# Cropped Ears



## no1daddythepitbullfan (Mar 8, 2009)

How do dogs gets cropped ears? People don't cut the ears to make them look like that, right?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

They're taken to a vet at a young age (12 to 16 weeks I believe), and a vet surgically removes part of the ear.

The ears are then posted (held upright) through various methods...tampons in the ears to help support combined with light surgical tape is what I usually see.

In Great Danes the ears are usually propped with popsicle sticks and taped to a styrofoam cup! LOL!


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Wrong. 0f course they are cut. That'd be why they are missing part of their ear. 

I've never had to tape or post a dogs ears however. But Xeph is right I know certain breeds always get the tape/post and it can take weeks and weeks of it. Maybe months for some to actually stand.

Mine just get stitched and those come out in 10 days. All done.


----------



## Binkalette (Dec 16, 2008)

Poor puppers


----------



## KenyiGirl (Nov 12, 2008)

Personally I don't think its right to crop ears, but that's jmo. Why put your dog through unnessary surgery and pain?


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I think if you ARE going to crop your dogs ears it needs to be done by an experienced vet and the person responsible for doing it MUST take proper care of the ears and sets. It is a huge commitment and a lot of work for people. Many people get a puppies ears cropped and set and then do not take proper care. This results in an adult dog with poor ear set anyway. I am thinking mostly of Dobermans. Very few that I have seen have nice set ears. Many are what the rescues call "cropped and flopped" they are cut but still do not stand erect. Also I was told from several people in Doberman rescue that the dogs WITH cropped ears have a better chance of being adopted. More people want a dog that looks like it's breed is supposed to. Doberman Pinschers generally have ears cropped. I like the look of a cropped Doberman but not sure I would have it done to one. Then again, I mostly rescue so... I would just have to get one that is already cropped if I wanted that.


----------



## Dobermaniac (Jul 28, 2007)

Ears are best to be cropped around 7-9 weeks. Reputable breeders crop all their pups and very rarely can you get a un cropped Dobe from a reputable breeder, unless that person knows you really well. One of the reasons is that most breeders do not finish grading their pups until after the ear cropping. Also, if they get a pup returned to them it is much easier to rehome a cropped dog. I know my breeder had a 8 month old male for over a year because nobody wanted an uncropped Dog. Rescues also have an easier time adopting out cropped Dobes. When I picked out my girl she was already cropped.

Here are some pics

This is when I first got her. Her ears are glued to the foam, it allows the ears to breath and heal before the posting.









Here are her ears posted. I wrapped popsicle sticks in a very strechy tape and used duct tape for a brace. This lasted me about three months.









Ears all done


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

I would prefer a dog with uncropped ears myself. But I'm of the opinion that if a dogs ears are meant to go up they will and if they aren't they won't. I prefer the natural look.


----------



## GearGirl (Feb 19, 2009)

I think it is horribly abusive, and absolutely ridiculous. Other countries have laws against show dogs having this done, but the United States is way behind in that. Poor dogs.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

In some. Countries it's illegal to do ANY surgical alterAtion of a dog INCLUDING spay/nueter. In the US we are allowed to make the medical decisions for our dogs, I'll keep that right thank you very much.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Indeed...these days I'd honestly crop/dock before I'd speuter...but I'm strange and one of those rare responsible people that doesn't allow their dog to procreate willy nilly.


----------



## Westhighlander (Sep 28, 2007)

Just curious, but is there any reasoning behind cropping?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Not the worst thing in the world... IMO I could think of so many worse things that people do to their dogs, issues that people should worry about tackling before they proclaim how inhumane cropping is.

A person willing to pay the money for a good crop at a young age and take care of the crop as it heals and grows in has a good chance of being a responsible owner. I don't like a crop on most dogs but as long as there is a historical purpose I have no problem with it. I do NOT think mixes should be cropped ever.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Westhighlander said:


> Just curious, but is there any reasoning behind cropping?


 
Cropping was developed to protect working dogs in the feild, much like removal of the dew claw and tail docking. In this case, many of the breeds are hunting, fighting or gaurdian breeds. The ears were cropped to keep the prey item from tearing the ears (in Great danes they were hunting boars) or keep humans from grabbing the ears. The original crops were VERY short for this purpose, at times nearly all the ear leather was removed.

There is the added benefit if increased air flow into the ears which can reduce ear infections and better hearing due to the upright position of the ear.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Westhighlander said:


> Just curious, but is there any reasoning behind cropping?


To make a dog look hideous.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

That would depend on the crop Kasey. I happen to think certain breeds look best cropped. Of course, I own a Dobe that's cropped.

I'd hardly call this hidious


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Oh goodness, Kasey...this IS hideous. 










Whatever...to each their own...I didn't crop Disco's ears, but they are certainly apart of her breeds history. I love a nicely cropped dog.


----------



## PitBully (Mar 12, 2009)

Some breeds have their ears cropped for a purpose. Whether one desires it or not does not justify spreading propaganda that it's a cruel procedure. 

The Doberman has its ears cropped for looks. The breed appears more menacing, thus likely to alarm intruders (visually) than not. Dobermans with their natural look do not appear to look intimating at all. The Doberman is actually not the most "sturdy" breed of dog for guarding and protection purposes. That is why so much emphasis went into the appearance of the dog rather physical capabilities. If you want to keep intruders off your property, a cropped Doberman is a great step. Then again, more advanced individuals could be aware that the Doberman is somewhat "fragile" (not literally) compared to Mastiff guardian breeds. 

Before the Great Dane was watered down into a lovable family dog and successful show dog, their ears were either natural or cropped so far toward the head, it was impossible for a boar to rip it to shreds with its tusks. Great Danes are gladiator dogs because their descendants were mastiffs. Mastiff breeds are called "Moloss Dogs." Even the Pitbull is a Moloss breed because the English bulldog was developed from Mastiffs. (The Pitbull has far more "Bulldog" influence than their "Terrier" influence.)

Gladiator dogs usually had their ears cropped down to their skulls. It's history. The modern Great Dane ear crop suits its noble head well, and the reputable veterinarians who preform those operations aren't preforming a cruel procedure. Great Danes seem to be retired from their hunting past. (Although there are some hog hunters out there who love to use Great Danes as foundation dogs to their bandog breeding programs.)

Whether one thinks the crop jobs are unnecessary or ugly, they must education themselves before stating the procedure is "cruel." 

PB


----------



## KenyiGirl (Nov 12, 2008)

> Whether one thinks the crop jobs are unnecessary or ugly, they must education themselves before stating the procedure is "cruel."


I don't necessarily think it's ugly, but it _is_ unnecessary. There used to be reasons owners would crop their dog's ears. But now those reasons are extinct. So now its apparently just so your dog can look "menacing".


----------



## PitBully (Mar 12, 2009)

KenyiGirl said:


> I don't necessarily think it's ugly, but it _is_ unnecessary. There used to be reasons owners would crop their dog's ears. But now those reasons are extinct. So now its apparently just so your dog can look "menacing".


What you find unnecessary another person will not. If someone desired a Doberman with the natural look and STILL wanted to utilize that individual as a guard dog, so be it. If someone desired a Doberman for no other purpose other than the role of a family pet and STILL wanted the cropped ears, there would be nothing wrong with it as long as the procedure was preformed property. It's a common operation amongst particular dog breeds. Just because other countries banned the procedure does not translate into cruelty. Laws in other countries don't necessarily mean they have to be universal.

PB


----------



## Zr. (Aug 28, 2008)

Don't some dogs still work? Doesn't it make sense then that some are still cropped and docked for their safety? I know some breeds just wagging their tail can break and maim it, ending in amputation anyway. And some breeds are prone to severe ear infections and cropping can really help with that - again, sometimes they need it at an older age because of constant ear infections.

I think it's a to-each-his-own situation, but there are still needs for it to be done from what I can see.

On a side note, I adore natural doberman and boxer ears. I've seen so many that just look terrible cropped. But the ones posted here look amazing.


