# Need Opinions on Pet Plastic Surgery



## doghappy (Jul 15, 2011)

Hi all! I'm writing an article on pet plastic surgery and I need folks' opinions on this new fad. Also, if anyone has had their pet cosmetically altered or used pet plastic surgery for a medical reason, I would appreciate your views.

Thanks!

- Kelly, Hudson and Falstaff


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

My dog had his ears cropped and have no problem with that kind of surgery. Yes, it was simply cosmetic at first. However, I will be showing him and the cropped ears are part of his breed's standard. I think that the option in some cases is good (for example, dogs who wag their tails so hard that they constantly break it). I can understand why some people are against it and I have heard all of the arguments on either side of it. I think that since pet's are technically property and the procedure is done correctly than there is no problem with it. Freedom of choice.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

doghappy said:


> Hi all! I'm writing an article on pet plastic surgery and I need folks' opinions on this new fad. Also, if anyone has had their pet cosmetically altered or used pet plastic surgery for a medical reason, I would appreciate your views.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> - Kelly, Hudson and Falstaff


"Cosmetically Altered" could mean many things, some people think ear cropping, dew claw removal and tail docking would fall under this when they are, in fact a part of a breed standard for a reason (injury prevention while doing a job). You need to specify what type of procedures you mean.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I have never heard of any kind of cosmetic surgery on animals except for docking and cropping. So even if some people are doing it, I hardly think it qualifies as a "new fad".

The only thing I can think of is that someone on my cat forum needs to get her Persian nose surgery because she can't breathe right. But I don't even know if that would count as plastic surgery or not.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I have never heard of any kind of cosmetic surgery on animals except for docking and cropping. So even if some people are doing it, I hardly think it qualifies as a "new fad".
> 
> The only thing I can think of is that someone on my cat forum needs to get her Persian nose surgery because she can't breathe right. But I don't even know if that would count as plastic surgery or not.


Sinus clip is not a new surgery and it can be medically neccessary as would an eye surgery to correct Entropian, ectropian or cherry eye. I have heard of teste implants for nuetered male dogs, but honestly that's the only thing I could think of as strictly a cosmetic procedure.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I'd like to use this opportunity just to say NEUTICALS!!!!


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'd like to use this opportunity just to say NEUTICALS!!!!


So I'm not the only one thinking that. teehee


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

No experience with this topic at all. But in terms of Neuticals (heard of them), I think I would rather people get them to 'preserve their dog's pride/manliness/whatever'... than not have their dog neutered at all for the same reasons.
Otherwise, I prefer dogs to be natural/uncropped. But I have no qualms about cropping and such for breed standards, and of course for medical reasons. As long as the animal is healthy and happy, it's people's preference thing.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Ah, yes, Neuticals. . .I didn't think of that. If it's done at the same time as the neuter, is it really "cosmetic surgery" since the surgery was happening anyway? Well, I guess it's a "cosmetic procedure", at least. And those surgically inserted ear braces, too.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Part of the question ws plastic surgery for a medical reson. I had an episioplasty done on Atka because she has vulvular skin fold dermatitis from a juvenile vulva. The surgery is referred to by my vet as a "face lift of the other end."

I have known a few male humans that *should* have had Neuticals......

BTW I offered to install them free of charge....


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 12, 2011)

I am against cosmetic surgery but reconstructive (or medical) surgery does have benefits. Spay/neutering is a-okay with me as dogs obviously can't make a logical decision regarding breeding for themselves.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I'm against ear cropping and tail docking. In many countries in Europe these procedures are already banned, including mine. Cropping and docking was done because dogs were doing a job once. With emphasis on the word 'were'. Nowadays dogs are mostly kept as pets and such procedures are deemed unnecessary. People still doing it because they think it looks fancy are prosecuted, unless they can prove the procedures were done because of medical reasons. 

I'm only speaking of how it goes in the Netherlands, of course. 

Personally, I think a dog in its natural state is most beautiful. Including their ears and tails. Docking and cropping is, in essence, mutilation.


----------



## Polywoggy (Mar 7, 2011)

Elana55 said:


> I have known a few male humans that *should* have had Neuticals......
> 
> BTW I offered to install them free of charge....


 lol

I'm still on the fence about this one. For medical reasons and spay/neuter I am in full support. Purely cosmetic reasons do make me uncomfortable. Even "breed standards" are to me cosmetic and I would like to see that change in North America. 
Working/sporting dogs are somewhat different though. I have never had a working dog, or been around them much to know how often injury does actually occur if tail-docking is not done. I've recently been looking at Standard Poodles in mind of raising and training a future therapy dog. On one breeder's website they stated that yes, they do still dock, and that they have seen and experienced too many dogs having painful injuries from having their tail caught in a wheelchair. Reading that makes me more supportive of it than I used to be.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Polywoggy said:


> I've recently been looking at Standard Poodles in mind of raising and training a future therapy dog. On one breeder's website they stated that yes, they do still dock, and that they have seen and experienced too many dogs having painful injuries from having their tail caught in a wheelchair. Reading that makes me more supportive of it than I used to be.


See, that kind of thing at first seems to make sense. But then when I think about it, it strikes me how. . .selective they are about it. If they raised Labs as therapy dogs, they wouldn't dock their tails, even though they get their tails run over by wheelchairs just as often, and have a habit of whacking people in the face when they wag. And Poodles' tails aren't really docked short enough to make much difference as to the tail getting run over.

I guess that if the justifications were more consistent I could understand it. But it usually just comes down to tradition, no real reasons for it, and that does bother me.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Avie said:


> I'm against ear cropping and tail docking. In many countries in Europe these procedures are already banned, including mine. Cropping and docking was done because dogs were doing a job once. With emphasis on the word 'were'. Nowadays dogs are mostly kept as pets and such procedures are deemed unnecessary. People still doing it because they think it looks fancy are prosecuted, unless they can prove the procedures were done because of medical reasons.
> 
> I'm only speaking of how it goes in the Netherlands, of course.
> 
> Personally, I think a dog in its natural state is most beautiful. Including their ears and tails. Docking and cropping is, in essence, mutilation.


Your opinion, not everyone agrees and it should be the choice of the breeder/owner not the government.



Willowy said:


> See, that kind of thing at first seems to make sense. But then when I think about it, it strikes me how. . .selective they are about it. If they raised Labs as therapy dogs, they wouldn't dock their tails, even though they get their tails run over by wheelchairs just as often, and have a habit of whacking people in the face when they wag. And Poodles' tails aren't really docked short enough to make much difference as to the tail getting run over.
> 
> I guess that if the justifications were more consistent I could understand it. But it usually just comes down to tradition, no real reasons for it, and that does bother me.


Labs have MUCH thicker tails than poodles which makes them far less prone to breakage.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninjapoodles/4539154173/

http://www.justlabradors.com/forum/lab-chat/92439-what-about-tail-curling-upward-thing.html


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Your opinion, not everyone agrees and it should be the choice of the breeder/owner not the government.


Which is your opinion and not everyone agrees. See, it goes both ways .

I agree the government shouldn't get involved.



cshellenberger said:


> Labs have MUCH thicker tails than poodles and a different tail set which makes them far less prone to breakage.


Yeah, but they sure do whack people with their tails, hard. For a person in a wheelchair, they'd probably get it right in the face. I've heard people using "happy tail" as a justification for docking, so if any situation called for it, a Lab service dog would definitely be on that list. But nobody does it, because it's not tradition. . .

Plus, if someone is using their Poodles being service dogs avoiding injury as justification, I would expect them to dock their dogs' tails shorter. Poodles' tails are really quite long for a docked breed (I didn't know they were docked until a couple years ago because the tails look normal length to me) and I doubt that little bit off is going to make much difference in breakage. But of course they dock the traditional length. . .

I just like things to make sense and be done for a good reason. I hate "tradition" being used as a "reason" for anything.


----------



## doghappy (Jul 15, 2011)

Oh, my God! You guys are great. These are such intelligent, non-hysterical comments about a controversial subject. I also love that it's an international site, i.e. the Netherlands. So cool! I'm so glad I joined and look forward to interacting with you all. 

I should have listed examples of "pet plastic surgery." This includes, as you all have pointed out, procedures for medical reasons (such as correcting breathing problems) and "cosmetic" or "voluntary" procedures such as docking, cropping, Neuticles (you should see the info about the guy who created them - http://www.neuticles.com/inventor.php), declawing, debarking, breast reduction (on overbred animals who have excess skin), fat removal and liposuction. I saw one argument for cosmetic surgery which was odd - that it can be done to make a dog or cat more adoptable.

Is anyone willing to let me use your comments for my article? If so, would I be able to get names and location? If not, no big deal.

Thanks!!!

- Kel


----------



## Fuzzy Pants (Jul 31, 2010)

I've heard of english bulldogs and other wrinkly breeds having some of the folds removed to prevent them from constantly getting infected or from folding over the nose and restricting breathing through the nose. Personally, I don't agree with ear cropping/tail docking. I don't have a problem with it being done for medical reasons but doing it just for appearance is ridiculous IMO. I think breed standards should be changed. Dogs look so much better when they are natural.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

FYI, this is privately owned site, any use of what you read on it must be cleared with the site owners as well the person making the quote. 

And no, I do not wish to be quoted.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

doghappy said:


> Oh, my God! You guys are great. These are such intelligent, non-hysterical comments about a controversial subject. I also love that it's an international site, i.e. the Netherlands. So cool! I'm so glad I joined and look forward to interacting with you all.
> 
> I should have listed examples of "pet plastic surgery." This includes, as you all have pointed out, procedures for medical reasons (such as correcting breathing problems) and "cosmetic" or "voluntary" procedures such as docking, cropping, Neuticles (you should see the info about the guy who created them - http://www.neuticles.com/inventor.php), declawing, debarking, breast reduction (on overbred animals who have excess skin), fat removal and liposuction. I saw one argument for cosmetic surgery which was odd - that it can be done to make a dog or cat more adoptable.
> 
> ...


If you want to quote me, just give me a private message and we'll see. :wink: 

I'm actually glad our government has decided to ban cropping and docking. The procedures are not done in the animals' best interest. I know there's something to say for each side, but the arguments against cropping and docking apparently had so much weight that lots of countries found them to be important enough to put the ban in place. I'm sure the arguments weren't based on thin air. 

Anyhow, cropping and docking is considered part of animal cruelty over here, because essential body parts of a dog are preemptively taken away (often without enaesthetics), body parts necessary to convey clear communication between dogs. Of course, owners with cropped and/or docked dogs may dispute this. Though it has already been banned, it is still a subject of (intense) discussion on Dutch forums. People who insist on having cropped and/or docked dogs anyway no matter what, will import them from countries such as the USA. There is no law prohibiting this. If an owner wants an (in my eyes) mutilated dog, then they are still able to. They just need to go the extra mile. :biggrin1: 

I don't know if breed standards have been changed over here, but I do know that if you bring a cropped or docked dog to a show, you are sent away because you're not allowed to show a cropped or docked dog. Unless of course you have a veterinary report stating the procedures were done because of medical reasons or unless your dog is an import from a country where docking and cropping is still legal. 

As for the rest (oh boy, I think I'm starting to rant :rant: sorry about that, but you asked for opinions and comments  ) 

Extra dewclaws as they are often seen with Great Pyrenees and Briards are a genetic defect. Rumor goes it helped the dogs climb steep hills or something, but that's bullocks. The extra appendages are not strong enough to give any support, they'll likely tear. Which they oftentimes do, apparently, seeing that dewclaw removal is common among, well, nearly every breed except in breeds where they are part of the breed standard...  In my opinion, extra dewclaws are not a good thing and dogs should not be intentionally bred to have them. Dogs who do not have extra dewclaws, but are otherwise perfect examples of the breed, should just be allowed to be bred too, but no... dogs without the genetic defect that causes the extra dewclaws will be preemptively disqualified because the extra dewclaw is 'essential'. 

Cosmetic surgeries done to correct as per say breathing problems, I don't have an issue with it. After all, if it helps the dog get better, why not? 

But I feel very strongly that if a dog needs this kind of surgery, it should not be bred. Otherwise you would just create more dogs that are likely to suffer from breathing problems that need to be fixed. Instead, I think people should only breed dogs that are physically healthy, in this case, that breathe properly. I always thought that should be an obvious thing, but apparently that's not the case. It happens often enough that a dog that has had surgery for medical problems caused by genetic defects, becomes top dog at a show and then, a popular stud dog or brood bitch, thus passing the genetic defects down to their progeny. In the end, this only creates an unhealthier breed where more and more dogs will need to undergo surgery to fix serious health problems. 

Liposuction for a dog? Wow, never heard of that. But um... that's the owner's choice, I guess. I mean, unless all dogs of a specific breed suffer from excess fat (then it's a genetic problem and it should be fixed through better and more responsible breeding), I guess it's the owner's fault for having overfed a dog so much it became fat. 
If excess skin is a problem, like with Mastino Napoletanos or Basset Hounds, a dog could have some excess skin removed. Again, owner's choice. But again, like I said before, I don't think that, when the excess skin becomes an actual problem, the dog should be used for breeding purposes. 

Debarking?  
Who would do such a thing? There are so many other options to stop a dog from barking too much, jeez. If you don't want a dog to bark at all, then I suggest getting a plushie dog. :doh: People are weird. 

All of the above is my own opinion, my view on things. I'm not saying they're universal facts. Not everyone has to agree with me. Just making that clear this time, even though I thought I had made it clear last time too... 

In short: cosmetical surgeries done on animals to fix health problems are fine, but those animals shouldn't be bred. Real breed health issues like chronic breathing problems et cetera should not be fixed by continuously putting the dogs under cosmetic surgery, but by fixing the breeding programme and choosing healthy dogs. I'm against docking and cropping. 

There's something to say against preemptively neutering and spaying too (some consider that mutilation too)(not saying that I do), but I'll leave that discussion to another time.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm not against cropping, docking, or dew claw removal. I'm against government involvement. That is about all I got there.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'd like to use this opportunity just to say NEUTICALS!!!!


I could see hanging some fuzzy dice from the base of a dog's tail, but synthetic testes is getting deep into weird man's land.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I could see hanging some fuzzy dice from the base of a dog's tail, but synthetic testes is getting deep into weird man's land.


Yeah, and they even have silicone models because they "feel more realistic". Ewwww.


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, and they even have silicone models because they "feel more realistic". Ewwww.


What creeper is going to feel them to find out!!


----------



## Polywoggy (Mar 7, 2011)

Willowy said:


> See, that kind of thing at first seems to make sense. But then when I think about it, it strikes me how. . .selective they are about it. If they raised Labs as therapy dogs, they wouldn't dock their tails, even though they get their tails run over by wheelchairs just as often, and have a habit of whacking people in the face when they wag. And Poodles' tails aren't really docked short enough to make much difference as to the tail getting run over.
> 
> I guess that if the justifications were more consistent I could understand it. But it usually just comes down to tradition, no real reasons for it, and that does bother me.


Very valid point. Golden Retrievers and Labs that are bred purposely to use as service dogs never have their tails docked. I cannot imagine my Golden without her happy tail. The more fragile ornaments get placed on the upper half of the Christmas tree. Oh well. Jack the JRT did not have his tail docked as a pup and injured it (as well as badly breaking a leg) when he jumped out of a transport truck window on the highway. So now Jack has half of a tail. It is not just working dogs that get injuries, because life involves risk. Do we propose docking all dog tails?- of course not. I know I'm not going to start lopping off my own body parts in case of a future injury. It really does still make me uncomfortable.
I think debarking is horrid, and can't wrap my head around the idea of liposuction for a dog. Breast reduction! Why was the dog overbred in the first place? Makes no sense to me to get plastic surgery on a dog when the situation could have been avoided in the first place.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

I'm giggling at the thought of people objecting to being quoted. Can you just see a thesis, or newspaper article saying "Spotted Nikes said "X". And Marsh Muppet said "x". Or using that in footnotes to credit the source??

OP- You can quote me if you want. (Just make sure you use my ID, LOL)

I'm against cosmetic procedures for animals if there is no clear medical benefit, or it won't save animal's lives. (IE spay/neuter to prevent unwanted pregnancies).


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

spotted nikes said:


> I'm giggling at the thought of people objecting to being quoted. Can you just see a thesis, or newspaper article saying "Spotted Nikes said "X". And Marsh Muppet said "x". Or using that in footnotes to credit the source??
> 
> OP- You can quote me if you want. (Just make sure you use my ID, LOL)
> 
> I'm against cosmetic procedures for animals if there is no clear medical benefit, or it won't save animal's lives. (IE spay/neuter to prevent unwanted pregnancies).


SLIGHTLY off topic, but I am actually going to be in a BOOK about a message board I post on, picture and all. We have the option of going by our handles, or revealing our real names and talking about the board and such. Kind of crazy!

So clearly I don't mind being quoted if I say any thing worthy of quotation.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> SLIGHTLY off topic, but I am actually going to be in a BOOK about a message board I post on, picture and all. We have the option of going by our handles, or revealing our real names and talking about the board and such. Kind of crazy!
> 
> So clearly I don't mind being quoted if I say any thing worthy of quotation.


Just curious...What kind of Message board? Not sure I can think of any off hand that would make a good book...


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

spotted nikes said:


> Just curious...What kind of Message board? Not sure I can think of any off hand that would make a good book...


Let me send you the name in a PM! I don't think I can post the name here, and it's CLOSE to being a swear.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Avie said:


> I'm against ear cropping and tail docking. In many countries in Europe these procedures are already banned, including mine. Cropping and docking was done because dogs were doing a job once. With emphasis on the word 'were'. Nowadays dogs are mostly kept as pets and such procedures are deemed unnecessary. People still doing it because they think it looks fancy are prosecuted, unless they can prove the procedures were done because of medical reasons.
> 
> I'm only speaking of how it goes in the Netherlands, of course.
> 
> Personally, I think a dog in its natural state is most beautiful. Including their ears and tails. Docking and cropping is, in essence, mutilation.


makes me very glad I live in the US (For now, anyway)


----------



## StevieM (Jun 26, 2011)

A friend of mine adopted an adult female from a breeder who had whelped several litters from her, and she had HUGE, dangling nipples. She was also still intact, so when my friend had her spayed, she also requested a nipple-ectomy. The dog looked tons better afterwards. 
Stevie

A dog show judge, that's who.


