# Dogs



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

Right, I want a Doberman and always have since a child and a fair few folk have said that it's a bad idea for many reasons!

We have 2 dogs at the moment.... King Charles and a staffy bull terrier!

Ive told the missus that I'm fine on waiting a few years till we're a dog less in the household but she keeps getting friends giving there wisdom on dobermans being a bad dog to keep etc!

May I add that my missus is a dog 
walker


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

Dogs are only as bad as the owner we had a Cane Corso mastiff big F'er and everyone was scared shitless of him and he was as
soft as they come, only reason we got rid of him was he just got too big for the house at the time, he went to a 
specialist rehoming place

Blue at Six months










We currently have two springers and we now have a much bigger house so will be getting either a Dorgue De Bordeaux, Bull Mastiff or another Cane Corso

Three gods is a little much though to be honest Kammy and a Doberman can be a little destructive


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

As above, buy a young pup from a good breeder and then its down to the owner to make the dog a gud en 

I have a blue Shar pei and people have many opinions about that breed but i have found her to be amazing and no trouble at all.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

KammyTT said:


> Right, I want a Doberman and always have since a child and a fair few folk have said that it's a bad idea for many reasons!
> 
> We have 2 dogs at the moment.... King Charles and a staffy bull terrier!
> 
> ...


Hi, In my spare time I work as a dog behaviourist/psychologist so if I can help in any way please feel free to ask. Also regarding your friends comments, can you elaborate as to what they mean about dobies being bad dogs.

I have 4 rescue dogs of my own and I also foster dogs with extreme behaviour issues for local rescue centres and I haven't met one yet that can't be turned around with some effort. I am very much of the opinion that there are no bad dogs only bad owners and it's our ignorance of what they need to be balanced that causes their behaviour issues.
You might want to consider rescuing one as rescue kennels are full to the brim with dogs that desperately need help.

Also @ Robokn no dog is destructive because of it's breed.There is always a reason.


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

I know normally boredom


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

Just been told I'm getting a Doberman puppy in march for my birthday 

I've got first dibs so will post up pics


----------



## JorgeTTCQ (May 7, 2002)

A friend of mine have this beautiful doberman, very good dog and very good with children.










(picture of his facebook).

Cheers


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

Clipping the ears was banned years ago! How did he get away with that?


----------



## JorgeTTCQ (May 7, 2002)

Hi Kammy, I don't know, the dog is now four years old I think, and has a good pedigree. If want I can ask my friend 

Cheers


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

Yeh ask him abd key me know, send me a pm


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

Might depend on which country you live in?


----------



## JorgeTTCQ (May 7, 2002)

Yes I think so. My friend told me he bought the puppy on the pet shop in these conditions. Maybe here in Spain is allowed. When I have more details will send a PM.

Cheers


----------



## ViperOneZero (Sep 4, 2008)

lol @ the clipped doberman.. looks like something that a German sentry would patrol with in WW2


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

GunnerGibson said:


> lol @ the clipped doberman.. looks like something that a German sentry would patrol with in WW2


I think it looks rather dashing


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

KammyTT said:


> I think it looks rather dashing


Are you serious? it's mutilation the same as tail docking. How comfortable do you think it is for the dog to live it's entire life unable to lower it's ears? I seriously can't believe you have written that .


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

Now now! I never said I'd ever get it done now did I!

I just said I likes the look! Two completely different things


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

KammyTT said:


> Now now! I never said I'd ever get it done now did I!
> 
> I just said I likes the look! Two completely different things


I understand what you're saying however it's done because of the "look" so I disagree that it's completely different.
In my opinion any dog/animal lover should vehemently disagree with it, it's cruel and traumatic for the animal and saying it looks good is stupid selfish human vanity.


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

Vanity maybe! I agree that docking etc was right to banned! I line how it looks but not what has to be done to achieve it!


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

Docking is still done to working dogs one of my springers is docked and the other has a bleeding tail end most of the year so I can see the reason for it


----------



## jontymo (Dec 31, 2010)

Both my Jacks are rescue, and both have a "hands length" don't know any history on them but think they both might have come from farms.


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

Bung said:


> KammyTT said:
> 
> 
> > Now now! I never said I'd ever get it done now did I!
> ...


Get off your high horse tbh, everyone can like different things and its their right to have it if they want it and can get it. You sound like one of these people that hate zoos and all animals should be free blah blah, no one i know owns a dog they dont like the look of so doesnt that make all dogs just selfish human vanity?


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Danny1 said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > KammyTT said:
> ...


I'm not on any high horse my friend, I deal with abused dogs all the time so it's a sore subject for me. How you get from tail docking and ear clipping to me hating zoos is beyond me but this is the internet and it runs on assumptions so why should you be any different?