----------



## Dobermaniac (Jul 28, 2007)

PitBully said:


> The Doberman has its ears cropped for looks. The breed appears more menacing, thus likely to alarm intruders (visually) than not. Dobermans with their natural look do not appear to look intimating at all. *The Doberman is actually not the most "sturdy" breed of dog for guarding and protection purposes. That is why so much emphasis went into the appearance of the dog rather physical capabilities.* If you want to keep intruders off your property, a cropped Doberman is a great step. Then again, more advanced individuals could be aware that the Doberman is somewhat "fragile" (not literally) compared to Mastiff guardian breeds.


Thats not really true. If you are referring to todays Dobes (In North America) than you are correct to an extent. But when the Dobermann was first created it was among the sharpest and fiercest guard dogs in the world. Both the US and Germans used them heavily in WW2. The crop was also a lot different back than, they resembled Pitt crops in that they were very short, to prevent someone to grab and hold onto the ear. The crops you see now (like my girl) are very long because that is what is preferred in the show ring. 

Also, the protective abilities of a dog is heavily dependant on genetics and there aren't as many true protection Dobes around in North America, most people are gravitating towards the GSD and Mals. However, in Europe there are quite a few working Dobe breeders. In Germany before you can breed the dobermann has to prove its working ability, and courage and pass the ZTP. It just really depends heavily on where you get your dog. Most dobes you see on the streets today is not a good indicator of the breed as a whole.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

KenyiGirl said:


> I don't necessarily think it's ugly, but it _is_ unnecessary. There used to be reasons owners would crop their dog's ears. But now those reasons are extinct. So now its apparently just so your dog can look "menacing".


LOL you can't be serious. Those reasons are extinct? No working dogs still live. If you have pet couch potatoes then so be it. Many people do, I think its great to have pets. Don't assume no one has working dogs however because you'd be greatly mistaken. Yes now days a lot of people crop just for looks, that would be unnecessary however I doubt they want menacing. Show crop is munch longer in Doberman then the working crop was so I doubt menacing is what they were going for. 

If you think this dog looks menacing that is an opinion you have a right to but it certainly is out of the norm for those who meet/see her.


----------



## Locke (Nov 3, 2008)

What is the purpose of the crop?
Aside from historical reasons...
I plan on getting a doberman pup in the future, and while I only plan on obedience titling my dobe, I much prefer the aesthetics of a cropped dobe. So in my case, having my dobe cropped is purely for aesthetics. 
However, in the American and Canadian show ring (possibly others but I can't say for sure) a natural eared dobe, no matter how conformationally sound, is at a HUGE disadvantage to cropped dobes. So in the case of show doberman owners, in order to do well in the show ring, cropping their dog is almost a necessity.
When done professionally, and taken for properly, cropping does not hurt the dog any more than docking. From what I have read, pups are back to their crazy selves only a few hours after being cropped.


----------



## GearGirl (Feb 19, 2009)

You can justify it all you want, but putting an animal through surgery and the taping up ears for months is absolutely cruel. It doesn't take an education (which by the way I have) on the issue to understand that, it just takes common sense.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

That's your opinion GearGirl. You think cropping is unnecessary. I now consider spaying and neutering to be unneccessary. It's opinions.

We put animals through surgery all the time and justify it. There are benefits to cropping, just as there are to spaying and neutering.

If you need a dog that looks intimidating to intruders but is sweet with your kids, a Doberman, Boxer, or Beauceron is a good choice.

Dogs with upright ears are less prone to ear infections (that doesn't mean they won't get them, just not as common).

At least with cropping we're not messing with necessary chemicals in the dogs.


----------



## Spiritguardian3 (Feb 11, 2007)

Xeph said:


> That's your opinion GearGirl. You think cropping is unnecessary. I now consider spaying and neutering to be unneccessary. It's opinions.
> 
> We put animals through surgery all the time and justify it. There are benefits to cropping, just as there are to spaying and neutering.
> 
> ...



I was gonna stay out of this but... I personally wouldn't crop my dogs ears/dock their tails. However, I don't think its my right to say to someone else they cannot do it. I have seen dobies with natural tails and ears, they don't look like a doberman. At all. People breed for a certain type, I know a boxer breeder who can't keep her show dogs in natural ears because they haven't been breeding for natural ears, they've been breeding for ears with leather better to crop. 

Do I think personally that the average pet owner is equipt to handle the healing of cropped ears, no. Your average pet owner doesn't buy dogs who are from great, reputable breeders, most buy from BYB or petstores. If they didn't take the time to find the right breeder, they won't find the right vet for cropping or learn how to properly clean/take care of it. Docking (from what I know) seems to heal and is done right after birth (correct me if I'm wrong??)

Your average pet owner SHOULD fix their dog because they have no idea how to deal with a female in heat or how to contain a male who smells a female in heat. Surgeries shouldn't be taken lightly on your pet, but if you are educated enough to know the risk and know how to properly take care of the wound you should be allowed to make that decision.


----------



## Shaggydog (Mar 4, 2009)

I never had a dog's ears cropped.I've only had one whose looks might've been more intimitaing if he had them. Like some here,I perfer the natural look.But if the owners themselves want their dogs cropped,I have no problem with it.


----------



## GearGirl (Feb 19, 2009)

I'm really not sure why you are comparing spaying and neutering to ear cropping. Are you aware of the number of dogs put down every year in the United States? There is a reason for spaying and neutering, and while I agree that it is not always the best option for an individual pet, it IS the best option for dogs as a species, and the over population problem we have. Unwanted animals are being put to death in shelters at an alarming rate. Are you comparing this surgery that helps control (and not well enough) a serious over population problem resulting in millions of deaths to your dog looking scary to intruders? It just isn't the same thing. I don't think spaying and neutering is good for the individual animal, but it certainly is a necessity for the species at this time.

I also disagree with the "it should be my choice" argument. Needless cosmetic surgery is cruelty, and should not be considered personal choice.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Are you aware of the number of dogs put down every year in the United States?


I am indeed. I'm also aware of the number of dogs that have issues from ridiculous early altering.



> There is a reason for spaying and neutering


Of course....convenience, shirking responsibility, lack of common sense...



> It just isn't the same thing.


In regards to *elective surgery* it is.

Again, it is your opinion that it is cruel, and there are many that don't share that view. In fact, I'll probablu always be one of those elitist snobs that says "If you don't own the breed, you shouldn't have a say."


----------



## Spiritguardian3 (Feb 11, 2007)

GearGirl said:


> with the "it should be my choice" argument. Needless cosmetic surgery is cruelty, and should not be considered personal choice.


Well, thankfully I live in the USA and can make my own choices, and so can anyone else. If a breed was bred to protect ears cropped and tails docked saved the dog from pain and sometimes death. An enemy could break a dogs tail or rip its ears off. People continue to breed dogs for their purposes even if the purpose is long gone. Its not about if the dog is still WORKING the job, only that if the job were to arise the dog could do it. 

Its about perserving a breed, so in 100 years the breed type will not be lost. I can agree to disagree with you, I used to think "omg how awful look at these evil people who mutilate their dogs for fashion!" but the more I work with dogs (on a professional basis) and once I got to know a breeder who actually does crop every dog she owns. Its not evil. Its no more evil than breeding the english bulldog in a way where they really can't naturally mate. Or how most pushed in faced dogs (bostons, pugs, etc) have a harder time breathing. Isn't that "cruel and evil" no, it served a purpose. Do people do it for fashion, yes, but a lot of people know the look because Louis Dobermann wanted his fierce protectors to look that way. If we breed a dog to look a certain way people have a right to go 'au natural' or go the way the dog was intended to look. Do I perfer boxers natural, yes, do I perfer dogs natural, yes. But I respect a passionate person who loves their breed and want it preserved in its origionally intended form.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Its about perserving a breed, so in 100 years the breed type will not be lost.


Like my poor Shepherds x.x


----------



## Sammgirl (Feb 6, 2009)

I think in certain breeds, it was important. But in others, it was actually detrimental. 

I can see where a working dobe would need short, cropped ears and tail. It makes total sense to me. 

However technically, a tail or floppy ears is a liability to any dog, because ia tail or ears can get yanked by a two year old or sweep a vase off of a coffee table...

Its really a matter of preference. In England, they're basically trying to ban pets in general, so of course docking and cropping will be illegal there. 