----------



## MuttJob (Jul 16, 2011)

My dog recently had a nasal tumor removed from the end of her muzzle (just behind her nose.) The tumor was unilateral - only in one nasal cavity but she had no normal nasal cancer symptoms (usually nosebleeds and sneezing) so the first symptom was the lump on her nose. According to the CT scan there was bone damage where the tumor broke through her nasal cavity. So we had a surgeon who apparenly specializes in reconstructive surgery cover the damaged bone with a piece of transplanted connective tissue. He said it would lower the risk ofher head swelling up with air. He's said he's seen this happen before andits not dangerous, it resolves on its own in a week or two. It just looks really wierd and scary.

I had enough weird and scary with my first canine cancer diagnosis so I gave him the go ahead to try to reconstruct the nasal cavity with the connective tissue. It looks great now. Her shaved face is growing back in so you can hardly notice it. Best of all, if we knock that tumor into remission there is a good chance that real bone could regenerate. I'm.not sure if thats medical or cosmetic or a little of both.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I'm not against cropping, docking, or dew claw removal. I'm against government involvement. That is about all I got there.


BINGO!!!! The dog is MY property, I Decide what medical procedures it will undergo!


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> BINGO!!!! The dog is MY property, I Decide what medical procedures it will undergo!


x10 like!

(msg to short)


----------



## marie&tessa (May 29, 2011)

I'm not a fan of the idea of putting a dog through a medical procedure for purely aesthetic purposes. Surgery always carries a risk and it can cause some pain or discomfort. 

That said, some things that fall under "cosmetic" surgeries can also be beneficial. I am starting to understand why some people have dew claws removed. Maggie has double dew claws on her hind legs and they are always getting caught in her long leash. I can't count the number of times I had to go untangle her because she couldn't walk anymore. 
I would not have her go into surgery just to have the dew claws removed, but if she was going under for another reason, I might consider having it done.


----------



## Polywoggy (Mar 7, 2011)

While I am still a bit on the fence, I do lean more towards being against these procedures. However I do believe there are far worse abuses to worry about. I would not go so far as to say that I believe it is abusive. I know that people who still support these procedures are just as loving and responsible towards their animals as those who aren't. That is why I say that I am "uncomfortable", not against. If I do get a Standard Poodle in the future, overall temperament and health will be the deciding factors when selecting a breeder. I may end up getting a Spoo that comes with a docked tail. It wouldn't be my choice to do the procedure, but I would rather that than a poorly bred animal with hip dysplasia and epilepsy.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I'm against government involvement.


As for this, I agree. I would like to see breed standards change to include unaltered animals in North America- but I would like to see that change come from within the dog community/kennel clubs themselves. Governments make a mess out of these sorts of things...


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Polywoggy said:


> As for this, I agree. I would like to see breed standards change to include unaltered animals in North America- but I would like to see that change come from within the dog community/kennel clubs themselves. Governments make a mess out of these sorts of things...


Some breeds I think it would be good, others that still do a lot of field work it may not as I think you'd see adult tail amputations go through the roof as they did in Sweden (trying to find the stats, had them in another thread but they've since disappeared). I know Scotland also had the same problem and had to go back and amend their anti docking law to exclude litters from dogs that were working (either herding or hunting) due to the rise in tail amputations.


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

Avie said:


> I'm against ear cropping and tail docking. In many countries in Europe these procedures are already banned, including mine. Cropping and docking was done because dogs were doing a job once. With emphasis on the word 'were'. Nowadays dogs are mostly kept as pets and such procedures are deemed unnecessary. People still doing it because they think it looks fancy are prosecuted, unless they can prove the procedures were done because of medical reasons.
> 
> I'm only speaking of how it goes in the Netherlands, of course.
> 
> Personally, I think a dog in its natural state is most beautiful. Including their ears and tails. Docking and cropping is, in essence, mutilation.





Fuzzy Pants said:


> I've heard of english bulldogs and other wrinkly breeds having some of the folds removed to prevent them from constantly getting infected or from folding over the nose and restricting breathing through the nose. Personally, I don't agree with ear cropping/tail docking. I don't have a problem with it being done for medical reasons but doing it just for appearance is ridiculous IMO. I think breed standards should be changed. Dogs look so much better when they are natural.


Well the thing is with some breeds things frequently can become a medical issue, and its better to put a dog through a surgery as a puppy, when they heal much faster than they do as an adult. My example- tail docking. We bought a Boxer puppy with a natural tail. Didn't see a reason to dock it, it was cute! So she gets bigger and bigger, and her whip of a tail wags harder and harder... until it split at the end from banging against things. We tried to save the tail several times (stitches, bandages, numerous vet visits), but it continued to split open and become infected. So at the end of the day we ended up with an adult dog going through surgery (more money for us, slower healing for her), and a bunch of painting to do in the house to cover up the lovely red line of blood all around our house at tail-wag-level. We were informed this is why Boxers have docked tails... 

Ear cropping I find silly, although maybe it could be medical if a dog gets frequent yeast infections in their ears. My other dog gets frequent yeast infections and I just flop his ears inside out so they get some air haha.

The testicle thing is just ridiculous.

My boston had her nostrils widened as a puppy to make breathing easier.. medical reason only.


----------



## doghappy (Jul 15, 2011)

I did mention that I was writing an article on the subject but, of course, I will not use anything without asking for permission. Has anyone had other elective, cosmetic surgery done to their dog? Like, the breast augmentation or chin lift?


----------



## jenz (Aug 20, 2010)

> Personally, I think a dog in its natural state is most beautiful. Including their ears and tails. Docking and cropping is, in essence, mutilation.


I 100% agree Avie!! You are in the Netherlands? I hope the US moves in this direction...

Jen


----------



## ember (Jun 29, 2011)

Avie said:


> I'm against ear cropping and tail docking. In many countries in Europe these procedures are already banned, including mine. Cropping and docking was done because dogs were doing a job once. With emphasis on the word 'were'. Nowadays dogs are mostly kept as pets and such procedures are deemed unnecessary. People still doing it because they think it looks fancy are prosecuted, unless they can prove the procedures were done because of medical reasons.
> 
> I'm only speaking of how it goes in the Netherlands, of course.
> 
> Personally, I think a dog in its natural state is most beautiful. Including their ears and tails. Docking and cropping is, in essence, mutilation.


My grandpa had his last dog's tail cropped so each time she came out of the thicket she wouldn't have a bloodied(painful) tail. 

BTW, federal government should stay out of everything.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

jenz said:


> I 100% agree Avie!! You are in the Netherlands? I hope the US moves in this direction...
> 
> Jen


And what if I told you I think Doberman with natural ears and tail are unappealing? I hope the US does not move in this direction because my dog is my property.


----------



## Sendiulino (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm not a fan of putting animals through purely-cosmetic procedures that they clearly cannot volunteer for (as they are animals), just as I wouldn't like to see cosmetic procedures being performed on infants. But unlike dogs, children will one day grow up and be able to opt-in all they like. Dogs remain animals that cannot give an "opinion" of their own, nor do they have a true "voice" one way or the other. Therefor, I prefer to see dogs left in their natural state. 

For me, I like the idea of government regulation acting in the best interest of the dog.. people say they want to be able to choose, but it shouldn't be about *our *choice. It's the dog's life and the dog's (insert body part), and the fact is? They can't choose. 

Once you start saying that you want to be able to make the choice yourself, you are essentially lowering a dog to "property" designation. For me, my pets are members of the family. They're never going to be able to grow up and say "I wish you hadn't done that, mom," nor will they ever understand your answer to why you did it _to _them (not "for" them). So I really would rather err on the side of caution that they perhaps would _not _want to be put through such procedures.. just in case 

That's just strictly my opinion though.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

I have to admit I have an aversion towards cropping/docking, but I do think it should be allowed so that in those occasions when it is necessary it can be done and prevent unnecessary suffering from working injuries. Or even just injuries from everyday life. I have no idea if Great Danes are normally docked, but I know my father "in-law"'s dane has had MULTIPLE injuries to his tail, one in which he amputated the tip of it in a doorway. He has scars all over his tail from banging it into stuff. Sounds a lot more humane to remove a tail under anesthesia than to allow that tail to be broken, cut or amputated WITHOUT anesthesia. And even if a procedure is done pretty much just to create a certain "look," I dunno, I can't say I LIKE that, but I can certainly think of worse things one could do to a dog.

I also emotionally don't enjoy the thought of debarking or bark-softening, but that doesn't mean I should have any say in whether or not someone else has it done. The ONLY person I know of who has debarked a dog did it because of severe separation anxiety which they were managing, but couldn't outright stop. The dog was hurting themselves barking all day, and they were going to no longer be able to have their dog if they continued getting noise complaints. This wasn't a dog you could just give away, he wasn't really adoptable, he had major problems that needed to be dealt with, and in the meantime she had the dog debarked so she could keep him with her, and continue to be his advocate and fight for him to get over his anxiety. Knowing what she went through with this dog, I would NEVER say she made a willy-nilly decision because she was too lazy to teach the dog not to bark. She made the decision to soften his bark for the dog's own interest. 

It was an extreme situation, but things like that happen. And because they happen, I will never advocate telling someone what they can and cannot do with their dog, so long as they aren't being clearly abusive or neglectful. People really aren't thankful enough for the rights we have in the US, otherwise they wouldn't be so quick to ban something because their initial EMOTIONAL reaction to it isn't kittens and rainbows.



Sendiulino said:


> I'm not a fan of putting animals through purely-cosmetic procedures that they clearly cannot volunteer for (as they are animals), just as I wouldn't like to see cosmetic procedures being performed on infants. But unlike dogs, children will one day grow up and be able to opt-in all they like. Dogs remain animals that cannot give an "opinion" of their own, nor do they have a true "voice" one way or the other. Therefor, I prefer to see dogs left in their natural state.
> 
> For me, I like the idea of government regulation acting in the best interest of the dog.. people say they want to be able to choose, but it shouldn't be about *our *choice. It's the dog's life and the dog's (insert body part), and the fact is? They can't choose.
> 
> ...


Dogs don't get to choose what food they get to eat or where they can sleep or really any aspect of their lives. Yet no one is screaming that we should make it illegal to feed 'Ol Roy or let your dog sleep in your bed. A properly done crop/dock job is less invasive than a spay surgery, and yet that's legal and even recommended by most. I assure you that no dog has a strong opinion about whether or not they are cropped/docked, unless it is done improperly and causes them pain. Once everything's healed the dog DOES NOT CARE, so I don't really understand why a dog's right to choose is even really relevant to whether or not cropping/docking should be banned. It's like saying we shouldn't groom poodles because they don't get to decide what style haircut they get.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> And what if I told you I think Doberman with natural ears and tail are unappealing? I hope the US does not move in this direction because my dog is my property.


Then pick a breed with natural standing ears... 
Was about to say more, but I'm not about turning this into a childish discussion about what way a dog looks better. To each his own opinion I guess, and mine has already been made clear. 

My dad has always been a big fan of Dobermans. He always thought they were born with upright ears and short tails, until I showed him a picture of an undocked and uncropped Doberman and he was like: "Is that a...?" 
"Yep," I answered, and explained docking and cropping to him. He adjusted quickly and told me: "If they're born this way, this is the way I like them better. It's how they should be." 

I wish more people could adapt so quickly, but I suppose the 'new' look of many breeds takes time to adjust to. As I said before, docking and cropping is still an intense topic of discussion here, even though the ban has already been put in place. 

I've heard all sorts of arguments for and against docking and cropping, but the one argument that I haven't heard yet (and so frequently too) is the one about the government not having anything to do with what people can and cannot do to their dogs. I believe that's the major difference between the US and many countries in Europe. In Europe, people are used to the government having a say in a lot of things, while in the US, people seem to be very focused on individual freedom. (not that we don't have that over here...) 

As has been said: the dog is MY property and I decide what I can and cannot do with it; the government has nothing to do with that. 
While here, the mentality is more like: the dog is my property, but I can't get away with everything because the government has clearly outlined what I can and cannot do. 

Governmental interference has become so integrated into our society that we don't think it's that big of a deal anymore. 
To be honest, I don't think it's that big of a deal either. Despite the many (sometimes annoying amount of) laws and regulations, life is good here. 

There's another thing I read that I wanted to address, about the Boxer tails breaking because they wagged so hard? That's a commonly heard argument. In a discussion on a Dutch forum, someone else worded it very well. Not gonna quote him (he wrote Dutch anyway), but it came down to this: 

For years and years, breeds that were (previously) cropped and docked were not selected on good, strong ears and tails, because they were cropped and docked anyway so it wasn't important. Now, when cropping and docking is made illegal, we are experiencing the result of those many years of not selecting on good quality ears and tails: they've become fragile and easily damaged. This should not be a reason to revert back to cropping and docking preemptively, but rather be reason to start selecting on better quality tails and ears that won't damage so easily. It won't happen overnight, but years from now, we will be able to enjoy dogs with natural, resilient tails and ears. 

@Sendiulino: I really like your post. 

@Kafkabeetle: Good point about the spaying part. Also, your example of the debarked dog shows the whole matter isn't just black and white. :wink:


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Avie said:


> Then pick a breed with natural standing ears...


But I like Doberman. 

It also isn't about what way they look better. It's about the dog being my property and I can do what I want with my property. The idea of government involvement at all makes me balk. This argument creeps up all the time and it's ridiculous. If you don't want to crop/dock/whatever your dogs, don't. But you don't get to make that decision for others.


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

Avie said:


> There's another thing I read that I wanted to address, about the Boxer tails breaking because they wagged so hard? That's a commonly heard argument. In a discussion on a Dutch forum, someone else worded it very well. Not gonna quote him (he wrote Dutch anyway), but it came down to this:
> 
> For years and years, breeds that were (previously) cropped and docked were not selected on good, strong ears and tails, because they were cropped and docked anyway so it wasn't important. Now, when cropping and docking is made illegal, we are experiencing the result of those many years of not selecting on good quality ears and tails: they've become fragile and easily damaged. This should not be a reason to revert back to cropping and docking preemptively, but rather be reason to start selecting on better quality tails and ears that won't damage so easily. It won't happen overnight, but years from now, we will be able to enjoy dogs with natural, resilient tails and ears.


Okay but the fact is that not all the current dogs have strong tails or ears... so should we just deal with the consequences of broken tails when they happen? And when they do immediately spay or neuter the dog so they can't reproduce? My Boxer is a pet, she is spayed, and we never wanted to breed her. She now has no tail whatsoever (first had long tail, repeatedly injured it- we docked it as adult, then she got cancer on her tail, so it had to be completely removed). I'm all for breeding healthy, stronger dogs.. but unfortunately the majority of dogs being bred are not being bred by people who care about improving the breed. We've got puppy mills, back yard breeders, strays, etc. I honestly don't care about the looks aspect of it at all, and before we got the Boxer we never would have thought of having her tail docked because we thought it to be unnecessary, but if I were to buy another Boxer (which I wouldn't lol) I would definitely have the tail docked as a puppy. I really doubt that docking a tail is going to in any way make an animal's life worse.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Sendiulino said:


> I'm not a fan of putting animals through purely-cosmetic procedures that *they clearly cannot volunteer for* (as they are animals), just as I wouldn't like to see cosmetic procedures being performed on infants. But unlike dogs, children will one day grow up and be able to opt-in all they like. Dogs remain animals that cannot give an "opinion" of their own, nor do they have a true "voice" one way or the other. Therefor, I prefer to see dogs left in their natural state.
> 
> For me, I like the idea of government regulation acting in the best interest of the dog.. *people say they want to be able to choose, but it shouldn't be about our choice. It's the dog's life and the dog's (insert body part), and the fact is? They can't choose. *
> 
> ...


Anthropomorphizing. I am positive that a dog doesn't wake up and say "Darn, I sure with my tail wasn't docked and my ears weren't cut." Frankly, I don't think they care. I don't think they even _know_ that their ears are cut or tails are docked because they are *dogs*. They don't think like people, they live in the moment and don't hold 'grudges'.

They're never going to be able to grow up and say "I wish you hadn't done that, mom," because they are never going to grow up and think "I want my tail." 

I love my dogs, but at the end of the day, they are dogs not people, they don't think like we do and they shouldn't be treated like people, they should be treated like dogs. Its kind of like: at the end of the day designer dogs are mutts.(same thought process) 

I'm not saying they should be treated like property like a chair or a car, but they aren't people either, they aren't cats, they aren't shoes or clocks, they *are* dogs.

On another thought, I agree with TWAB. I don't like the way Dobe's look with their tales and I am not a huge fan of them with their ears down, and because when it comes down to it, dogs don't care and dogs are property and I respect that owners/breeders choose to dock and clip their dobermans and other dogs. I have an Aussie puppy, and if he has a docked tail, I probably would have passed him by if he had his tail still. 1. Because its breed standard. 2. Because I want a tailless dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The "my dog is my property and I'll do what I want" argument is so distasteful to me. It literally makes me gag. It sounds so. . .abusive.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Anthropomorphizing. I am positive that a dog doesn't wake up and say "Darn, I sure with my tail wasn't docked and my ears weren't cut." Frankly, I don't think they care. I don't think they even _know_ that their ears are cut or tails are docked because they are *dogs*. They don't think like people, they live in the moment and don't hold 'grudges'.
> 
> They're never going to be able to grow up and say "I wish you hadn't done that, mom," because they are never going to grow up and think "I want my tail."
> 
> ...


Right. My dogs being my property doesn't make me treat them like a couch, but I don't know what else people would like them to be. It's so commonly thrown out that if we don't like a dog with a certain look, we should get a different dog that already has that look as if it is that simple. If we can so easily do that, how is it any harder for people who don't like cropping/docking/whatever to just not do it themselves? As it stands, I don't own any breeds that require it and my breed of choice does not. 