Go do some research into how we have bred physical abnormalities into dogs from our desire to change the way they look which causes all sorts of physical and mental pain to them before you continue to spout off ignorant put downs.
Cavalier King Charles spaniels, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, German Shepards are just a few of the breeds that are affected by this.
If you want to criticise me then fine,just do it from a position of knowledge not from one of ignorance.
Your comment about it being peoples rights to "have it if they want it" is indicative of human arrogance towards animals and is among the more stupid comments I have seen on this forum.
I was not talking about people not liking how an animal looked generally so kindly stop putting words in my mouth, I believe I was referring specifically to tail docking and ear clipping for vanities sake.


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

At what point did I say I agreed with it? My opinion is I like the look it achieves! At no point do I say I agree with the means in which the look is achieved do i?

Some people could say that chopping a dogs balls is animal cruelty!!

Explain to me why it isn't?


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

KammyTT said:


> At what point did I say I agreed with it? My opinion is I like the look it achieves! At no point do I say I agree with the means in which the look is achieved do i?
> 
> Some people could say that chopping a dogs balls is animal cruelty!!
> 
> Explain to me why it isn't?


At what point did I say you did agree with it? I said that I disagreed with your contention that liking the look and having it done were two completely different things, they aren't mutually exclusive and you can't have one without the other.In fact I believe I said



Bung said:


> I understand what you're saying


My above post was not aimed at you but in response to Danny, who seems to allude to thinking that we have the right to do whatever we want to animals because we are the almighty superior human race, something that I also disagree with.

With regards to your question about castration, do you mean cruel as in the procedure or cruel as in that they are unable to breed as a result?
My opinion on it is that castration is undertaken out of necessity and not for vanity.We control animal populations this way as in this case they are domesticated and therefore our responsibility. It's very irresponsible not to have your pet castrated/neutered if you don't intend to breed them, rescue kennels all over the country are full to the brim with unwanted pets, and as a result of this hundreds if not thousands are killed every week.

Tail docking on working breeds is again understandable because it's done for the long term health of the animal, tail rot etc,
but as with a lot of things after a while it becomes the norm and accepted. There is no reason for Rottweillers to be docked for example.My issue with this as I have maintained throughout is when it's done to so called "improve the look of the dog"
This is ridiculous,cruel and narcissistic.To view an animal as an extension of your own personal fashion statements is laughable as far as I'm concerned and makes you less than them,selfish,vain and empty.

Some people might say that choosing a breed because of it's looks and supporting the "cool looking" breeds while ignoring the dogs in need who will be killed by us because there are too many is cruel.
Explain to me why it isn't?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> they aren't mutually exclusive and you can't have one without the other.


Yes you can. You can like how it looks, but disagree with the actual practice of doing it, which seems to be what Kammy is saying.

Many people think pierced ears on humans look nice, but they would disagree with doing it against the persons will.


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

Not sure what you mean??


----------



## Amaranth (Aug 13, 2008)

We have three Dobermans (with tails) at our Agility club as well as Lurchers, Weimys, every other breed that can jump a pole and of course Border Collies like my Jones 









They all enjoy it and all have been trained using reward based methods - always do something with your dog as they love a job


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:



> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > they aren't mutually exclusive and you can't have one without the other.
> ...


The point I'm trying to make Spandex which I think you're well aware of is that in order to like the look someone must have done the clipping therefore you cannot have one without the other, if no one has clipped a dogs ear then you cannot like the look.Also your comparison to the human doesn't work, you can communicate with a human to see if said act is against their will, you cannot do that with a dog.

It would have been far easier and would have saved a lot of pointless twoing and froing if the statement "I like the look of a dog that is alert with ears erect" was made. It would also seem that people are generally in agreement that doing it for vanities sake is wrong which I also think you are aware of you, just seem to like jumping in posts and trying to correct people to which end I have no idea.

Also I will say it yet again as you and the rest of the "gang" seem to keep missing it:



Bung said:


> I understand what you're saying


All I disagreed with initially was that it was completely different, I'm allowed to disagree no?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> The point I'm trying to make Spandex which I think you're well aware of is that in order to like the look someone must have done the clipping therefore you cannot have one without the other, if no one has clipped a dogs ear then you cannot like the look.Also your comparison to the human doesn't work, you can communicate with a human to see if said act is against their will, you cannot do that with a dog.
> 
> It would have been far easier and would have saved a lot of pointless twoing and froing if the statement "I like the look of a dog that is alert with ears erect" was made. It would also seem that people are generally in agreement that doing it for vanities sake is wrong which I also think you are aware of you, just seem to like jumping in posts and trying to correct people to which end I have no idea.
> 
> ...