In regards to spaying and neutering, I think that while most people are not responsible enough to have an intact dog or bitch, it is more detrimental for a dog to be s/n too early. 

Again, most people should never have a intact dog or bitch. Those of us that are responsible enough are not part of the problem. However, most people that are part of the problem also don't think they're part of the problem, LOL!


----------



## Locke (Nov 3, 2008)

Sammgirl said:


> Again, most people should never have a intact dog or bitch. Those of us that are responsible enough are not part of the problem. *However, most people that are part of the problem also don't think they're part of the problem,* LOL!


So true!!!!


----------



## LeRoymydog (Feb 25, 2007)

When done right I think it looks beautiful. But when it not done well... like my dog China, it looks horrible. She was like this when I rescued her. My vet thinks someone "cropped" them with scissors. Oh her tail too.

Here are her ears...


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Of course....convenience, shirking responsibility, lack of common sense...


That was an insulting comment. I wouldn't consider myself lacking of common sense or shirking responsibility for getting my dog spayed. I did not intend on breeding her and did not want to risk any health issues that she could aquire, especially later in life, from not being spayed.
Also, I do not trust every dog owner to be as responsible and would not want her life to consist of a house and a yard for fear that an male who has not been neutered may get at her on a walk, at a dog park or anywhere else I'd take her.
I do not agree with not spay/neutering dogs, but I would not call you lacking common sense or say that you are shirking responsibility for it. It obviously works for you. It would be much appreciated though that you not insult a large portion of members on this forum for spaying/neutering their dogs.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

OMG. Amazing the thin skin around here. I fail to see how Xeph's post was insulting...both my dogs are spayed and neutered and yes it's convenient.


----------



## Spiritguardian3 (Feb 11, 2007)

CorgiKarma said:


> That was an insulting comment. I wouldn't consider myself lacking of common sense or shirking responsibility for getting my dog spayed. I did not intend on breeding her and did not want to risk any health issues that she could aquire, especially later in life, from not being spayed.
> Also, I do not trust every dog owner to be as responsible and would not want her life to consist of a house and a yard for fear that an male who has not been neutered may get at her on a walk, at a dog park or anywhere else I'd take her.
> I do not agree with not spay/neutering dogs, but I would not call you lacking common sense or say that you are shirking responsibility for it. It obviously works for you. It would be much appreciated though that you not insult a large portion of members on this forum for spaying/neutering their dogs.




please don't eat me (we all love ze corgis... -white flag-) but I think she was refering to the 'why is there a pet overpopulation' with the above statement.


I agree dogs should be spayed neutered (trust me I'm trying to get my breeder to let me ) but there are doings being altered at 6 weeks old. Thats an awful lot of rushing hormones (lets face it a female spay can be a historectomy (god I can't spell...) which is a major proceedure) My breeder doesn't like to see her males fixed until 1 1/2 to 2 years old, they also grow to about 90-110 lbs. Too little testorone in a male can give them trouble when they are younger... I hate having an unneutered male, my parents rottie isn't fixed because of a heart condition, and let me tell you when those two get together, don't get me wrong its not fights, its just pissing contests while they both try to win the affection of the lovely, spayed, wamba lynn border collie mix lol

but I degress... and can't spell but you forgive me don't you?


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

It is insulting to say that I am shirking responsibilities as a pet owner by spaying my dog. I did it for her health, not because it was convenient. The point is, to each their own, and to say that I was irresponsible by spaying my dog is insulting.
I do see xeph's point about how irresponsible owners are what lead to pet overpopulation. I just think it could have been worded better as not to offend those of us who chose to spay/neuter based on reasons other than shirking responsibility, lack of knowledge or convenience.


----------



## sw_df27 (Feb 22, 2008)

around and around we go same arguement diff. day. I myself am glad I have the choice of weither or not cropping or docking In the future all my APBT's ears will be cropped I happen to love the look!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I wouldn't consider myself lacking of common sense or shirking responsibility for getting my dog spayed. I did not intend on breeding her and did not want to risk any health issues that she could aquire, especially later in life, from not being spayed.


Which falls under convenience. It may not be the kind of convenience you're thinking of, such as parking in a nice close spot in front of the grocery store, but it's still convenience.

You altered your dog so you don't have to deal with part of it. You don't have to like it, but it's at least partially true.



> but I think she was refering to the 'why is there a pet overpopulation' with the above statement.


Partially, yes



> Also, I do not trust every dog owner to be as responsible and would not want her life to consist of a house and a yard for fear that an male who has not been neutered may get at her on a walk, at a dog park or anywhere else I'd take her.


What fear? I work with intact bitches all the time, considering I show. I took three English Cockers to a show a few months back...two bitches, one boy. One of the bitches was just coming in, and the boy was showing no interest in her, but you can bet I kept them separate and watched them. It wasn't that difficult

I crated the bitch in season by herself and the other two together, the bitch in season was carried to a potty spot (I'm going to be SO happy when I have an expen!) she did her potty thang, and I carried her back to the setup. 

With Shepherd bitches I don't worry as much because they're large and can be quite pissy xD Any boy that wants to try and mess with her is probably going to end up in a world of hurt (I am NOT saying I'd let the dogs fight it out, but I'm certainly less concerned about it with large breeds).

The reason you spayed your bitch is the same reason I've not neutered my boys (aside from showing), health. Strauss could be neutered because he's not being shown in conformation, however, the risk of testicular cancer is substantially low. Heck, much as I don't like to think about it, he's far more likely to be hit by a car than he is to die of testicular cancer. His chances of ending up with hermangio or osteosarcoma are also lowered as opposed to having altered him early.



> It would be much appreciated though that you not insult a large portion of members on this forum for spaying/neutering their dogs.


I said what I meant and meant what I said. Not everybody will agree with me 

It's your choice to be offended.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Which falls under convenience. It may not be the kind of convenience you're thinking of, such as parking in a nice close spot in front of the grocery store, but it's still convenience.
> 
> You altered your dog so you don't have to deal with part of it. You don't have to like it, but it's at least partially true.


That is not out of convenience. It is about not putting her at risk of becoming ill. Any precautions I can take I will. There is no reason to risk her getting cancer by not spaying. I also do not consider shelling out the time and money for a spay convenient, but it is worth it to me.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I guess I just no longer accept spaying as "prevention of illness". A dog can get any number of illnesses, and you can't remove every part of them, else you have nothing left but a dead dog.

Dogs suffer from hypothyrodism, and liver failure, and allergies, and, and, and, and...

Of course you do what's right for your dogs, but I maintain that the risks outweigh the benefits of speutering...especially done early.

Heck, I'm going to have to screen my puppy buyers EXTRA carefully, because I don't want my boys altered before 2 or my girls altered before 18 months/after their first heat.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Heck, I'm going to have to screen my puppy buyers EXTRA carefully, because I don't want my boys altered before 2 or my girls altered before 18 months/after their first heat.


I wish I would have known then what I know now. I had Rowdy neutered at the age of 6 months - way too early in my book. I waited until Disco was 1.5 and had been through her first heat to get her fixed.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Did you feel better about that decision Box? Waiting?

By the way, to bring this back to cropping, a 7-9 week old puppy is going to heal faster than the 18 month old bitch that has been spayed.

The vet, to the best of my knowledge very carefully posts the ears post surgery while the stitches heal, but the "real" and consistent posting doesn't begin until after the stitches have been removed, to prevent irritation to the ear (please correct me if I explained that wrong Doberman people).


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Did you feel better about that decision Box? Waiting?


I do and I don't...now Disco has spay incontinence.  I think I'd rather deal with her being in heat than trying to keep her from leaking everywhere.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Ohhh you poor thing xD *Structurally speaking*, do you prefer what you ended up with?


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Ohhh you poor thing xD *Structurally speaking*, do you prefer what you ended up with?


Yes. And she needed all the help she could get, she didn't have the best start in life and when I got her at 8 months she was underweight and had dmange. She's still a tiny little thing but she's really filled out nicely, I like how she ended up. 
Rowdy is tall and lanky and at almost 4 years old I don't think he's going to fill out. He still so awkward looking.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Rowdy is tall and lanky and at almost 4 years old I don't think he's going to fill out. He still so awkward looking.


