Last Monday the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) issued an important position statement on tail docking and ear cropping. Stronger than the 2005 version, which frowned upon the practice without showing any teeth, this statement still stops short of opposing ear crops and tail docks in all cases. Here’s the wording for your consideration:
“The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.”
***
As a veterinarian who once practiced ear cropping and occasionally docks tails under certain uncomfortable circumstances, I find myself fully supporting this position statement. If I never docked a tail again in my entire life (except when medically necessary) I would be a happier person for it.
In truth, there’s no good reason for me to continue to dock tails. Once I decided that cropping ears was a horrific practice I could no longer engage in it shouldn’t have taken me so long to arrive at the same conclusion regarding puppy tails. I see them as very similar, unnecessary procedures (though the ear crop is inarguably more painful and risky).
Instead, I required that my clients’ pups receive nerve blocks before tail and dewclaw removals, thereby bumping the price way up beyond what the average breeder would support. But I didn’t put my foot down. Not really. Some breeders still came my way, excited that I would take such an enlightened view on pain control. Sigh. So much for my easy way out.
Now that the AVMA has spoken out in opposition of the practice, it gives me further impetus to finally put an end to my career in cosmetic medicine. Wimpy vets like me can now hide behind the AVMA’s skirts the next time breeders come calling. It’s unethical, I’ll say. I won’t do any more cosmetic surgery. And I should have said so sooner.
So you know, my rationale for continuing to dock tails hasn’t been completely selfish and cowardly. I’d always felt that if I could do a great job, offering pain relief and aseptic technique (typically dispensed with at $10 a tail), I was justified in offering a service at a level others wouldn’t match in my area.
“If I don’t do tails someone else will do them poorly,” goes the common veterinary lament. But that position isn’t morally tenable, is it?
***
In response to the AVMA statement, breed clubs have circled the wagons. They don’t want their breeds going the way of their European cousins. They want a historically, functionally appropriate breed standard to include the tail docked, dewclaw-free, ear-cropped versions they’ve come to support through their careful breeding regimens.
Though the current statement is weak enough to provide a loophole for those who would argue that cosmesis isn’t the impetus behind the docking, cropping and de-dewclawing, the plan to ban cosmetics outright is ivisibly in motion. Increasingly, vets don’t want to do these procedures. And we sure as hell don’t want them done by laypersons. But this latter loophole isn’t yet sealed shut, either.
Dogs need these procedures to maintain their ability to hunt without incurring injury, goes the working dog breeder’s common refrain. The long tails get caught in the brush. The dewclaws get caught in the brambles.
My rejoinder: Wolves and foxes keep theirs. Why shouldn’t our hunting dogs?
But most of the outcry? It’s not foremost about loopholes for working dogs. It’s about, “encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.” After all, serious working dogs will always have their “non-cosmetic" cosmetic needs met—by their handy owners if not their sympathetic vets. It’s the show standards that rile the breeder base on this one.
That's what prompted the AKC to issue this statement in response:
"...At a joint meeting this Wednesday AKC explained to the AVMA that we recognize ear cropping and tail docking, as prescribed in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character, enhancing good health, and preventing injuries. These breed characteristics are procedures performed to insure the safety of dogs that on a daily basis perform heroic roles with Homeland Security, serve in the U.S. Military and at Police Departments protecting tens of thousands of communities throughout our nation as well as competing in the field.
Mislabeling these procedures as "cosmetic" is a severe mischaracterization that connotes a lack of respect and knowledge of history and the function of purebred dogs. Breed standards are established and maintained by AKC Parent Clubs (each of the 158 AKC registered breeds is stewarded by a breed-specific Parent Club) keeping foremost in mind the welfare of the breed and the function it was bred to perform."
Puh-lease. Hearing the AKC throw military and police working dogs into the mix is laughable. Having treated many police and working dogs through a contract with Miami’s Metro-Dade police, I never once removed tails and dewclaws and never saw one dog with cropped ears.
Correction: I did amputate a couple German shepherd tails—after they continually beat them senseless against the metal grates of their handlers’ squad car interiors. This is a common police dog injury. But no one’s advocating we prophylactically remove German shepherd’s tails. I don't hear anyone from the AKC championing tail docks on military and police dogs. I guess “history” trumps “function,” even where working dog welfare is concerned (as long as it's a purebred whose standards we need to protect).
The hypocrisy of advocating cropping and docking so that I can properly respect the health and welfare of an animal as I muse on its historical role in society is absurd. Moreover, invoking patriotism in this matter by appropriating police and military dogs as integral to the AKC’s mission is insulting—more so when they’re used to propagate standards that are as unnecessary in their breeds as for so many others.
***
Ultimately, the AVMA’s position statement is a moderate one. I actually wish it had more teeth. But it IS a step in the right direction—one for which the AKC would do well to relinquish its strong opposition. This is especially critical given that Europe, Canada and Australia already have already gone way beyond our AVMA’s comparatively meager standards when it comes to cosmetics for dogs.
No, I guess I don’t expect the AKC to gravitate towards the standards the rest of us (myself included) are finally adopting, but I do expect some concessions on the subject of non-working dogs whose primary task is to achieve show-ring perfection. And I won’t stand for the hypocrisy they use as battlefield rhetoric. It has no place in this debate.
In the meantime the kudos belong to the AVMA's side. Just keep it coming, OK?
Add Comment74 Comments
hmm..well i am one of those "evil" breeders who does on occassion crop the ears of my dogs,(not me but my Vet). Don't do dewclaws at all or tails often but am fine if others wish to choose that. As far as a "horrific procedure", to use your words "puh-lease" I have sat in and assisted with numerous crops, if the vet knows what they are doing it is a 13 to 27 minute procedure with appropriate pain meds, etc.. it is far less "horrific" than a standard spay procedure. Many experienced vets and breeders have also come up with ways to avoid the taping and make the post op care very simple and far less painful then in years past - although I have not seen many Vet's learn these new techniques. I have also seen a few laser ear crops that are even shorter and quicker healing.
yes, I do think earcropping must be performed in appropriate settings not by breeders themselves!
yes, I do think that earcropping has generations of history and is part of the culture of many working breeds. In several breeds certain ear crop styles denote the region of the country in which the "line" originated and styles have been passed down several generations. yes, I also recognize that many cultural practices when viewed by "outsiders" seem "barbaric" but I try not to use my own cultural viewpoints and beliefs to "judge" others. I personally don't think circumcision of a new born baby is necessary, or piercing the ears of a newborn or using a plate to stretch out a bottom lip or earlobe or branding cattle but hey I don't want to take away "their" right to practice their cultural traditions based on my viewpoints - I just "CHOOSE" not to do those things but at the same time want for their right to "CHOOSE".
ps the GSD is not the only "military breed"
so anyways, bring on the attacks but I will stand by my right to choose - even though I strongly suspect my right to choose will be lost within the next few years. The animal activists will take it and more I suspect....
LC November 24th, 2008 11:25:28 AM
Thank you! Wish more vets / people in general would have the cajones to stand up against this practice. Not only do I think its barbaric but its ugly. Not to mention that the mutilation prohibits dogs from communicating effectively with each other. Unfortunately, breeders who go against the grain and don't dock tails in breeds where it is specified are vilified and ostracized by others in the community. I would be content to be able to buy a dog with a natural tail if I want one that hasn't been mutilated. That is what I would like changed. I would be thrilled to do away with the practice altogether however.
Esmee November 24th, 2008 11:57:15 AM
LO: I didn't say "evil," I said "moraly untenable"--and with that I was refering to veterinarians who take an oath to protect animals. As medical doctors we have a duty to their welfare. If vets believe that it's better for them to perform a procedure that's odious to them rather than let another do a worse job--that's wrong, IMO.Aside from that, I don't believe I made any moral judgments. If you believe that your dogs are better off for their cosmetics and anesthetic risks then I wouldn't fault you. I just can't see how that would be the case--so I wouldn't be your vet in the event you chose a crop, dock or other cosmetic procedure.
As to crops being "horrific"--that's a personal impression no one will ever disabuse me of. I dislike the bleeding, the follow-ups, the howling pups (who did so seemingly regardless of my pain control measures). Maybe I was just "bad" at ear crops. So it's just as well that I don't do them anymore.