I am well aware what point you're making. I just disagree with it (I'm allowed to disagree no?). You're arguing that you can't separate the aesthetics from the thing that creates them, which isn't true in any other case, so I don't see why it should be true with dogs ears. You choose not to separate them in this case because you feel strongly about it, but it's a choice and not a universal fact.

And I'm not _trying_ to correct people.


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

What if I had put my point across that I liked the look of the Doberman from the Beverly hills films and the like but I'm glad they banned it as I found out years later that it was surgically done!

I mean I still think the guard dogs in the early ninetys films were ace  hence why I put my first comment I think the dog looks rather fetching!

U have strong views on the subject and I don't! This is why I can put across a comment without putting too much thought into it


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> I am well aware what point you're making. I just disagree with it (I'm allowed to disagree no?). You're arguing that you can't separate the aesthetics from the thing that creates them, which isn't true in any other case, so I don't see why it should be true with dogs ears. You choose not to separate them in this case because you feel strongly about it, but it's a choice and not a universal fact.
> 
> And I'm not _trying_ to correct people.


Well I have to disagree with you there, the reason you can't separate the aesthetics from the creation in this case is that the procedure is done without choice or consent. Were a dog able to walk into a salon and ask for it to be done then I would have no problem with it, without the cause there is no effect. I'm not sure I understand what these any other cases you are referring to are, perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate.

I appreciate that you are an educated,articulate,eloquent poster however you seem unable to cut anyone some slack when it comes to opening lines of communication.
Instead you cherry picked a line even though we both knew you understood me by your own admission and come across as somewhat smug.Maybe that's what you are trying to achieve I don't know.



Spandex said:


> And I'm not _trying_ to correct people.


No you're just trying


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> Well I have to disagree with you there, the reason you can't separate the aesthetics from the creation in this case is that the procedure is done without choice or consent. Were a dog able to walk into a salon and ask for it to be done then I would have no problem with it, without the cause there is no effect. I'm not sure I understand what these any other cases you are referring to are, perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate.


We can use your case, as I think it illustrates it perfectly. If a dog was able to walk into a salon and ask to have it done, would the end result look any different? It would look the same, so the aesthetics are the same regardless of the level of constent/cruelty. Your feelings on the cruelty of the procedure influence your view of the aesthetics, but that's after the fact.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > Well I have to disagree with you there, the reason you can't separate the aesthetics from the creation in this case is that the procedure is done without choice or consent. Were a dog able to walk into a salon and ask for it to be done then I would have no problem with it, without the cause there is no effect. I'm not sure I understand what these any other cases you are referring to are, perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate.
> ...


Now I feel that you're trying to make an argument for me,thanks but no thanks. The statement was made, that to like the look of something and to disagree with how it was created are two completely different things. I maintain that you cannot separate cause and effect completely, you can distance yourself from it but without one you cannot have the other this is a universal fact.
I never said that the aesthetics would be different and nor do I believe it. It's not just that I disagree with the cause I disagree with the permanence of the effect. A good example would be vegetarianism, a meat eater will distance themselves from the cause because they like the effect, however there are generally speaking certain meats that people will not eat. The cause is the same the effect is the same but a choice is made to distance oneself from the outcome.
This choice is made based upon knowledge and a moral standpoint.

I could make the statement that I like the look of Adolf Hitler and the whole ss/nazi look with the cool looking swastikas but disagree with the whole fascism ethnic cleansing part.The statement in itself is not unreasonable but morally it conflicts given what we know about history, I can separate them to a degree but not completely because they are inextricably linked.

Do you even have an opinion on this or are you arguing for the sake of it? I suspect it's the latter and you just enjoy that.
If you wish to debate the merits of ear clipping then go right ahead but don't tell me my opinion is wrong, it's based on my own moral code and is unique to me.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> I could make the statement that I like the look of Adolf Hitler and the whole ss/nazi look with the cool looking swastikas but disagree with the whole fascism ethnic cleansing part.The statement in itself is not unreasonable but morally it conflicts given what we know about history, I can separate them to a degree but not completely because they are inextricably linked.


I don't understand how there's any moral conflict there. There's nothing wrong with liking the aesthetic aspects of the nazi image. The only connection between this and what they did is in your mind, so if you choose to see them as connected, you can hardly have a go at someone else who doesn't.



Bung said:


> Do you even have an opinion on this or are you arguing for the sake of it? I suspect it's the latter and you just enjoy that.
> If you wish to debate the merits of ear clipping then go right ahead but don't tell me my opinion is wrong, it's based on my own moral code and is unique to me.