And he probably won't...that's what the testosterone is for. Producing heavier muscle, rib spring, etc.

Muscles of course are in part due to exercise, but testosterone is what helps them bulk up.


----------



## Rowdy (Sep 2, 2007)

I'm glad I live where I have the choice of cropping, spay/neutering, etc.

Both of my boys were cryptorchid, so there wasn't really a choice. They had to be neutered. They were both neutered around 10 months, when they began to piss off other males.

Given that, I would still spay/neuter my dogs. My dogs spend about 80-90% of the time off leash walking on trails, at parks, etc. While they both have excellent recalls, I wouldn't put money down on them not going after a female in heat if they weren't neutered. The same would be true if I had a female. I wouldn't trust other people to control their males. Being able to be off leash is extremely important to me. So, while having them neutered may be a convenience, I feel that it is also being a responsible dog owner because I know my dogs and their/my limitations.

I'm not addressing the cropping topic. Cropped collies would look ridiculous.


----------



## Spiritguardian3 (Feb 11, 2007)

lol cropped collies would look silly 


Gotta say, both my boys aren't fixed, my parents rottie had heart issues and my chessie is half owned by my breeder so I have to wait for her ok. We have a bernese mt dog across the street that goes into heat twice a year, the rottie used to go a bit crazy but now he doesn't even care (he's 12, I think he is like "I'm old, forget about it". It was strange though, I had a foster boston terrier who went into heat at 4 months, the rottie didn't care then either. My chessie has been around females in season, now he's still a young man, just a year and month but he doesn't seem phased. I don't think he'd know what to do if he got to the girls XD Poor meh Meh


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Rowdy said:


> I'm glad I live where I have the choice of cropping, spay/neutering, etc.
> 
> Both of my boys were cryptorchid, so there wasn't really a choice. They had to be neutered. They were both neutered around 10 months, when they began to piss off other males.
> The same would be true if I had a female. I wouldn't trust other people to control their males. Being able to be off leash is extremely important to me. So, while having them neutered may be a convenience, I feel that it is also being a responsible dog owner because I know my dogs and their/my limitations.


I agree that I do not trust others to control their dogs if I had an unspayed female. Though I still do not see spaying as a convenience.


----------



## Zr. (Aug 28, 2008)

On the spaying topic; my dog isn't spayed yet. From the research I did I decided to wait until after her first heat. She's around 1.5 yrs now and has had two heat cycles - the second just ending - and will be spayed in April/May. I am doing it for the convenience. She's terrible when she's in heat; she gets snappy with other dogs and I can't walk her, so she gets a little crazy. And the few times I do risk walking her she pees. On everything. Several times. I have a girl dog, not a boy dog, at least I thought I did 

From what I've read there's health risks involved with spaying, and those involved with keeping an intact dog. I've chosen to spay, as many have. But I have no issues with people who choose not to. If they're responsible enough to keep an intact dog then kudos to them. But I won't deny that I'm doing it for convenience sake more than anything.


----------



## Dobermaniac (Jul 28, 2007)

How the heck did this turn into a spay/neuter thread... I am looking at you Xeph. 

But to get back on topic, I will just say those who have never had a cropped dog, been through the taping process etc... it really isn't as painful or cruel as you make it out to be. There is a period of discomfort for the dog, but that usually only lasts a day or two after the surgery. If you don't like cropping don't do it, but I will do with my dogs as I see fit and as long as I care for and love my dog/s than it is my decision.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

I''ll be the 1st to admitt im against some of the modifications done purley for show/breed purposes but the crop i hypocritically make an exception for.

On all the breeds i can think of that have worn the cropped look for a looooooooong time i think it suits them,when the procedure is carried out "properly" it gives the dogs a greater appeal to me,a majestic/authoritive kind of look.

Back offtopic i agree with Xeph,you can have unaltered dogs *IF* you are willing to be a responsible owner,having a dog thats intact doesnt mean you ever have to breed it.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

CorgiKarma said:


> That is not out of convenience. It is about not putting her at risk of becoming ill. Any precautions I can take I will. There is no reason to risk her getting cancer by not spaying. I also do not consider shelling out the time and money for a spay convenient, but it is worth it to me.


I always find this so hypocritical, since risking cancer by spaying. People claim they spay to prevent health issues like cancer yet spaying increases chances for some types of cancer. So in reality reality that reason just doesn't fly. With choice 1 you get chance of x and x cancer and with choice 2 you get chance of x and x cancer isn't it just about choosing different health risk. 

As for convenience of course its convenient. Maybe that isn't the reason you did it but its a lot more convenient then having a female in heat. Going to the vet or spending money on my dogs is never an inconvenience to me. I'm considering spaying one of my females but don't know that I honestly will. (probably won't but I did think about it) She is 6yrs old, so very much mature, the only reason why I'm considering it is so that she doesn't have to wear her panties which I have to change the pads and wash for weeks. Honestly I will probably not put her through the surgery and just keep on. Although it'd be nice. Once you get used to it its not that big of a deal. At least not for me, just a little extra time.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> In some. Countries it's illegal to do ANY surgical alterAtion of a dog INCLUDING spay/nueter. In the US we are allowed to make the medical decisions for our dogs, I'll keep that right thank you very much.


Just wondering but what countries is it illegal to do s/n?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Just wondering but what countries is it illegal to do s/n?


Well, I know for a fact it's illegal in Germany to do any alterations including spay or nueter unless medically nessesary.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Norway as well... several EU countries ban it unless medically necessary.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> How the heck did this turn into a spay/neuter thread... I am looking at you Xeph.


We Shepherd people...we're instigators xD

Seriously though, I don't want ANYBODY telling me what I can do with my dogs surgically speaking...that is my call to make. ESPECIALLY if they do not own that particular breed.

Shepherds aren't cropped, but they quite commonly have their ears posted! Gotta be honest...it can be MUCH worse taping GSD ears than Doberman ears.

I felt SO awful when I did Mouse's ears...part of that is people telling me to do all sorts of WRONG things with him, and being a newbie, I listened. He had tons of infections (outside the ear), and now has scarring to show for it.

I always have to explain that he wasn't in fights, it was from trying to get his ears to stand.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Spicy1_VV said:


> I always find this so hypocritical, since risking cancer by spaying. People claim they spay to prevent health issues like cancer yet spaying increases chances for some types of cancer. So in reality reality that reason just doesn't fly. With choice 1 you get chance of x and x cancer and with choice 2 you get chance of x and x cancer isn't it just about choosing different health risk.
> 
> As for convenience of course its convenient. Maybe that isn't the reason you did it but its a lot more convenient then having a female in heat. Going to the vet or spending money on my dogs is never an inconvenience to me. I'm considering spaying one of my females but don't know that I honestly will. (probably won't but I did think about it) She is 6yrs old, so very much mature, the only reason why I'm considering it is so that she doesn't have to wear her panties which I have to change the pads and wash for weeks. Honestly I will probably not put her through the surgery and just keep on. Although it'd be nice. Once you get used to it its not that big of a deal. At least not for me, just a little extra time.


Having heard much more negative outcomes from not spaying(especially with corgis) I chose to spay my female. For her health, not out of convenience. I could deal with a dog in heat, I deal with it myself every month I also do not find it inconvenient to pay vet bills.
My point is, people spay/neuter or do not spay/neuter for many different reasons. Just as they crop/do not crop for different reasons. Or feed Raw or kibble for different reasons. A person goes by what he/she thinks is right for their dog. It's just insulting to me to be criticised for that decision. I do not think that because someone makes the decision to spay that they are outright lacking in common sense or shirking responsibility. Yes, there are irresponsible owners who spay/neuter and irresponsible owners who do not. If someone can keep their dogs without being spayed/neutered responsibly, thats great, it works for them. But to criticise others who choose to seems unnecessary and biased. My intent is not to argue, just argue my point as you do yours  I feel, as you do, that I made the right decision for my dog.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Nobody insulted your personally, you just chose to take it that way.

And of course it's biased. That's what opinions are.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Oh wow, that's crazy. Do you guys have any sites with info about it? I tried looking it up but can't find anything .


