# Whiskers,do you cut them?



## Dusty the Dog (May 7, 2009)

I know that when grooming a horse, people trim the whiskers, do we do this on dogs?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

In some breeds it's done, yes. I'm not sure if there are any breeds where it is _required_ that they have whiskers.


----------



## 0hmyd0g (Aug 18, 2008)

On breeds such as poodles and cockers yes, since we're shaving the face anyways. I trim them right off on one golder too since he is ex show dog and that's how they like it. There are many show dogs that have the whiskers trimmed, but pets don't require it. Everyone else keeps them unless the hair cut on the face is trimmed short. I once had trimmed off the whiskers on a dog and the owner claimed I chopped off his feelers!.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

Yes, we do it here. The Dobermans always have clean faces, but the corgi only gets hers shaved on my birthday.  I prefer all the dogs to have clean faces, but I'm only allowed to do the corgi once a year because my fiance loves her little face tentacles.


----------



## ValtheAussie (Apr 19, 2009)

I love my pups whiskers; wouldn't change a thing!!


----------



## Tami (Aug 31, 2006)

The dogs that show get their whiskers trimmed for the show but between shows I let them grow out. My pet dogs don't get theirs trimmed at all


----------



## wabanafcr (Jun 28, 2007)

No trimming whiskers here, not even when showing. They use them!


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

wabanafcr said:


> No trimming whiskers here, not even when showing. They use them!


x2. I don't really see a point other than aesthetics (which there is nothing wrong with, I just find my dog to be perfectly attractive the way she is  )


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

I thought whiskers were used by dogs for tactile sensation. 

Seems wrong to me to cut them off for solely cosmetic purposes.


----------



## Wolfiee (Jun 15, 2009)

They do use them, which is why I think it's silly that these shows require them to be removed solely for cosmetics.


----------



## animalcraker (Nov 9, 2006)

Wolfiee said:


> They do use them, which is why I think it's silly that *these shows require them to be removed* solely for cosmetics.


It's not required by any breed or show standard for the whiskers to be removed. Oftentimes they are removed by the handler to give a cleaner look to the face, but it has no bearing on how well they will preform in the ring.


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

animalcraker said:


> Oftentimes they are removed by the handler to give a cleaner look to the face.


I remember seeing a comedian do a skit about people who had cut their thumbs off to give themselves an elegant looking hand - no more of that short fat thing sticking out to the side etc. It was quite a funny parody of what people do to themselves for reasons of vanity or whatever. People have a right to do whatever they want to themselves, but doing things destructive to dogs for cosmetic reasons is not right. You'd think the organized dog people (shows etc) would take the lead in discouraging that sort of thing.


----------



## Jr. Dog Expert (Sep 11, 2007)

Hmm, don't know about show dogs...but I wouldn't cut my dog's whiskers. Besides, unless the whiskers are cut real close to the skin they are VERY pokey.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

In collies you cut whiskers. So my show dogs get cut. I'll cut when I groom sometimes if I want to get some nice pictures.

My performance dogs still get cut. My performance dogs step into the ring looking as good as they would if they were showing in conformation.


----------



## animalcraker (Nov 9, 2006)

peppy264 said:


> People have a right to do whatever they want to themselves, but doing things destructive to dogs for cosmetic reasons is not right. You'd think the organized dog people (shows etc) would take the lead in discouraging that sort of thing.


Perhaps we should stop letting people trim their dogs into those hideously adorable teddy bear/puppy cuts as well. I'm it's not like we've domesticated dogs to the point where they don't need their hair for protection or thier whiskers to feel their way through the house. 

As I said before if you want to show your dog with whiskers then by all means go right ahead. They have no bearing on how your dog performs in the ring.

And just for curiousity sake do you, or anyone else, happen to have any fact based evidence that triming whiskers is destructive to dogs?


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

Well I think the onus should be on the people doing the cutting to show that the cutting is not destructive in any way, not visa versa. A haircut I have no problem with. But cutting off whiskers, how can you be so sure that they are not actually useful to the dog? They don't have arms or hands, their nose sticks out way in front of their body, their close vision is poor, who knows what blind spots they have, etc etc. 

I keep telling my daughter 'the dog is not a toy, respect him, don't try to dress him up as a doll etc'. If she wanted to cut his whiskers off to make him 'look better' she would get the same lecture. Respect him for what he is.

If you can be 100% sure that the whiskers serve no useful purpose and the dog does not miss them at all, then go ahead and lop them off if that makes you happy. But I don't see how you can be so sure.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

peppy264 said:


> If you can be 100% sure that the whiskers serve no useful purpose and the dog does not miss them at all, then go ahead and lop them off if that makes you happy. But I don't see how you can be so sure.


The thing is, YOU'RE the one protesting it...so really it's on you to prove such actions are as you say. You can't really make a statement based on no fact and wait for other people to either prove or disprove it...that's not how things usually work. 

I don't trim Dakota's whiskers simply because there isn't a need for it (she's just a companion) and I like them. I don't really have a problem with people who DO trim though. I've seen a lot of horses and dogs get their faces trimmed and none of them showed the slightest leaning toward negative effects.


----------



## Wolfiee (Jun 15, 2009)

I'm not going to agree or disagree with the ways of show dogs, it would wrong of me to do so considering I have never been involved with them.

However, I do know, for a fact, that a dog's whiskers are used for not only sensing, but for protection as well. A dog's whiskers are as sensitive as our fingertips and respond to air vibrations for a sense of perception. They allow the dog to judge upcoming objects and help to make the decision of whether or not to pursue it (like to stick their head in something that's too small). They also protect the dog's eyes due to their response when touched. The follicle of dog whiskers are also lined with a thin layer of cells that line the surface of blood-vessels. 

Of course, it's not a devastating loss to the dog (like if you were to cut a cat's whiskers), but a dog wouldn't have them if they didn't serve a purpose. I do, however, see where Animalcracker is coming from when mentioning their protection from being in the house. 

I suppose it's all preference though ^_^ I like dog whiskers, they're cute!