Dr. Patty Khuly November 24th, 2008 12:56:40 PM
The veterinarian's oath has been subject to debate on many previous blogs...this seems like a small step in the big picture
IMO, the AKC should at least modify standards to allow the 'option' of undocked, natural ears, and dews....can not see the 'harm' with that!
Pocket's Story from NH November 24th, 2008 01:25:06 PM
Oops--forgot to mention the military working dog thing. The vast majority are Belgian malinois and GSDs. Labs, Goldens and Chessies are the next most common. Beagles and mixes are sometimes used, too. I've worked with military dogs, too, so it's not as if I'm coming at this with zero knowledge. None of them require crops or docks. If there are other breeds used by military personnel that do, I'd venture to guess they're not in the least representative of the military. I just don't know where the AKC is coming from on this one. Maybe someone else does...?
Dr. Patty Khuly November 24th, 2008 01:25:59 PM
Added tidbit: I can't help but wonder of the #1 terrier , Sealyham "Efbe's Hidalgo at Goodspice" , (my Pearl's 1/2 brother), would have garnered all his BIS wins with an undocked tail, his tail *is* on the longer side of docking, and a gorgeous deserving Sealy with beautiful profile and movement....
however, undocked, the tail could have been unsightly, screw-tailed, or worse : appear floppy or broken!
Barbara A. Albright
Pocket's Story from NH November 24th, 2008 01:44:34 PM
just to clarify
- I didn't mean that you said "evil" - that is just the impression I get from anti-croppers about those who do choose to crop.
-my general vet does not crop either, my ear crop vet has cropped for 30+ years so I am very fortunate that he is quick, efficient. When he retires (which is very soon) - my position may change as I have observed ear crops done by other less experienced vets and yes it takes longer and does not go as "smoothly" so, not sure what my choices will be then but I still want choices.
-I am sure you weren't "bad" didn't mean to imply that either. I do think someone who does 10+ crops a week for 30 years is going to develop efficient protocol minimizing pain, discomfort, etc... but those vet's are retiring so with them goes technique.
-I also agree with above poster that the AKC standards should allow for both uncropped and cropped without penalty, so those who CHOOSE not to crop or dock can do so and also to allow for imports from countries without cropping to compete.
- In the end like I said I respect your right to "choose not to crop" and would like my right to choose to crop (when I do which is not always) to be respected as well.
Have a good day
LC November 24th, 2008 02:06:07 PM
I've been a wilderness and disaster SAR handler for 17 years, worked with hundreds of other handlers and dogs of scores of breeds and mixes. I've been a wilderness EMT for a dozen years, and our scope of practice does cover SAR animals as well as humans.
I've seen just about every part of a dog shredded through work. Tongues, toes, pads, noses, eyes. Impalements in the chest, abdomen, feet, neck, flews and all the way through a carpal pad. Many gruesome, though mostly minor, injuries.
Except -- I've never seen a tail injury, an ear shred, or a front dewclaw injured through work.
I did ruin a uniform shirt treating a GSD's ear injury -- caused by a dogfight at a conference. And another GSD got a tail caught in a van door. But as you said, not a "traditionally" docked or cropped breed.
Why is it that GSPs must be docked to protect their tails from brush, but English pointers and setters don't need this surgery to do the exact same job?
Why do my longtailed SAR dogs never injure their tails in brush or on rubble?
I've seen rear dewks caught -- I firmly believe that these mutations should be removed on young pups. If lthat is neglected by the breeder, and the dog is to work, they should be evaluated, and floppy/low ones removed.
But remember, rear dewks are not a feature of a natural dog -- wolves, coyotes, jackals, etc. do not have them. They are a mutation, like polydactyly in cats.
Anyway, the AKC is demonstrating its usual ability to manufacture a reality that suits its selfish mythology, and that further insures that they and their "fancy" constituency will be left behind in the future of dogs in America. Which is fine by me.
Heather Houlahan November 24th, 2008 02:19:18 PM
Yay for the AVMA - like you said, it's a small step but a step nonetheless. I personally think it's vain, selfish, and shameful to submit your pet for any elective surgical procedure that doesn't provide a medical benefit. Thank goodness my parents liked what I was born with! Even with what we *hope* to be adequate pain management, good technique, etc...really? Cutting off perfectly healthy tissue? How silly. Our animals deserve better.
anna November 24th, 2008 03:28:12 PM
I lied. My husband reminded me of the bloodhound who shredded his ear tips -- as well as his LIPS -- on a trail, and had to be pulled off the task.
This was a show-type bloodie, with very extreme ears and skin folds, extremely heavily-built. He did not last for a mile. (Most of the really good bloodhound handlers I have known go for a leggier, lighter, tighter-skinned hound.)
So maybe the ACK should mandate cropping and facelifts for bloodhounds.
Or maybe -- I know, crazy thought -- we should breed dogs with the physical ability to do the jobs we inted for them.
Heather Houlahan November 24th, 2008 03:44:36 PM
As a veterinarian, I feel that our job is to protect animal welfare. However, I do also think that if a breeder wishes to dock tails/remove dewclaws and it is done in a humane fashion by a veterinarian, it's better than if NOT done by a veterinarian. Just as we declaw cats...if it is done by a vet who is proficient, cats do very well. I've been in practice for 23 yrs, and consider my declawing, tail docking and dewclaw removal to be done well and is done with pain management. (I don't crop ears unless a cat has ear margin cancer... or in similar circumstances)
kim November 24th, 2008 04:43:00 PM
As a doberman owner I would love to see an option or at least a few more uncropped dobies around. I unfortunately didn't have a choice with my dogs' tail as it was docked early. I did however have a choice with his ears and chose natural.
I still hear the myth that a doberman has its tail docked because it would cause spinal issues later on in life from various people.
Thankfully though 99% of the vets in my area refuse to crop ears and most attempt to dissuade breeders from docking tails, doing something similiar to Dr. Khuly idea with the cost.
It's unfortunate that as far as I know the CKC has the same stance as the AKC instead of turning to European shows with natural ears and tails.
Katrina November 24th, 2008 04:46:02 PM
I would like to see natural dogs as an option in the AKC show ring as well. While I can "sort of" see the historical arguement, and do sometimes like the looked of well cropped ears, I would never do it to an animal I owned. And historically is used to be common practice to crop pugs ears. Interesting how it died out in that breed. Heather, great comment on breeding for dogs that can function. I wish health testing was a requirement for breeding and before being allowed to enter the show ring.
Marie November 24th, 2008 06:01:08 PM
I just love it when ear-crop proponents say it reduces the chance of ear infections. Were that true -- it's not -- we'd be ear-cropping cocker spaniels.
Tails docks? I don't really have much of a problem with them, but wouldn't mind at all f they were never done again. But I grew up with boxers, and even as a child I knew that ear-cropping was barbaric.
One of my brothers still has boxers -- he's on his second generation from boxer rescue. He now can't stand the look of cropped ears, so if he were ever in a position to choose, he's choose no cropping.
Gina Spadafori November 24th, 2008 06:34:02 PM
I happily stopped doing cosmetic tails and ears 15 years ago. I even cringe when I see human infants with pierced ears. This statement by the AVMA may give state boards and lawmakers impetus to outlaw this vain practice. If it is against the law, then Vets can't use the excuse that it will be done poorly by laypersons. BTW I do crop the left ear on feral cats that I sterilize, and I have caught hell for that!