Willowy said:


> The "my dog is my property and I'll do what I want" argument is so distasteful to me. It literally makes me gag. It sounds so. . .abusive.


But they are property. It's not an argument.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> The "my dog is my property and I'll do what I want" argument is so distasteful to me. It literally makes me gag. It sounds so. . .abusive.


my dog is my property and i will do what i want....

including feeding, training, playing, cuddling, vet care, car rides, brothsicles, raw food, new collars, her own mattress and down comforter, toys, friends, walks...


guess i should be locked up.

Willowy..,methinks you have a negative bias going on. for example...ive been told a BAJILLION TIMES...she should be put down. screw that..i do what i want. the argument works both ways.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pets are property. It needs to be this way, and it's really the only way. But I don't think anybody in the world has the right to behave however they want to. Even if they have the legal right to do so they still do not have the moral right to behave however they want to. One needs to examine their behavior to make sure they aren't doing anything harmful or abusive. To say "I've examined the available evidence and do not believe that x is harmful or abusive" is one thing, to say "I'll do whatever I want regardless of who it harms" is quite another.

And yes, it's so completely what abusers say that it makes me gag. Sorry.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Pets are property. It needs to be this way, and it's really the only way. But I don't think anybody in the world has the right to behave however they want to. Even if they have the legal right to do so they still do not have the moral right to behave however they want to. One needs to examine their behavior to make sure they aren't doing anything harmful or abusive. To say "I've examined the available evidence and do not believe that x is harmful or abusive" is one thing, to say "I'll do whatever I want regardless of who it harms" is quite another.
> 
> And yes, it's so completely what abusers say that it makes me gag. Sorry.


and im gonna keep saying it so gag away. i want Bolo to have a life and be happy. i want people to back the eff off about her DA because i have it under control. i want the government to back the eff off about her breed because it's a non issue. My dogs are my property and i do whatever the **** i want with them....because i want the best for them.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Pets are property. It needs to be this way, and it's really the only way. But I don't think anybody in the world has the right to behave however they want to. Even if they have the legal right to do so they still do not have the moral right to behave however they want to. One needs to examine their behavior to make sure they aren't doing anything harmful or abusive. To say "I've examined the available evidence and do not believe that x is harmful or abusive" is one thing, to say "I'll do whatever I want regardless of who it harms" is quite another.
> 
> And yes, it's so completely what abusers say that it makes me gag. Sorry.


I would hope in the years I have spent on this board that when I say "my pets are my property" no one would identify me with an animal abuser, but apparently I would be wrong.


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 5, 2008)

Well slap my arse and send PeTA my way!

*own·er/ˈōnər/
Noun: A person who owns something.

own/ōn/
Verb: Have (something) as one's own; possess

pos·sess/pəˈzes/Verb
1. Have as belonging to one; own: "I do not possess a television set".
2. Have possession of as distinct from ownership*

For all intents & purposes, since I am their owner, my pets are my property.

And they're declawed. And docked.

And well loved, well cared for, well trained, well socialized members of my family.

Imagine that.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and im gonna keep saying it so gag away. i want Bolo to have a life and be happy. i want people to back the eff off about her DA because i have it under control. i want the government to back the eff off about her breed because it's a non issue. My dogs are my property and i do whatever the **** i want with them....because i want the best for them.


 Let's hope that this is because you've examined the available evidence and decided you aren't harming anyone by doing so. Not doing whatever you want even though it harms other living beings just because you have the right to do it.


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

Animal rights activist are like a kernel of corn. You eat it but it never really goes away... As long as the surgery serves a real purpose- I have no issue with it. Tail docking/ear cropping serves sporting/showing purposes. I don't see how those can be considered abuse. I've seen real abuse- people are too caught up in their own little world of advocacy that they attack every little thing even when it's harmless in the long run. However, when it comes to real stuff they are nowhere to be seen.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I would hope in the years I have spent on this board that when I say "my pets are my property" no one would identify me with an animal abuser, but apparently I would be wrong.


I didn't say you were. I just said I don't like that argument.



Bones said:


> As long as the surgery serves a real purpose- I have no issue with it. Tail docking/ear cropping serves sporting/showing purposes.


I don't see how sporting/showing purposes count as "real" purposes. It's a hobby. It means nothing in the long run.

I don't consider tail docking to be abuse (on the fence about ear cropping). I just don't think it serves a real purpose in most cases and the usual justifications just plain don't make sense.

For instance, regarding kafka's post--Danes are not usually docked. Do they damage their tails just as often as undocked Boxers? Probably. Is the possible damage used as a justification to dock Boxers? Yes. If you decided to use the possible damage as a justification to dock all your Dane puppies, what would the breed people say? It's not tradition. . .


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I didn't say you were. I just said I don't like that argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how sporting/showing purposes count as "real" purposes. It's a hobby. It means nothing in the long run.


Aye, but how does it qualify as abuse. Unless I'm mistaken most of those animals are well cared for- well beyond average pets.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Bones said:


> Animal rights activist are like a kernel of corn. You eat it but it never really goes away... As long as the surgery serves a real purpose- I have no issue with it. Tail docking/ear cropping serves sporting/showing purposes. I don't see how those can be considered abuse. I've seen real abuse- people are too caught up in their own little world of advocacy that they attack every little thing even when it's harmless in the long run. However, when it comes to real stuff they are nowhere to be seen.


One plus. It's a damn good thing Magpie is my property now. A dog sitting in a one car garage with over 25 other dogs in their own filth rotting away with mange and bacterial infections unable to walk is abuse. Taking a dog to a responsible vet to have their ears cropped is not.



Willowy said:


> I didn't say you were. I just said I don't like that argument.
> 
> 
> I don't consider sporting/showing purposes to be "real" purposes. It's a hobby. It means nothing in the long run.


But it's not an argument. They are in the eyes of the law my property. If I choose to do any surgeries to them it's my choice and I prefer the right to choose in pretty much all aspects of my life. I should not suffer because of people who are idiots.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Even if they have the legal right to do so they still do not have the moral right to behave however they want to.


Can you please define a moral right? I'm not sure what you are trying to say...
Because :

Moral-sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment AKA *opinion* on what is right or wrong.
right-something to which one has a just claim AKA self explanatory

Therefore: 
Because everyone has a right to their opinion and thus morals, how can you say that people *don't* have the "moral right" to do something.

You can say that *your* morals are against cosmetic surgeries or that their (other people's) morals *should* be against cosmetic surgeries. But you have no strength in saying that people _don't_ have a "moral right" to anything.

And who determines what abuse is. We are talking about docking tails and clipping ears here. Done properly can be the epitome of "humane". The dogs don't care, we aren't beating them with sticks or stones. We aren't thumping them in the chest to show dominance and we aren't taping shoes to their heads to teach them that shoes are off limits. 

We are feeding, watering, loving, caring for, buying goodies, and training our dogs, yes, this may involve some tail docking or ear clipping, oh well. Not your dogs, not your problems.

EDIE: WOW, there were like 5 posts since I started to write this!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> But it's not an argument. They are in the eyes of the law my property. If I choose to do any surgeries to them it's my choice and I prefer the right to choose in pretty much all aspects of my life. I should not suffer because of people who are idiots.


They're your property, that's a fact, that's not an argument. The "I'll do anything I want" part is an argument and I don't like it.


----------



## pittsabowawa (Jul 26, 2009)

Bones said:


> Animal rights activist are like a kernel of corn. You eat it but it never really goes away... As long as the surgery serves a real purpose- I have no issue with it. Tail docking/ear cropping serves sporting/showing purposes. I don't see how those can be considered abuse. I've seen real abuse- people are too caught up in their own little world of advocacy that they attack every little thing even when it's harmless in the long run. However, when it comes to real stuff they are nowhere to be seen.


+1 I totally agree.


I also find the whole "unable to communicate" argument to be a bunch of BS. If it were true it's a wonder ANY docked breeds survive without brutally attacking and being attacked. Because of course the only ways of communication they posses are a tail wag. <~~~~~ insert eyeroll here.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Willowy said:


> They're your property, that's a fact, that's not an argument. The "I'll do anything I want" part is an argument and I don't like it.


But I will do any thing I want. I want to take care of them and make well informed decisions for them. If I couldn't do what I wanted with them, Magpie and Jonas would have been euthanized. Clove too for that matter.


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 5, 2008)

I'm curious to know if your Rottweiler is docked, Willowy.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MonicaBH said:


> I'm curious to know if your Rottweiler is docked, Willowy.


He is (badly). But I didn't do it and I didn't buy him (therefore not supporting the breeder who did the docking). He was dumped on me by a friend who moved away. I wouldn't turn away a docked dog in need any more than I would turn away a de-clawed cat in need. But I wouldn't have a cat de-clawed and I wouldn't have a dog docked/cropped (or pay money to the people who did it).

Speaking of which, if a dog is a docked or cropped in a way that doesn't conform to the breed standards (like Moose--his tail is maybe 6 inches long), is there ANY point to it at all? Just sort of random whacking of body parts at that point.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Speaking of which, if a dog is a docked or cropped in a way that doesn't conform to the breed standards, is there ANY point to it at all? Just sort of random whacking of body parts at that point.


Such as? I would like to make a well thought out and intelligent response, and in order to do so I must know what exactly you are refering to when you say "docked or cropped in a way that doesn't conform to breed standards."


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 5, 2008)

Willowy said:


> He is (badly). But I didn't do it and I didn't buy him (therefore not supporting the breeder who did the docking). He was dumped on me by a friend who moved away. I wouldn't turn away a docked dog in need any more than I would turn away a de-clawed cat in need. But I wouldn't have a cat de-clawed and I wouldn't have a dog docked/cropped (or pay money to the people who did it).
> 
> Speaking of which, if a dog is a docked or cropped in a way that doesn't conform to the breed standards (like Moose--his tail is maybe 6-8 inches long), is there ANY point to it at all? Just sort of random whacking of body parts at that point.


But he's a happy, well adjusted companion (thereby serving you a purpose), even with a docked tail. To your knowledge, he has not suffered any physical or mental ailments because of the dock (although, to you, it is not aesthetically pleasing).

And you love him anyway, interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past haven't you said that death was better for cats than declawing?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Moose tail is about 6 inches long. I believe a Rott's tail is supposed to be docked at the first or second vertebra. He looks like a fat Dobe.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

No no. I want to go back to the post about how a cat with his eye stabbed out is the same as a dog being cropped/docked.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

And can you explain the circumstances that lead to this? Is Moose your Rottie? Details, details...

TWOB - Sorry, I missed that post, I will have to go back and read it...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MonicaBH said:


> But he's a happy, well adjusted companion (thereby serving you a purpose), even with a docked tail. To your knowledge, he has not suffered any physical or mental ailments because of the dock.
> 
> And you love him anyway, interesting.


I don't know if he has phantom pains in his tail or suffers other low-grade discomfort. He can't tell us about it.

Of course I love him anyway. I would love a 3-legged dog. I would love a one-eyed dog. I wouldn't voluntarily have a dog's leg or eye removed, though. Only if it was a medical necessity.



> Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past haven't you said that death was better for cats than declawing?


That would depend on the cat. I knew an adult cat who committed suicide after being de-clawed (and nothing will change my mind on what he did. It was very deliberate). I guess he thought death was better. 

But in general, there are very few things worse than premature death.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> No no. I want to go back to the post about how a cat with his eye stabbed out is the same as a dog being cropped/docked.


Haha, yeah, I thought better of that one. I didn't say it was the same, it was just the first analogy of a disabled cat that popped into my head. But I saw how people could read it wrong so I changed it.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

KodiBarracuda said:


> And can you explain the circumstances that lead to this? Is Moose your Rottie? Details, details...
> 
> TWOB - Sorry, I missed that post, I will have to go back and read it...


It's gone.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

KodiBarracuda said:


> And can you explain the circumstances that lead to this? Is Moose your Rottie? Details, details...


Yes, Moose is my Rottie. I don't know what you mean by circumstances? His breeder evidently either didn't know the breed standard on tail docking or didn't care.


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 5, 2008)

I am dying to know how a cat committed suicide. I can't tell if I intended the pun or not.

Has your docked Rottweiler ever given you any reason to believe that his dock is causing pain? You'd know if your dog was painful or uncomfortable, right? No outright licking, chewing, scratching, biting at his tail? No sudden yelping in pain, and looking towards that area?


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't know if he has phantom pains in his tail or suffers other low-grade discomfort. He can't tell us about it.
> 
> Of course I love him anyway. I would love a 3-legged dog. I would love a one-eyed dog. I wouldn't voluntarily have a dog's leg or eye removed, though. Only if it was a medical necessity.


Anthropomorphizing... Phantom pains are human phenomenon. If your dog was "suffering" from any "discomfort" you should know. I know when my dog doesn't feel right, and I would bet money that most others here do to. 




> That would depend on the cat. I knew an adult cat who committed suicide after being de-clawed (and nothing will change my mind on what he did. It was very deliberate). I guess he thought death was better.
> 
> But in general, there are very few things worse than premature death.


I cant say anything about this other than it made me lol literally. Anthropomorphizing. Sorry, but if you are going to convince anyone of anything, you need to stop treating dogs like people, they don't think the same as we do. End of story, its just they way it is. Etc. Etc.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MonicaBH said:


> I am dying to know how a cat committed suicide. I can't tell if I intended the pun or not.


He was an adult stray they took in. Not young. He never scratched anyone or anything--this family just automatically de-claws all their cats. He was clearly distressed about the loss of his claws. He would try to extend them and then jump up howling and attacking when he couldn't. He stopped eating. They took him to the vet and force fed him. He started biting and randomly attacking everyone. They put up with it. Finally, when they let him outside again (yeah, they were real winners), he walked into traffic. Mind you, he had been a stray for years in that neighborhood and was well aware of the traffic there. I do believe he did it deliberately. I think cats are capable of suicide the same way whales are. No, they can't think like humans but they do think.

Last I read, scientists were torn on whether phantom pain is psychologically based or an actual physiological phenomenon. If it is physiological, dogs are just as likely to experience it as humans are.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yes, Moose is my Rottie. I don't know what you mean by circumstances? His breeder evidently either didn't know the breed standard on tail docking or didn't care.



As for circumstances. Is is possible that it wasn't his breeder that did it? Is it possible it was an emergency amp? Is it possible that it was done for a health reason by the breeder or vet? Is is possible that it was best for the dog at that time?

There are so many unknowns that I cannot take this example seriously. Any more?



Willowy said:


> He was an adult stray they took in. Not young. He never scratched anyone or anything--this family just automatically de-claws all their cats. He was clearly distressed about the loss of his claws. He would try to extend them and then jump up howling and attacking when he couldn't. He stopped eating. They took him to the vet and force fed him. He started biting and randomly attacking everyone. They put up with it. Finally, when they let him outside again (yeah, they were real winners), he walked into traffic. Mind you, he had been a stray for years in that neighborhood and was well aware of the traffic there. I do believe he did it deliberately. I think cats are capable of suicide the same way whales are.


1. You have no idea that he was mourning the loss of his claws, Once again... CATS/DOGS AREN'T HUMANS and don't think the way we do.
2. Maybe his mood change was the medication, which often changes the mood of animals while they are on them.
3. Bad luck... We have had MANY outdoor cats (all of them are outdoor actually) They would live years 6,7,8, etc, and then one day get hit by a car (we lived on a farm that bordered a hwy. ) it was just bad luck, not suicide.

Sorry about the double posts, too lazy to edit or something. Not sure what my excuse is, too baffled to think of one.... 
EDIT: OOOH, nice feature combined my posts. *LIKE*


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> They're your property, that's a fact, that's not an argument. The "I'll do anything I want" part is an argument and I don't like it.


Ultimately I strongly believe that being defined as property is in pet and pet owners' best interest, even though it may seem distasteful. The problem with defining pets as anything other than property or legislating care is that ultimately it doesn't discriminate between what you personally consider "good" and "bad" pet owner choices. How would you feel about a law that required multiple annual vaccines for every cat and dog? Don't you think you should be able to make those decisions yourself? What about a law that dictated how you approach end of life decisions - or for that matter, any medical intervention for your pet? What's to keep those things from being regulated as well as crop/dock/declaw? Somewhere, I'm sure people think it's abuse to try fasting and a bland diet for a dog with diarrhea instead of doing a full medical workup every time. Don't you want to "do anything you want" about that diarrhea?

"My dog/cat is my property and I'll do anything I want" allows me to research and make decisions regarding food, toys, medical care, and everything in between. I'm sorry if you don't like the word, but just because I consider them property and am glad to do so, it doesn't mean that I think of them as lesser in any way. It means I get to make the choices I think are best for them.


And honestly, although declawing is less common than it used to be, I've known hundreds and hundreds of declawed cats over the years. Every cat is an individual, but with modern pain management no one will ever convince me that a cat is better off dead than declawed or that cats in general suffer significant long-term ill effects. If it's the cat or the claws, the claws go IMO.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

KodiBarracuda said:


> As for circumstances. Is is possible that it wasn't his breeder that did it? Is it possible it was an emergency amp? Is it possible that it was done for a health reason by the breeder or vet? Is is possible that it was best for the dog at that time?
> 
> There are so many unknowns that I cannot take this example seriously. Any more?


 His former owner was an acquaintance of mine. I went with him to visit the breeder before he bought Moose. All of the breeder's dogs had tails that length. Why is this a topic for discussion? Some breeders don't know or care about breed standards, I hardly think that's a surprise.

The cat was not on medication (the vets here do not usually give post-op pain meds for de-claws. Only what's given during the surgery). He died about 2 months after the surgery.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

BTW I've seen animals with phantom pain after various procedures, and there's really no question that they're painful in my experience - even with stoic animals. So I'm pretty confident that an animal acting normally isn't feeling phantom pain in a long-ago docked tail.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> His former owner was an acquaintance of mine. I went with him to visit the breeder before he bought Moose. All of the breeder's dogs had tails that length. Why is this a topic for discussion?


You brought it up...



> The cat was not on medication (the vets here do not usually give post-op pain meds for de-claws. Only what's given during the surgery). He died about 2 months after the surgery.