----------



## alphadoginthehouse (Jun 7, 2008)

I have never thought about it one way or the other...but it's interesting how Peppy usually has the opposite opinion of the majority of the others on this forum...just an observation on my part.


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

Dakota Spirit said:


> The thing is, YOU'RE the one protesting it...so really it's on you to prove such actions are as you say.


So someone should be able to do whatever they want to a dog until somebody else proves it is harmful, rather than having to prove something is not harmful BEFORE doing it to a dog?

In any case, Wolfiee speaks to the point ....



Wolfiee said:


> ... a dog's whiskers are used for not only sensing, but for protection as well. A dog's whiskers are as sensitive as our fingertips and respond to air vibrations for a sense of perception. They allow the dog to judge upcoming objects and help to make the decision of whether or not to pursue it (like to stick their head in something that's too small). They also protect the dog's eyes due to their response when touched. The follicle of dog whiskers are also lined with a thin layer of cells that line the surface of blood-vessels.


In the absence of either i) a repudiation of Wolfiee's explanation or ii) some explanations of how removing whiskers is of a benefit to the dog, then it seems that cutting the whiskers is simply a bad thing and should not be done.

Isn't it really that simple?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

So Peppy doesn't like the idea of cutting whiskers, so they claim everyone who does is practically an animal abuser. 
People have shaved dogs' faces for decades, and dogs do not suffer any debilitation effects from it. That's just a fact, and you know it, because if it weren't so, there would be PROOF (studies, etc) that it was harmful. And there isn't. Period.

You have a _personal opinion_; accept that without getting mad that other people don't agree with it and trying to portray them as being horrible people. Acting like removing a dog's whiskers is like _chopping off a limb_ or something is just ridiculous.

You may as well bash breeds that have been created to have far more coat than is 'natural', or dogs with strangely shaped bodies or heads. Without constant human tinkering and support, 90% of all dogs would drop dead in the wild for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not they have whiskers. So if your entire position is based on 'natural = good and unnatural = bad', you'd have to have a problem with most dogs existing in the first place. They don't HAVE to be able to survive in the wild, that's the entire point of a DOMESTICATED animal.


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

'Animal abuser' ....'horrible person' not my words and far too strong for cutting off whiskers.



> .... dogs do not suffer any debilitation effects from it


And how do you know this? Read the post above. You are in denial.



> They don't HAVE to be able to survive in the wild, that's the entire point of a DOMESTICATED animal.


So what is your point? That you can do anything to them that you want, as long as they can still survive in your bungalow? 

You want to talk about facts? The facts here are simple:
i) the whiskers do provide functionality for the dog, their survival does not depend on them but they are used.
ii) the whiskers are being cut off for purely cosmetic reasons.

So at least be honest. Say 'I know the dog is better off with his whiskers, but I cut them off so that he looks better in his pictures; that is what is more important to me'.

I'm fine with that, its your dog, you're not killing him, but be honest about it.

Still, I wouldn't let my daughter do it. I want her to respect the dog for what he is.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

peppy264 said:


> So someone should be able to do whatever they want to a dog until somebody else proves it is harmful, rather than having to prove something is not harmful BEFORE doing it to a dog?


No. But if you are going to question something in the manner that you are (ie. past the curiosity stage and onto the "You know you're doing wrong" stage) then YOU need to have proof to back yourself up. Something other then "How do you know such and such". Because honestly, all that makes me want to do is counter with a question of how you know what you claim to know. Part of debating, arguing, or otherwise making a case is having _factual_ information to not only debunk whatever the other side is claiming but also back up your own statements. Otherwise you're just one person flying in with baseless comments...which is usually something that gets ignored or in this case, generally brushed off.

There really isn't any hard core proof in either direction though. I doubt there are any "Does cutting a dogs whiskers off hurt it?" studies. However, there is plenty of anecdotal information and experience to suggest that the animals really aren't affected one way or the other. Given that, it brings up the question - Do you have any experience with an animal that was 'debilitated' because his/her whiskers were clipped?

Edit: Also, I really don't get why people are so wrapped up in the cosmetic issue. As long as it isn't hurting the dog then why does it matter if someone does it for looks? Half the things we do with dogs are for looks - haircuts, the way we breed them, the features we breed for, how we feed and exericise them (for health yes, but also to get that eye pleasing body type) and so on. I just find it interesting how strongly people feel on these issues, 'speaking up for the dog', when the dog isn't being harmed in any way at all.


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

Dakota Spirit said:


> I doubt there are any "Does cutting a dogs whiskers off hurt it?" studies.


 Agreed.



> However, there is plenty of anecdotal information and experience to suggest that the animals really aren't affected one way or the other.


You're assuming people would notice if the dog was affected. It could be more subtle than that. We are not dogs. We can barely understand in what ways they perceive the world. I think you are assuming a lot there.



> Given that, it brings up the question - Do you have any experience with an animal that was 'debilitated' because his/her whiskers were clipped?


Well Wolfiee describes what whiskers are used for. When they are removed they can no longer be used for that. Thats a debilitation. How significant it is, neither I nor you can really tell. I agree its not life threatening or even close. But I don't think you have any evidence that it is totally insignificant either. And, as I said, I think the onus is on the person doing the cutting to establish they are not doing any harm. If unsure, the dog should be left alone.



> Also, I really don't get why people are so wrapped up in the cosmetic issue. As long as it isn't hurting the dog then why does it matter if someone does it for looks? Half the things we do with dogs are for looks - haircuts, the way we breed them, the features we breed for, how we feed and exericise them (for health yes, but also to get that eye pleasing body type) and so on. I just find it interesting how strongly people feel on these issues, 'speaking up for the dog', when the dog isn't being harmed in any way at all.


Good cosmetics is OK but not if pursued to the detriment of the dog. Haircuts are harmless. Exercise is good for them. As far as breeding them for a certain look, well I think that is despicable if pursued to the detriment of the dogs health or functionality. Far worse than cutting whiskers.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

peppy264 said:


> You're assuming people would notice if the dog was affected. It could be more subtle than that. We are not dogs. We can barely understand in what ways they perceive the world. I think you are assuming a lot there.