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Nobody insulted your personally, you just chose to take it that you.
> 
> And of course it's biased. That's what opinions are.


It was insinuated that the reasoning behind anyone spaying/neutering was lacking common sense and irresponsible. I take that personally.


----------



## Xie (Feb 5, 2009)

For those not spaying, what about pyometra? I'd say at least once a month we have a pyo dog come in and need to have an emergency spay done with a huge uterus filled with pus.

I used to think it was generally older dogs but the last two cases we've seen have been bitches after their first heats.

I am looking at getting a giant breed (hopefully a Leonberger pup will be coming home in 3 months) and because it's a giant breed I will wait to speuter until age two or the first heat. With the risk of pyo though I can't in good conscience keep a female intact past that first heat. I'd have less issue if we get a boy with keeping him intact because the risk vs. benefit ratio is very different.

Eh, I don't know, just something I've always pondered. All other issues aside, it's the pyo that worries me and I can't understand not spaying when it will eliminate the risk. The pyo recovery is way worse than a normal spay recovery because a) the surgery is way more complicated and more blood loss and b) the dog is already seriously ill. JMHO


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

CorgiKarma said:


> It was insinuated that the reasoning behind anyone spaying/neutering was lacking common sense and irresponsible. I take that personally.


To me, it's like you're 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. If you don't fix your dog, somehow you're magically putting more dogs in shelters, but if you DO fix your dog, then you're giving them cancer/pyo and are lazy. I mean, what the heck?

Really, this argument just totally sums up why people should just accept that it's a personal decision between a person and their vet, taking into account their individual dog's situation. It's ridiculous to go making sweeping moral judgments on people based on whether they fix their dog or not. It's like some folks just love finding reasons to look down on other dog owners, and that's ugly to see.

And how the heck did a ear-crop thread turn into a s/n thread?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I take that personally.


Then that's your problem. If there was any insinuation that it was in general, and it's not a falsehood. The average joe alters their pet because of propaganda, scare tactics, convenience, or their vet not having all the facts, and thus them not having all the facts. 

Just by being on this board we are no longer average pet owners, because the average pet owner doesn't get involved in these things.



> All other issues aside, it's the pyo that worries me and I can't understand not spaying when it will eliminate the risk.


I can't accept "eliminating the risk" as a reason to remove necessary organs and hormones that help in proper bone development, joint closure, and muscle development.

I could eliminate the risk of osteo by cutting off all my dog's legs, but that doesn't make it a good reason to do it.



> And how the heck did a ear-crop thread turn into a s/n thread?


I compared ear cropping to speutering in that it's a completely elective surgery and others shouldn't get to decide what is surgically done to an animal as long as it doesn't affect their quality of life


----------



## PitBully (Mar 12, 2009)

Dobermaniac said:


> Thats not really true. If you are referring to todays Dobes (In North America) than you are correct to an extent. But when the Dobermann was first created it was among the sharpest and fiercest guard dogs in the world. Both the US and Germans used them heavily in WW2. The crop was also a lot different back than, they resembled Pitt crops in that they were very short, to prevent someone to grab and hold onto the ear. The crops you see now (like my girl) are very long because that is what is preferred in the show ring.
> 
> Also, the protective abilities of a dog is heavily dependant on genetics and there aren't as many true protection Dobes around in North America, most people are gravitating towards the GSD and Mals. However, in Europe there are quite a few working Dobe breeders. In Germany before you can breed the dobermann has to prove its working ability, and courage and pass the ZTP. It just really depends heavily on where you get your dog. Most dobes you see on the streets today is not a good indicator of the breed as a whole.


I concur. My mistake for not leaving out the select European exceptions. 
*
Regarding Spaying and Neutering...
*

I have never owned a spayed or neutered dog before. I do not believe dogs need to be spayed or neutered if you are a responsible owner. Not only that, the so called _benefits_ (ex. health) just doesn't convince me otherwise. 

My unaltered dogs tend to be physically (even mentally) superior than that of their altered counterparts. My males would not be as muscular if they did not have their testosterone. Altered dogs *tend* to be lazier and more open towards health complications. _(Remember, "tend" could mean there are exceptions.)_

To those who greatly support altering their dogs, besides minor health prevention and population control, what other benefits come from altering your animals? 

I hear people state "It calms my dog down" when there are already breeds with calmer temperaments. If you have to alter your dog just to be able to control or deal with it's hyper behavior, then you should of researched more timid breeds. 

PB


----------



## Xie (Feb 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> I can't accept "eliminating the risk" as a reason to remove necessary organs and hormones that help in proper bone development, joint closure, and muscle development.
> 
> I could eliminate the risk of osteo by cutting off all my dog's legs, but that doesn't make it a good reason to do it.


Just so you know I really am trying to see both sides here. My question is, when not talking about pediatric spays what advantage is there in not spaying a dog? If the dog is fully developed and all joints are closed why not eliminate the risk of pyo? 

This is not meant to be argumentative, I'm sincerely asking for your opinion.

For the record though and so you know where I am coming from I do want to say that I am very pro-speuter for the general pet owning population. I just think that the average owner is not equipped to deal with an intact dog successfully. I of course am not including the above-average owner. I certainly don't want every dog speutered. If that happened I wouldn't have a good breeder to go to when looking for a dog.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Let me get the spay neuter derail portion of my comments out of the way. 
First of all I am not anti spay neuter. 

But the benefits of spay/neuter are purely population control and not having to deal with a dog that has urges to reproduce. 

Any health benefit from reduced chance of cancers, testicular, etc. are offset by complications from surgery, skeletal, growth related issues from altering to early, incontenance from spaying (its more common than many think) etc. 

So the health benefits wash....

Now on the cropping and docking issue..... IF cropping and docking are cruel.... So is spay and neutering. As is removing dew claws. All are elective surgical procedures with varying recovery times. You can justify it if you choose. But a fact is a fact and an elective procedure is an elective procedure. 

Anyone can raise and keep an intact dog without accidental breedings if they take due care. I have had about a fifty fifty split of altered and unaltered dogs in my life. A few of my dogs have participated in well thought out planned breedings. None have participated in an accidental breeding. Its just not that hard. I have owned intact dogs and bitches at the same time. It is a little extra work during the heat cycle. But its not difficult. All it takes is common sense and some care. Just last month, I had an intact female stay here for a week. I was doing a favor for a friend who had a long planned vacation. He called me up and she was in full blown heat (she is a finished champion and the start of his breeding program that he has long wanted to begin) But she is only about 18 months old. Knowing I have an intact male, he called and asked if he needed to make other arrangements. I said naw, bring her on. She arrived here about day 12 of the cycle and stayed for 10 days. Merlin was a little loopy for the first couple of days. Off feed, some howling, whining, etc. But he settled down. All I did was rotate my Merlin and the bitch out and in. Both got inside time, both got play time with my neutered male. 

I don't tend to fancy any breeds that are regularly cropped or docked. But I have no issue with it. If someone does it because it creates a more pleasing appearance. So be it. Its their dog and they make the medical decisions for that dog. 

And some dogs still work. Terriers that do earth work(there are a bunch of them out there) need a docked tail. Dogs that work in close quarters with game or stock can be at a disadvantage with natural ears and tails. 

My breed of favor, ACD does not call for a docked tail. Some ranches and cow folks do dock them. I personally think it affects their balance and agility. But I can understand it. My previous ACD had a tail injury in a working situation. He got the end of his tail damaged. I had to have about three inches removed. The vet suggested possibly just docking it off. But I elected to only have it docked far enough to repair the damage. But the result was 10 days in an e collar, weeks and weeks of recovery and about 1500 in vet bills. This would not have been nearly as big a deal if it had been done as a young puppy. 

I still would not dock and ACD. Even a pure worker. Because as I said, in that breed, I do think it takes away from balance and agility. But the chance of tail injury is very real.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Xie said:


> For those not spaying, what about pyometra? I'd say at least once a month we have a pyo dog come in and need to have an emergency spay done with a huge uterus filled with pus.
> 
> I used to think it was generally older dogs but the last two cases we've seen have been bitches after their first heats.
> 
> ...