Because it was such a long time since the surgery debunks further that it was suicide. I may understand where you are coming from if it was a week afterwards, but 2 months?


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 5, 2008)

Willowy said:


> He was an adult stray they took in. Not young. He never scratched anyone or anything--this family just automatically de-claws all their cats. He was clearly distressed about the loss of his claws. He would try to extend them and then jump up howling and attacking when he couldn't. He stopped eating. They took him to the vet and force fed him. He started biting and randomly attacking everyone. They put up with it. Finally, when they let him outside again (yeah, they were real winners), he walked into traffic. Mind you, he had been a stray for years in that neighborhood and was well aware of the traffic there. I do believe he did it deliberately. I think cats are capable of suicide the same way whales are. No, they can't think like humans but they do think.
> 
> Last I read, scientists were torn on whether phantom pain is psychologically based or an actual physiological phenomenon. If it is physiological, dogs are just as likely to experience it as humans are.


Regardless of whether the phenomenon is psychologic or physiologic, there are still symptoms and/or signs associated with it. None of which your dog has, thereby indicating that the dock is not associated with physical distress. Are there any mental/behavioral issues that you feel could be associated?

My docked Rottweiler is 5.5 years old. I have never been given any reason to feel as if his dock has caused physical, psychologic, or mental anguish. He still communicates effectively using nonverbal cues (play bows, etc) and vocal cues (barking, whining, growling, grumbling). 

Additionally, my two declawed cats are happy and well adjusted. They use their front limbs as well as my clawed cats. One of my *clawed* cats has behavioral and social problems. I have no reason to believe my declawed cats are suicidal (suffering from mental ailments) or in physical pain because of their procedures. Also, I had an in/outdoor cat that got hit by a car after 7 years of going outside. I do not feel like she was suicidal. I feel as if she chose to cross/be near the street at the wrong time.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

KodiBarracuda said:


> You brought it up...


I'm confused why you keep pushing it too. You haven't made it clear what it would change if somehow the dog was docked under different circumstance. What are you trying to prove by calling that into question?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Last I read, scientists were torn on whether phantom pain is psychologically based or an actual physiological phenomenon. If it is physiological, dogs are just as likely to experience it as humans are.


I missed this earlier, but I didn't think there was much doubt anymore that it's physiologic. It's probably related to self-stimulation of the central nervous system pain pathways without the need for input from peripheral pain nerves anymore (what is sometimes called neurogenic pain or occasionally called "wind-up" of the central pain pathways). This can also occur with and contribute to any chronic pain condition such as arthritis and is why some drugs that only affect the central pathways (like some antidepressants or other central neurotransmitter blockers) can be used as part of a pain management plan for arthritis.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> I'm confused why you keep pushing it too. You haven't made it clear what it would change if somehow the dog was docked under different circumstance. What are you trying to prove by calling that into question?


I was going to show the silliness of the accusation and connection the OP was trying to make between poorly docked tails and correctly docked tails and other correctly done procedures. 

On the same hand. I did quite a bunch of debate in high school and it is still with me. We were taught, NEVER drop a point, because it may be brought up again against us by linking it to another point.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I was going to show the silliness of the accusation and connection the OP was trying to make between poorly docked tails and correctly docked tails and other correctly done procedures.


I don't know what you mean by "accusation". My point was: if docking is done to make a dog conform to a breed standard, but the docking isn't done to that standard, then why was it done? Does it change the ethical implications? I'm told a tail this long would effectively disqualify him from the show ring (assuming he in any other way conformed to the breed standard and was showable. . .I have no idea). So. . .why? Is it still a legitimate docking or is it wrong? Etc.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

But, you still haven't answered the question several posters here asked, Willowy. No one has argued whether phantom pain is possible, but what exactly has your dog done to demonstrate that he is suffering from it?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

No one walking down the street knows if my dogs are natural bob tailed or not.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Sendiulino said:


> For me, I like the idea of government regulation acting in the best interest of the dog.. people say they want to be able to choose, but it shouldn't be about *our *choice. It's the dog's life and the dog's (insert body part), and the fact is? They can't choose..


And, baby boys don't get to decide whether or not they get circumcised. Perhaps more relevant, babies who are born with tails (it happens) or extra digits or a parasitic twin do not get surgery put off until they are old enough to ask their permission. And you know what? There's no indication that they miss those extra parts. 



Sendiulino said:


> For Once you start saying that you want to be able to make the choice yourself, you are essentially lowering a dog to "property" designation. For me, my pets are members of the family. They're never going to be able to grow up and say "I wish you hadn't done that, mom," nor will they ever understand your answer to why you did it _to _them (not "for" them). So I really would rather err on the side of caution that they perhaps would _not _want to be put through such procedures.. just in case
> 
> That's just strictly my opinion though.


News phlash. Our dogs ARE our property. And I like it that way. I don't want government entities who don't know much about animals and don't know my animals at all thinking they need to protect them from me. My dogs have no concept that I own them. (I suspect they may think it is the opposite) but whatever, they ARE family, are treated as family and are treated well. They don't need to be protected from me, even if I remove their tails when they are very little.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Kuma'sMom said:


> But, you still haven't answered the question several posters here asked, Willowy. No one has argued whether phantom pain is possible, but what exactly has your dog done to demonstrate that he is suffering from it?


Nothing. He probably doesn't. I don't think I ever said he did? I said I don't know if he does--it's hard to tell when someone is experiencing low-grade discomfort. I don't think we can know that for sure, one way or the other.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> I don't know if he has phantom pains in his tail or suffers other low-grade discomfort. He can't tell us about it.


Really? You certainly implied it.


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 5, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Nothing. *He probably doesn't. *I don't think I ever said he did? I said I don't know if he does--it's hard to tell when someone is experiencing low-grade discomfort.


I think this makes my point a little more clear? Your docked dog doesn't have any pain associated by his docked tail. Even if it were only "low grade", you would know that he was having discomfort, and if the symptoms indicated, you could decide it was from his dock.

*I* think that with this tread, we have discovered that at least our two docked, male Rottweilers do not have any profound symptoms of any sort because of their docking.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I missed this earlier, but I didn't think there was much doubt anymore that it's physiologic. It's probably related to self-stimulation of the central nervous system pain pathways without the need for input from peripheral pain nerves anymore (what is sometimes called neurogenic pain or occasionally called "wind-up" of the central pain pathways). This can also occur with and contribute to any chronic pain condition such as arthritis and is why some drugs that only affect the central pathways (like some antidepressants or other central neurotransmitter blockers) can be used as part of a pain management plan for arthritis.


I wouldn't doubt at all that an adult dog who had its tail amputated (due to trauma, or other reason) might have phantom pain. I have to doubt that would be true if the tail was removed when the pup was a couple or three days old, with an immature nervous system. For a puppy of that age, it's basically an "outpatient procedure" For an older pup or adult it is major surgery.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I wouldn't doubt at all that an adult dog who had its tail amputated (due to trauma, or other reason) might have phantom pain. I have to doubt that would be true if the tail was removed when the pup was a couple or three days old, with an immature nervous system. For a puppy of that age, it's basically an "outpatient procedure" For an older pup or adult it is major surgery.


Oh I agree, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just geeking out over the physiology of pain.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MonicaBH said:


> I think this makes my point a little more clear? Your docked dog doesn't have any pain associated by his docked tail. Even if it were only "low grade", you would know that he was having discomfort, and if the symptoms indicated, you could decide it was from his dock.
> 
> *I* think that with this tread, we have discovered that at least our two docked, male Rottweilers do not have any profound symptoms of any sort because of their docking.


I don't think the outcome determines the "rightness" of the original action. If the dog has future complications, docking is wrong, but if not, it's right? I don't believe that.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> They're your property, that's a fact, that's not an argument. The "I'll do anything I want" part is an argument and I don't like it.


So, do you ask your dogs if they want to be spayed and neutered? A lot more invasive and painful than a neonate tail docking (and no more "necessary")


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Kuma'sMom said:


> Really? You certainly implied it.


Not sure of what part of "I don't know. . .he can't tell us" implies I think he does.



Pawzk9 said:


> So, do you ask your dogs if they want to be spayed and neutered? A lot more invasive and painful than a neonate tail docking (and no more "necessary")


I suppose the definition of "necessary" could be debated. I consider birth control to be necessary. If spay/neuter is the only way I can guarantee birth control, I guess it would be necessary. I probably won't neuter future male dogs, though, unless I get them from the shelter and it's required.


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 5, 2008)

You & I are going to have to agree to disagree, as per usual. It seems very hard for you to admit that your docked dog is actually a well adjusted, normal dog with no issues arising from his dock. I feel like my last point was more proving that dogs with docked tails are not suffering from the laundry list of problems they're touted to have, and that docking may not such a heinous act afterall. 

It's done, as a rule, when a puppy is 3-5 days old. Comparatively speaking, my brother was circumcised at around that same age, and my new baby nephew had to wait TWO WEEKS to have his circumcision done. This procedure is common and not medically necessary (although it is sometimes done for religious practices and hygienic purposes.) My brother remembers NOTHING of the procedure, and he's never had a problem with it. I imagine the same will hold true for my nephew.

...And on that note, I am retiring for the evening. I have 5.5 hours of sleep ahead of me for an 8 hr work day spent with some super cute, super sick and just plain super fuzzy patients. Good evening.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm against routine circumcision, too. I was raised on Mothering magazine (after a while anyway. . .not soon enough). So probably not the best analogy for me . Again, if there are complications, it's bad, but if everybody's A-OK it's fine? Because complications are not rare in that procedure (though most are relatively minor. But some are pretty catastrophic ).

Again, I never said that neonate tail docking is abusive. I just don't like the justifications or "reasons" people give for it. Makes no sense to me. And I don't like how it looks.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Pets are property. It needs to be this way, and it's really the only way. But I don't think anybody in the world has the right to behave however they want to. Even if they have the legal right to do so they still do not have the moral right to behave however they want to. One needs to examine their behavior to make sure they aren't doing anything harmful or abusive. To say "I've examined the available evidence and do not believe that x is harmful or abusive" is one thing, to say "I'll do whatever I want regardless of who it harms" is quite another.
> 
> And yes, it's so completely what abusers say that it makes me gag. Sorry.


Of course, the thing is, dog abuse IS a crime. They can't "do whatever they want". And suggesting that people who like their dogs cropped or docked are abusers is just, well. . . .I'd probably get banned if I said what it is.


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 5, 2008)

I have known men... many men... with circumcisions who never had an iota of a problem. I have also known men who are left intact that do have problems. 

I'm not for or against either way, as I do not have a penis of my own nor do I intend to create one (i.e., get knocked up) in the next few years.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, I'm not comfortable discussing the state of other people's genitals. And it's not the sort of thing that comes up in regular conversation. You have to be pretty close to a guy before you hear about that! But, yes, I do know at least one guy with (minor) complications. If I had a baby boy, I wouldn't. He can make that choice when he's old enough if he wants. It can't be undone (well, kind of. But not really).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I'm against routine circumcision, too. I was raised on Mothering magazine (after a while anyway. . .not soon enough). So probably not the best analogy for me . Again, if there are complications, it's bad, but if everybody's A-OK it's fine? Because complications are not rare in that procedure (though most are relatively minor. But some are pretty catastrophic ).
> 
> Again, I never said that neonate tail docking is abusive. I just don't like the justifications or "reasons" people give for it. Makes no sense to me. And I don't like how it looks.


So, you left out a part of my analogy. Should the child carry the tail or sixth finger or parasitic twin until they are old enough to give their consent? While the parasitic twin could be quite a bit of a problem, an extra finger or a tail is a cosmetic issue. As to not liking how a docked tail looks? Fine. Don't do it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> So, you left out a part of my analogy. Should the child carry the tail or sixth finger or parasitic twin until they are old enough to give their consent? While the parasitic twin could be quite a bit of a problem, an extra finger or a tail is a cosmetic issue.


I don't know enough about tails or parasitic twins. . .how often does that happen? It must be pretty rare, not quite the same as docking every single puppy. And I don't think doctors will remove an extra finger if it's fully functional. Hands are tricky, the nerves can be damaged easily and I don't think they mess with that. 



> As to not liking how a docked tail looks? Fine. Don't do it.


Yeah, that's the plan. Some people have a problem with that, though. . .ruins their breed or somesuch thing. It's nice how they want the choice to have a docked dog of that breed but don't want other people to have the same kind of choice to have an undocked dog of that breed.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't know enough about tails or parasitic twins. . .how often does that happen? It must be pretty rare, not quite the same as docking every single puppy. And I don't think doctors will remove an extra finger if it's fully functional. Hands are tricky, the nerves can be damaged easily and I don't think they mess with that.
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the plan. Some people have a problem with that, though. . .ruins their breed or somesuch thing.


What does "rare or not rare" have to do with it? Is the baby consulted? As to you having the dog you want? Fine with me. I like to have the dog I want as well (which is tail-less, either by nature or by docking) You seem to have a problem with that.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Not particularly. I merely pointed out what I felt was flawed reasoning and everybody jumped on it. I think you're pretty open about the fact that you like how docked tails look, that's that. Other people like to make up cutesy "reasons" why docking isn't just cosmetic. I think that's flawed reasoning and I'll point that out.



KodiBarracuda said:


> Because it was such a long time since the surgery debunks further that it was suicide. I may understand where you are coming from if it was a week afterwards, but 2 months?


Just saw this. . .why? I would say that if it was after a week, it was a reaction to the pain. After 2 months (of showing obvious distress when unable to extend claws, depression, refusing to eat, and lashing out) I would say that indicates it was the loss of the claws. Are you saying that no humans ever commit suicide a year (or longer) after losing a limb because they can't cope with the loss? Not saying all/most cats react this way to an adult de-claw, but it is a possibility.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Not particularly. I merely pointed out what I felt was flawed reasoning and everybody jumped on it. I think you're pretty open about the fact that you like how docked tails look, that's that. Other people like to make up cutesy "reasons" why docking isn't just cosmetic. I think that's flawed reasoning and I'll point that out.


But altering is just as flawed. Altering is pretty invasive, and it is done pretty much for an owner's convenience which I wouldn't put up any higher than cosmetic reasons. Some people will argue there are health benefits to doing so, while others find there are not. Another thing that should be owners choice.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Just saw this. . .why? I would say that if it was after a week, it was a reaction to the pain. After 2 months (of showing obvious distress when unable to extend claws, depression, refusing to eat, and lashing out) I would say that indicates it was the loss of the claws. Are you saying that no humans ever commit suicide a year (or longer) after losing a limb because they can't cope with the loss?


It's really a bit of a stretch, though, to proclaim that a cat committed suicide because it got hit by a car. Lots of really traffic-savvy animals (and a few humans) get themselves hit by cars. It's called an accident.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, I considered the refusal to eat the first suicide attempt (that's usually how cats do it), since he didn't have an infection or any other medical reason for it. When that failed he moved on. I "get" cats. They're my heart animals. I'm sure he did do it on purpose but I don't expect other people to believe it.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Let's hope that this is because you've examined the available evidence and decided you aren't harming anyone by doing so. Not doing whatever you want even though it harms other living beings just because you have the right to do it.


actually its because thats the person i am. your assumption that people DONT examine evidence is flawed. thats not the problem.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Not particularly. I merely pointed out what I felt was flawed reasoning and everybody jumped on it. I think you're pretty open about the fact that you like how docked tails look, that's that. Other people like to make up cutesy "reasons" why docking isn't just cosmetic. I think that's flawed reasoning and I'll point that out.


I like how docked tails look on my breed. I like how full tails look on many breeds. There are actual reasons to dock that are not "cutesy". Around this part of the country, ACD/Blue heelers are even frequently docked (though it is against the standard) Dogs who do a lot of pen work can get their tails slammed in gates (though I've never heard the whole thing about getting tails bitten by sheep or cattle actually happening). It's not really a problem for my dogs since they are basically pets, who are occasionally weekend warriors. In Aussies it is also done for consistency, since many Aussies DO have natural bob tails of varying length. And yeah, I do like how they look without the tail. And it gives Alice a nice square butt, so she can sit pretty in Freestyle (how's that for a reason?)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit says that working ACDs should neverever be docked. I'd be more inclined to take his word on his breed.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> JohnnyBandit says that working ACDs should neverever be docked. I'd be more inclined to take his word on his breed.


That's fine. Take what you want. Nonetheless, should or shouldn't, you frequently see it around here. Not the show dogs, of course.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> But altering is just as flawed. Altering is pretty invasive, and it is done pretty much for an owner's convenience which I wouldn't put up any higher than cosmetic reasons. Some people will argue there are health benefits to doing so, while others find there are not. Another thing that should be owners choice.


Like I said, I consider birth control to be necessary. If I were for some reason unable to control my own reproductive habits, I hope someone would do something to protect me from unwanted pregnancy. So what birth control options are available to dogs? Currently, only spay/neuter and keeping the dogs separate when a female is fertile. Would a dog choose to be neutered rather than be kept away from his favorite lady friend for 2 months every year? Would a female choose to be spayed rather than disrupt her usual routine for 1/6 of her life? Hard to say, really. But I do kind of consider it a quality-of-life issue.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Like I said, I consider birth control to be necessary. If I were for some reason unable to control my own reproductive habits, I hope someone would do something to protect me from unwanted pregnancy. So what birth control options are available to dogs? Currently, only spay/neuter and keeping the dogs separate when a female is fertile. Would a dog choose to be neutered rather than be kept away from his favorite lady friend for 2 months every year? Would a female choose to be spayed rather than disrupt her usual routine for 1/6 of her life? Hard to say, really. But I do kind of consider it a quality-of-life issue.


Hard to say, and totally your choice since you couldn't ask the dog. You may consider removing your dog's reproductive organs to be "necessary" And that's fine that you don't want to put in the effort to keep a dog intact and keep it from being accidently bred . You really shouldn't have to if you don't want to. At this point it is still a (relatively) free country. I do not consider the few dollars I payed to have my pup's tail docked (with local anesthesia) to be a quality-of-life issue. But I did consider it to be so when I spent several thousand to save a more important limb on the same dog. My choice. Today is his 7th birthday and he still has his bits. Never made puppies. By the way, I suspect that his sire decided to exit this life when we cut his balls off. But that's just a theory and I won't state it as a fact.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It's not so much about being willing to make the effort to keep the dog contained. More of, is it better to keep the dog separated or do something so the dog doesn't need to be separated? As social as dogs are, I'm just not sure. Either way, yes, an owner can only do what they think is best, ideally doing so thoughtfully and in an educated manner. Which I guess is the same basic concept as "I'll do whatever I want with my pet" but I do think that "I make the best choices I can for my pet, based on what I know and believe" sounds much less distasteful.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It's not so much about being willing to make the effort to keep the dog contained. More of, is it better to keep the dog separated or do something so the dog doesn't need to be separated? As social as dogs are, I'm just not sure. Either way, yes, an owner can only do what they think is best, ideally doing so thoughtfully and in an educated manner. Which I guess is the same basic concept as "I'll do whatever I want with my pet" but I do think that "I make the best choices I can for my pet, based on what I know and believe" sounds much less distasteful.


except that your version can be just as distasteful. from a particular perspective one could say that exact sentance about neutering one's dog with a rubber band and have it be 100% true. 

just sayin...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It's not so much about being willing to make the effort to keep the dog contained. More of, is it better to keep the dog separated or do something so the dog doesn't need to be separated? As social as dogs are, I'm just not sure. Either way, yes, an owner can only do what they think is best, ideally doing so thoughtfully and in an educated manner. Which I guess is the same basic concept as "I'll do whatever I want with my pet" but I do think that "I make the best choices I can for my pet, based on what I know and believe" sounds much less distasteful.


Tomato/Tomahto. In general I think spaying non-breeding females is [[slightly]] a health benefit, so my intact male wouldn't have to be separated from anyone, except that he is under Dr's order not allowed to "rough-house" at the moment so he is separated from his best doggie friends (his mom and his auntie). Did anyone actually say "I'll do whatever I want with my pet?" I am adamantly in support of allowing owners to make choices for their pets, and that's because the owners I know tend to make those choices based on what they believe to be in the best interest of the animal. There are some bad dog owners, just as there are people with poor parenting skills. Casey Anthony is big news because she is such an outlier. Bad pet owners are news for the same reason. Most people take the best care of their animals that they can, and for those who don't, you can legislate morality. But you can only enforce it after the fact unless you want to tromp on the rights of everyone. And the government is pitifully bad at such things. And that's one reason I am glad that I live in the US instead of Europe with their insane AR laws, which they seem to not only willingly accept but embrace. Weird to me. I suspect we'll be there in another couple of decades, but by then I may hopefully be croaked or too senile to care.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Pets are property. It needs to be this way, and it's really the only way. But I don't think anybody in the world has the right to behave however they want to. Even if they have the legal right to do so they still do not have the moral right to behave however they want to. One needs to examine their behavior to make sure they aren't doing anything harmful or abusive. To say "I've examined the available evidence and do not believe that x is harmful or abusive" is one thing, to say "I'll do whatever I want regardless of who it harms" is quite another.
> 
> And yes, it's so completely what abusers say that it makes me gag. Sorry.


There are laws that prevent abuse and neglect, HOWEVER the ability to make a MEDICAL DECISION should the OWNERS not the government just as the abilty to make a medical decision for a child should be the PARENTS not the governments.


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

The docking etc in dogs vs circumcision in male humans is not a good analogy. First of all, a man may grow up to say, "I really wish I had a normal penis." He may not like the way it looks, he may not like the decreased sensitivity, etc. For the most part if a man has good hygiene being left natural is not an issue, so I wouldn't do it.. I find it kind of weird.

Dogs do not recognize their own reflections in a mirror, therefore I highly doubt they don't like the way something looks on them. They also probably don't think "I really wish I had a full tail." 

Personally I'm not a fan of cropping ears, but for crying out loud if the owner is a great owner in every other area, I really don't care, and I highly doubt the dog does. I'd rather waste my energy arguing with people who really do abuse dogs.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Either way, yes, an owner can only do what they think is best, ideally doing so thoughtfully and in an educated manner. Which I guess is the same basic concept as "I'll do whatever I want with my pet" but I do think that "I make the best choices I can for my pet, based on what I know and believe" sounds much less distasteful.


That's just semantics.


In other news, Oh look. Someone wants to take away your choice to make the best choices you can for your pet, based on what you know and believe. :/


----------



## ember (Jun 29, 2011)

There will ALWAYS be people who abuse their property. Simple fact. But should we create rules the repress the people who don't?

Let me give you some examples:

Let's say some kibble company lobbies in Washington that raw food is unhealthy. Washington(with their all knowing wisdom) sets up a law that would make it illegal to feed your dog raw meat. Instead, you must buy kibble. 

How about we outlaw dog ownership. That way no dogs will ever be abused. Think about it. 

How about if, for your protection, the Feds outlaw meat. Its would be for your own good, you know. Meat is so unhealthy and it causes other animals needless pain and death. 

Don't you see where this could go?

BTW, I heard cropping helps reduce ear infections. It makes sense to me. Does anyone have more knowledge of this?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ember said:


> BTW, I heard cropping helps reduce ear infections. It makes sense to me. Does anyone have more knowledge of this?


Erect ears are less prone to infection. But again, this is an example of flawed reasoning, inconsistency, and cutesy justifications. Because if that were why people cropped their dogs' ears, it would be done to Bassett Hounds, Labs, and Cocker Spaniels (who are prone to terrible ear issues). But just try to get a vet to crop the ears of those breeds! They won't do it, because it's not traditional.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Erect ears are less prone to infection. But again, this is an example of flawed reasoning, inconsistency, and cutesy justifications. Because if that were why people cropped their dogs' ears, it would be done to Bassett Hounds, Labs, and Cocker Spaniels (who are prone to terrible ear issues). But just try to get a vet to crop the ears of those breeds! They won't do it, because it's not traditional.


Because it would take away from the function of down ears in those breeds (funneling scent to the nose), just as docking the tail of a Chessie or Lab (it's used as a rudder) would make no sense, bad analogy.


----------



## ember (Jun 29, 2011)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Basset Hounds were bred to have long ears to protect them from the brush and I think I watched a show that claimed they also helped them track. That was years ago though. :/

Aren't Labs able to raise their ears a bit though? As for Cocker Spaniels... don't get me started, poor dogs. 

Well, I'm coming to realize to be very thankful all my dogs have erect ears(whew, less maintenance!). 

opps, cshellen got here before me!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Because it would take away from the function of down ears in those breeds (funneling scent to the nose), just as docking the tail of a Chessie or Lab (it's used as a rudder) would make no sense, bad analogy.


Most dogs don't use their original functions. Most labs have no use for a rudder tail and most hounds have no use for down ears. By that reasoning a traditionally docked pet dog--whose ancestors were docked for a functional reason--shouldn't be docked because that dog doesn't use that function.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Most dogs don't use their original functions. Most labs have no use for a rudder tail and most hounds have no use for down ears. By that reasoning a traditionally docked pet dog--whose ancestors were docked for a functional reason--shouldn't be docked because that dog doesn't use that function.


They still use them, there will always be dogs who still do their original jobs. It's part of the breed standard for a reason (form following funtion). 

I have however seen long eared dogs that have needed to have part of the ear taken off due to severe injury, it's not as common as tail injuries and it's less traumatic physically to fix an ear rip vs an adult tail amputation (due to the development of muscles, tendons and nerve endings in the tail of an adult dog).


----------



## ember (Jun 29, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Most dogs don't use their original functions. Most labs have no use for a rudder tail and most hounds have no use for down ears. By that reasoning a traditionally docked pet dog--whose ancestors were docked for a functional reason--shouldn't be docked because that dog doesn't use that function.


Still, if we ban the practice, those who _do_ use them for a purpose won't be able to. My grandpa had his last dog's tail docked(he didn't do her ears as it wasn't needed) so that when she dove into the woods chasing racoons, deer, possum, you name it, she wouldn't come out with it broken or bleeding.


----------



## Polywoggy (Mar 7, 2011)

I can't imagine my Golden ever splitting her tail just by wagging it and being a happy dog. I've lived with a couple other Goldens too, never an issue. I have lived with an Eskie whose tail was carried high on her back so it wasn't an issue. Jack the JRT has half of a tail. His was never docked, but he injured it jumping out of a moving transport truck window. That type of accident is not a fragile tail. That is the type of accident where he is lucky to be here at all. Sheba was a wolf x husky and she had only a half-tail too. My ex adopted her when she was a year old, so he wasn't sure why. Our vet said it didn't seem to have an old injury and she was likely just that way.
None of the floppy-eared Goldens I've had, have ever had ear issues and they did a lot of swimming. My personal experience is with breeds that are left natural- because there is less likely to be an issue with them being that way? 
Lots of reports of injured tails here. Ick. With some breeds they really are that fragile?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> except that your version can be just as distasteful. from a particular perspective one could say that exact sentance about neutering one's dog with a rubber band and have it be 100% true.


One could also use the same justifications for ear cropping to justify doing it with a razor in the garage. The dog still conforms to breed standards, his ears will be less likely to get an internal infection, etc. And that's how Herr Dobermann did it. . .talk about traditional!

But can we really say that band castration is abusive? If it's considered humane enough for use on livestock I don't see why it's so much worse in dogs. There's not a huge difference between a dog and a pig. Some breeders band tails. I knew someone who said she band castrated her farm cats. . .I have no idea how painful it was for them at the time but they didn't seem to have any lasting ill effects.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Most dogs don't use their original functions. Most labs have no use for a rudder tail and most hounds have no use for down ears. By that reasoning a traditionally docked pet dog--whose ancestors were docked for a functional reason--shouldn't be docked because that dog doesn't use that function.


LOL, any lab who EVER swims needs a rudder tail - i.e. 99% of labs currently in existence.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Most dogs don't use their original functions. Most labs have no use for a rudder tail and most hounds have no use for down ears. By that reasoning a traditionally docked pet dog--whose ancestors were docked for a functional reason--shouldn't be docked because that dog doesn't use that function.


Using that argument, one could say "why have breeds at all?" Oh, wait . . .



sassafras said:


> LOL, any lab who EVER swims needs a rudder tail - i.e. 99% of labs currently in existence.


In my breed's community, there is a very large number of people who use their dogs for the original purpose ever single day of the week. Some have a difficult time traveling to trials because the dogs are needed at home. I have to be one o the folks who say that legislating to go after people who crop or dock while actual abuse and neglect still exists is just plain silly. I think there is less actual abuse than the ARs would want you to think (so they can keep all our animals safe from us). That's why they have to make non-issues into issues and call cropping and docking abusive. It's not. Done correctly it is a surgical procedure. Just like spaying and neutering, but much less invasive and dangerous.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sassafras said:


> LOL, any lab who EVER swims needs a rudder tail - i.e. 99% of labs currently in existence.


I don't know. . .my Lab (supposedly purebred) didn't have a rudder tail (it was oddly curly) and she could swim just fine. And there was this guy who was always at the boat ramp with his (docked) Rott, who also could swim just fine. I would think that only a working Lab who spent hours a day in the water would really NEED a rudder tail.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh for the love of god. Fine, let's split hairs. Any lab who EVER swims _could benefit_ from a rudder tail. That obviously (or not, I guess) doesn't mean that dogs without it are incapable of swimming. I had a Chesapeake for years and she used that tail exactly like a rudder even though she only swam recreationally... it was fascinating to see.


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

ember said:


> BTW, I heard cropping helps reduce ear infections. It makes sense to me. Does anyone have more knowledge of this?


I've been tempted to get my Pit's ears cropped (wouldn't actually do it though) because he gets frequent yeast infections that I cannot seem to control. As soon he is done with his supply of the anti-fungal rx drug, it seems to come back, and it spreads to his paws from itching his ears. Yeast infections in ears are more common in dogs with floppy ears because they hold moisture. 



Polywoggy said:


> None of the floppy-eared Goldens I've had, have ever had ear issues and they did a lot of swimming. My personal experience is with breeds that are left natural- because there is less likely to be an issue with them being that way?
> Lots of reports of injured tails here. Ick. With some breeds they really are that fragile?


The only experience I've had with tail problems was with my Boxer. I haven't heard of other breeds having the problem, but the vet said it is incredibly common with Boxers who don't have docked tails.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> There are laws that prevent abuse and neglect, HOWEVER the ability to make a MEDICAL DECISION should the OWNERS not the government just as the abilty to make a medical decision for a child should be the PARENTS not the governments.


I agree about medical decisions. But what exactly makes the decision to dock or crop a medical decision? Because a vet does it? What if the breeder does the docking at home? Is it still a medical procedure?


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

katG said:


> I've been tempted to get my Pit's ears cropped (wouldn't actually do it though) because he gets frequent yeast infections that I cannot seem to control. As soon he is done with his supply of the anti-fungal rx drug, it seems to come back, and it spreads to his paws from itching his ears. Yeast infections in ears are more common in dogs with floppy ears because they hold moisture.
> 
> 
> 
> The only experience I've had with tail problems was with my Boxer. I haven't heard of other breeds having the problem, but the vet said it is incredibly common with Boxers who don't have docked tails.


I've seen the problems in some Pit Bulls and Labs. Greyhounds also. (in the tails I mean)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Polywoggy said:


> I can't imagine my Golden ever splitting her tail just by wagging it and being a happy dog.


Goldens have quite a bit of "padding" on their tails (i.e. they are very hairy) They also tend to wag in a more relaxed "sweep" than some breeds which have a really frantic tail wag. And, dogs can injure tails in the field as well, particularly short haired breeds. Tail injuries can be breaks, but most are degloving type injuries which do not heal because the dog keeps re-injuring it. So fragility and breeding for stronger tails is beside the point.


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

Niraya said:


> I've seen the problems in some Pit Bulls and Labs. Greyhounds also. (in the tails I mean)


Ah I hope my Pit doesn't end up having problems with his little whip tail!!


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

katG said:


> Ah I hope my Pit doesn't end up having problems with his little whip tail!!


Hopefully he won't . I just know they're prone to it. My sister had a couple pits that ended up with quite a few scars on their tails because of how hard they wag.

Greyhounds are just as bad (if not worse). My friend had a rescue and they had to keep her tail constantly wrapped because she would bleed terribly whacking it off of walls, tables, the couch etc.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I agree about medical decisions. But what exactly makes the decision to dock or crop a medical decision? Because a vet does it? What if the breeder does the docking at home? Is it still a medical procedure?


Is giving you dog a shot "medical"? Is dressing a wound? I would think so, even if done by a non-vet. I had tail dockings done by my vet, with a little novacane and a dissolving stitch, with me holding the pups. They objected to the novacane more than they did the dock, and they objected most to being removed from the pile-o-puppies. Of course, if the ARistas are able to convince all the vets (they've already indocterated some) that it is morally wrong to dock tails and crop ears, you will see more "home jobs" because better options are not available


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So should vets just do whatever owners request? Just in case the owner might do it at home if they don't? I think that as medical professionals, vets have a responsiblity to refuse procedures they don't think are medically advisable. Even if the owner threatens to do it themselves.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy

missing the point much?

that being that how one says it is totally not important in the slightest.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

What point am I missing? 

I believe that how you say it does matter. Wording is important.

Are vets not allowed to have their own opinions? If they refuse to do certain procedures it's only because they've been brainwashed by ARs? If vets are so stupid they can't make up their own minds I'm going to be disappointed.


----------



## ember (Jun 29, 2011)

Willowy said:


> So should vets just do whatever owners request? Just in case the owner might do it at home if they don't? I think that as medical professionals, vets have a responsibility to refuse procedures they don't think are medically advisable. Even if the owner threatens to do it themselves.


That's the reasoning behind abortion in this country. Absolutely, you should always do what your conscious requires. Like, a nurse should have a right to refuse doing an abortion on moral grounds and not be punished for it.

I know of vets who refused to spay because the cat was pregnant.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Let's please not bring things like abortion into this. People will definitely lose their cool and this will get closed. That and dogs aren't people.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> So should vets just do whatever owners request? Just in case the owner might do it at home if they don't? I think that as medical professionals, vets have a responsiblity to refuse procedures they don't think are medically advisable. Even if the owner threatens to do it themselves.


Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension): 
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position. 
For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat." 

Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." 

On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and Hitler.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

ember said:


> That's the reasoning behind abortion in this country. Absolutely, you should always do what your conscious requires. Like, a nurse should have a right to refuse doing an abortion on moral grounds and not be punished for it.
> 
> I know of vets who refused to spay because the cat was pregnant.


and i know both animals and people who have DIED as a direct result of being refused an abortion because the medical people were ill at ease about it. things are NOT black and white.




> What point am I missing?
> 
> I believe that how you say it does matter. Wording is important.


no. intent is important. wording is secondary. i had my dog sliced open and her uterus yanked out. I had my dog spayed. both can be said with the exact same intent and mean the exact same thing. 

let me ask you this..regardless of how superficial...say you had an uncropped doberman foster who needed a specific type of home and you found a home that fits PERFECTLY...but they dont particularly care for an uncropped dog so they say "ill take him if i can crop his ears"...do you agree to the crop or no? 

i would. and i have. (cept it was a pit). They had a beautiful home with a great family and another cropped pit who was extremely well cared for, loved, well trained and in excellent condition. and i INTENSELY dislike cropping. however..the situation called for me to suck it up and say ok. 

your FEELINGS on cropping, docking, etc etc...are not relevant. neither are mine except when its your animal. the RELEVANT thing is something that fluctuates dependant on circumstances. these things are never ever black and white issues. and that is what you're missing.



> Are vets not allowed to have their own opinions? If they refuse to do certain procedures it's only because they've been brainwashed by ARs? If vets are so stupid they can't make up their own minds I'm going to be disappointed.


im not the person you should be directing this sort of thing to. haven't said a word about animal rights or whatever else. because this question is also so circumstantial that it's ludicrous to even ask it.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'd like to use this opportunity just to say NEUTICALS!!!!


I work with a dog that has neuticals. They look and feel so real! Lol.

He had to be neutered to at a year old to keep coming to daycare but his "dad" refused. So when dad went out of town, mom had him neutered and neuticals were put in. Two years later and dad is none the wiser.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> What point am I missing?
> 
> I believe that how you say it does matter. Wording is important.
> 
> Are vets not allowed to have their own opinions? If they refuse to do certain procedures it's only because they've been brainwashed by ARs? If vets are so stupid they can't make up their own minds I'm going to be disappointed.


If a vet refuses to do a relatively benign, minimally invasive procedure that the client wants done, they certainly aren't bright enough to be a vet I'd want to go to. They are allowed to refuse to do so, and I'm allowed the option not to pay them to poke my dog or do other things to them. I don't support animal rights, and I don't support the people who do.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

katG said:


> I've been tempted to get my Pit's ears cropped (wouldn't actually do it though) because he gets frequent yeast infections that I cannot seem to control. As soon he is done with his supply of the anti-fungal rx drug, it seems to come back, and it spreads to his paws from itching his ears. Yeast infections in ears are more common in dogs with floppy ears because they hold moisture.


Just an FYI, chronic yeast infections can also be caused by food allergies. My foster, Noah, and Heather both have food allergies and both had recurrent yeast infections in their ears until we were able to pin point their allergies. I don't know if you have looked at this angle, but you might want to look into it if you haven't.

I'm not much on cropping/docking, and I would absolutely never do it to any of my own unless medically necessary. In fact, I think that many dogs with cropped ears look mutilated, but if an ear crop (done by a veterinarian) is what an owner wants, honestly there are more important animal welfare issues to worry over.


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

brandiw said:


> Just an FYI, chronic yeast infections can also be caused by food allergies. My foster, Noah, and Heather both have food allergies and both had recurrent yeast infections in their ears until we were able to pin point their allergies. I don't know if you have looked at this angle, but you might want to look into it if you haven't.
> 
> I'm not much on cropping/docking, and I would absolutely never do it to any of my own unless medically necessary. In fact, I think that many dogs with cropped ears look mutilated, but if an ear crop (done by a veterinarian) is what an owner wants, honestly there are more important animal welfare issues to worry over.


Thanks for the info! I will definitely look into it. I think what got the whole thing started was he had a UTI and had to go on antibiotics... I'm assuming that in dogs the same thing happens as in humans.. antibiotics can cause yeast overgrowth. The vet also mentioned allergies, and suggested I put him on benedryl while he is being treated. I didn't do it regularly, but I'll give it to him after he is outside and getting bit up by flies a lot. I was under the impression she was referring to allergies from the outside... bugs, pollen, etc... but I did not think about his food. Can you give me a suggestion as to how to figure out if he is allergic to anything he eats??? He definitely doesn't have any digestive symptoms or problems with energy. Thanks again!

And I also agree with your second paragraph... more important animal welfare issues!!


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

katG said:


> Thanks for the info! I will definitely look into it. I think what got the whole thing started was he had a UTI and had to go on antibiotics... I'm assuming that in dogs the same thing happens as in humans.. antibiotics can cause yeast overgrowth. The vet also mentioned allergies, and suggested I put him on benedryl while he is being treated. I didn't do it regularly, but I'll give it to him after he is outside and getting bit up by flies a lot. I was under the impression she was referring to allergies from the outside... bugs, pollen, etc... but I did not think about his food. Can you give me a suggestion as to how to figure out if he is allergic to anything he eats??? He definitely doesn't have any digestive symptoms or problems with energy. Thanks again!
> 
> And I also agree with your second paragraph... more important animal welfare issues!!


I believe that there is a test, but my vet thinks that they are too unreliable to spend money on. So, I did an elimination diet (see this link for more info: http://www.alldoghealth.com/hypoallergenic-dog-food/). I didn't use the veterinary formula hydrolyzed food they mention in the link because the ingredients are terrible. Instead, I used a commercial limited ingredient diet (Blue Buffalo, Wellness, Natural Balance all have LID formulas), that avoided the major allergens - wheat, corn, soy, dairy, pork, beef, and chicken. The trick is, that you can't give extra treats, food, etc. while doing the elimination diet. Once I removed the food with the allergens from Heather and Noah's diet, I haven't had problems with yeast in their ears. If you want to look into it further, I would speak with your vet and see what his/her recommendation is. HTH!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> If a vet refuses to do a relatively benign, minimally invasive procedure that the client wants done, they certainly aren't bright enough to be a vet I'd want to go to. They are allowed to refuse to do so, and I'm allowed the option not to pay them to poke my dog or do other things to them. I don't support animal rights, and I don't support the people who do.


 I think it's insulting to say that anyone who disagrees with you is for animal rights, or is stupid. A person can legitimately object to certain procedures without having been brainwashed by or even agreeing with AR people. And if that person is a vet they certainly have the right to refuse to do those procedures. You don't have to go to them but to say they aren't bright because you hold different opinions. . .well. That's not nice.

Zim--I didn't think adult dogs could be cropped? Well, maybe pits because their crop is so short but not a Dobe because their ears wouldn't stand. I probably wouldn't agree to the adoption but I guess it would depend how desperate I was to get the dog in a home. I suppose it's better than being dead but if I had the luxury of time and could find a placement that wouldn't crop I would.


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

Tofu_pup said:


> I work with a dog that has neuticals. They look and feel so real! Lol.
> 
> He had to be neutered to at a year old to keep coming to daycare but his "dad" refused. So when dad went out of town, mom had him neutered and neuticals were put in. Two years later and dad is none the wiser.


Sneaky Mom!! Can only imagine the underlying trust issues in that relationship haha! I'd probably blurt it out within 5 minutes! What is it with men and hatred of neutering!? (well don't answer that haha).



brandiw said:


> I believe that there is a test, but my vet thinks that they are too unreliable to spend money on. So, I did an elimination diet (see this link for more info: http://www.alldoghealth.com/hypoallergenic-dog-food/). I didn't use the veterinary formula hydrolyzed food they mention in the link because the ingredients are terrible. Instead, I used a commercial limited ingredient diet (Blue Buffalo, Wellness, Natural Balance all have LID formulas), that avoided the major allergens - wheat, corn, soy, dairy, pork, beef, and chicken. The trick is, that you can't give extra treats, food, etc. while doing the elimination diet. Once I removed the food with the allergens from Heather and Noah's diet, I haven't had problems with yeast in their ears. If you want to look into it further, I would speak with your vet and see what his/her recommendation is. HTH!


Okay thank you so much for your advice! I'll give a higher quality food a try. Right now he is eating Simply Nourish Puppy, which I believe is only sold at Petsmart. The ingredient list looks pretty good, it has 4/5 stars on dogfoodadvisor.com. I think maybe I'll try the Blue Buffalo line that has the minimal ingredients. He is such a picky eater though so its difficult to keep him eating kibble without adding anything to it (usually add a tablespoon of plain yogurt or a little PB, or a little bit of chicken breast, a little canned food, etc.). Anyways getting way too off topic, I'll move this to the food section of the forum later! Thanks again!


----------



## Wag_More (Jun 7, 2011)

> I'm against ear cropping and tail docking. In many countries in Europe these procedures are already banned, including mine. Cropping and docking was done because dogs were doing a job once. With emphasis on the word 'were'. Nowadays dogs are mostly kept as pets and such procedures are deemed unnecessary. People still doing it because they think it looks fancy are prosecuted, unless they can prove the procedures were done because of medical reasons.
> 
> I'm only speaking of how it goes in the Netherlands, of course.
> 
> Personally, I think a dog in its natural state is most beautiful. Including their ears and tails. Docking and cropping is, in essence, mutilation.


Deep down in my belly there is a part of me that agrees with you. However, I prefer that the government takes no intervention - the more freedoms we have the better. If someone else decides to crop their dogs ears or chop off his tail then I thank goodness for anesthetic and good veterinarians. I also thank goodness that people have the freedom to do as they please in some aspects still .. but I chose whole heartedly never to subject my own dog to any surgeries that are not medically necessary.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> And if that person is a vet they certainly have the right to refuse to do those procedures.


And we (general pop) has the right to go to another vet. 'Nuff said, I think.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

KodiBarracuda said:


> And we (general pop) has the right to go to another vet. 'Nuff said, I think.


Oh definitely. Everybody has a right to find a vet whose values they share. Though I wouldn't say the general population would refuse to use a vet like that. Personally, I'd be thrilled if I could find a vet who refused to do de-claws. I'd pay extra even, because I don't quite fully trust vets who do de-claws. I get nervous every time I drop a cat off for spay/neuter, because sometimes lines get crossed and signs get mixed up and cats get de-clawed accidentally. I'd love to not have to wory about that. So there's a market for them, too.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I think it's insulting to say that anyone who disagrees with you is for animal rights, or is stupid. A person can legitimately object to certain procedures without having been brainwashed by or even agreeing with AR people. And if that person is a vet they certainly have the right to refuse to do those procedures. You don't have to go to them but to say they aren't bright because you hold different opinions. . .well. That's not nice.


Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. And my opinion is that docking tails is ONLY an issue to people deluded by animal rights propaganda. And IMO that makes them, if not stupid, at least quite gullable. That's just my opinion of course, and if you find it "not nice" I'm sorry.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

The issue for me, and why AR nuts get brought into this, is because banning things like cropping or docking or mandatory spay and neuter is a step in their direction. When it comes down to it you do what you feel is right and no one should be able to tell you differently.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Zim--I didn't think adult dogs could be cropped? Well, maybe pits because their crop is so short but not a Dobe because their ears wouldn't stand. I probably wouldn't agree to the adoption but I guess it would depend how desperate I was to get the dog in a home. I suppose it's better than being dead but if I had the luxury of time and could find a placement that wouldn't crop I would.



ok so you'd _potentially_ place an animal's overall welfare over your own personal feelings?

hm.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. And my opinion is that docking tails is ONLY an issue to people deluded by animal rights propaganda. And IMO that makes them, if not stupid, at least quite gullable. That's just my opinion of course, and if you find it "not nice" I'm sorry.


If you are going to call people stupid (more or less), perhaps you should at least spell gullible correctly. 

Wouldn't you be insulted if someone accused you of only believing what you do because you have been brainwashed by the AKC propaganda machine? Clearly, that is a ridiculous notion. I'm sure you can think for yourself, just as I and others can. 

I am absolutely NOT a fan of HSUS and PETA, and I don't think that these sort of procedures should be banned, but I do have issues with them. I don't like them and wouldn't personally do them, but whatever floats your boat. That hardly makes me some blithering idiot.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I agree about medical decisions. But what exactly makes the decision to dock or crop a medical decision? Because a vet does it? What if the breeder does the docking at home? Is it still a medical procedure?


 
Any body altering is in fact a medical decision, I don't care if it's ear cropping, piercing, tail docking, circumcision, tattoos, microchipping, Spaying, nuetering, tubal ligation or a vasectomy. Each is a different level or involvment but all carry risks at minimum of infection each has different levels of government regulation but ALL are a decision made for ourselves, our families and our pets and government has no business interferingin the ability to make decisions about ant of them.

An example, my 14 year old daughter wants her ear cartilage pierced, I could take her to any little place that does ear piercing and do it, I won't. IF she has it done it will be at a Tattoo/piercing shop where the people are state lisenced, have experiance and I KNOW the tools are sterile. Yes I'll pay more, but so what, we both have the peace of mind to know I've minimized the risk of infection and the chance it will be incorrectly done.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

brandiw said:


> If you are going to call people stupid (more or less), perhaps you should at least spell gullible correctly.
> 
> Wouldn't you be insulted if someone accused you of only believing what you do because you have been brainwashed by the AKC propaganda machine? Clearly, that is a ridiculous notion. I'm sure you can think for yourself, just as I and others can.
> 
> I am absolutely NOT a fan of HSUS and PETA, and I don't think that these sort of procedures should be banned, but I do have issues with them. I don't like them and wouldn't personally do them, but whatever floats your boat. That hardly makes me some blithering idiot.


Never called you a blithering idiot. I don't think I actually called you anything. But yes, I think it is rather an idiotic thing to get up in arms about people who are good, responsible, above-average dog owners who have a preference for how their dog looks, and accomplish that look by a non-invasive, minimally painful surgical procedure. If you don't like docked dogs, you are free not to have one. And I should be free to have them if I want to. Since you never said that I couldn't, I'm not sure why you are jumping in the line of fire and claiming "hit" (And I promase not to foller you arownd chequing your speeling!)


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Never called you a blithering idiot. I don't think I actually called you anything. But yes, I think it is rather an idiotic thing to get up in arms about people who are good, responsible, above-average dog owners who have a preference for how their dog looks, and accomplish that look by a non-invasive, minimally painful surgical procedure. If you don't like docked dogs, you are free not to have one. And I should be free to have them if I want to. Since you never said that I couldn't, I'm not sure why you are jumping in the line of fire and claiming "hit" (And I promase not to foller you arownd chequing your speeling!)


Because you said, "And my opinion is that docking tails is ONLY an issue to people deluded by animal rights propaganda", which implies that you can think for yourself, but anyone not agreeing with you on this is an idiot who blindly follows the AR line. Docking tails is an issue for me, even though I think a ban is going way to far. I've seen it done, don't like it, and I don't need propaganda to tell me how to feel about it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

brandiw said:


> Because you said, "And my opinion is that docking tails is ONLY an issue to people deluded by animal rights propaganda", which implies that you can think for yourself, but anyone not agreeing with you on this is an idiot who blindly follows the AR line. Docking tails is an issue for me, even though I think a ban is going way to far. I've seen it done, don't like it, and I don't need propaganda to tell me how to feel about it.


Well, if you are bound and determined to be offended by my opinion, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. The fact is, in the grand scale of animal welfare (not rights) issues, neonatal tail docking is a non-issue of the first order. You have a right to not like it. You have a right to not have it done.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

katG said:


> Thanks for the info! I will definitely look into it. I think what got the whole thing started was he had a UTI and had to go on antibiotics... I'm assuming that in dogs the same thing happens as in humans.. antibiotics can cause yeast overgrowth. The vet also mentioned allergies, and suggested I put him on benedryl while he is being treated. I didn't do it regularly, but I'll give it to him after he is outside and getting bit up by flies a lot. I was under the impression she was referring to allergies from the outside... bugs, pollen, etc... but I did not think about his food. Can you give me a suggestion as to how to figure out if he is allergic to anything he eats??? He definitely doesn't have any digestive symptoms or problems with energy. Thanks again!
> 
> And I also agree with your second paragraph... more important animal welfare issues!!


It's easiest just to try switching to a grain free alternative protein source food, like Taste of The Wild high Prairie formula (not the lamb formula, as lamb is common enough to still be an allergen). Switch slowly over a 2 week period gradually adding in a little more of the new food to the old. Then see how the dog is doing after being on just the new food after 3 weeks-1 month.

There are vet prescribed limited ingredient diets that you can try, but when you can get a pretty good idea of whether it is food related just by switching to a different commercial food, I see no reason to try the vet one, except as a last resort.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, if you are bound and determined to be offended by my opinion, I'm not going to convince you otherwise.



YES! I sure don't and I am sure most on here are not trying to make comments to offend people, and I think that once someone plays the "they hurt my feelings" (the personal attack) card than the whole conversation takes a downhill turn. We aren't trying to offend anybody, just saying how we feel. I am 100% positive that no one wakes up and says "What can I do to hurt *enter user name here*'s feelings."

And as far as how I feel :

I love tailless dogs, whether it be docked or natural. I have one dog that is a natural bob and one that has a docked tail. (betcha cant guess which, lol.)
If I even get a dog with a breed specific docking standard (like a dobe) the I will want one without a tail and with upright ears, its just the way I like them.
On the other hand, you don't have to get one with a tail docked, there are plenty of nice dogs out there without docked tails. My mother had a dobe when she was a teen and it had a docked tail but natural ears, which means they are out there, you just have to look a little harder (which you are willing to do if this is important enough).

On the same hand, this argument is turning into a silly never ending circle that people are becoming offended by.
Here is what I have figured out:

Some people like dogs with docked tails/clipped ears
Some people like dogs with natural tails/ears
Some people agree with cosmetic procedures as a whole
Some people disagree with cosmetic procedures as a whole
Some are on the fence
Some agree and disagree with a few specific ones.
For the most part, spaying/neutering is a cosmetic procedure with other benefits/and disadvantages
It shouldn't be mandated by the government because dogs are property
Dogs are dogs, not people.
Some people believe cats can commit suicide and will transfer that belief over to dogs.
We all love our dogs
We are all trying to make the best and well informed decision we can make for them
Dog food can cause allergies. 

Anything I missed?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> On the same hand, this argument is turning into a silly never ending circle that people are becoming offended by.
> Here is what I have figured out:
> 
> Some people like dogs with docked tails/clipped ears
> ...


I think you've got everything.  
Unless someone has new arguments and opinions or unless the topic starter has new questions regarding the article being written, of course. But I think pretty much everything has been said already. 

Doghappy, are you satisfied or are there still things you want to know?


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

Avie said:


> I think you've got everything.
> Unless someone has new arguments and opinions or unless the topic starter has new questions regarding the article being written, of course. But I think pretty much everything has been said already.
> 
> Doghappy, are you satisfied or are there still things you want to know?


Doghappy probably ran for the hills a few pages ago lol


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

katG said:


> Doghappy probably ran for the hills a few pages ago lol


As do most new posters who come here and dare start a debate on a 'hot' topic. Now we just need a Cesar Milan thread to make the month complete!