Actually, I'm assuming that people know their pets. That they know their behavior and understand what is and isn't normal for them. And yes, I'm assuming they would know if something was wrong. In the case of the people on this board and most in the Show business - such an assumption generally holds true.

I'm also not playing the 'what if' game. I think its more or less ridicules to take such a simple practice that has gone on for what has to be generations now and though there is no proof to suggest it's harmful hold the stance that the 'harm' might just be something small that we can't see. To me, that doesn't make sense. Not when there's no proof to suggest such a thing. I'm not saying everyone should accept whisker cutting - I just think it's silly to pick apart something on a guess, on the belief that everyone has simply never noticed the damage their causing. 

To each their own though. I don't have a problem if you cut or don't cut.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

The whiskers, or more properly, vibrissae, are important sensory mechanisms that the dog uses in several ways. Each individual whisker connects to a specific brain region, so that the dog can actually perceive movements of each whisker. About 40% of the part of the dog's brain that handles tactile information is devoted to the face, and a big piece of that to the region where the whiskers are located. Any time that much brain tissue is devoted to one thing, it's a sure sign that it's an important sensory mechanism.

They help the dog detect when something is near his face, and may help them detect whether a surface is rough or smooth, as well as the shapes of objects. They help dogs navigate in dim light. As the dog moves, the air currents stirred up by his movements bounce off walls and other objects, and the vibrissae are capable of detecting these and helping the dog avoid walls or other objects. Each hair is capable of being moved by small muscles, and a dog will actively move these back and forth across objects, as well as move his head to get information about the things near his face. Watch how your dog behaves when he brings his head near an object, of when you lightly touch one of his whiskers.

Stanley Coren writes about this in more detail in his book "How Dogs Think". He also described an experiment in which a blind Sheltie (?) had his whiskers cut...the Sheltie was much less able to navigate his surroundings and kept bumping into various things.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Wally's are well "hidden" into his facial hair and I have no plans on getting him shaved.

I don't think I'd ever cut them off though. I've read that dogs do use them and, for me, that's enough for me to feel they should keep them, regardless of whether or not I "like" the way they look.



rosemaryninja said:


> They help the dog detect when something is near his face, and may help them detect whether a surface is rough or smooth, as well as the shapes of objects. They help dogs navigate in dim light. As the dog moves, the air currents stirred up by his movements bounce off walls and other objects, and the vibrissae are capable of detecting these and helping the dog avoid walls or other objects. Each hair is capable of being moved by small muscles, and a dog will actively move these back and forth across objects, as well as move his head to get information about the things near his face. Watch how your dog behaves when he brings his head near an object, of when you lightly touch one of his whiskers.


Yeah, I've noticed Wally almost rub his head against things, or when he sniffs he sometimes "sniffs to the side" where the side of his face is going over the object while he's sniffing. I've seen him hesitate to go through spaces probably because of this (he thinks they are too close).


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

I don't see how anybody can read Rosemaryninja's post and still defend cutting off whiskers. If you love your dog why would you do that?

You shouldn't mess with mother nature unless there is a good reason for it and you have a high degree of confidence you are not doing harm. Its irrelevant whether it has been done for 100 years or not. 

All of you tail dockers, ear croppers, whisker choppers, testicle loppers take note.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Having posted the above, I would just like to point out that I have two spayed dogs.


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

rosemaryninja said:


> Having posted the above, I would just like to point out that I have two spayed dogs.


But you didn't spay them to make them look better. You presumably had other better reasons. I'm not anti spay/neuter or anything else where there is a benefit to the dog.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

I just wanted to clarify that when I mentioned the whole "it's been done for generations" thing it wasn't in an effort to say that old practices are always correct or have more merritt, but rather I would find it hard to believe that in all that time no one noticed any significant damage being done to dogs through whisker clipping. It's not all that important I just didn't want anyone thinking I automatically accept 'old school' dog stuff as ok. There is plenty of that I don't agree with


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

rosemaryninja said:


> Stanley Coren writes about this in more detail in his book "How Dogs Think". He also described an experiment in which a blind Sheltie (?) had his whiskers cut...the Sheltie was much less able to navigate his surroundings and kept bumping into various things.


Of course, a dog that had already lost it's primary way of judging depth and location (the eyes) would use every other sensory organ it could. 
Most dogs aren't blind, however.

Conversely, wouldn't you have to admit then, that a dog without whiskers similarly be able to learn to compensate without them? As many people have said, pretty much every healthy dog that has had it done seems to be able to live just fine without them. You don't see dogs (who aren't blind) without whiskers bumping into things all the time and suffering because of it. It should be MAJORLY obvious in a dog's behavior that they're lacking them, but it's not.

I don't think anyone here needs to be convinced that whiskers have a purpose. The argument is whether it's 'cruel' or 'harmful' to shave them off. Since I've never seen dogs suffering (how about all those Agility champs that are shaved-face breeds? No spatial-judgement problems there!), I'd have to strongly disagree with labeling it 'inhumane'.

It's a matter of personal preference. Nobody is torturing their dog or ruining their quality of life by doing it. In a worst case scenario, you could just wait and they'd grow back just fine. =P


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

Pai said:


> Conversely, wouldn't you have to admit then, that a dog without whiskers similarly be able to learn to compensate without them?


Learn to get by without them? Yes. Fully compensate without them? Physically impossible, just read the description.



> As many people have said, pretty much every healthy dog that has had it done seems to be able to live just fine without them.


'Seems to' but we can't actually ask them can we? Nobody is saying loosing the whiskers is equivalent to loosing a leg but how can you possible read rosemaryninja's description and not acknowledge that, hey, maybe Fido actually makes good use of those whiskers in ways I cannot perceive?



> It's a matter of personal preference


. 
It would be if the dog was making the choice. 



> Nobody is torturing their dog or ruining their quality of life by doing it.


No but they are diminishing their quality of life to some unknown degree by doing it.



> In a worst case scenario, you could just wait and they'd grow back just fine.


Agreed! Take one last set of pictures and let your dogs grow their whiskers back for good. Rejoice !


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

Oh no, bad me. Bad owner, shame on me...

I love a clean headed dog, and I will continue to remove whiskers when I think necessary, and frankly, it's not anyone else's business what I do with my dogs. That I paid for, that I foot all the bills for. 

My dogs are so suffering. Like my HIT winning competition dog, who was also my therapy dog. Gee, not having whiskers sure made his PEFERCT SCORE run more difficult for him. And it _so_ hindered his ability to work around kids.

I can think of worse things than whisker trimming to screech about.

I find the parents that pierce thier baby's ears much more annoying than a whisker cutting dog person.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

There’s no need to be so sarcastic. When did I ever say that de-whiskered dogs were incapable of spatial judgement? They’re not disabled. The point of my post was that whiskers ARE important. They serve a purpose. Doesn’t that mean something? I mean, if they were utterly useless then I could imagine people snipping them for cosmetic reasons. But just because a dog can compensate for the loss of a part of its anatomy doesn’t mean that part of its anatomy isn’t important.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Reproductive organs, whiskers, dewclaws, ears, and tails are all have a use and importance. They are also all _removed_ by people in many circumstances. A dogs snout is also important. Yet we've bred some dogs to not even have one. The same with a dog's legs. Yet we've bred dogs with dwarfed limbs. 

Either doing _all_ those things are cruel and damaging to a dog's quality of life, or else you have to admit it's _not_ all black and white with the 'natural state' being humane and anything 'unnatural' being inhumane. The _modern dog as a species_ is nowhere near 'natural', they're a _man-made_ animal.

The real question should be, 'Does this procedure damage the quality of life of a dog and/or cause it suffer?'. The answer to that is that there is no proof that trimming whiskers does any of that. Therefore, accusing people of harming their dogs by trimming whiskers is completely unfounded, which is what Peppy is trying to claim.


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

txcollies said:


> ... it's not anyone else's business what I do with my dogs. That I paid for, that I foot all the bills for.


A sentiment also common amongst people who chain their dogs outside all day, beat them, etc etc .... 



> Gee, not having whiskers sure made his PEFERCT SCORE run more difficult for him.


Scores and pretty pictures are what pleases you, not him. 



> I can think of worse things than whisker trimming to screech about.


 Yes, but thats a poor way of justifying anything.




Pai said:


> Reproductive organs, whiskers, dewclaws, ears, and tails are all have a use and importance. They are also all _removed_ by people in many circumstances. A dogs snout is also important. Yet we've bred some dogs to not even have one. The same with a dog's legs. Yet we've bred dogs with dwarfed limbs.
> 
> Either doing _all_ those things are cruel and damaging to a dog's quality of life, or else you have to admit it's _not_ all black and white with the 'natural state' being humane and anything 'unnatural' being inhumane. The _modern dog as a species_ is nowhere near 'natural', they're a _man-made_ animal.


You're point is well taken, and there is no doubt an interesting debate of whether or not certain things in breeding (past or present) are ethical or humane. Nonetheless, you are making the same mistake as TXcollies above: the fact that some people may do even worse things does not excuse or justify a dog owner for cutting off whiskers for no reason.




> The real question should be, 'Does this procedure damage the quality of life of a dog and/or cause it suffer?'. The answer to that is that there is no proof that trimming whiskers does any of that. Therefore, accusing people of harming their dogs by trimming whiskers is completely unfounded, which is what Peppy is trying to claim.


Unless you are arguing that rosemaryninja's post (describing the function of the whiskers) above is untrue, (which you have not done), then you cannot deny that the dog is somewhat impaired when the whiskers are cut off. The fact that the dog OWNER doesn't notice the impairment does not mean that the DOG does not notice it. In fact, experience tells us that we usually only notice only major impairments (e.g. diminishing sight, smell, etc) in our dogs, not minor ones.


I know you all love your dogs, and it is hard to accept that you are harming them in some way (maybe very minor, maybe significant) when you cut off your whiskers, but that's the reality. Being in denial does not change the facts.


----------



## alphadoginthehouse (Jun 7, 2008)

I gotta admit, that when Peppy is party of any thread he/she always makes it interesting with his/her contrary comments to the title of the thread.  I think of all the DF's who have responded to this thread there are maybe 3 who are against cutting whiskers. 

I'm not saying I agree with Peppy because I've never really thought about it. Butch and Roxxy have very short whiskers and short hair, so I have no need to cut them, but when I had Lucy groomed I seem to remember hers being trimmed. Doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other.

Oh, and all of my animals have been neutered.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

*Testical Loppers!!!*

Yay Peppy! Someone more extreme than I! I have never even thought of all this, honestly, being that I am a groomer and I cut hairy faces all day. I have never heard of any ill effects from doing it, but like Pep said, how the heck would I know, being that I'm not a dog? 

I do know that I flipped my lid when my husband thought it would be cute and funny to trim my cat's whiskers off. 

I like your style, Peppy, just don't get yourself banned or this forum will get real boring again.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

*Scores and pretty pictures are what pleases you, not him. *

This dog lived to work in the ring, and since you didn't know him I guess it's hard for you to say he liked or didn't like. 

I look at it this way, whiskers are a preference. Some people take them off, some people dong. Some breeds you take them off for the ring, some you don't. It's really no big deal.


----------



## ILuvLucy (May 3, 2008)

rosemaryninja said:


> The whiskers, or more properly, vibrissae, are important sensory mechanisms that the dog uses in several ways. Each individual whisker connects to a specific brain region, so that the dog can actually perceive movements of each whisker. About 40% of the part of the dog's brain that handles tactile information is devoted to the face, and a big piece of that to the region where the whiskers are located. Any time that much brain tissue is devoted to one thing, it's a sure sign that it's an important sensory mechanism.
> 
> They help the dog detect when something is near his face, and may help them detect whether a surface is rough or smooth, as well as the shapes of objects. They help dogs navigate in dim light. As the dog moves, the air currents stirred up by his movements bounce off walls and other objects, and the vibrissae are capable of detecting these and helping the dog avoid walls or other objects. Each hair is capable of being moved by small muscles, and a dog will actively move these back and forth across objects, as well as move his head to get information about the things near his face. Watch how your dog behaves when he brings his head near an object, of when you lightly touch one of his whiskers.
> 
> Stanley Coren writes about this in more detail in his book "How Dogs Think". He also described an experiment in which a blind Sheltie (?) had his whiskers cut...the Sheltie was much less able to navigate his surroundings and kept bumping into various things.



Just want to say thank you for this information. I'd always wondered about dog's whiskers. I knew about cat's using their whiskers (did anyone see the episode of 'Groomer has It' where someone trimmed off a cat's whiskers?)


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

In my breed it is not a fad to clip the whiskers so I don't do it (although about half the dogs in my breed get them done) I don't do it purely because I beleive in the natural dog, and I try to leave it as natural as I can in the show ring while still being allowed to show and not have a judge laugh me out of the ring. Dogs shouldn't be judged on how well they are groomed in the show ring, but saddly they are.

So I trim the little hairs between the toes
I trim the nails
I trim the hair on the inside rim of the ears
and I do the Aussie fad of brushing the leg and foot hair in the opposite direction to make the legs appear bigger.


----------



## katyblue (Jun 8, 2009)

Awesome information on the whiskers! I had always heard they use them for sensing things, but never had any real in-depth info. 

Our Bichon's whiskers are mixed in with his long face fur and I'm sure they get snipped when he's groomed. The other dogs have their whiskers left as is. 

This does remind me of something from my childhood. My mother had show Pekingese and my brother always teased that he would cut the whiskers off only one side of the dog's face. On more than one occasion when he looked like he had been up to something, my mom ended up checking over all the dog's to see if they had their feet, whiskers, etc. trimmed.

He never touched the dogs...it was just a fun way to rile my mother up!


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

alphadoginthehouse said:


> I think of all the DF's who have responded to this thread there are maybe 3 who are against cutting whiskers.


Ay, it is hard work but worthwhile if we save one pair of precious whiskers. The real credit will belong to Wolfie and Rosemaryninja for posting the facts.

Maybe we can build some momentum and one day save some ears or tails as well.

Testicles? Well I know most of the girls on DF are very opinionated about those .... not much chance there.


----------



## Wolfiee (Jun 15, 2009)

Testicles are probably a very controversial subject, I assume. But in my opinion, if you have no plans in breeding your dog, they should be neutered/spayed to help control the already enormous population of dogs. Hundreds of puppies end up in shelters or dying each year due to overpopulation, so I've always agreed with spaying and neutering, even if it is "unnatural." 

I look at it as a stress free life! Neither male or female dogs will have those urges to mate, nor will they be stressed out when they cannot. 

But I don't want to get off subject here, I apologize, I just felt like that needed to be said ^ ^;

I must say though, this has, indeed, been an interesting thread!


----------



## animalcraker (Nov 9, 2006)

rosemaryninja said:


> Stanley Coren writes about this in more detail in his book "How Dogs Think". He also described an experiment in which a blind Sheltie (?) had his whiskers cut...the Sheltie was much less able to navigate his surroundings and kept bumping into various things.


There was a blind dog on the tube today on my way home from work. Poor thing kept bumping his head into everything. But guess what he still had ALL his whiskers. Too bad he never read the facts about how functionaly important those whiskers are. Fact is in today's society whiskers aren't functionaly improtant for pet and show dogs.



peppy264 said:


> Maybe we can build some momentum and one day save some ears or tails as well.


The portion of the pinea that is cut off serves no function what so ever. In fact it could easily be argued that croping makes the dog's ear more functional then it ever was before. 



peppy264 said:


> In fact, experience tells us that we usually only notice only major impairments (e.g. diminishing sight, smell, etc) in our dogs, not minor ones.


The fact that YOUR experience is that you can't notice minor changes does not mean that my, or anyone else's, experience is the same.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

animalcraker said:


> There was a blind dog on the tube today on my way home from work. Poor thing kept bumping his head into everything. But guess what he still had ALL his whiskers. Too bad he never read the facts about how functionaly important those whiskers are. Fact is in today's society whiskers aren't functionaly improtant for pet and show dogs.


I understand your point, but you can't use one dog to refute the evidence that a large amount of brain tissue is devoted to the whiskers. I mean, I suppose I might as well say that on my way to work this morning I saw a dog without whiskers that couldn't seem to find its way around obstructions.



> Mechanoreceptors are the most numerous receptors in skin. At the base of each hair follicle, for example, is a group of pressure-sensitive-hair-follice receptors that are activated whenever the hair is disturbed by external movements that cause the surrounding tissue to stretch or bend. Follicle receptors of special importance to dogs are those associated with the vibrissae or whiskers located at various points on the face. The vibrissae provide dogs with information about nearby objects, coordinate the movement of the muzzle and mouth toward nearby objects, and may serve an important protective function against ocular injury by avoiding accidental collisions. In addition to direct mechanical stimulation, the vibrissae are responsive to vibrations and the subtle movement of air currents.


Handbook of Applied Dog Behaviour and Training: Adaptation and learning
Steven R. Lindsay



> Dogs use tactile information from their facial whiskers (vibrissae) to help navigate in confined spaces and low-light environments. (...) The prominent vibrissae above each eye make up the superciliary tufts. The slightest movement of these produces a reflex blink, probably originally needed to help protect the eyes of hunting dogs.


Canine Behaviour: Insights and Answers, 2nd Edition
Bonnie V. Beaver



> Tactile hairs (vibrissae)...are specialised hairs that grow from follicles found deep in the hypodermis. Each follicle is surrounded by nerve endings that are responsive to mechanical stimuli and provide sensory information from the environment.


Veterinary Nursing
D. R. Lane, B. Cooper



> At some point in the early days of dog shows it became the fad to snip off the whiskers, or vibrissae, on a dog's head as part of show grooming. This has slowly become less fashionable, and more people now leave these important sensory organs on their dogs both at home and in the ring. Field trial competitors report that dogs with missing vibrissae are more prone to facial cuts.


The Dachshund Handbook
D. Caroline Coile, Michele Earle-Bridges


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

So how many dogs have you ever seen or heard of that are bumbling around and obviously unable to cope with not having whiskers? It's nice to be able to quote data that says that whiskers have a purpose (I would argue that smell and sight portions of the brain together outweigh the size of any 'whisker' section, if you want to make it all about comparing 'brain territory' size), but that doesn't prove the 'cruelty' allegation that's being debated here. I have never seen any shaved-face dogs that suffered chronic facial injuries or any other psychological or physical problem coming from the lack of whiskers. There is _no_ foundation for bashing people who do it.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

rosemaryninja said:


> I understand your point, but you can't use one dog to refute the evidence that a large amount of brain tissue is devoted to the whiskers. I mean, I suppose I might as well say that on my way to work this morning I saw a dog without whiskers that couldn't seem to find its way around obstructions.


I don't think anyone _is_ refuting that fact. Only arguing that not only do countless dogs live normal uninhibited lives without their whiskers but the practice itself inhumane. The fact is though, to clip or not clip...it's all just opinions and preference. 

And animal can no more use one dog as evidence then you can use _your_ (or Stanley's in this case) blind dog story.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Dakota Spirit said:


> I don't think anyone _is_ refuting that fact. Only arguing that not only do countless dogs live normal uninhibited lives without their whiskers but the practice itself isn't anywhere near inhumane. The fact is though, to clip or not clip...it's all just opinions and preference.
> 
> And animal can no more use one dog as evidence then you can use _your_ (or Stanley's in this case) blind dog story.


I didn't just use Stanley's story; my post also contained factual evidence that whiskers are important to dogs.



Pai said:


> So how many dogs have you ever seen or heard of that are bumbling around and obviously unable to cope with not having whiskers? It's nice to be able to quote data that says that whiskers have a purpose (I would argue that smell and sight portions of the brain together outweigh the size of any 'whisker' section, if you want to make it all about comparing 'brain territory' size), but that doesn't prove the 'cruelty' allegation that's being debated here. I have never seen any shaved-face dogs that suffered chronic facial injuries or any other psychological or physical problem coming from the lack of whiskers. There is _no_ foundation for bashing people who do it.


Read my posts... I never bashed you for snipping Ice's whiskers, and I don't consider it inhumane. In fact, neither Peppy nor I ever used the words "cruel", "inhumane" or similar, so I have no idea where this notion of animal abuse came from.

The only thing I'm trying to prove is that whiskers have a function. Your dog won't be horribly debilitated by the loss of them, but they ARE useful. 

If you can accept that, instead of insisting that cutting the whiskers off a dog makes no difference either way, then my point is made.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

rosemaryninja said:


> Read my posts... I never bashed you for snipping Ice's whiskers, and I don't consider it inhumane. In fact, neither Peppy nor I ever used the words "cruel", "inhumane" or similar, so I have no idea where this notion of animal abuse came from.


Peppy has actually repeatedly stated that by clipping whiskers you are hurting your dog and those that do are simply in denial over that fact. To me, that's close enough to calling something inhumane. After all, by definition, something that _hurts_ an animal would naturally qualify as inhumane.

I really don't understand how this turned into a debate over the purpose of whiskers though. I don't recall anyone ever saying whiskers didn't have a (natural) purpose or reason why they existed. Just that dogs could get along fine and normal without them. Maybe I missed it though.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

rosemaryninja said:


> The only thing I'm trying to prove is that whiskers have a function. Your dog won't be horribly debilitated by the loss of them, but they ARE useful.
> 
> If you can accept that, instead of insisting that cutting the whiskers off a dog makes no difference either way, then my point is made.
> 
> In fact, neither Peppy nor I ever used the words "abuse", "cruel", "inhumane" or similar.


Nobody here ever argued that they DIDN'T have a function. The entire argument here was over whether or not shaving them off is some kind of unjustifiable mutilation. 

And the tone in Peppy's posts is pretty clear, they don't have to use those _exact _words to count as being judgmental.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Dakota Spirit said:


> I don't recall anyone ever saying whiskers didn't have a (natural) purpose or reason why they existed.





Pai said:


> Nobody here ever argued that they DIDN'T have a function. The entire argument here was over whether or not shaving them off is some kind of unjustifiable mutilation.





animalcraker said:


> Fact is in today's society whiskers aren't functionaly improtant for pet and show dogs.


I don't understand why words like "unjustifiable mutilation" keep cropping up in this thread. I've said this before, and so has Peppy... words like "abuse" and "cruelty" are far too extreme to describe cutting off whiskers.



> 'Animal abuser' ....'horrible person' not my words and far too strong for cutting off whiskers.





> I agree its not life threatening or even close. But I don't think you have any evidence that it is totally insignificant either.





> Nobody is saying loosing the whiskers is equivalent to loosing a leg...





> No but they are diminishing their quality of life to some unknown degree...


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

I'm not sure why I got quoted in that...I explained why I used the word 'inhumane' in my post.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

I quoted the part of your post in which you said no one had posited that whiskers were unimportant. My third quote was animalcraker making this very argument.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Mm, alright. Thanks for pointing that out, then


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Just wanted to draw attention to these articles:

http://www.winweim.com/images/whiskers.pdf
http://admin.sibes.org/sdo/index.asp~m=article&name=sdo.id.A000077


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

So after denying that you're calling it 'unjustifiable mutliation' or 'cruel', you link articles that _do_ claim exactly that and which keep calling whisker shaving 'amputation'. Interesting. 

And from the Sibes article:


> The solution to the problem is simple in conception but will doubtless prove difficult in implementation. Ideally, the American Kennel Club and governing bodies in other countries should recognize the potential importance of vibrissae as sense organs and instruct judges to excuse from the ring animals whose vibrissae have been trimmed.


Yeah, that's _really_ realistic in a show culture that allows _dewclaws, ears, and tails_ to be cut off. Also, not sure why the Sibe's article quote a study that showed the parts of a rat's brain that dealt with whiskers as becoming inactive when whiskers were removed as some 'proof' of damage to an animal. It just shows that when whiskers are removed, THE BRAIN ADJUSTS TO IT and _turns off_ the parts that process whisker information.

In other words, it's obvious here that nobody is going to change their opinion one way or another on this topic.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

I'm not really sure how many times I have to tell you that I don't think vibrissotomy is abuse. I think I've said it in every single post I've made in this thread, besides the first. "Amputation" means to surgically remove a part of the body. That's exactly what clipping whiskers is. It doesn't have to be cruel, painful, inhumane, abusive or any of the other connotations it seems to have for you.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

rosemaryninja said:


> It doesn't have to be cruel, painful, inhumane, abusive or any of the other connotations it seems to have for you.


_You're_ the one linking articles as part of your argument that say exactly that -- that trimming a dog's whiskers harms them. I'm pretty sure the very definintion of 'cruel' would be to do something purely for aesthetics that damages an animal's quality of life and health, as _both_ those articles claim. I'm not 'connotating' anything. 



> "Amputation" means to surgically remove a part of the body.


So every time we trim our dog's toenails, we're 'amputating' them? Nobody 'surgically removes' dog whiskers, that I know of.


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

I think both whisker snippers and whisker preservers can thank R-ninja, she has brought some much needed science and studies into the whole discussion, and her posts have been extraordinarily diplomatic, even handed and non-confrontational, even if the response to them has been a bit emotional.

From one of R-Ninja's studies:


> On one pan we'll place the evidence indicating that vibrissae are sense organs of potential major significance to the dogs we profess to love, and on the other pan the excuse of cutting them to provide the head with a "cleaner" look. To me, it IS obvious in which direction the scale tilts.


Its pretty obvious to me too. 

The debate as to whether whisker removal is inhumane, cruel etc is a value judgment. I would not and did not use those words, I just said it is "wrong". That is my personal opinion. In my personal moral judgment such debilitation of a dog for pure cosmetic reasons is wrong. Others may think it is OK. I hope they don't get carried away.

So if you want to believe it is not inhumane, not cruel, not wrong to cut off whiskers, I respect that. That is your own personal morals speaking. From the city to the farm to an arctic sled, people have vastly different perspectives on the place and rights of a dog in the world. In some places they are eaten for dinner; that represents the personal morals of those people. I respect that as well. 

But don't try to say you are not debilitating your dog to some unknown degree by cutting of its whiskers. That is called DENIAL.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Thanks very much, Peppy!



Pai said:


> I'm pretty sure the very definintion of 'cruel' would be to do something purely for aesthetics that damages an animal's quality of life and health, as _both_ those articles claim.


My definition of "cruel" would be something a little stronger than that, and inserting subjective terms like "quality of life" into objective definitions is always slightly iffy... but for working purposes we'll use your definition. No one is saying that dogs whose whiskers have been removed are disabled or even unhappy. But their abilities ARE damaged, if only to a small degree (to our knowledge, anyway). If they're not, then what of the field trial dogs in Coile and Earle-Bridges' book who suffered facial injuries because of a lack of vibrissae? What about the Viszlas in McGill’s study, and the Volhards’ dogs? If trimming whiskers does not impair a dog in at least _some_ way, how do you explain those?


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Anyone else think we're talking in circles at this point?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> Also, anyone else think we're talking in circles at this point?


*raises her hand*


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

Dakota Spirit said:


> I do not believe whisker cutting to be debilitating in any degree - but I am not in denial about anything. I know the whisker's function, I know why they exist, and I know my own experiences with both clipped and unclipped dogs.


Well, if you accept
1) the functions of the whiskers as described above 

and you accept that
2) the whiskers can no longer perform these functions when they are cut off

then I do not know how you can possibly say that whisker cutting is not debilitating in any degree. That, my friend, is denial. 1+1 = 2, regardless of anybody's opinion on the matter.

As far as whether or not whisker cutting is right, wrong, evil, whatever, that is an opinion and moral judgment and I respect whatever position people take on that.



> anyone else think we're talking in circles at this point?


There is some truth to this, in my opinion, and any further discourse may be debilitating to the reader. Perhaps all that is left to do is present R-Ninja and I with some sort of humanitarian (dogitarian?) award for our efforts in whisker saving and we'll be on our way.


----------



## animalcraker (Nov 9, 2006)

rosemaryninja said:


> I understand your point, but you can't use one dog to refute the evidence that a large amount of brain tissue is devoted to the whiskers.


I wasn't debating the function of whiskers or the amount of brain tissue devoted to them. I was debating the functional importance of them in today's pet and show dogs. 



animalcraker said:


> Fact is in today's society whiskers aren't functionaly improtant for pet and show dogs.


_____________________________________________________



peppy264 said:


> As far as whether or not whisker cutting is right, wrong, evil, whatever, that is an opinion and moral judgment and I *respect* whatever position people take on that.


I really don't see how you're respecting other's opinions when you infer that anyone who trims whiskers is inhumane, curel, and wrong. Nevermind that you straight up say that they are in denial and debilitating their dogs.



peppy264 said:


> So if you want to believe it is not inhumane, not cruel, not wrong to cut off whiskers, I respect that. That is your own personal morals speaking. From the city to the farm to an arctic sled, people have vastly different perspectives on the place and rights of a dog in the world. In some places they are eaten for dinner; that represents the personal morals of those people. I respect that as well.
> 
> But don't try to say you are not debilitating your dog to some unknown degree by cutting of its whiskers. That is called DENIAL.


----------



## bfoster (Feb 9, 2009)

Not an issue here- we are all about the whiskers ---LOL


----------



## Hound (May 20, 2009)

Whiskers in both cats and dogs actually function as sensors when they sniff around. It is similar to normal hair that provides bodily functions. However, whiskers add additional sensory abilities. And similar to normal hair, you can cut or simply your dog’s whiskers especially if it bothers your dog around the eyes. However, if there is no significant reason of cutting it off, then you should just leave it be.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

animalcraker said:


> I wasn't debating the function of whiskers or the amount of brain tissue devoted to them. I was debating the functional importance of them in today's pet and show dogs.