Hobson November 24th, 2008 07:18:02 PM
I guess I'm another one of those morally bankrupt breeders. And sure, I rationalize it, and it's unneccesary, but I disagree that it's barbaric. Not the way I do it: Like LC, for ear crops I use a vet who has done ear crops for many years and practically specializes in the procedure. I always assist - I'm right there with my puppies. The procedure is bloody yes, but also quick. The pain med. protocol seems to be very effective - the pups do not howl while awaking or after waking up. Not even when they bump into each other after being put back with each other. Sure they're groggy for a bit but they're soon playing and eating and acting normally. No head shaking, no scratching their ears (which are bandaged for protection). Certainly no signs of pain or distress. So I think that with ear cropping as with any other surgical procedure, a vet who is skilled makes a LOT of difference. Likewise, good technique with aftercare makes a lot of difference too - I have said before, and still maintain that if the ear taping were painful (or even uncomfortable) I would not be able to do it on a 9 or 10 week old puppy all by myself. By that I mean that NO ONE is restraining the pup. Sure, I wait until they've crashed after playing and meal time, and sure my puppies are used to being handled anyway - but there is no restraint. They don't try to run away, they just lie there and open one eye and look at me sleepily while I tape their ears. I also don't have to separate them, they continue to live and play with their littermates as usual. Properly taped ears are pretty sturdy and hold up well to baby teeth. I maintain that a lot of the reason people think that ear cropping is so barbaric is that they see the pups with taped ears, they see the bandages and think "ouch, that must be a healing wound". The fact is that the ear edges heal SO fast, within 5 or 6 days (and of course we don't bother them while they're healing). When you see a pup with taped ears you have to realize that once they're healed, there is no pain. The tapes are just bracing the ear flaps upright until the cartilage matures. But OK, I will admit that all of this is rationalization - of course ear cropping isn't necessary. If it is banned of course I won't love my Danes any less - in fact I have already had pups that I chose to leave natural because their natural ear set was so lovely. BUT, if we are talking hypocrisy, and want to ban "cosmetic" procedures on the grounds that they aren't necessary for the dog, I would also like to see pediatric (less than 6 to 12 months old, depending on the breed) spays and castration banned for the same reason. Those procedures - so much more invasive and painful than any ear crop - are only done for human convenience. They are NOT necessary for the health of the animal, not at that age. The ONLY reason to spay or castrate a baby puppy is because we're afraid the owners can't be trusted to remember to get the procedure done at a more appropriate age, or to manage an intact animal responsibly. I would go further, and say that while ear crops, dew claw removals and tail docking don't have any long term adverse effects on the dog's health (if done properly), spaying or castrating a puppy DOES sometimes have serious long term adverse effects including but not limited to increased risk of hip dysplasia and osteosarcoma. Some of you will accuse me of comparing apples and oranges here, but I believe it boils down to one thing - if you're REALLY committed to ONLY doing medical procedures that are necessary and beneficial to the animal, then you gotta ban the convenience procedures along with the cosmetic ones. I really believe this, that pediatric sterilization is the TRULY barbaric practice. ... and I apologize if this appears as one huge block of text!! I tried to separate my paragraphs!
Barb November 24th, 2008 08:37:07 PM
I'd like to see all mutilations of animals stopped. NO tail docking, no ear cropping, no declawing. Because the real truth is, AKC or not, making the dog/cat look different is NOT what nature, God, Budda, (whomever) intended.
And truthfully although I adore my friend and her dobbie, watching him run around with tampons taped to his ears ( for months) so they would stand up was absurd.
LorriM November 24th, 2008 08:46:12 PM
Barb - I have to respectfully disagree with you on the early spay thing. It has been proven that spaying a female before her first heat cycle CAN prevent mammary cancer by over 90% (I may not have the exact number but it is very high) By the third heat cycle this number drops below 70%. So there is an incredible benefit to spaying early. There is not necessarily anything to back up early neutering so I can't argue there. However, speaking for a dog/cat (if I can be so bold) I think they would rather go through a truly barbaric procedure when they are young as opposed to an older dog. It is potentially a much easier recovery with fewer complications when done earlier. I can't lie; it is easier for me (as the vet) to tie off little vessels and such. I cringe when I see an older dog on the schedule for a spay. Everything bleeds more, oozes more, tissue tears easier and it can just be a bigger nightmare. And even though some may not think of behavior as a medical benefit - considering it (behavior) is one of the number one reasons that animals are put to sleep or end up in shelters -- early spay and neuter can prevent some behavior issues that I think do justify the time we do it. Now I am talking doing them in the 5-6 month old range which I think is perfectly acceptable. I do not think that earlier than that is necessarily wrong or barbaric either though. All that being said I would add to address the blog that I do not do ear cropping - you probably would not want be doing it anyway since I have done ZERO in my career. I have docked tails, and dewclaws; not my favorite thing and it wouldn't break my heart if it was banned. I guess then I should just stand up and say NO, I don't know why I don't.
Jessica November 24th, 2008 10:43:13 PM
I dunno..
I don't especially like crop/dock (though I've known many a skinny-tailed enthusiastic dog whose tail need to be docked because it was beaten to shreds)
But if it's largely cosmetic, and we're going to start legislating against cosmetic practices, why don't we start with, say, pierced ears in little (human) girls.
EmilyS November 25th, 2008 12:13:07 AM
Hi Jessica, You've got good points of course, but I was referring to spaying/neutering at 6 or 7 WEEKS, not months. I am probably biased about even that by the fact that I've got a giant breed, but the animals I've seen who were sterilized very early just don't seem to develop properly. I've got a second bias in that I'm very involved in performance events, so proper physical development is even more important to me. Probably more so than to the average pet owner :-)
Barb November 25th, 2008 12:16:52 AM
i was banned from assisting with tail docks and dewclaw removals on the few day old puppies due to my facial expression. how they'd scream! it was awful. i'd refuse to do them and ear crops if i was a doctor. i'm still on the fence about front feet declaws though...if it gets the cat a home, bring on the nerve blocks and pain meds and do it when they are small kittens.
sarah November 25th, 2008 12:36:34 AM
I will never let a litter I have go beyond the first several days without dewclaw removal. My mutts, who have dewclaws, have had several injuries when they caught on crusty snow or were playing. I think it is more of a hinderance to have them stay. There was one woman I knew in PA who had such problems with the snow and her dog she had the dewclaws removed when the dog was an adult. It was a nightmare. The healing was prolonged and difficult because the dog was active, and the skin was tight.
One of my mutts also has sensitive feet (all pink delicate skin), but she is very active and needs to be exercised. The problem is in the summer, when it's quite hot, and in the winter, when there is crisp snow, her pads get in rough shape despite care. I've tried four different types of dog boots, and ALL cause irritation or chafing related to her dewclaws.
I raise yorkies. I get mine docked with nerve blocks at 2 or 3 days of age at the same time that dewclaws are removed. They all do fine, and are immediately back to nursing and acting like wee little babies do. The dewclaws heal with amazing speed, and I never have to worry about dewclaw issues.
jen November 25th, 2008 05:48:24 AM
Well if you find the tail docking and dewclaw removal horrific it sounds to me like you don't know how to do it. When done by people who know what they are doing its not painful. A nerve block isn't needed if you know the proper way to do the surgery. Of course many vets require a delay detrimental to the process instead of doing the job at the right time. As for ear cropping, when done by a skilled surgeon and properly cared for afterwards its like any other small surgery - no big deal. Spay and neuter, which are essentially sexual mutilations of animals, and are much more risky, aren't even questioned. Vets have no qualms about doing lumpectomys even for benign lumps to ensure owners don't have to look at lumpy dogs. How is that lucrative surgery any different from ear cropping? If you want to go all natural stop doing vet care entirely. That's how its going to end up anyhow if the AR folks have their way. Won't be any need for vets when there are no animals in our lives. I wonder if the AVMA has realized that they by going with the AR agenda they are working to end their profession in doing so?
Nancy November 25th, 2008 08:56:43 AM
Nancy: I might agree with you on my skills...but there's no mistaking the pain involved in a crop--regardless of your professional opinion. Lumpectomies? Medically indicated, strictly speaking. Biopsy on any mass is absolutely defensible, even if the owner's rationale is primarily cosmetic. Sexual mutilation? Medically indicated, eventually, in a majority of cases--females, especially. Your contention that I advance a radical animal rights agenda? Read the rest of the blog before judging. There is a middle ground, you know.
Dr.Patty Khuly November 25th, 2008 11:41:34 AM
I would like to know more about dewclaws. I've had two friends whose CHihuahuas still have them and they've had horrific injures from snagging on things, even though the nail is kept trimmed. Are some dogs born without dewclaws? Lottie does not have hers, but I assume they were removed. All in all, I agree. I would like to see AKC recognize the natural traits of all breeds.