----------



## MuttJob (Jul 16, 2011)

I'm a new member. I must say I'm very pro government and government intervention - particularly when it comes to animal law/welfare. I live in a city/state where shelter just got added to the regs next "food" and "water" as things (the only things) owners have to give their dogs as a rule to be able to keep them. Sadly this was in reaction so many bully dogs being tied in yards their whole life without a doghouse to sleep in. Its a pity that a dog/horse/cat/ferret is regarded the same way as a rusty ol' car. The animal welfare officer can't take them away no matter how bad their mange or fleas or heartworm is as long as they get enough food to keep the process of homeostasis going. But animal property laws vary state by state - thats not the federal government purview.
Breeding however, in addition to being regulated by states, is also regulated by the USDA (in cases of interstate trade) and under those rules I would like to see it become much harder to be listed as a licensed breeder. The USDA secretary could do this by executive rule rather than legislation. But there should much more stringent requirements on testing and possibly recovery from gestation periods etc. While there probably isn't a way to ensure regular inspection - at least an operation could be shuttered upon complaint/inspection. I don't think people should lose their livlihood willy nilly - but if your livlihood is abusing bitches and engaging in poor breeding/animal abuse then I have little sympathy. Dogs do still work yes, but far and away they are much more likely to be companion animals rather than workers....and their conditions should be regulated more than a food source animal.
I would also have no problem with limiting physical alterations to "medically imperative" and letting the state vet board - or a private veternary association make the rules and norms on that. We let the American medical Association make rules about our medical protocols all the time. We let the American Bar Association decide on all the ethics rules that dictate how our legal system rules. Most vets are honest and trustworthy. Some of them aren't great, but I think the vast majority of them have the ability to distinguish some lady with more money than brains trying to debark their dog because they don't want to train it from a seriously anxious dog that is facing a trip to the shelter courtesy of an angry neighbor/landlord who are on their last straw. 
There's a lot of oversight that coukd be tightened up when it comes to companion dogs and cats.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Hurt the good folks doing things right. Sounds like a plan to me.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm going to change my dogs' names to Rusty, Ol', and Car.


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> As do most new posters who come here and dare start a debate on a 'hot' topic. Now we just need a Cesar Milan thread to make the month complete!


I'm going to start a thread called "Cesar Milan's methods applied to post-pet plastic surgery patients that happen to be Pit Bulls in a town that is considering BSL and banning outdoor only dogs and limiting the amount of hours a dog should be left in a crate" haha


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

katG said:


> I'm going to start a thread called "Cesar Milan's methods applied to post-pet plastic surgery patients that happen to be Pit Bulls in a town that is considering BSL and banning outdoor only dogs and limiting the amount of hours a dog should be left in a crate" haha


Add something about BYB, designer breeds and feeding purina foods and you will have the perfect thread for me to eat popcorn and watch erupt into a lava pit filled with AR activists/extremists and other strongly minded dog owners.


----------



## katG (Jun 27, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Add something about BYB, designer breeds and feeding purina foods and you will have the perfect thread for me to eat popcorn and watch erupt into a lava pit filled with AR activists/extremists and other strongly minded dog owners.


Bahaha :-D Its like a soap opera. Forget "Days of our Lives" we've got "Dogs of our Lives".


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

MuttJob said:


> I'm a new member. I must say I'm very pro government and government intervention - particularly when it comes to animal law/welfare. I live in a city/state where shelter just got added to the regs next "food" and "water" as things (the only things) owners have to give their dogs as a rule to be able to keep them. Sadly this was in reaction so many bully dogs being tied in yards their whole life without a doghouse to sleep in. Its a pity that a dog/horse/cat/ferret is regarded the same way as a rusty ol' car. The animal welfare officer can't take them away no matter how bad their mange or fleas or heartworm is as long as they get enough food to keep the process of homeostasis going. But animal property laws vary state by state - thats not the federal government purview.
> Breeding however, in addition to being regulated by states, is also regulated by the USDA (in cases of interstate trade) and under those rules I would like to see it become much harder to be listed as a licensed breeder. The USDA secretary could do this by executive rule rather than legislation. But there should much more stringent requirements on testing and possibly recovery from gestation periods etc. While there probably isn't a way to ensure regular inspection - at least an operation could be shuttered upon complaint/inspection. I don't think people should lose their livlihood willy nilly - but if your livlihood is abusing bitches and engaging in poor breeding/animal abuse then I have little sympathy. Dogs do still work yes, but far and away they are much more likely to be companion animals rather than workers....and their conditions should be regulated more than a food source animal.
> I would also have no problem with limiting physical alterations to "medically imperative" and letting the state vet board - or a private veternary association make the rules and norms on that. We let the American medical Association make rules about our medical protocols all the time. We let the American Bar Association decide on all the ethics rules that dictate how our legal system rules. Most vets are honest and trustworthy. Some of them aren't great, but I think the vast majority of them have the ability to distinguish some lady with more money than brains trying to debark their dog because they don't want to train it from a seriously anxious dog that is facing a trip to the shelter courtesy of an angry neighbor/landlord who are on their last straw.
> There's a lot of oversight that coukd be tightened up when it comes to companion dogs and cats.


Maybe in a perfect universe or mars things work out as planned but reality tends to be VERY different. Example: in Alabama the state vetinary board closed down two low cost spay/neuter clinics but won't even go down to a rural shelter that is using a broken recycling truck to hold animals. They are also using a homemade gas chamber to euthanize the animals there which is very illegal. Think they should be trusted with these decisions? I thinks it's purely naive to think of government as utopian. 










Yep definately will trust the vetinary board of Alabama.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Does the veterinary board have any kind of authority over shelters in Alabama? I'd be surprised if they did, generally veterinary boards only oversee the actual practice of veterinary medicine. I doubt they can do anything about housing animals or using an illegal gas chamber, but it should be outlined in your state's veterinary practice act.


----------



## MuttJob (Jul 16, 2011)

Outdoor dogs are fine. We used to have an outdoor malamute mix. Dogs not given shelter is finally against the law here...as it should be. The refusal to provide an animal in your care shelter should lead to surrendering of the animal at best, fines and/or jail time at worst. A dog in this state is just barely one step up from a toaster...and a lot less regulated than a car. Cars here need to be inspected once per year and insured in the interest of public safety (some municipalities such as mine do require registration and rabies shots but only as a health reg. not an animal welfare reg.) But otherwise there's a lot more "big government" involved in the car ownership (what condition it needs to be in, where you can store it etc.) than there is in pet ownership here.


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Does the veterinary board have any kind of authority over shelters in Alabama? I'd be surprised if they did, generally veterinary boards only oversee the actual practice of veterinary medicine. I doubt they can do anything about housing animals or using an illegal gas chamber, but it should be outlined in your state's veterinary practice act.


It is my understanding that they do. They have the ability to inspect facilities to ensure that their euthanasia methods meets state code. They could shut down a shelter for not euthanizing the animals properly.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Interesting. Well, then, they're jerks.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

MuttJob said:


> Outdoor dogs are fine. We used to have an outdoor malamute mix. Dogs not given shelter is finally against the law here...as it should be. The refusal to provide an animal in your care shelter should lead to surrendering of the animal at best, fines and/or jail time at worst. A dog in this state is just barely one step up from a toaster...and a lot less regulated than a car. Cars here need to be inspected once per year and insured in the interest of public safety (some municipalities such as mine do require registration and rabies shots but only as a health reg. not an animal welfare reg.) But otherwise there's a lot more "big government" involved in the car ownership (what condition it needs to be in, where you can store it etc.) than there is in pet ownership here.


Animal welfare is good. Animal rights is not.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't see how sporting/showing purposes count as "real" purposes. It's a hobby. It means nothing in the long run.
> 
> . .


And? You don't think someone's hobby can be of interest since it doesn't interest you?



MuttJob said:


> I'm a new member. I must say I'm very pro government and government intervention - particularly when it comes to animal law/welfare. I live in a city/state where shelter just got added to the regs next "food" and "water" as things (the only things) owners have to give their dogs as a rule to be able to keep them. Sadly this was in reaction so many bully dogs being tied in yards their whole life without a doghouse to sleep in. Its a pity that a dog/horse/cat/ferret is regarded the same way as a rusty ol' car. .


I'm sorry you live in a place where animal welfare is apparently not a priority. I doubt anyone here has an issue with prosecution for actual animal abuse or neglect. The problem arises when the rights of people who take good (or even reasonable) care of their animals end up suffering because of people who think that nobody (except possibly themselves) is responsible enough to make decisions for their own animals.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> And? You don't think someone's hobby can be of interest since it doesn't interest you?


It can be of interest, sure. There are lots of hobbies out there that don't appeal to me, but I'm sure they mean a lot to the people who enjoy them. But Bones said he had no problem with cosmetic surgery if it serves a real purpose, citing showing/sports as a real purpose. I disagree that that sort of thing counts as a real purpose, like working would.

Or, I guess more on point---since it sounded like he would disapprove of cosmetic surgery that's not done for a "real purpose"---I should ask what, in his opinion, would constitute no real purpose for cosmetic surgery. 



> I'm sorry you live in a place where animal welfare is apparently not a priority. I doubt anyone here has an issue with prosecution for actual animal abuse or neglect.


 The problem with this is that it's impossible to get anyone to agree on what constitutes actual abuse and neglect. I know plenty of people who would argue that kicking a dog is a legitimate training method, does not constitute abuse, and should be fully legal. And those that argue that ear cropping is a legitimate cosmetic procedure, does not constitute abuse, and should be fully legal. How should this type of thing be determined? By the level of pain it causes the animal? Because ear cropping is probably more painful than being kicked (or so I would guess based on my own experiences. . .I do have sensitive ears, though). I'm always interested when people say so definitively that x constitutes abuse, but y doesn't, not ever! How can we make that determination? Whose opinion do you go with?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> The problem with this is that it's impossible to get anyone to agree on what constitutes actual abuse and neglect. I know plenty of people who would argue that kicking a dog is a legitimate training method, does not constitute abuse, and should be fully legal. And those that argue that ear cropping is a legitimate cosmetic procedure, does not constitute abuse, and should be fully legal. How should this type of thing be determined? By the level of pain it causes the animal? Because ear cropping is probably more painful than being kicked (or so I would guess based on my own experiences. . .I do have sensitive ears, though). I'm always interested when people say so definitively that x constitutes abuse, but y doesn't, not ever! How can we make that determination? Whose opinion do you go with?


I hadn't thought I'd get to read anything interesting in this thread anymore, thinking it was finished, but I like where you're going with this. 
And whose opinion do you go with? I think when it comes to this, everyone goes by their own opinion, which brings us back to your first sentence in the quote above. A vicious cycle.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It can be of interest, sure. There are lots of hobbies out there that don't appeal to me, but I'm sure they mean a lot to the people who enjoy them. But Bones said he had no problem with cosmetic surgery if it serves a real purpose, citing showing/sports as a real purpose. I disagree that that sort of thing counts as a real purpose, like working would.
> 
> Or, I guess more on point---since it sounded like he would disapprove of cosmetic surgery that's not done for a "real purpose"---I should ask what, in his opinion, would constitute no real purpose for cosmetic surgery.



I can only guess that your definition of "purpose" is unique to you, since the dictionary definition would clearly cover dog sports.
noun 
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc. 
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal. 
3. determination; resoluteness. 
4. the subject in hand; the point at issue.
5. practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose
–verb (used with object) 
6. to set as an aim, intention, or goal for oneself. 
7. to intend; design. 
8. to resolve (to do something): He purposed to change his way of life radically.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

MuttJob said:


> Outdoor dogs are fine. We used to have an outdoor malamute mix. Dogs not given shelter is finally against the law here...as it should be. The refusal to provide an animal in your care shelter should lead to surrendering of the animal at best, fines and/or jail time at worst. A dog in this state is just barely one step up from a toaster...and a lot less regulated than a car. Cars here need to be inspected once per year and insured in the interest of public safety (some municipalities such as mine do require registration and rabies shots but only as a health reg. not an animal welfare reg.) But otherwise there's a lot more "big government" involved in the car ownership (what condition it needs to be in, where you can store it etc.) than there is in pet ownership here.


That's an animal welfare law, not an animal rights law. The government has no business telling me (or anyone else) what medical procedures I can or cannot have done on my pet or what breed of domestic dog/cat I can own (I do believe a Government should regulate the ownership of wild animals).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> The problem with this is that it's impossible to get anyone to agree on what constitutes actual abuse and neglect. I know plenty of people who would argue that kicking a dog is a legitimate training method, does not constitute abuse, and should be fully legal. And those that argue that ear cropping is a legitimate cosmetic procedure, does not constitute abuse, and should be fully legal. How should this type of thing be determined? By the level of pain it causes the animal? Because ear cropping is probably more painful than being kicked (or so I would guess based on my own experiences. . .I do have sensitive ears, though). I'm always interested when people say so definitively that x constitutes abuse, but y doesn't, not ever! How can we make that determination? Whose opinion do you go with?


And, I know animal rights people who think that breeding dogs is horrible, and training dogs (even with a clicker) is exploitive and abusive (we should let them have totally free will, you know). They also think that keeping animals is basically the same thing as slavery. So, I suspect what is needed is a little common sense. There are many people who keep dogs in ways I would not (strictly outside or the other extreme, in a purse). There are many people who train dogs in ways that I would not. While I promote less physical ways, I do not think their methods should be made illegal, because soon someone will say that some dogs are scared of clickers, so we shouldn't use them. I would not, personally, have a cropped breed. Not because I think it is inhumane, but because it is more trouble than I'd want to mess with for a "look". But I support the rights of people who really like that look in their breed. I also wouldn't pierce a baby's ears, but many people do, and I don't consider that child abuse. There will always be people whose definition of things is going to be extreme and strident (in both directions). IMO, they aren't the ones who should be making the rules. Right now, they are.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So how do you make any rules on the subject at all? There will always be someone who claims that any given way of treating animals is perfectly legitimate and the government should butt out. And those who will claim that any given way of treating animals constitutes abuse and it needs to be illegal. You say there should be animal welfare laws, but who gets to decide what should be covered under those animal welfare laws? I don't think we can say "it's common sense", because everybody's definition of common sense is different as well. If I had to make animal welfare laws, I would definitely ban hanging a dog by its choke chain, and I would definitely ban ear cropping. That seems like common sense to me, and I could find experts to confirm anything I wanted to confirm. But those are usually legal in most places (falling under the categories of "legitimate training" and "legitimate cosmetic surgery"). So again, whose opinion do we go with? Why have animal welfare laws at all? Any law at all is certainly going to trample on somebody's "rights".


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> So how do you make any rules on the subject at all? There will always be someone who claims that any given way of treating animals is perfectly legitimate and the government should butt out. And those who will claim that any given way of treating animals constitutes abuse and it needs to be illegal. You say there should be animal welfare laws, but who gets to decide what should be covered under those animal welfare laws? I don't think we can say "it's common sense", because everybody's definition of common sense is different as well. If I had to make animal welfare laws, I would definitely ban hanging a dog by its choke chain, and I would definitely ban ear cropping. That seems like common sense to me, and I could find experts to confirm anything I wanted to confirm. But those are usually legal in most places (falling under the categories of "legitimate training" and "legitimate cosmetic surgery"). So again, whose opinion do we go with? Why have animal welfare laws at all? Any law at all is certainly going to trample on somebody's "rights".


Does it, intentionally or through neglect, cause real harm to the animal? And yes, all surgeries are potentially harmful. But that's not their purpose, be it an ear crop or a more invasive spay surgery. I do know of trainers who have been charged with animal cruelty for hanging dogs. So, that's already on the books, and up to a judge to decide. I'm not of the opinion that vets and owners should be criminals because they like a certain look that requires surgery (or are too lazy to keep their dog from getting pregnant otherwise) or that some 90 lb arthritic woman should be a criminal because the only way she knows to give her 100 lb. dog the benefit of a daily walk is to use a prong collar. The thing about laws is that you can't legislate morality. If someone is going to beat their dog or their kid or their wife, they aren't going to *not* do it because there's a law. All the law does is give you a rather ineffective positive punisher after the fact. And if you listen to the radical element in making laws (and yes, I find your opinion radical and your arguments fallacious) you end up penalizing people whose opinions and actions are reasonable, and who treat their animals well, and who would not "beat their wife" in the first place. So, no, I'm not for making training methods illegal (someone hangs a dog, so by extension choke chains should be illegal) and I'm not for making surgical procedures illegal. Even if they are things I would personally not be willing to do, myself.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So what should be illegal? Really, I'm asking. Say I get to draw up the animal welfare laws for the state (lol). What, in your opinion, would be reasonable to make illegal? I don't think we can go with intent, because I don't think that most people who harm their dogs intend to cause harm. And I don't think it's fair to base the punishment on the outcome, either--"if you hang your dog by the choke collar and he's OK, fine. But if he gets injured you're in trouble!" An action is either allowed or not, outcome shouldn't factor into it.

Most parents who harm their children did not intend to do so, but they still get put in jail and there are still laws that tell you how you can treat your child (which a lot of people disagree with). Even things that don't cause lasting harm, there are still some things you can't do to your kid. You couldn't get them elf ear surgery (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/676223/) or a tongue split, and I don't think you're allowed to tattoo kids under a certain age. These things don't cause real harm, or else body modding adults wouldn't do it. But it's still not allowed.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

There are far lefties and far righties on every topic under the sun, be it dog abuse, child abuse, politics, food, technology, furniture, I could go on and on. 
There are going to be people who feel that it is alright to beat their dog with a shovel into submission and people that feel it is *abusive* to use anything but a plain, wide buckle collar and a 6 foot leash. 

What we really need to do is look at what the general pop. would say, ignore the far left and the far right and see what the average Joe would say. 

I understand that the general populations opinions are not black and white, but I believe they are more similar that what we might think (for the most part the same shade of grey). Sometimes it is hard to see that because all you get are the far left/right people giving their opinions.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm not sure the "general population" know enough about dogs to hold an educated opinion on the subject. I've met so many Yorkie and Toy Poodle owners who will argue to the death that their dog is NOT docked, no, they'd never have a docked dog! Even after seeing pictures of undocked dogs of those breeds they won't believe it.

Try it next time you meet the owner of a small-breed docked dog (someone who's not into showing or breeding or other dog-related activities, of course). It's kind of fun.


----------



## Candydb (Jul 16, 2011)

All I can say is .. my dog (Giant Schnauzer) came with cropped ears and tail. If I could have had input, I would have left her ears alone b/c of the discomfort to the dog with wrapping for months... But I probably would have left the tail crop stand as it is a quick procedure done when the pups are very very young and does not involve the same aftercare.......(Sort of like circumcision is ....) ...


----------



## ADA (Dec 5, 2009)

Polywoggy said:


> lol
> 
> I've recently been looking at Standard Poodles in mind of raising and training a future therapy dog. On one breeder's website they stated that yes, they do still dock, and that they have seen and experienced too many dogs having painful injuries from having their tail caught in a wheelchair. Reading that makes me more supportive of it than I used to be.


It is a pity that the lightweight metal "bars" are not being used that attach to the wheel chair and the dog but keep the dog out of harm's way when the wheelchair is in motion. Also a bit more instruction to the keepers on being aware of the dog's position. Same with those who push prams. One so often sees a petrified dog straining and pulling away from the pram wheels but kept in too close a proximity by its lead.


----------



## Candydb (Jul 16, 2011)

No way I had no idea that Yorkies were docked!


----------



## lipzah (Aug 22, 2011)

I agree. It is ridiculous that it is part of the breed standard for a dog to be deformed. Look at the kennel club 'breed standard' for a german shepherd. Its amazing that those dogs can walk at all.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

any procedures are to fix problems that were bred in I have no issue with for the dogs existing "now", but those features should not be bred in to start with, and I am not OK with it being used as an "out". 

cropping, docking and front dewclaw removal, I am 100% against, and would love to see banned. 

neuticals...as long as the dog is neutered I guess lol


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

lipzah said:


> Look at the kennel club 'breed standard' for a german shepherd. Its amazing that those dogs can walk at all.



fkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> fkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.


Totally agree -_-


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> fkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.


What's old is new again!


----------



## 03firefly (Jan 14, 2012)

From what I have heard about tail docking is that those dogs, because their tails have frequently been docked, have weaker tails. Breeders never considered the tails in their breeding because they never needed to; the tails were coming off. This is why a poodle's tail would be more at risk undocked than a lab or retriever's tail. For this reason, unless a breeder is going to be very careful at first and really make sure they are breeding strong tails, then there is nothing wrong with docking.
This is not uncommon, and yes, this is a real thing - breeding can effect the strength of a tail. It's like with draft horses; many do not have full tails because they never had to worry about what the tail looked like, since they were just going to dock or wrap it.

When it comes to ear cropping, I have to say that from personal experience, ears that are up are easier to care for than ears that are down. That might seem like a simple 'I'm being lazy and want to do less work' but it really is a concern. I have three dogs - a Carin, A westie/poodle (with small floppy ears), and our new dachshund. We never really had too many problems with the wesite/poodle's ears because they're small and he's not very adventurous. If our Cairn had floppy ears, I would worry about them all the time because he's always running through bushes, but I didn't need to. It's our dachshund that we are constantly checking his ears. We watch him and try to make sure he's not going anywhere dangerous (not that our yard is a death trap, but there are bushes and he's always finding something to stick his head into). When he gets a scratch, it's always on his ear. Now, this isn't gonna kill him, and it's not like anything's happening that's gonna rip an ear off, but for an active, adventurous dog, floppy ears can cause some trouble. Now, I think it's up to the owner to decide if they think it's going to be more trouble for the dog to have floppy ears or to go through the surgery of cropping. If you're in a more open area or you know there is no risk, then leave the ears how they are, however if you like to go out in the woods or in more places that might cause a risk, then cropping might be better.


----------



## Max and Me (Aug 19, 2011)

If you think that a dog is so ugly that you have to surgically alter it pick a different dog. JMHO


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Ok, I've only read the first 2 1/2 pages of posts and intend to read the rest after commenting, so if this has already been said I missed it.

What exactly is involved in "debarking"? Do they take out the voice box? Does it just silence/mute the dog? I find that to be horrifying. I don't understand how taking away a dog's "voice" could help alleviate SA. Maybe I'm humanizing dogs too much but I would be just as stressed if not more because one of my methods of communication had been taken away forever. It seems like debarking just treats the symptom not the cause. All debarking would do was make the owner feel better, imo, because they wouldn't have to hear the barking all the time.

I'm not saying people that "debark" do it lightly and are abusive owners, but that just bothers me on many, many levels.

I think cosmetic surgery is a waste of time. If docking/dewclaw removal will improve the dog's quality of life and serves a purpose, I have no problem with it.


----------



## agalf (Dec 8, 2011)

I live in Sweden and here ear cropping have been forbidden since 1949 and tail docking since 1989. I'm strongly against both cropping and docking. I also think that people can't always decide they want to do with their dogs not when it comes to such things as cropping and docking. I believe in the government controlling certain things. In certain chases it's correct to dock a dog, such as a police dog or hunting dog that has a risk of hurting their tail. But change a dogs look just for pure cosmetically look? No that I think is ridiculous. 

I must say I get very surprised when I read on many forums, it seems like it's impossible to have a dog with a tail. They hit things and legs all the time etc, I've had three boxers all with tails and it have never been an issue. My uncle had rottweilers (with really thick tails and dobermans) but this was just never an issue. 

But then I'm from Sweden and here it's forbidden to keep dogs in cages expect from special circumstances (like during transportation, shows and hunts but even there it's a limit for how long time).


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CrimsonAccent said:


> What exactly is involved in "debarking"? Do they take out the voice box? Does it just silence/mute the dog? I find that to be horrifying. I don't understand how taking away a dog's "voice" could help alleviate SA. Maybe I'm humanizing dogs too much but I would be just as stressed if not more because one of my methods of communication had been taken away forever. It seems like debarking just treats the symptom not the cause. All debarking would do was make the owner feel better, imo, because they wouldn't have to hear the barking all the time.


No, they don't take out the voice box. They make small incisions in the vocal chords. It's done with lasers sometimes. It does not usually silence a dog all the way but just softens the sounds. 

The goal isn't to alleviate SA it is to soften the bark. Many times it is to help owners that have complaining neighbors and give them more time to work through SA rather than just giving their dog to the shelter or putting it to sleep.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

agalf said:


> I live in Sweden and here ear cropping have been forbidden since 1949 and tail docking since 1989. I'm strongly against both cropping and docking. I also think that people can't always decide they want to do with their dogs not when it comes to such things as cropping and docking. I believe in the government controlling certain things. In certain chases it's correct to dock a dog, such as a police dog or hunting dog that has a risk of hurting their tail. But change a dogs look just for pure cosmetically look? No that I think is ridiculous.
> 
> I must say I get very surprised when I read on many forums, it seems like it's impossible to have a dog with a tail. They hit things and legs all the time etc, I've had three boxers all with tails and it have never been an issue. My uncle had rottweilers (with really thick tails and dobermans) but this was just never an issue.
> 
> But then I'm from Sweden and here it's forbidden to keep dogs in cages expect from special circumstances (like during transportation, shows and hunts but even there it's a limit for how long time).


I hear you. I'm thinking of moving to Sweden sometime in the future, and this will definitely be added to my list of pro-sweden arguments


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I have just read through all 200+ posts again as I read it when it was first posted in July last year. I cannot see where if someone says that it is MY dog and I can do anything I want with it, indicates that they are going to be abusive towards it.

I have only owned one dog that was docked, a Doberman. He was not cropped and they look so different, more like a hound when they have their ears. If I was going to get a Doberman, I would want him cropped and docked but at the same time I probably will never get one.

The Vet in our area will not dock, crop or remove dew claws. I can't see their reasoning on not removing back dew claws on puppies. I know with the Shih Tzu x Maltese, they quite often have back dew claws and they are only held by a little bit of skin. I used to take off the front dew claws on our Greyhounds but haven't done it for years and really don't want to do it myself now.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

I think there are a LOT of other things being done to dogs all around the world that could be considered "abuse" or "mutilation". I like the appearance of a docked tail on a lot of breeds-- boxer, rott, Doberman, etc. Ear cropping looks a little bit harsh but as long as its for health reasons I don't see any issue with it. 
De-barking I'm TOTALLY against. There are other avenues of training that can control the amount and level of barking. Why not attach a colostomy bag because you dont like the dog pooping in your yard?? Ummm no. If you don't like the sound of barking, why have a dog?
Neuticals-- ridiculous. 
Liposuction, chin lifts, breast surgery--- all friggen ridiculous. Start breeding dogs properly and I'm sure this wouldnt be necessary.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RubyDog said:


> De-barking I'm TOTALLY against. There are other avenues of training that can control the amount and level of barking. Why not attach a colostomy bag because you dont like the dog pooping in your yard?? Ummm no. If you don't like the sound of barking, why have a dog?


You've never dealt with a dog with SA then. It's not ALWAYS a training issue. It's life or death.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Its amazing that those dogs can walk at all.


My dogs walk fine. Don't tell them.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

My dog has SA. De-barking a dog is for a human's convenience. It has no helpful benefits for a dog.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

It helps you not have animal control called multiple times until you're out of options. Like most things, the dog world is not black and white.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

Somewhere out in the USA a Great Dane is running around with Cocker Spaniel size neuticals? Poor dog! His Owners could not afford his true size. I hope he does not get made fun of at the dog park! 

At least once to twice a year a Great Dane comes in for a tail docking. Storm doors seem to play havoc on this particular breed. 

I used to own a dog that had been de-barked. It was de-barked prior to my ownership. The dog still made a soft woof sound. It did not seem traumatized by the surgery. As a matter of fact, it still acted like it could bark. It was a court ordered procedure. Neighbors had complained of the breeders dogs barking. She had all her dogs debarked. The neighbor still complained. When the breeder brought a video of her dogs, the case was dismissed. These were dogs who were not out all the time. Their garage had been converted and the dogs spent 90% of their time . Some neighbors just need to go get a job to keep them busy. Would I do it to my own dogs? NO! But if it is court ordered what are you going to do? I have seen two of these court ordered procedures in the last year. Cities seem to be cracking down on this noise complaint.

Other surgical procedures although cosmetic are more for the health of the dog. Entropian repair, cherry eye fix, soft palate reduction, widening of the nares, vulva folds reduction are just a few of these procedures. 

The guy who invented the neuticals also has silicone ear implants. For the people who have a dog with lazy ears to make them stand. Now in my eyes that is going over the top of cosmetic surgery.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

luv mi pets said:


> The guy who invented the neuticals also has silicone ear implants. For the people who have a dog with lazy ears to make them stand. Now in my eyes that is going over the top of cosmetic surgery.


I don't see how this is any different to ear cropping. Both times, what it comes down to is that owners think cosmetic surgery is needed to make the dog look more aesthetically pleasing to them. 

Imo, if you don't like the look of a breed and it appalls you so much you couldn't bear living with the dog in its natural look, get another breed that does suit your taste. If upright ears are so very important to you, get a breed with pricked ears. Surgically altering a dog's look shouldn't even be an option. 
But I won't elaborate too much, I already made my opinion clear a lot of pages ago in this thread


----------



## The Feather Duster (Apr 14, 2010)

I totally agree with Avie and the European outlook on dogs and how they should be treated. That's all for now.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm American and unlike most of my compatriots I believe cropping, docking, and declawing should be illegal except in cases of medical necessity. Unless it's necessary to prevent suffering, it's animal cruelty. It's not the biggest issue (compared to puppy mills, dog fighting, number of adoptable animal PTS) so most of the time I just say "whatever, let them do it if they insist" (except for declawing, which is much worse than docking or cropping, IMO). But truthfully, if it were up to me, it would be illegal.

The exceptions would be if there was a medical necessity, as determined by the veterinarian performing the procedure. This would leave a lot of leeway for people to find less-than-scrupulous vets to do it anyway, as some have done in europe, but over time fewer people would want the surgery once it was written out of breed standards. And fewer vets would be willing to do it.

Same for debarking, with the understanding that -- as TWAB pointed out -- sometimes it is life or death because of SA, and in those instances it is clearly medically mandated. For those who don't get this, just imagine if you were living in an apartment building and despite medication and behavioral intervention your dog was still barking excessively. What would you do? Isn't it better to get the procedure than to be forced to abandon your dog in a shelter, where s/he will be unlikely to find a home and will be PTS?

I don't really understand the anti-government regulation mania on dogforums. The government serves many essential purposes. I, for one, am glad I don't live in some kind of feudal, warlord-governed land, barefoot and pregnant. Or as a slave. Because, you know, the government is responsible for ending slavery. And for writing civil rights into the constitution. And for modern education; without the government, most people would not be able to read and write. And the infrastructure. And police forces that maintain law and order. And the courts. And ambulances. And firefighters. And laws against child labor. And laws protecting the rights of women and minorities. And regulation that keeps our food and water relatively safe for consumption. And laws that protect people from corporations that act like sociopaths. And many animal shelters. And laws against animal cruelty, such as they are.


----------



## Damnath (Feb 23, 2012)

I come from Europe (currently living in the Netherlands) and I fully agree with how docking/cropping/declawing/debarking have been made illegal here, for any reasons except medical (life or death and otherwise very serious) issues.

It is not -- at least that's not how we see it here -- allowing the government to control us and our animals as much as it is preventing them from suffering for the sake of aesthetics. The way I see it, there is absolutely no reason to dock or crop a healthy dog's tail/ears besides the fact that some owners 'like them like that'. That -- in my opinion -- is abuse. 

The same goes for declawing cats: I own three loving kittens and yes, they do -- despite being discouraged to -- scratch things at times, but I would never have their claws (and the first finger bone) removed because of this; if this bothered me to the point of wanting them surgically altered, I'd never have got them in the first place! Same goes for dogs whose looks are drastically modified through docking and cropping (Dobermans, for example, which are a breed I love).


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

I would rather re-home my dog to someone that had the time to train and figure out its behavioral problems, someone that lived on a farm or acreage and create some type of agreement that I could still see the dog. That would be a more difficult and time consuming route but better then taking an animals voice away. Also, there are breeds that are quieter then other breeds (even with SA). The Basenji is one good example (quieter not noiseless). 
As I said before-- I believe that de-barking is only for the humans convenience. I would never ever do that to a dog.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RubyDog said:


> I would rather re-home my dog to someone that had the time to train and figure out its behavioral problems, someone that lived on a farm or acreage and create some type of agreement that I could still see the dog. That would be a more difficult and time consuming route but better then taking an animals voice away. Also, there are breeds that are quieter then other breeds (even with SA). The Basenji is one good example (quieter not noiseless).
> As I said before-- I believe that de-barking is only for the humans convenience. I would never ever do that to a dog.


Ah, but those people are not far and wide looking to take on problem dogs. I have a fearful Pit mix HW+ foster dog. People are not going to be knocking down my door to take her. I'm not rehoming her because she has issues, but the point remains the same. If one of my dogs had SA and was consistently barking and I was getting noise complaints like crazy, I would absolutely debark them. It would not be my solution, but it would give me time to find a way to get their SA under the best control I possibly could before I would attempt to unload the problem on someone else.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

RubyDog said:


> As I said before-- I believe that de-barking is only for the humans convenience. I would never ever do that to a dog.


Honestly debarking is probably less painful and invasive than spaying or neutering. If it buys someone the time to work on their dog's SA (instead of being a replacement for working on their dog's SA) then I'm not going to judge them badly. I also once knew a woman who got an anonymous note in her mailbox that said "shut your dog up or I will". She had her dog debarked, and I don't fault her for it.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

RubyDog said:


> I would rather re-home my dog to someone that had the time to train and figure out its behavioral problems, someone that lived on a farm or acreage and create some type of agreement that I could still see the dog. That would be a more difficult and time consuming route but better then taking an animals voice away. Also, there are breeds that are quieter then other breeds (even with SA). The Basenji is one good example (quieter not noiseless).
> As I said before-- I believe that de-barking is only for the humans convenience. I would never ever do that to a dog.


This might sound like a fine opinion to have up in your tower with no personal experience regarding what the reality of the situation could be. I don't know if she's weighed in here yet, because I have read all 12 pages of this thread, but Nargle's experience has dramatically changed my perspective on debarking. Someone please correct me if I am misrepresenting any part of her situation, but here is her story as I remember it.

Her dog was barking himself raw on a regular basis and becoming a problem as far as neighbors/renting is concerned. He has severe separation anxiety to the extent that he has severely injured himself trying to escape crates and other confinements. She was and is dedicated to helping Basil through his SA (through loads of training, anxiety medications, DAP, even videotaping him while she was gone so she could better judge his progress and find creative ways to help him), but she couldn't do that if she got kicked out of her apartment or was forced to rehome him due to his behaviors. So it was in BASIL's best interest to have his bark softened. He can still bark but it isn't as loud and he's no longer hoarse from barking when she gets home and she's no longer in danger of not being able to keep him. A dog like Basil would likely be passed from home to home if she didn't stick with him. You're wrong to think there's always a better home within reach for every dog, with every set of problems. Not to mention the fact that people are rightly attached to their dogs and don't just want to give them away when they have alternatives. 

In conclusion, I think your judgments here have been ill-informed, and your suggestion alternatives are poor. Most people really aren't out to hurt their dogs. Most really love them and don't take things like the decision to debark lightly. All you're doing here is attacking the good guys who are trying to do right by their dogs, with lots of unfair and hurtful generalizations. So while you think it's wrong to bebark a dog and would supposedly "never ever do that to a dog," I personally would never dump a SA dog on someone else, again validating that insecure dog's paranoia that their owners are going to leave them. To me, that's the most cruel thing you could do to such a dog. Certainly more cruel than a surgery that essentially makes their bark quieter (oh, and it's bs to call it "taking away an animal's voice." That's not what's happening at all when a dog's bark is softened) so you can continue to love and care for them, which is all the dog really wants.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

sassafras said:


> Honestly debarking is probably less painful and invasive than spaying or neutering. If it buys someone the time to work on their dog's SA (instead of being a replacement for working on their dog's SA) then I'm not going to judge them badly. I also once knew a woman who got an anonymous note in her mailbox that said "shut your dog up or I will". She had her dog debarked, and I don't fault her for it.


Damn near all the procedures people are talking about being so 'abusive' are less invasive and painful than spaying.


----------