I know that. But you must agree that they are of some use. You make them sound like they are just there for no good reason.

BTW, no one's answered my previous question yet...



> What of the field trial dogs in Coile and Earle-Bridges' book who suffered facial injuries because of a lack of vibrissae? What about the Viszlas in McGill’s study, and the Volhards’ dogs? If trimming whiskers does not impair a dog in at least some way, how do you explain those?


I think the answer to this question should make things quite clear.


----------



## peppy264 (Apr 23, 2009)

rosemaryninja said:


> I think the answer to this question should make things quite clear.


Or, more likely, the lack of an answer.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

rosemaryninja said:


> I think the answer to this question should make things quite clear.


I think in that case it's a bit different since the dogs are working dogs and likely use their whiskers to a higher degree then most dogs. Kind of like if you sent a Dachshund to ground - he would need his whiskers to feel around the tunnel and get a better picture of his surroundings. Field dogs work in the same manner. They keep their nose close to the ground and work in thick brush/branches/etc. I wouldn't shave whiskers off a working dog either. No more then I'd shave the coat off of a working Siberian. 

However, most of the argument here has centered around the use of whiskers to the general everyday house pet. One that isn't commonly going though rough terrain, working in close quarters (tunnels), and so on. Were you to shave a pet Sibe's coat (just to continue with that example) there wouldn't really be a negative effect for that dog. But then he also doesn't depend on that coat to survive any harsh temperatures or to preform his job.

JMO and how I took that particular excerpt though.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

animalcraker said:


> I wasn't debating the function of whiskers or the amount of brain tissue devoted to them. I was debating the functional importance of them in today's pet and show dogs.


I guess the next thing would be to define functional importance.

If the dog uses them, does that make them functionally important, or is that only defined based on what we humans think the dog's functions are?

I mean, if Wally feels something on one of his whiskers that keeps him from ramming his nose into a brick - is that functionally important? Or is it not because it's not serving a function I've decided for him?



Dakota Spirit said:


> However, most of the argument here has centered around the use of whiskers to the general everyday house pet. One that isn't commonly going though rough terrain, working in close quarters (tunnels), and so on.


See - there's relatively rough terrain around that we walk in (because he loves it) and sometimes there's close spaces in the house/yard, or now that's he's in "explorer mode" he pokes his head into nooks and corners, and spaces where I see him trying to judge the opening and how to fit.

So - would that make the whiskers functionally important, even though he's "just" a house pet?


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Dakota Spirit said:


> I think in that case it's a bit different since the dogs are working dogs and likely use their whiskers to a higher degree then most dogs. Kind of like if you sent a Dachshund to ground - he would need his whiskers to feel around the tunnel and get a better picture of his surroundings. Field dogs work in the same manner. They keep their nose close to the ground and work in thick brush/branches/etc. I wouldn't shave whiskers off a working dog either. No more then I'd shave the coat off of a working Siberian.
> 
> However, most of the argument here has centered around the use of whiskers to the general everyday house pet. One that isn't commonly going though rough terrain, working in close quarters (tunnels), and so on. Were you to shave a pet Sibe's coat (just to continue with that example) there wouldn't really be a negative effect for that dog. But then he also doesn't depend on that coat to survive any harsh temperatures or to preform his job.
> 
> JMO and how I took that particular excerpt though.


Well, that's not really the point, is it? Certainly working dogs need their whiskers _more than_ house pets do, but that doesn't discount the house pet's need for whiskers by any measure. You're absolutely right -- working dogs are more affected by the removal of their whiskers (or, arguably, any body part) than house pets are, but that doesn't mean that house pets don't still need them. Just because working dogs use their whiskers to a higher degree doesn't mean that whiskers aren't still important to house pets. Unless you are saying that whiskers are needed for crawling through tunnels and underbrush, but not for entering crates or hiking through the woods (activities which most house pets, and probably a good number of show dogs, do on a regular basis).


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

rosemaryninja said:


> Unless you are saying that whiskers are needed for crawling through tunnels and underbrush, but not for entering crates or hiking through the woods (activities which most house pets, and probably a good number of show dogs, do on a regular basis).


I was actually only explaining why I felt the clipped field trial dogs obtained more cuts to the face - or at least trying to anyway - and pointing out that I didn't feel that was the same kind of situation being discussed here (and therefore not relative evidence) as most of the arguments centered around house pets. Like with the Sibe coat example it would similar to arguing (in my mind) the importance of it's function based on how dependent the working dogs of that breed might be on it's warmth. Working dogs and house pets are different variables. Kind of like the whole blind dog thing that was discussed earlier. The situation didn't really fit since a blind dog's needs are diffrent then the adverage pet.

Bottom line for me at this point though - is it's just personal choice. This thread is full of information, 'round about talking, and not a lot of opinion swaying. If you think clipping whiskers takes away an important ability from your dog, then don't clip. I'm not really sure what else can be said on that matter. It's like cropping, docking, or any other similar practice...decide how you feel about it and do with your dogs what you believe to be right. 

I think I'm more or less out of this topic since I don't have much else to say that wouldn't be a repeat of previous comments - but I did want to mention that I appreciated all the opinions/information shared. I enjoy a good discussion, even if it doesn't come down to agreement at the end.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Dakota Spirit said:


> I think I'm more or less out of this topic since I don't have much else to say that wouldn't be a repeat of previous comments - but I did want to mention that I appreciated all the opinions/information shared. I enjoy a good discussion, even if it doesn't come down to agreement at the end.


Thanks.  I've really enjoyed this one too.


----------



## FidoTheYorkie (May 12, 2009)

I have a Yorkie, i never cut his whiskers.
Maybe if they ''stand out of the coat'' then i cut a litle of them, but not much.
Yorkie's whiskers are never trimmed for show, their coat is so long and straight that you cant see the wiskers


----------

