I've seen plenty of dobermans without any hacked off body parts. And I'll tell you, they seem to function better this way(balanced). Who cares what they look like, this is what they were intended to look like. If you're thinking about chopping up your dog because of tradition or because you think it looks cool, ask yourself what the dog would want first.

You're welcome Ben <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Natalie

Mike wrote: "this is what they were intended to look like"?

Mike wrote: "And I'll tell you, they seem to function better this way"

They are intended to look like whatever we breed and alter them to look like. I will also choose to disagree with your opinion that they function better uncropped. I can't see any difference whatsoever.

If you ask me, it's just another reason why GSD'S are so pretty (although the females are much "prettier"}, they look perfect with no modifications whatsoever. Some may argue that certain GSD'S ears get taped, but I've never seen one of proper breeding and tempermant with ears that did not go up.

The longer ears and tail IS in fact what they are intended to look like. Anybody can cut things off they don't like, that's easy. It would be wiser to breed for these kind of traits (erect ears & short tail) than to try & modify the dog yourself. That's cheating.

The functionality with a tail is not my opinion, it's a fact. Any dog, any animal is going to function better being symmetrical & balanced. But the difference may not be something you would notice or care about.

Mike, we get it. I think you have beat it enough. You are against docking a cropping. Good for you!

Are you aware that a dog who is cropped or docked is ALSO symmetrical, unless the vet who did the job cut too much off of one side :rolleyes:

Main Entry: sym·me·try
Pronunciation: 'si-m&-trE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -tries
Etymology: Latin symmetria, from Greek, from symmetros symmetrical, from syn- + metron measure -- more at MEASURE
Date: 1541
1 : balanced proportions; also : beauty of form arising from balanced proportions
2 : the property of being symmetrical; especially : correspondence in size, shape, and relative position of parts on opposite sides of a dividing line or median plane or about a center or axis -- compare BILATERAL SYMMETRY, RADIAL SYMMETRY
3 : a rigid motion of a geometric figure that determines a one-to-one mapping onto itself
4 : the property of remaining invariant under certain changes (as of orientation in space, of the sign of the electric charge, of parity, or of the direction of time flow) -- used of physical phenomena and of equations describing them
----

Thread Closed.

I can understand that someone would disagree with altering dogs based on a moral objection, i.e. it isn't nice to the doggy.

In fact I might even be someone that would agree with that view, but I don't agree when people add bullshit arguments to their moral objections to make them sound more legit. Why can't people just say they think cropping isn't nice to animals and leave it at that? That is a perfectly legitimate argument, one that a lot of people can agree with, or at least respect. The other bullshit is stupid.

Doberman started cropping his dogs as he was breeding them. . .at the formation of his breed. . .he did intend the dogs to be cropped and look like that. . .for a functional reason I might add. Nobody can say that cropped breeds are not intended to be cropped, because most are. Most have been cropped since the first days of the founding of the breeds, and all the working breeds that are cropped are cropped for a functional reason. We bred the dogs, we formed the dogs, we choose what they are too look like, and almost all the breeds that are cropped are intended to be be that way.

Also making a statement that cropping affects the physical functionality of the dog, AND saying that it is a FACT, is also bullshit. A fact is something that has been proven. Cropping affecting the functionality of the dog is an opinion till' the day someone proves it scientifically. I have yet to see cropped dobie vs. uncropped dobie physical agility tests so it is still an opinion.

An opinion that I don't agree with. There is some assumption that dogs use their tails for balance and quickness in turning, etc. . .but I don't think the loss of the tail really has any impact on the dogs ability. Other than tail wagging, it is my opinion they don't loose a whole lot. You might also agree if faced with a nice working Dobermann who doesn't like you. The missing tail isn't going to keep him from eating yer nutz. . .

Opinion <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />