whole package.

And how is the Sciencerewired conference? I think you are on your way there now. Updates updates!!
http://sciencerewired.org/
Bye for now! 
Julie

References / further reading:

ASPCA Canine Body Language

Hecht, J. Skin Deep: Looks Do Play A Role In Intraspecies Communication, The Bark , September/October 2012.
  
Slobodchikoff, C. Size Of Tail Messes Up Dog Language. Dog Behavior Blog. January 6, 2011 

Kubinyi, E., Miklósi, Á., Kaplan, F., Gácsi, M., Topál, J. & Csányi, V. (2004). Social behaviour of dogs encountering AIBO, an animal-like robot in a neutral and in a feeding situation, Behavioural Processes, 65 (3) 239. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2003.10.003

Leaver, & Reimchen, (2008). Behavioural responses of Canis familiaris to different tail lengths of a remotely-controlled life-size dog replica, Behaviour, 145 (3) 390. DOI: 10.1163/156853908783402894

© Julie Hecht 2012
Continue Reading »
DoYouBelieveInDog
1 Comments

You Might Also Like

8 October 2012

A tail with no end is a sorry tale indeed.

A tail with no end is a sorry tale indeed.


Hey Julie,
What a great topic to bring to the table: that what we, as people, like to see in our dogs, may not always be in the dogs' best interests. Indeed. 

Considering that got me thinking not just about the features we select for when breeding dogs, but also our track record in surgically altering the appearance of dogs through procedures like ear cropping and tail docking, for the purpose of owner satisfaction in how the dog looks.

A postcard used in an RSPCA awareness campaign in Australia.
Don't worry, I'm not going to show a whole lot of disturbing images, but I would like to talk about the role scientific assessment and objectivity can play as a catalyst for change in regards to animal welfare issues

Pauleen Bennett (source)
My PhD supervisor, Pauleen Bennett, founder of the Anthrozoology Research Group and Executive Director and Chair of the Australian Anthrozoology Research Foundation, contributed significantly to ending the stand-off surrounding the issue of 'tail docking' occurring in Australia around ten years ago.

She has bred and shown pure breed dogs, so had contact with people and pure-breed dog associations who were strongly opposed to the calls from welfare organisations and veterinary groups to ban the practice of tail docking in Australia. 

This issue really came to light following anti-docking legislation (except where medically indicated by a vet) being implemented in several Scandinavian and  other European countries in the mid-late 1990's. Several main arguments founded in historic practice and emotive reactions were blocking the cessation of tail docking in Australia. 

Pauleen's review of these issues surrounding tail docking systematically identified and considered the main arguments proposed for continued docking:
  • Maintaining tradition / The breed standard called for a docked tail.
  • The public would not recognise these breeds without their docked tails.
  • The dogs will injure their tails if undocked.
  • The dogs will get dirty tails if undocked.
  • Personal preference (less likely to knock over furniture items, prefer the look, etc.).
Within this paper, she also considered the arguments for ceasing tail docking in the same objective and non-emotive manner.

The objective and informed facts:
  • Tail docking is painful. It was routinely done to young pups (1-5 days old) who are unable to be anaesthetised (too young) and not given pain relief. Young puppies can feel acute pain.
  • Tails are major communication tools for dogs.
  • Tail docking approx. 500 dogs may avoid one tail injury. (To give this some context with a human flavour, approximately 1 in 255 people fracture their arms annually in the USA, but funnily enough, Americans don’t amputate babies’ arms at birth to avoid this.)
  • Some traditions need to be ceased in light of new information and changing societal expectations/norms. 

Pauleen's background is in neuroscience and clinical neuropsychology. What I really admire is that she didn't just stop at presenting this objective consideration of the issues. Her second paper on this topic raised cognitive dissonance theory as a "useful framework within which to understand, and attempt to alter, attitudes that persist even though they appear contrary to available empirical evidence" (Bennett & Perini, 2003b). 

Valuably, she offered a solution to help get everyone on board with the situation.

"By first acknowledging that such people are not cruel or uncaring, but have always acted according to what they genuinely believe to be the best interests of their animals. In possession of evidence to the contrary, but with their self concept intact, such people are well placed to alter community attitudes towards docking, and to take a leadership role in altering the way in which our society perceives animals in general(Bennett & Perini, 2003b).

In 2004, Australia banned cosmetic (not medically indicated) tail docking nationally, making it illegal. Every dog under 8 years old that was born in Australia, should now have its full tail.

Me? Personally, I love seeing Rottweiler, Boxer, Jack Russell, Old English Sheepdog or German Shorthaired Pointer dogs wagging their tails effusively while playing with their other doggy friends and owners.
They look complete to me.

Looking forward to Part 2 of your Superficial series immensely,

Mia

If you'd like to know if cosmetic tail docking and ear cropping are still legal in your country: check the list on Wikipedia here.




References / further reading:

BENNETT, P. & PERINI, E. (2003). Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues, Australian Veterinary Journal, 81 (4) 218. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb11473.x

BENNETT, P. & PERINI, E. (2003b). Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved?, Australian Veterinary Journal, 81 (5) 282. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb12575.x

NOONAN, G., RAND, J., BLACKSHAW, J. & PRIEST, J. (1996). Tail docking in dogs: A sample of attitudes of veterinarians and dog breeders in Queensland, Australian Veterinary Journal, 73 (3) 88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb09982.x

WANSBROUGH, R.K. (1996). Cosmetic tail docking of dogs, Australian Veterinary Journal, 74 (1) 63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb13737.x

Diesel, G., Pfeiffer, D., Crispin, S. & Brodbelt, D. (2010). Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain, Veterinary Record, 166 (26) 817. DOI: 10.1136/vr.b4880

Leaver, & Reimchen, (2008). Behavioural responses of Canis familiaris to different tail lengths of a remotely-controlled life-size dog replica, Behaviour, 145 (3) 390. DOI: 10.1163/156853908783402894


© Mia Cobb 2012
Continue Reading »
DoYouBelieveInDog
1 Comments

You Might Also Like

[name=Do You Believe in Dog?] [img=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih0oTdT87wf4V9ic3qh3r4nwYEQ2IsqFtweaU5RXbfIGujIMEg7n7jBmLq88mM9ZWZZ74jemUA2tK0UDNV-mLf4Mx7UzOEv6FISOcaffwhjDIU-9DgKhUj1VILdKBCInozoneqSXX6_kPP/s100/DYBID3+SPARCS2013.jpg] [description=Do You Believe in Dog? is a popular canine science platform presented by Mia Cobb and Julie Hecht. We think it's important that everyone be able to access and understand the latest canine research.] (facebook=https://www.facebook.com/DoYouBelieveInDog/) (twitter=https://www.twitter.com/doubelieveindog/) (instagram=https://www.instagram.com/mlcobb77/) (instagram=https://www.instagram.com/dogspies/)

Follow @SunriseSunsetBlog