Creature of Habit November 25th, 2008 12:55:22 PM
Undeniably, dogs arrive on this planet with the body parts they are intended to have. It's a matter of ethics to then start removing healthy body parts, breeding for mutated body parts, etc., etc. Since I'm very philosophical by nature, I don't have a lot of issues with the ethical issues surrounding these subjects. To me, cropping and docking are needless cosmetic procedures (for the most part). Spay/neuter is, primarily, for the convenience of the owners. (And large and giant breed dogs prove that early spay/neuter can be harmful.) The issue of circumcism was raised. And it's a reasonably good analogy, since it is primarily about cosmetics, and not a real medical necessity. Not too long ago, over 90% of American boys were circumcised. That figure has now dipped to nearly 50%. Why the change? Were there problems with the procedure? Other contraindications? Well, no. More and more people have come to understand the ethics of making a permanent decision for another human being who should have the right to choose for himself. When push comes to shove, and all the arguments about "choice" are levied, where is the animal's choice? And therein lies the ethical dilemma. We don't speak dog, and dogs don't speak human languages. I taught responsible dog ownership for many years and the most basic tenet is doing what is in the best interests of the animal, in all instances. That is the duty one must accept when taking on the responsibility for another life. As humans we can't possible know what the best interests of dogs are, with any certainty. We sure think we know. But, obviously, we can't really know. Where the animal won't be harmed by not cutting something off its body, perhaps that's a good place to start?
Marjorie November 25th, 2008 02:01:12 PM
Marie,
speaking of health testing for show dogs, have you see the BBC documentary "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"?
Erin November 25th, 2008 04:08:55 PM
Hi Barbara - I would agree with you on the spay or neuter at 6-7 week thing. I don't like to do them that young and would agree that there could be harm. Kudos to you for looking out for the future welfare of you 'big breeds' :)
Jessica November 25th, 2008 07:54:18 PM
Most of the pets I've seen that underwent a spay or neuter that young came from the shelter system...in my mind, completely defensible.
anna November 25th, 2008 09:52:34 PM
It will always be my preference to have dewclaws removed (in puppyhood) on any working sighthound I own. You don't want to be in the middle of Nowhere, Wyoming and have your dog's dewclaw gushing and/or dangling. When lure coursing, many folks wrap their dogs' dewclaws to prevent injury. The two minor clips at 2-3 days old is far better than dealing with dewclaw injuries later on; I have enough trouble making sure their functional toes stay sound & healthy! =7
I can't argue with ear crops & tail docks, because I honestly don't see the functional basis for these -- and maybe I'm just ignorant of the breeds' working histories. All the above stated, most dogs in this society aren't used for work or performance anymore, so all these procedures probably shouldn't be undertaken on a dog that will be a couch ornament. I'll take function over fashion every day of the week!
Julie in OH November 26th, 2008 10:17:56 PM
And to Marjorie -- circumcision has been shown to reduce the incidence of contracting STDs (HIV, if I recall correctly). There's not always an apparent reason for "cosmetic" surgeries, but if you dig a bit deeper...
Julie in OH November 26th, 2008 10:20:27 PM
You know what nearly eliminates the risk of most STD's? Condoms. No surgery required. But the point wasn't the alleged merits of circumcision. Rather, the point was that no other person has the right to make that decision for someone else. If men want to be circumcised, they can make that decision when they're mature enough. Circumcisions are dwindling primarily due to the understanding that it is not ethical for parents to make this choice for their boys. Therein is the analogy for having non-essential surgeries performed on our animals. There are pros and cons to just about everything in life. Using claims of miniscule reductions in risk to justify cutting healthy body parts off another living being, against its will, is... ...well... ...pretty specious, in my books. I can virtually eliminate my risk of breast cancer by have both my breasts removed now. It would be ludicrous to do so, even though my sister recently passed away from the disease. (Hers was not a hereditary form.) It would be even more ridiculous for me to have my daughter's breasts removed, in the hopes of preventing her from getting the disease. That would, of course, be her decision, and hers alone.
Marjorie November 27th, 2008 10:07:06 AM
I admit to having not thoroughly read all preceding posts, so forgive any repetitions.
I am not in favor of practices, but principles.
I own two Great Danes, one with cropped ears, one without. My male, Kreiger, has cropped ears. He had them done at 9 weeks by a recommended and skilled veterinarian here in St. Louis, Missouri. Krieger was lightly anesthitized and given pre/post-op pain meds. To my perceptions, he experienced no pain or irritation during or after the surgery. No itching, whining or other symptoms. He wore some tape and mesh braces for a few weeks and they stood properly, with diligent maintanence, of course.
My female, Antje, has natural ears, she was a rescue Dane I adopted at 18 months of age. Due to our heavily outdoor, hunting/adventure lifestyle, she gets regular ear infections from water and mud. She also does not locate or pick up sounds as well or as soon as Krieger. If all dogs are descended from wolves, I think we might do well to take nature's advice on the wisdom of pricked ears for air circulation and acoustics. The fact that we humans selectively bred for the mutation of oversized, floppy ears doesn't make them some sacred, marvelous feature that dogs have a right to.
I chose to have Krieger's ears cropped for several reasons, not the least of which was cosmetic. Everyone knows that there are right and wrong, painful and safe ways to do this procedure, I'll spare you the cliche'd details. The issue I wish others would consider before pushing for legislation is freedom. One's responsible actions should not be dictated by others. Blanket policies intended to punish or constrain a certain sector of the populus serve only to oppress the innocent, and are largely ignored by the guilty.
To me, the tragedies involved in this "mutilation" issue are:
1. Immature, ignorant dog owners who chose a procedure with childish motives and forethought. These people want their dog to look tough, and want to do it on the cheap. They also lack the maturity to learn about the responsibility of proper taping and care of the ears, and so often make their dogs look shamefully unattractive.
2. Well meaning animal-lovers who lead to the shameful restriction of loving and responsible dog-owners' rights by championing universal bans.
3. The lowering of our own value to that of dogs and other animals, which is the effect of raising their value to that of our own. Animals should be cared for and treated with sensible respect, not regarded as our equals.
I couldn't be less impressed by the trailer-trash, macho-minded, hap-hazard, insensitive Boxer, Dane, Dobe, G.Schnauz and Pit owners, (or the Vet who makes an unskilled buck) who end up with fallen, painful, or infected ears on their dogs more. To scream for a new law, though, only means that because of Johnny trailer trash and his swollen eared pit bull, I am forced against my will to comply with restrictions on what used to be my property.
Am I neolithic in my desire for freedom? Even if I did not own dogs, the idea that I am deprived the right to choose a perfectly safe, painless procedure for my own property would insult me.
That said, I do wish that all mistreatment of animals could be stopped. Unfortunately, getting laws passed will not stop Michaels Vicks from cropping their dogs with a dirty knife and a kitchen table, or from fighting them, for that matter.
Having actually experienced a professional, sane Vet do an ear crop Kreiger and having observed him afterward, I wonder if most of the people who think this is in some way traumatic to the patient have ever actually witnessed it? Furthermore, If they even own dogs and understand how their memories and minds work? People seem to think that dogs sit in front of mirrors to ponder their cosmetic plight after the procedure. Who are these people? Why is anything that involves blood or isn't a life or death scenario wrong? It's a DOG, and it doesn't care nearly as much as you do!
Why does everyone act like dogs are people? They are different in so many impressive, important and wonderful ways!
If we could put all the energy and political inertia that surgical canine cosmetics are getting into the really tragic stuff, like puppy mills, we might make great strides against that pathetic, greed-driven industry. (Perhaps we might even look into human rights issues?) Me? Please let me own my dogs and care for them the way I see fit. I promise they don't have nightmares.
DaneDad November 28th, 2008 12:37:05 AM
After reading all posts on this page, I see that much credence is given to the idea that if a dog is born with something, it must be good.
Have we all forgotten where dogs came from? Mitochondrial genetics and carbon dating have all but proven that our dogs all descended from wolves (A very few wolves, actually). If wolves were perfected by millenia of NATURES evolutionary polishing, is it safe to assume that a wolf is a rather ideal model of a canine? Have we improved upon this original design by selectively breeding for infantile traits and cosmetically appealing mutations? Does anyone believe that a severly brachycephalic, unathletic, thermally inefficient, malady-prone, genetic freak like an English bulldog is "just the way nature intended"?