Yes what about it? I've never had a bitch with this (knock on wood) so while you might get them in if your working at a busy vet that's to be expected but I'd have to say its not as common. It will always be a risk but since I've not had a bitch with it (yet) and having had a lot of intact bitches and kept friends dogs here and know their dogs for their long lives without having pyo with only a very few exceptions when you look at the ratio (most of which were a breed other then mine) its not a huge concern. It is however my main concern, as it can be serious. That could possibly be a benefit of spaying my older female too, just to never have to worry. However if the bitch is in proper health then you are less likely to see it. That's the main thing. I also think although the culprit is infection it seems certain breeds are more prone to it or certain breeders dogs seem to be the same ones getting pyo. That is strange to me how one breeder could have 4 out of 6 bitches get pyo? So there seems to be other factors we must look at, what allows for the uterus to obtain the infection seems as if it could plague certain breeds more often or something along those lines, with them having such horrible infection. 

It is generally older dogs, a young bitch can get it (I know of one another forum who also had to be spayed first heat because of it the owner says) but in general older dogs. If a young bitch does get pyo that would make me wonder even more about their health. After first heat getting pyo? hmmmm

It's also my biggest worry because I do know it is a serious issue and could be life threatening. However I just can't spay my dog because of what ifs. I can't say what if they get pyo at 4yrs old, there is just no way to know. Now if I knew a bitch would get pyo that would be different, but since I don't know I'm not going to put them through a surgery just in case. Certainly pyo recovery can be very bad but there is no guarantee they will ever get pyo in the first place. Isn't this the very same thing with ears that people are complaining about? (not you personally, but on the thread) While working ears could have a high risk of being ripped/torn, while that is minor compared to a e-spay/pyo recovery it is still a risk and more painful/more recovery no doubt then crop as a pup. I could see that with tail docking to, believe me I've had to deal with it. I still don't think that APBT should ever have their tails docked but they can have happy tail bad severe cases resulting in amputation. It would be a lot less trouble and pain for the dog if they were done as a tiny pup. Although again I don't agree with that. I've had a bitch with exposed bone and I tried wrapping and wrapping no good. I've got 4 cases of it right now. We're constantly cleaning the fridge, doorways, chairs and cabinets from the one male. He isn't done with his show career so I don't want him to have to loose part of his tail, not to mention he'd have to go under (something I hate doing) for the surgery and then recover from that. The other male I can wrap and he will leave it alone for a couple days and doesn't wag as much or as hard. The 3rd male and the female are not near as bad but every time they heal they seem to split it open again.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The AVMA has taken an official position AGAINST cropping/docking: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec08/081215c.asp . They call all arguments to justify the procedure "specious". 

Should you wish to reference ear infections: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/ear_cropping_canine_otitis_externa_faq.asp If that's the reason cropping was done, we'd crop all Labs, Spaniels, Bassett Hounds, and Poodles. 

If you wish to accuse them of being "some of them liberal hippie AR freaks", they've answered that, too: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar09/090315c.asp

More on the welfare implications: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/dogs_ear_cropping_bgnd.asp

I'm with them 100%. ANY risk for a purely elective cosmetic surgery is unacceptable. And of course any surgery has risks. 


On the spay/neuter issue: considering the complications I've seen in unspayed females (just as a pet owner with pet owning friends), I DO NOT consider spaying to be an elective procedure. Better to do it when they're young and healthy than to wait until they're 10 years old and they don't survive the emergency spay. Neutering might be elective but it's necessary for most pet owners, who cannot monitor their pets' actions every single second. Birth control is at least a noble aim, unlike cosmetic surgery.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

You don't have to consider it an elective procedure Willowy..it is one. You ELECT to have it done. It is not literal life and death if the dog isn't altered.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> You don't have to consider it an elective procedure Willowy..it is one. You ELECT to have it done. *It is not literal life and death if the dog isn't altered.*


But it frequently IS....more often than I'd care to risk. I've known bitches with pyo, mammary tumors/cancer, pregnancy complications, etc. And I haven't known that many unspayed dogs in my life. It seems like every one I have known has had some kind of life-threatening complication. 

And the average pet owner is too irresponsible to keep an unaltered dog. And I do include myself in that statement. I can't watch them every second. If that makes me a bad dog owner, so be it. I will not risk an unintended pregnancy, because I know what will happen to the puppies.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> And I haven't known that many unspayed dogs in my life. It seems like every one I have known has had some kind of life-threatening complication.


But you haven't known many...and you just said it SEEMS like every one you've known had some kind of complication.

I'm around thousands of intact bitches a year, young and old. The number of bitches that have Pyo'd (I'm talking within my circle of friends and the GSD breed) are beyond minimal. In 6 years out of all the bitches I know (and as I said, I know a LOT of them), only two have had a pyo. One was a GSD and one was a Rottie.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> The AVMA has taken an official position AGAINST cropping/docking: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec08/081215c.asp . They call all arguments to justify the procedure "specious".
> 
> Should you wish to reference ear infections: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/ear_cropping_canine_otitis_externa_faq.asp If that's the reason cropping was done, we'd crop all Labs, Spaniels, Bassett Hounds, and Poodles.
> 
> ...


My only question is......

Where are they coming up with this being a purely elective *cosmetic* surgery.  LOL

Interesting because I've only seen a small number of issues out of the many breeders/show people I know. 

It is elective. I elect not to do it. Others elect to do it for this or that reason. Certainly there are risk involved, risk of spay problems is much highr then crop problems. 

Nope you can't monitor every second, but then again I don't have to. I'm responsible but don't need to monitor them every second. Wonder how so many people keep intact dogs without them procreating. Its so hard and all. Right.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> But you haven't known many...and you just said it SEEMS like every one you've known had some kind of complication.


Mmmm.....some of them I haven't known very well. And so I only go on what their owner complains about....loudly....in the Post Office lobby, LOL. All the unspayed bitches I've know PERSONALLY have had complications. 



> I'm around thousands of intact bitches a year, young and old. The number of bitches that have Pyo'd (I'm talking within my circle of friends and the GSD breed) are beyond minimal. In 6 years out of all the bitches I know (and as I said, I know a LOT of them), only two have had a pyo. One was a GSD and one was a Rottie.


Do you think maybe that show/performance/etc. dogs are better cared for than the average pet dog? Perhaps that would account for the difference.

I'm sure the health benefits are statistically insignificant. I still think birth control is a noble enough reason to speuter without having to justify it in another way. 

Still wondering how an ear cropping thread turned into a s/n thread, LOL. I'd rather argue about ear cropping  .



Spicy1_VV said:


> Where are they coming up with this being a purely elective *cosmetic* surgery.  LOL


What are the non-elective, non-cosmetic reasons for cropping/docking a non-working dog?



> Nope you can't monitor every second, but then again I don't have to. I'm responsible but don't need to monitor them every second. *Wonder how so many people keep intact dogs without them procreating.* Its so hard and all. Right.


Wonder how so many people who have unaltered dogs and DO end up with unplanned procreation justify not speutering? It happens way too often, and not just to wildly irresponsible people. I've seen "good, responsible" show people who had oops litters defended on this forum. It happens, and it doens't usually end well for the pups.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I still think birth control is a noble enough reason to speuter without having to justify it in another way.


Nobility and an altruistic view isn't a reason to remove ORGANS from a dog.


> It happens, and it doens't usually end well for the pups.


it doesn't end well for the puppies of an unplanned litter from average joe, no.

I know two reputable show breeders...one of Shibas, one of Bedlingtons

The Shiba owner had a 7 year old bitch in season. Had been bred 3 or 4 times previously, didn't take. Bitch is sent out with 8 month old puppy....guess who knocked her up xD

It resulted in four male puppies...everybody has a home, and one is being shown xD By the way, both parents are now finished xD The mother only needed a major to finish and finally did it...and the male had finished 13 days prior!

The Bedlington breeder had a bitch go through a silent heat....her brother ended up getting her x.x

Resulted in 4-6 puppies...just about everybody is finished, and they ended up with some NICE pups. All are in good homes and the parents are long since finished.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Nobility and an altruistic view isn't a reason to remove ORGANS from a dog.