You started this by deciding to tell our village idiot that his opinion was wrong. Maybe it's just your opinion that no one can disagree with.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Spandex said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > I could make the statement that I like the look of Adolf Hitler and the whole ss/nazi look with the cool looking swastikas but disagree with the whole fascism ethnic cleansing part.The statement in itself is not unreasonable but morally it conflicts given what we know about history, I can separate them to a degree but not completely because they are inextricably linked.
> ...


Care to address the whole post? you're cherry picking again. Not sure who the " village idiot" is here but name calling is never nice. As for the the Nazi comparison, history suggests there is a moral conflict by association and all moral connections are contained and originate from the mind so again not sure what you're trying to say.Care to address what I actually mean instead of interpreting it for me?

Once again I'll ask you, do you have a view on ear clipping or are you arguing for the sake of it. I believe I'm trying to answer your posts in their entirety, you however just seem to like the argument and pick a small section and then attempt to drag it where you want it to go. I never said no one can disagree with me, please show me where I did and I will apologise, just add something to the discussion instead of dragging it round and round in circles.

I'm certain of my motivation in all this but have no idea of yours, I wonder why? You say there is nothing wrong with liking the aesthetics of something if you know the method used to create them to be cruel and or morally reprehensible, I disagree. It would seem we are at an impasse.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Bung said:
> ...


I'm cherry picking because I don't want to type massive posts with multiple quotes and answers. The main point here is that I believe that you can (if you choose) separate the aesthetics from the suffering associated with it, so I addressed that point rather than getting drawn into discussing each scenario you put forward (also, I didn't really understand the relevance of the vegetarianism example and you just made massive, and in my opinion incorrect, assumptions about how meat-eaters perceive the food they eat).

I haven't discussed my opinion on ear clipping because I don't see how it's relevant. I disagree with your reaction to a perfectly reasonable post, that's all.

FYI, forum rules state that it's ok to call Kammy names. He's a special exception.

<edit>Oh, and you said no one can disagree with your opinion a couple of posts ago: "don't tell me my opinion is wrong, it's based on my own moral code and is unique to me."


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

It's generally acknowledged that the Nazi Uniforms and graphic design were very good. Hardly surprising when you consider it was Hugo Boss that did the fashion ... doesn't mean that everything the people did in those uniforms was right.

And besides, it's hard to make any point about Hitler and his actions on a forum celebrating the TT when Audi is owned by 'The People's Car' - commisioned by Hitler.

And besides, besides ... Hitler = Godwin's Law. Discussion over. :roll:


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

I'm cherry picking because I don't want to type massive posts with multiple quotes and answers. The main point here is that I believe that you can (if you choose) separate the aesthetics from the suffering associated with it, so I addressed that point rather than getting drawn into discussing each scenario you put forward (also, I didn't really understand the relevance of the vegetarianism example and you just made massive, and in my opinion incorrect, assumptions about how meat-eaters perceive the food they eat).

I haven't discussed my opinion on ear clipping because I don't see how it's relevant. I disagree with your reaction to a perfectly reasonable post, that's all.

FYI, forum rules state that it's ok to call Kammy names. He's a special exception.

<edit>Oh, and you said no one can disagree with your opinion a couple of posts ago: "don't tell me my opinion is wrong, it's based on my own moral code and is unique to me."[/quote]

The original response I made was in regard to ear clipping, I have made my points and tried to put my opinions across as best I can. Once again you say I have made massive incorrect assumptions but choose not to elaborate, this is deliberate on your part as you have no interest in discussion only in winning an argument and I have no desire to go round it with you again, quite frankly your style of posting is somewhat annoying and I don't have any more time to waste with someone who chooses to be pedantic in this instance.
We disagree let it go, it happens to people all the time. My opinions are as I said mine, they are neither right nor wrong and I was talking specifically to you and did not use the term no one. If you cannot see the difference between disagreeing with someone and telling them they are wrong when it's an opinion and not provable then I will leave you to annoy someone else. I'm done with this it's tiresome,you put words into my mouth and try and make my arguments for me all for the sake of winning which I find somewhat childish.

No need to reply to this I shall not respond further.


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > I could make the statement that I like the look of Adolf Hitler and the whole ss/nazi look with the cool looking swastikas but disagree with the whole fascism ethnic cleansing part.The statement in itself is not unreasonable but morally it conflicts given what we know about history, I can separate them to a degree but not completely because they are inextricably linked.
> ...


Who the hell u calling a village idiot! Moron


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bung said:


> No need to reply to this I shall not respond further.


If I have the last word, does that mean I won?


KammyTT said:


> Who the hell u calling a village idiot! Moron


Be cool, dude... I'm winning here.


----------