I submit that a Great Dane with erect ears, long snout, well-functioning teeth and jaws, sensible musclo-skeletal structure, and access to exert himself while exploring the outdoors with other dogs is a much happier dog than the out-of-breath, overheated, genetic freak show bulldog with "natural" ears. If someone wants to champion dogs as having a right to be the way nature intended, they'll need to call for a ban on nearly everything but Husky and Malamute-type breeds.
There are no wild canids with floppy ears, it doesn't make evolutionary sense. Dogs as we know them are, for the most part, not "natural", and neither are their floppy ears. This isn't me telling everyone that all ears should be cropped, or that "(un)natural" ears are in any way detrimental to the health and happiness of a dog. It's just me calling for some laying down of arms on such a silly issue before some incredibly senseless, offensive and oppressive legislation is laid down and no one can reverse it.
*Also, there are no free countries where special interest groups are allowed to blanket the population with laws that apply and appeal to two unreasonable minorities. This is one of the miriad reasons why the U.S. is no longer a free country in my opinion. We went the way of socialism long ago, with certified fascism soon to come, if the only two significant political parties in washington have their way.
P.S. Dewclaws? How is this an issue? They look gross, to be blunt, and obviously they can be troublesome. If you want them off, snip them, and I'll just bet your puppy will not spend the next year of his shattered life coping with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. If you leave them on, I don't care, and I still love you for who you are. Lets have lunch and talk about important things. And then hug.
P.S.S. How is a tiny bit of pain for a short time an issue that begs legislation or hatred of fellow owners? The dog stopped caring the second the pain stopped. The AR people are losing sleep and sneering at dog owners on the street months afterward. Get a grip.
DaneDad November 28th, 2008 01:35:46 AM
Oh my god. I just watched "Pedigree Dogs Exposed".
Shameful. Horrid. Pathetic. Absurd. Idiotic.
Yeah, I'm talking about the owners. The breeders too.
Who in their right mind would allow a sweet animal like that Cav. King Charles in the first scene to live in constant torment like that? What the hell is euthanasia for if not the ceasing of endless, veritable torture? How can you let a dog go on like that for so long? The owners of that pathetic little dog ought to be ashamed.
As for the breeder, If they're a backyard operation or puppy miller, they ought to have their facilities burned. If they think themselves responsible breeders with well planned litters and excellent pre/postnatal care, they need to start doing the legwork of long-term follow-ups and immediately remove suspect individuals from the breeding program, even if that means starting with entirely new breeding stock or getting out of the breeding business for good.
As for the video, its got a lot of sensationalist bones in with the meat of a good story. KC/AKC=Eugenics? Hitler? Seriously. And if those German Shepards were actually in a real dog show and not being laughed out of the ring, I'll be a one-legged snake. On the other hand, they make excellent points about the failure of show breeders over the last century, allowing robust, functional breeds to fall victim to petty aesthetics. I agree heartily that the current state of breeds like Pugs, Dachshunds, Bassets, Affenpinschers and the like are getting pathetic.
I spent literally 18 months trying to find a Dane breeder witin 1000 miles of Missouri that bred only Danes with OFA cert. "Good" or "Excellent" hips and elbows, healthy hearts, thyroids and Wobbler's free Danes. It seems that purebreeding can be done right, but only with great care (very rare today) and the occaisional compromise with conformation. Of course, many aspects of conformation are concerned with correct function and structure of various body parts. This is one of the reasons I was so skeptical that the scene about G. Shepards was legit. I know for a fact that breed standards define proper hindquarters and gait. Those dogs were downright debilitated, and I can't believe they would've lasted a second in an actual show ring.
God, if Kreiger or Antje came down with some kind of debilitating or chronically painful disease, like wobblers or severe dysplasia or syringomyelia I'd cry my eyes out for weeks, but I'd have to put them to sleep. Crap, I'm tearing up now. I'm gonna go snuggle with them. It's late, and I've already blabbed too much for one night. Fire away.
DaneDad November 28th, 2008 02:30:04 AM
Dane Dad, While I agree with some of your sentiments, as a lifelong Dane owner myself, I put it to you that Danes should be bred to have standing ears, not have them cropped to avoid a miniscule risk of ear infections. (Not one of my dogs has ever had an ear infection, including my current, 10-year-old, natural-eared girl.) Still, domestic dogs are nothing like their wild ancestors; having been genetically pushed and pulled in all directions. Great Danes, with their folded ears, near-bare bellies and feet, and huge size, are a perversion of the wolf. (A perversion I happen to find quite attractive, but as yet, have never purchased a Dane from a breeder, since the need has been so great in rescue since I began in the 70's.) There are those of us whose circle of compassion and respect for life and individual autonomy encompasses all living beings. I've always wondered why those who only truly value human life seem to feel so superior. In my view, it's far inferior.
Marjorie November 28th, 2008 07:46:47 AM
Oh, and I do want to clarify that I'm rarely a big fan of legislation. Personally, I have not pushed for legislation prohibiting cropping & docking, nor would I be likely to do so. I think these kinds of changes can only be lasting, if people have come to their own realizations about the ethics involved, rather than being forced to comply.
Marjorie November 28th, 2008 08:49:02 AM
Marjorie, I know I rambled a bit, but please read my comments more carefully. I didn't allude to anything you accuse me of, especially the bit about not having compassion and respecting life, or only truly valuing human life. I beg you reconsider my supposed superiority complex. If I had to choose between my dogs and you, Marjorie, you I would choose, simply because you are a person, a human life, and I do believe that has very special value. In no way does that mean I don't value and respect my Danes or any other life.
I believe that if people were to respect themselves, and given respect, that few would have reason to inflict harm on other people, animals or the environment. Once we can respect and love each other, I think that respect and love for animals and nature might follow.
It is a poverty to view human life as far inferior to animals. I hope you're not serious.
DaneDad November 28th, 2008 09:14:09 AM
Dane Dad, I appreciate the opportunity to share my views, as well as better understand yours. So, please, there's no need for begging and the like. ;-) We're two different people who undoubtedly share more in common than we differ. And that's all this is; sharing our views about those areas in which we may differ, with the goal of better understanding. :-) With the greatest respect...Dane Dad, you wrote, "I didn't allude to anything you accuse me of, especially the bit about...only truly valuing human life." Yet in your original comment, you wrote, "The lowering of our own value to that of dogs and other animals, which is the effect of raising their value to that of our own. Animals should be cared for and treated with sensible respect, not regarded as our equals." And in your latest comment, you finish with, "It is a poverty to view human life as far inferior to animals. I hope you're not serious." I think it's pretty clear where you stand, actually. You don't view animals as having the same value (or right to live autonomously) as human beings. I, on the other hand, value your Danes as much as I value you (both very highly). And that is what I find so curious. I would put my life in jeopardy to save your Danes, if the situation arose, just as I'd try to rescue you. I'm not sure if anyone could ever explain to me how that's a bad thing. ;-) It is only when one views animals as so inferior to humans that the idea they are "equal" to humans becomes some kind of insult. For me, it's the complete opposite. I value all life very highly, whether it has two legs or four, or whether it has wings or fins. Maybe one day you (or those with the views to which I'm specifically referring, if I'm misinterpretting your comments) will understand that the same care I, for instance, take in helping elderly patients at my local senior care centre, teaching children about the environment, having compassion and consideration for every person I encounter (as much as I'm humanly capable), is the same level of care I employ when caring for animals, carrying spiders outside, avoiding stepping on insects outdoors, etc., etc. I don't just try not to kill any living being, I do my very best to make life better for them, if I can...within reason of course. (I have to live, too!) At the very least, I try to do no harm. Call me a modern-day Dr. Schweitzer, of sorts. So while you say things like, "It is a poverty to view human life as far inferior to animals," I put it to you that not only did I never suggest that humans are "...far inferior to animals," but my views are the complete opposite. I consider all living things, including humans, of much greater value than those who suggest all non-human creatures (most of the creatures on earth) are inferior and, therefore, of lesser value. It's not a matter of being right or wrong, since I would never suggest my views are the only correct way of seeing the world. I truly try to understand other points of view. Yet I admit I find it hard to understand why respecting all life equally could ever be viewed as anything negative. As I've made pretty clear by now (blushing), I find the view that only humans have real value, and all other animals must bow to our whims or needs, is the the truly bankrupt position. It's needlessly exclusionary. As humans, we have that wonderful ability to choose how we treat other beings. Why not choose light and life and kindness, since we can? If I had a choice to leave my Dane with someone who considered her inferior to humans, or someone who considered all living beings of equal value, clearly I'd choose the latter...for obvious reasons.
Marjorie November 28th, 2008 10:07:23 AM
I wish I knew what I'm doing wrong, that my paragraph formatting keeps getting lost. I mean, I'm just typing in the box, as I assume everyone else is. What the heck? Anyway, sorry (again) for the big block of text. I know it's really difficult to read like that. :-(
Marjorie November 28th, 2008 10:08:50 AM
Marjorie, I agree. We do have much in common, with but a few misunderstandings. Thank you for spending the time to explain your thoughts. I'd like to clarify that my ideas on the inherent value of animals vs. man is an issue of priority, or rank, not necessarily worth and certainly not of compassion. The illustrative scenario of having to choose between a dog and a person fails to communicate anything if the rules are changed to allow both to live. I'm not sure, but I think we differ on the idea of who to save from an oncoming train, if only one could be saved. I would save the person. Not out of disdain or loathing of the dog, out of priorities. I'd still cry about the dog dying.
That I wouldn't treat your Dane well just because I put human welfare first is not the case at all. An instance in which this view would have actual ramifications for the dog is so unlikely and rare as to be almost impossible. Yes, I would feed my daughter before your dog (but maybe not myself, at least not for a while:), but I don't see us starving anytime soon. To be responsible and caring for an animal, to treat it kindly and love it, one doesn't have to regard it with human status. I hate having to go there to explain my views, beause it can so easily be read to say that I somehow look down my nose at animals, thinking that I am this high, exalted human who may subject them to my whims as I see fit. Thats not my attitude at all. A special reverence for human life, and a kind, loving respect for animals are not mutually exclusive to me. Rather, I think that one is essential for the other. I can truthfully tell my daughter that she is a very special little girl and that I love her more than anything, and at the same time pamper my dogs like they're kids. I don't have to start actually thinking that my dogs are ultimately just as precious as my daughter, and I never would.
If that is our difference, then I say so be it. We have, for most practical purposes, the same values, which serves to point us toward the same goals. I believe in carrying the spider outside, but surely its much more important to bring a shivering person in from the cold. Perhaps dissapointingly, I also believe that if someone wants to call the exterminator to get rid of the bugs, they have a right to do so, but again, thats not me expressing any hatred or disgust towards the spiders and roaches. It's just that I understand that they are bugs, and not tiny people skittering around. There are plenty of other spiders and roaches outside. They should not be destroyed for the sake of it, but if some wants their cupboards sanitary, I don't think it a great moral tragedy that the bugs had to die. Maybe we could catch and release...
P.S. Huge freakin kudos to you, Marjorie, for suggesting that erect ears be bred into Danes. Exactly what I was thinking. I've seen lines that have fairly short, thick ears that could probably be trained upright without any surgery at all. I just wonder if you could get to a naturally erect ear from that base with a little of the right (and physiologically sound, of course) breeding. Fabulous. I could give half a crap about perfect conformation if you could achieve pricked ears with Dobes, danes, boxers, etc. Dogs tell you so much through their ears, and I've always been a fan of pricked ears for any kind of working dog that really needs to be understood.
DaneDad November 28th, 2008 12:33:54 PM
DaneDad, you can't breed for erect ears in Danes if you crop the ears. Crop the ears, and you don't have a way to decide, when the dogs are mature, which ones have the desirable trait of erect (or at least more-erect) intact ears. Routinely cropping ears is, at best, the lazy way of achieving that look you like.
I like erect ears, too, but my sister's Labs and my late cocker spaniel, with floppy ears, have never had ear infections. In a healthy dog, good care is enough. In a dog prone to infections you may have a problem.
Humans didn't originally breed for floppy ears in dogs. Take wolves, or foxes, and breed selectively for greater tameness, and you get, just by selecting for that one trait apparently unrelated to physical appearance, a suite of other characteristics, including floppy ears and splotches of white color. Google the Russian silver fox breeding experiment, and see how fast it happens.
The GSDs that get to the group ring in televised shows can walk, but they don't look like well-constructed working dogs.
And, honestly, you can't in almost the same breath call for "a laying down of arms" and say that the US is no longer a free country because it's not a state-of-nature liberatarian paradise, and expect to be taken seriously. Human beings form societies so that we do NOT have to live in a state of nature. This means that sometimes the rules we live by are drawn in places that we don't agree with. In free countries, we get to try to change society's mind when we think the lines are in the wrong places. What we don't get to do in a free country is declare that disagreeing with us is infringing our rights.
Marjorie, the steadily mounting medical evidence is that circumcision has both pluses and minuses medically, but there's a net positive benefit for both the circumcised men AND their partners. And it's by no means clear that circumcision at twenty-five or thirty years is the same as circumcision at four or five days. It's not a slam-dunk, but at the same time, calling it unethical for parents to make this choice for their sons, which will have measurable medical benefits with no impairment of their lives, seems to me to be very strange. Of course, I am so depraved that I think there was nothing terrible about my grandparents having my mother's and her sisters' ears pierced at a few days old. (My mother and my aunts still have their first sets of ear studs.) So, there ya go. No reason to listen to me.
Speutering also has signficant health benefits for the animal, and it's not a choice they will ever be able to make for themselves. I have serious reservations about speutering before physical maturity, but as Anna said, the very early speuterings are normally done in shelters. With limited ability to screen potential adopters, making sure these animals will not reproduce is especially important, and I think pediatric speutering is justified in shelters.
"Natural" is not always "best." See my comments above to DaneDad, about humans living in societies in order to NOT live in a state of nature.
Lis November 28th, 2008 10:41:21 PM
I hope I'm not stupid enough to mask control traits on the animals in my theoretical breeding program! Are you nuts? Why would I alter the body parts I'm trying to observe congenital traits in? If I was that stupid, I wouldn't know how doggies make baby doggies in the first place. Or read.
Really? The GSDs could walk? But they weren't well-constructed? Wow, that wasn't obvious at all when I saw them walking on that video. The video with the GSDs. That were walking. On the video. That I watched and commented about. Thank you, Lis. Total lifesaver.
(And last, but not least...) Oh My God!!! Humans form societies! My breath escapes me. I guess that means we should make a new law every time we don't agree with something. It's certainly not possible to educate, change or understand the other person involved. Let's tell the government to do it, and we can just sit back and be mad. Brilliant. If we're lucky, the jerk that had the nerve to act outside our holy preference will realize that his taxes are going up to pay for all the righteous legislation enforcement we've so benevolently applied to society at large.
A government that does not tax literally everything we have and do, and regulate 95% of our personal lives, possesions, children and livelihoods isn't exactly a "State of Nature Libertarian Paradise." I think it used to be referred to as "freedom", but lemme check the dictionary on that. I want a truce called on this stupid ear cropping debate because the more laws we make, the less freedom we have. Thats the bitch about giving people their freedom, it comes with risks and not everything can be controlled. You can't make the world a better place by screaming for legislation every time something pisses you off.
Lemme guess, the next post will be about how a society can't function without laws. Since thats what I was implying by saying its a bad idea to legislate everything that offends you. I can't wait. Do I have to define the term sarcasm to make this stop?
Why can't people READ what I write before they reply? Why, God, Why? I can't take this thread anymore. Peace out.
DaneDad November 29th, 2008 07:06:32 PM
I think one important issue that's been left out is that the "historic" argument doesn't hold water for one simple fact - we are not performing "historic" ear crops on these dogs, the exception being the fighting breeds.
In the past, these dogs had their ears removed. REMOVED. It was only as time went on that we developed this disturbing taping ritual and elongated ear.
We have a rott mix, and if I had a dollar for every person who asks me why she has a tail... well, let's just say I'd have my vet bills covered for life. My response to them is that quite frankly she likes her appendages in tact, thank you very much.
Ever wonder why these tailless breeds are always accused of attacking "without warning?" Springer spaniels, dobermans, rotts, cockers... they've lost their ability to communicate.
As for the ear infection argument, I treat just as many GSDs for ear infections as I do cockers, so I call bunk on that one. Genetics, my friend. Try removing the grain, using an ear cleaner that contains boric acid and gentian violet twice a week, and every time you've been in the water. You won't have another problem.
All my dogs have their natural ears, and even my hypothyroid guys have never had ear infection issues. As for tails, my worst two offenders were a great dane who and my retriever, both who suffered from "happy tail."
And still, no one has explained why two dogs, bred for the same job, but different breeds, require different surgical care at birth. Golden - natural. Spaniel - docked. GSD - natural. Dobe - docked and cropped. Why? Also, why is it that in Europe, where the dogs are not able to be mutilated at birth, and required to be shown au natural, seem to do just fine (some would argue they do better - there are certainly more imports coming from europe than travelling TO europe).
The dewclaw issue I believe is personal preference. I believe it depends on the individual claw. Those well rooted should be left alone, those connected loosely should be removed, as they stand a much higher chance of injury. My rott mix has front and rear dews, intact, all loose, and even through her agility and crazy field antics has never had a problem in her four years of romping around like a maniac. Two of my dogs, however, have lost toenails, and three have lost foot pads. Should we remove those at birth?
And please stop comparing cropping/docking to sterilization. Controlling the pet overpopulation and decreasing chances of pyometria, mammary tumours and prostate issues via surgical sterilization and hacking off appendages to avoid imaginary "historic" dangers can not be compared to one another. I'm not a fan of early spay/neuter either, depending on the situation (shelters excepted - reality has to set in sometime in this argument) but to compare one to the other is just ridiculous. Also, the ear piercing comment - comparable only if we're removing half the child's ear for our own perceived notion of beauty. Poking a hole is hardly the same, and I think we all know it.
One final thought - to the person who mentioned the dog's tail had a potential to grow in crooked or screwy... such is life. It will simply increase the importation of european dogs who are already showing good tails. This may not be a bad thing - in fact, forcing breeders to bring in a large amount of new blood (arguably in better genetic condition than our own stock here) could be the best thing that has happened to the AKC in a long time. The breeds that will suffer are those that aren't affected - those that are desperate for an improvement in their genetic wellbeing. 1 in 4 goldens now suffer from thyroid disorder - let's face it, we need to start thinking outside the box if the AKC is going to survive the next ten or twenty years with its reputation intact.
Kim November 30th, 2008 01:51:53 AM
all i can say is i think cosmetic type surgery is dumb and well cruel. hiding behind history or culture is just ignorant. humans as a whole have done some dumb things past mistakes. learn from it and move forward. i have had dogs in the past that were traditionally cropped or docked which my family never did and i as an adult never would. this was over 30 years ago in some cases. i see no reason to inflict any kind of pain or chance of infection for looks.
katy December 5th, 2008 02:27:30 PM
Two things:
1) On circumcision. Circumcision is not a choice for me. I am a religious jew and am required by jewish law to have my sons circumsized. It's not cosmetic and no one has the right to dictate to me that it should not be done (nor have I ever heard any men complaining later that they wish they hadn't had the procedure, but that's besides the point LOL). I don't agree with little girls having their ears pierced (in fact, I very strongly disagree with it), but this is because people have a choice as adults to mutilate their body, or not, as they see fit. Animals do not have this choice - it is made for them by their owners. Every aspect of a domesticated dog is managed by humans, from the way a dog looks to when it and if it is bred, to how much exercise/veterinary care/food it gets. Docking/cropping on pets is not the same as the choice to circumsize a child or pierce a little girl's ears.
I should also add that it isn't STDs that are the main concern. Uncircumsized men are more likely to have FEMALE partners who contract reproductive cancer. I'm too lazy to google the statistics, but they're out there. Anyways, this isn't a discussion on circumcision; just wanted to clear some things up.
2) Even if one were to breed dogs with naturally standing ears, the ears would not resemble their cropped counterpart. One only needs to look at naturally standing ears to see that they aren't remotely the same shape. You're suggesting throwing away the tradition of a breed in pursuit of an ear you find appealing, despite it being completely unnatural to the breed. Great Danes were never meant to have GSD ears; if they were, they would've been bred for that trait. I personally, would rather see dogs with drop ears than those which so wildly deviate from the breed standards because of personal preference. While I don't like the exaggerated sloping backs of today's shepherds, I think it is far worse that backyard breeders are producing "jumbo shepherds" who weigh in the 120+ lb range and who have completely straight backs, coarse limbs, and other character traits that they find desirable. If you painted many of these dogs black, you'd have no idea they were purebred GSDs because they've become SUCH a departure from the breed standard as to be practically unrecognizable. I'd rather not see people going down this slippery slope of altering a breed's phenotype because they prefer to mix-n-match ears, tails, size, or what-not. If you want a dog in excess of 110 lbs, get yourself a giant breed instead of breeding bigger labs or goldens. If you want a dog that has a naturally standing ear, get yourself a breed known for it, instead of attempting to alter the breed standard of a drop-eared/cropped dog.
3) On dogs being of equal status to people: They aren't, nor should they be. Marjorie, I find it saddening, honestly, that you would put your life in danger for the sake of saving someone else's dog. I can understand why owners make that choice, but I am sure you have a family that loves you and potentially children that need you, and robbing your family of your presence and potentially your children of a mother to save someone's pet is not a choice I agree with. However, it is yours to make and I respect that. I recently had to euthaninize a dog I've had for the last decade, because she had become a bit addled in her old age and started showing aggressive behavior. The last straw is when she bit me with no apparent provocation. I have a toddler, and I absolutely will not risk his safety or his life (nor that of other children or guests) for any dog and it was a no-brainer for me to euthanize a biting dog. If my husky's life had been equal to my own or my child's, I would not have had the right to make that choice. I'm very, very glad I did.
4) Those of you poo-poo'ing the cropping or docking of breeds to prevent *potential* injury need to unselectively apply this to the spaying and neutering of pets as well. Having your breasts removed to prevent cancer is identical to removing a dog's reproductive organs because they *may* possibly develop complications at some point, especially in male dogs which do not have the high rates of reproductive complications that unspayed females have. Neutering is a convenience for those owners who want to be able to have a more reliable and attentive off-leash dog, or one who isn't going to jump a fence because there's a bitch in heat, or one who won't lift his leg on the couch. It has simply become a more acceptable practice because it's lumped in with spaying as "sensible preventative care".
Dr. K, I discovered your blog a week or so ago and am completely addicted. I can't access anything further back than 10 pages though, and I'm dying to read the rest of it!
Shavy December 6th, 2008 06:34:40 PM
Sorry, I started this post before shabbos, and adding to it afterwards, my 2 things became 4! Guess I should proofread better. :)
shavy December 6th, 2008 06:35:49 PM
well lets ban circumcition on male babies then!! I mean that is cosmetic......unless they don't keep themselves "clean" then later you must do it when they are older, how about that?! should we stop that because it is mean, even though we numb up there foreskin and some sleep through it? is this mean? where will it end!? what is the difference?! If this vet "feels uncomfortable" then don't do them in your clinic!! they cry for a second and then they are done and with their mother and fine!!! I am tired of goverment and animals rights act. jumping in on what I can not do and what I can on my property and with my dog! if the worst I do is a tail docking on my rotts for the "look" inwhich I like! or ears on my doberman.......which I like!! and the removal of dew claws because they tear off jumping on the fence then I will!! and I think AKC and we as people should stand up for OUR rights to have that choice!!! if you do not like it, then do not do it to your dog!!!! maybe I should come into YOUR home and tell you, you should not drink pop! well all that sugar is bad, there is no reason!, Oh...that is right, Gov. wants to do that too!!! where will it end!?!?! I love my dogs they are very well cared for and maybe these people should put more time and effort into things that really matter, like tougher laws for abuse to animals. or the death penalty for murderist and rapeists? how about that!? or putting in all the time into lowering our taxes or getting jobs going. instead, you want to infringe on my rights as a pet owner for somehthing so damn pittly!!! does it do life threatening harm to the dog? NO!!!!!!!! You don't like it fine don't do it to your breed of dog!
tasha Podratz February 21st, 2009 06:02:02 PM
Personally I would not ever support a breeder who chose to crop and dock. I will gladly rescue a dog from the shelter than line the pockets of people so far removed from reality and human decency. I like pure breds but the cost to moral fiber is just not worth it. The AKC should be ashamed of their stance to continue their endorsement of irresponsible cosmetic alterations. How childish and petty.