Than vets/anti-speuter people should find a way to encourage vasectomy/tubal ligation (if it can be done without raising the chance of pyo/other problems). Or allow the use of the MANY sterilization injections available in other countries (because vet groups have fought all attempts to clear them for U.S. use). Most people should not have pets capable of reproducing.


For all the nice fuzzy stories you have of oops litters from show dogs turning out nicely, I can give you the same number of stories where the pups were destroyed by the breeder (yes, show breeders) after birth, or ended up in awful homes because the breeder didn't consider them worthy of going to well-screened homes. Show breeders can get awfully snotty about mixed-breed puppies.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Of course we can...they're more likely to be genetic nightmares...especially when crossed with breeds that suffer from the same illnesses x.x

I'm in dogs...I'm involved in shows. I know the horror stories. I'm not saying it's right, but I certainly won't advocate going out and advocating everything being spayed/neutered at 6 months (or god forbid, 8 weeks). IMO it does more harm than good


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Of course we can...they're more likely to be genetic nightmares...especially when crossed with breeds that suffer from the same illnesses x.x


And yet.....if the breeder ends up with a mixed litter, through his/her own irresponsibility (since only irresponsible people have unplanned litters, say the anti-speutering people), we're supposed to defend him/her? OK, if you're trying to defend NOT speutering pet dogs, you're not doing a good job. Instead, you seem to be saying "Sure, accidents happen, but so what? You still shouldn't cut the organs out of your dog. Just kill the accidental offspring". I say, since accidents happen, better to cut the organs out of the adults than to kill innocent puppies.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> OK, if you're trying to defend NOT speutering pet dogs, you're not doing a good job


*ROFL* 

I'm not for pediatric spay/neuter at ALL. And I'm not for spay/neuter out of convenience or inability to watch a bitch in heat or an intact male. Seriously, how hard is it to watch an intact male?! I support altering for a REAL medical reason, such as a pyo. I do not support it as "birth control" or for "What ifs".

I'm not saying "sure accidents happen, so what?" I don't condone the breeders that do away with puppies of oops litters, but there's nothing I can do to make them change their practices. They will do as they will.

I do not defend those people. I DO defend those who own up to their accident and place the puppies accordingly, such as the Shiba and Bedlington breeders.

My problem as a future breeder is that I'll HAVE to allow my puppies to be altered because my main "market" will be Joe Blow and his family...but the contract they sign will say "No altering until ______" because I want the best possible health in my puppies AND an accurate record of what my lines are producing. 

I do not find altered animals to be a fair representative of what a stud dog may be producing because it presents a false picture of a longlimbed flat muscled animal.


----------



## KenyiGirl (Nov 12, 2008)

> Show breeders can get awfully snotty about mixed-breed puppies.





Xeph said:


> Of course we can...they're more likely to be genetic nightmares...especially when crossed with breeds that suffer from the same illnesses x.x


So... You're saying that you believe a mutt is a genetic nightmare?


----------



## Dobermaniac (Jul 28, 2007)

I hope the OP got the answers to his question... lol


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Pai said:


> Really, this argument just totally sums up why people should just accept that it's a personal decision between a person and their vet, taking into account their individual dog's situation. It's ridiculous to go making sweeping moral judgments on people based on whether they fix their dog or not. It's like some folks just love finding reasons to look down on other dog owners, and that's ugly to see.


I agree, to make a judgement that people who spay/neuter are lacking in common sense and shirking responsibility is ridiculous. Wether the topic is spay/neuter vs. not to spay/neuter, RAW vs. Kibble, crop/dock vs. do not crop/dock, yearly vaccinations vs. no yearly vaccinations, heartworm preventative vs. no heartworm preventative, responsible pet owners do what they feel is right for their pet. Bottom line. Researching the breed, diet, and veterinary care is being responsible. This is a never-ending argument, but can we at least come to a middle ground of to each their own?


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

ROFL This thread got a wee bit off track, but, then again, cropped ears and spays/neuters ARE both elective surgery, so that was a common thread! 

The only thing I'm AGAINST is a law or laws telling me that I have to do something, or that I cannot do something. 

I love Dobes. If I were to get one, I would want the ears cropped. My choice. If the Dobe was a male, I would not have him neutered because I know that the health risks stated by vets have been grossly exaggerated, and the risk of surgery (anesthesia) is greater by far. If the Dobe was a bitch, I would not have her spayed. I AM a responsible owner, and I have had an intact bitch for years, with never so much as a close call with respect to an accidental breeding. I know hundreds of people with my breed (Standard Poodles) who have intact bitches who have never had an oops litter OR pyometria. Say what you will, BUT, I know for a fact that spaying DOES create negative changes physically. When I got fixed, it raised hell with my body! LOL 



> Most people should not have pets capable of reproducing.


And those very people more likely than not should not have pets, period.

Do I think the average pet owner is responsible enough to have intact pets? No. However, there are a lot of humans who shouldn't have children, either, but they do. I still believe in PRO CHOICE for pets, and for humans.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Xeph, what are your thoughts on shelters who s/n their dogs before adopting them out? In a sense, they're making the decision for all potential owners -- your dog has an unknown genetic history and should not breed -- and indirectly assuming that the same owners are incapable of keeping their intact dogs from breeding. I'm not challenging your position, but I'm curious to know what your opinion is.

I don't think the decision to spay or neuter is as much a moral one as most think. Yes, it is linked with the pet overpopulation problem, but only indirectly. Spunky had to be spayed because of a scary lump we found. I spayed Honey because I didn't want her being harassed by male dogs on walks; because she occasionally spend time in the yard unsupervised; and because I didn't want her dripping blood all over the house. Does that make me irresponsible? No. By your definition, then, I'd be spaying for convenience. The question then is, has my dog suffered at the expense of my convenience? I don't think so.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I believe whole heartedly in spaying and neutering dogs. Though I agree with Xeph that a very responsible person CAN handle an unaltered dog without accidents. The vast majority of dog owners just simply are not responsible enough. The humane societies are full of proof of irresponsible pet owners. I think for this reason, the average Joe should have their pets altered. Then again, I am a believer that many people should just NOT be allowed to own pets either.

Edit: what happened to the cropped ear discussion?


----------



## HersheyBear (Dec 13, 2008)

I don't agree with cropping and docking, especially as the majority of the dogs that have the procedure done are no longer used for their original purpose. Unfortunately, many breeders, if not most, automatically dock and/or crop the dogs before they are sold. I greatly prefer the natural look, and I do not like how cropped ears look on any cropped breed.


As far as pediatric spay/neuter goes.. I work at an animal shelter, where the majority of pups and kittens are spayed/neutered before they are adopted out if they are at the proper weight and are healthy. Many times, people just will not bother to get the surgery done, and the dogs and cats will continue to reproduce, and more animals will go into the shelter. It's a necessary evil.


----------



## LeRoymydog (Feb 25, 2007)

Inga said:


> I believe whole heartedly in spaying and neutering dogs. Though I agree with Xeph that a very responsible person CAN handle an unaltered dog without accidents. The vast majority of dog owners just simply are not responsible enough. The humane societies are full of proof of irresponsible pet owners. I think for this reason, the average Joe should have their pets altered. Then again, I am a believer that many people should just NOT be allowed to own pets either.
> 
> Edit: what happened to the cropped ear discussion?


I agree with you, Inga. Your average family can't even make a home cooked meal anymore let alone watch their dog so as not to reproduce.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> I'm sure the health benefits are statistically insignificant. I still think birth control is a noble enough reason to speuter without having to justify it in another way.


To me birth control is no justification at all. 

Maybe I will have my dogs teeth pulled so they can't bite and will hurt less when they do. 



> What are the non-elective, non-cosmetic reasons for cropping/docking a non-working dog?


I didn't say a non working dog. I don't see a need to crop a non working dog either.They said they are against cropping/docking for cosmetic reasons yet how does one prove their dog will or won't be a working dog when he/she goes to the vet for the crop. They can say they don't do it for cosmetic reasons and you tell them your pup is going to be working then they will just do it? You could be lying. Or you could be telling the truth but they don't believe you? The vets just decide not to do it because they think dogs don't work anymore?