Audrey March 30th, 2009 08:41:32 AM
[url=http://www.avchWERrter.net]AVCHWERerter[/url]//
DF April 20th, 2009 11:07:49 PM
Just to let all users know that I have started the comments again, after some heavy spamming. There is a recaptcha image to help with this, but it doesn't always work smoothly. Let me know if there are any problems.
Home School and Earn your high school diploma from home
jame May 20th, 2009 06:57:48 AM
all i can say is i think cosmetic type surgery is dumb and well cruel. hiding behind history or culture is just ignorant. humans as a whole have done some dumb things past mistakes. learn from it and move forward.
mens wedding rings and engagement ring mountings and baguette diamond rings
Terry June 7th, 2009 03:37:58 PM
A special reverence for human life, and a kind, loving respect for animals are not mutually exclusive to me. Rather, I think that one is essential for the other. I can truthfully tell my daughter that she is a very special little girl and that I love her more than anything, and at the same time pamper my dogs like they're kids. I don't have to start actually thinking that my dogs are ultimately just as precious as my daughter, and I never would. top picture quality waterproof digital camera review | best budget waterproof camera | top rated waterproof cameras of 2009
DogLover June 24th, 2009 12:00:28 PM
AVI to MOV MAC
ew July 23rd, 2009 01:36:04 AM
DVD To Blackberry Converter
erwtewr August 7th, 2009 02:19:24 AM
Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Abercrombie and Fitch.
AF September 16th, 2009 09:04:12 PM
I like to read this article. Really this article very useful for me. I'll wait for the next article
Khairuddin Syach Weblog and Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa
Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa September 27th, 2009 07:18:34 PM
My Pekingese has had the same problem for years, I just don't understand how more people don't know about this.
online bachelors degree
online degrees
RPettigrew October 12th, 2009 03:31:37 PM
http://www.watchmvp.com/Louis-Vuitton.html Louis Vuitton watches http://www.watchmvp.com/Mont-Blanc.html Mont Blanc watches
shengxiang October 13th, 2009 03:11:52 AM
tiffany jewelry
tiffany cuff links
TIFFANY October 26th, 2009 04:29:16 AM
However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard discount tiffany jewelry unt tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest.
tiffany jewelry November 12th, 2009 07:30:45 PM
Timberland shoes sale is really a big benifit for you, go to the Timberland UK, there must be one Timberland shoes fit for you.
angel November 23rd, 2009 03:47:30 AM
Links of London provides optimal Christmas gift for approaching festival!
TRACY December 10th, 2009 08:32:22 PM
MAC Cosmetics is one of the most popular cosmetics companies in the world. MAC regularly releases special limited edition collections and also creates some of the most popular cosmetics products around. Dedicated to bring Womens the top grade Fashion Cosmetics. We believe that only focusing on quality can make us exist as long as possible.In Our Mac Makeup Wholesale Store Where you can Buy Best Quality Mac Makeup online.You'll find Mac eyeshadow,Mac Make up bags,Mac Makeup Brush,Mac mascara&eyeliner etc..So take a look at what we have to offer; you're sure to find exactly what you're looking for! cheap wholesale clothing , mac cosmetics , gucci shoes , p90x
ertawe December 12th, 2009 07:20:56 AM
How to fast convert to flash video ? Come to try this fantastic Flash Video Converter which never let you down. Compared with common flash video conversion tool, this Flash Video Converter can not only allow you to convert to flash video on-line, but also support you edit video, adjust effect, add watermark at ease. Before converting to flash video, embedded cue point is also supported.
cynthiachen December 24th, 2009 12:26:27 AM
Cheap Links of London sale jewelry for any special occasion, for instance, weddings, anniversary or birthdays. What's more, buy our cheap links of london jewelry for wholesale, and you could have access to a discount or even free gifts.
cheap Links of London December 29th, 2009 08:32:47 PM
<a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1187.html">gray ugg cardy</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-white-boots-p-1188.html">cream ugg cardy</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-black-boots-p-1189.html">black ugg cardy</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-blue-boots-p-1191.html">blue ugg cardy</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-bailey-button-5803-chocolate-boots-p-1285.html">Chocolate bailey button ugg</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-bailey-button-5803-chestnut-boots-p-1284.html">Chestnut bailey button ugg</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-bailey-button-5803-sand-boots-p-1287.html">sand bailey button ugg</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-bailey-button-5803-black-boots-p-1283.html">black bailey button ugg</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-bailey-button-5803-grey-boots-p-1286.html">grey bailey button ugg</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-bailey-button-5803-leopard-print-boots-p-1297.html">Leopard Print uggs</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-bailey-button-5803-leopard-print-boots-p-1297.html">Leopard Print ugg boots</a> <a href="http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-bailey-button-5803-leopard-print-boots-p-1297.html">ugg bailey button Leopard Print</a>
nike January 4th, 2010 07:34:13 PM
[url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1187.html]gray ugg cardy[/url] [url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1188.html]gray ugg cardy[/url] [url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1189.html]gray ugg cardy[/url] [url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1190.html]gray ugg cardy[/url] [url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1191.html]gray ugg cardy[/url] [url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1192.html]gray ugg cardy[/url] [url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1193.html]gray ugg cardy[/url] [url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1194.html]gray ugg cardy[/url] [url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1195.html]gray ugg cardy[/url] [url=http://www.uggood.com/womens-ugg-classic-cardy-5819-grey-boots-p-1196.html]gray ugg cardy[/url]
shoes-kobe January 4th, 2010 07:35:59 PM
Links of London silver may be the best presents for lovers. You can receive high quality and affordable price products at Links London Store. Links of London jewellery will make you interested and surprised.
Links london January 14th, 2010 12:20:00 AM
Good for you, for taking this stand.
I will never, ever understand why anyone would want to cut off
a dog's tail. It's one of my favorite parts ! Why don't these people
WANT to come home to a dog wagging its tail, indicating how happy
it is to see you ? It's just wrong, foolish, barbaric, and cruel.
ja January 19th, 2010 12:27:35 PM
Links London silver with high quality are provided on links London store, which is optimal gift for weddings，anniversary or birthdays. Linksukstore is your best choice, come quickly here!
Miller January 20th, 2010 03:34:15 AM
links of london
links of london January 21st, 2010 05:23:01 AM
Google plans to take another stab at capturing some of the <b><a href="http://www.ed-hardy.cc">ed hardy on sale</a></b> momentum surrounding social networking companies like Facebook and Twitter by leveraging Gmail, its popular e-mail service. <a href="http://www.ed-hardy.cc/ed-hardy-t-shirts.html">ed hardy t-shirts</a> Later this week, Google will unveil add-ons to Gmail that let people post and view messages <a href="http://www.ed-hardy.cc/ed-hardy-woman-shoes.html">ed hardy woman shoes</a> about their day-to-day activities, according to a person at Google briefed on its plans. This simple tweak to Gmail will let Google mimic the status updates that have driven much of Facebook and Twitter's success, as people return to the services again and again to check out what their friends and co-workers are doing.
sale ed hardy February 9th, 2010 03:44:47 AM
[b][url=http://www.ed-hardy.cc]ed hardy on sale[/url][/b][url=http://www.ed-hardy.cc/ed-hardy-t-shirts.html]ed hardy t-shirts[/url]
sale ed hardy February 9th, 2010 03:46:02 AM
Add Commment