> Wonder how so many people who have unaltered dogs and DO end up with unplanned procreation justify not speutering? It happens way too often, and not just to wildly irresponsible people. I've seen "good, responsible" show people who had oops litters defended on this forum. It happens, and it doens't usually end well for the pups.


Sorry I'm not one of those people so I don't know. 

I was never an individual who defended any of those people on this forum.

I've seen people justify it with silly reasons that IMO are not good reasons to keep intact. They didn't want their dog to be lazy, they didn't want their dog to loose his manhood. That's about the only stuff I've heard from people. I can't call people like that responsible. 

Using Xeph's examples........

those wouldn't happen to me because I don't leave my dogs together unsupervised. That would be irresponsible of me. I can't control what every other owner does with their dogs however. 

*The Shiba owner had a 7 year old bitch in season. Had been bred 3 or 4 times previously, didn't take. Bitch is sent out with 8 month old puppy....guess who knocked her up xD*

I can understand here why they wouldn't worry but why take the chance. Both males and females who've not taken before have finally taken with a planned breeding. Why would they think it impossible for this bitch. I'd also wonder did they have to checked out to see why she didn't take so many times?

*The Bedlington breeder had a bitch go through a silent heat....her brother ended up getting her x.x*

This leads me believe her and her brother were unsupervised together. Silent heat or not you can still see a male mount a female. Even if they are not in heat it isn't something I allow. So its not as if the bitch is in silent heat and I don't know and oops they end up making babies, because they don't mount each other and are not allowed together unsupervised. It takes more then just a male mounting a female to result in pups too. It takes awhile for them to tie (although I know some are quick). Therefore human should have intervened before tie = pups.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Ok, this is sort of a different topic but kind of the same. I knew of a lady who had a yearling stallion (horse) and she put him in a pasture away from the mares. There was a wood WITH electric fence in between. The stallion at 1 year is not even considered old enough and he had a fence AND electricity in between him and the gals. Guess what? pregnant mares showed up in spring. My point of that is it is NOT as easy to watch your animals as some folks think. Animals do amazing things when the urge strikes them. Heavens that even goes for human beings on occasion.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Inga I do think that is a little different. A dog is much easier for me to contain then a horse. I don't think I'd have a stallion around because of that reason. They are a big, strong powerful animal. It isn't like a dog you live with in your home everyday and know the containment is good or keep them supervised.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Spicy but keep in mind that YOU are a VERY experienced dog owner. Think about the AVERAGE owner. To them, it is not much different. To them, they don't think a male dog can go over a fence of dig under to get to a female. To them put the dog out on a leash and you are good even with no fence around your females yard. I have an intact male right now. I don't think it is that hard either, but I don't think I am the average owner either.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

I will probably never make the decision to crop or dock a dog myself because I don't see myself as having a dog that would require it. I don't care if my dog has long or short ears, so if it isn't necessary, I'm not going to hassle with it.

Having said that, I don't see how cropping/docking a dog is cruel, especially if one argues that spaying/neutering isn't. They both hurt for a while, they both have fairly easy recoveries (provided everything goes right), they both have their problems and their benefits. 

I think there is a mistake here in assuming that because something is painful, it must be cruel, but that is illogical. I had my gallbladder removed about a year ago. It was awful. Painful, inconvenient. I bet a boob job would be pretty awful, too. Painful, inconvenient. But is either of them cruel? If we stopped doing everything that caused pain because it might be considered cruel, we'd never go to the dentist, have sex for the first time, play football, ride horseback, fall in love, lift weights, etc.

What about cropping/docking is cruel, exactly?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Xeph, what are your thoughts on shelters who s/n their dogs before adopting them out? In a sense, they're making the decision for all potential owners -- your dog has an unknown genetic history and should not breed -- and indirectly assuming that the same owners are incapable of keeping their intact dogs from breeding. I'm not challenging your position, but I'm curious to know what your opinion is.


I don't agree with it due to health risks.

Our shelter, as much as it sucks, makes the owner prepay the speuter and then if the animal is of "appropriate age" (6 months unfortunately) they transport the dogs themselves. I do not believe that they support pediatric alters at this time (though so much has changed I can't keep up), and the owner must still set up a vet appointment and prepay the alter so they can have the animal speutered when they are old enough.

I look at shelters the way I look at breeders. If you've screened and done all you can and deemed the person/family to be responsible enough to take home one of your babies, then you should trust them to follow contract and do what they said they would do.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to respond to this and I meant to:


> So... You're saying that you believe a mutt is a genetic nightmare?


Not all of them, no. That's like saying every purebred is a genetic nightmare just because they're purebred.

What I DO believe is that two breeds of unknown lines are more likely to throw a genetic nightmare.

With purebred dogs, you may get something ugly, but if you do your homework, you know what "scaries" lie in your lines, and the lines of the stud you've chosen to use or the bitch you have leased.

And I do believe, hypothetically speaking, that if there WERE some responsible Doodle breeders around that were trying to establish a breed that breeds true, if they used a Poodle line they knew was free of PRA, and a Golden line they knew was free of PRA, then the genetic nightmare scenario is lessened.

Some thing for epilepsy, patellar luxation, etc.

Do you see what I mean?

I'm not saying mutts are "genetically defunct" because they're mutts, but that they're more likely to express poor genetic traits due to lack of info on parent pedigrees.

I know mutts that are delightfully healthy and purebreds that are beyond sickly x.x

And really, sometimes it is as simple as "The genes just didn't deal the cards kindly."


----------



## Mac'N'Roe (Feb 15, 2008)

Inga said:


> Spicy but keep in mind that YOU are a VERY experienced dog owner. Think about the AVERAGE owner. To them, it is not much different. To them, they don't think a male dog can go over a fence of dig under to get to a female. To them put the dog out on a leash and you are good even with no fence around your females yard. I have an intact male right now. I don't think it is that hard either, but I don't think I am the average owner either.


The average owner doesn't know how to teach a dog how to sit or stay, much less keep an unaltered bitch or male contained. This argument is for the purebred, EXPERIENCED owner that shows dogs. This is not really a viable argument for the average dog owner. IMO, I think it is VERY conflicting that this sort of argument is being debated on this forum in a manner that suggests that spay/neuter is elective and quite frankly, unnecessary. 

I completely understand Xeph's point of view, and consider it a viable argument for an EXPERIENCED owner of working, purebred, dogs that potentially will show conformation, etc...but for the average mixed breed dog owner or purebred "pet quality" dog...there shouldn't be a question if the dog is going to be spay/neutered. I am quite frankly very surprised, and am thankful the title of the thread isn't "should I spay/neuter my dog?" There is a huge difference between a dog owner like xeph and spicy, and the "the neighbor" how many of us have neighbors with spay/neutered animals that can't even keep them contained within a fence...or other means? 

I am against mandatory spay/neuter, but I do think that it is imperitave that the majority of dog owners understand the importance of spay/neutering their pets if only for the pure reason of birth control. 

That's all..I'm out


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

I used to be against crop and dock until I considered getting a dog that usually has these done - I've been looking at lots of breeds for my next dog. Anyway I did more research on it and am now not so opposed. A lot of the breeds I prefer the look of the natural ears but the docked tail. *shrug* 

I don't agree with mandatory s/n but I do think most pets should be since most pet owners won't be able to deal with it. I'd rather the shelters focus on getting the animals into at least DECENT homes, than try to find the PERFECT home.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Mac'N'Roe said:


> The average owner doesn't know how to teach a dog how to sit or stay, much less keep an unaltered bitch or male contained. This argument is for the purebred, EXPERIENCED owner that shows dogs. This is not really a viable argument for the average dog owner. IMO, I think it is VERY conflicting that this sort of argument is being debated on this forum in a manner that suggests that spay/neuter is elective and quite frankly, unnecessary.
> 
> I completely understand Xeph's point of view, and consider it a viable argument for an EXPERIENCED owner of working, purebred, dogs that potentially will show conformation, etc...but for the average mixed breed dog owner or purebred "pet quality" dog...there shouldn't be a question if the dog is going to be spay/neutered. I am quite frankly very surprised, and am thankful the title of the thread isn't "should I spay/neuter my dog?" There is a huge difference between a dog owner like xeph and spicy, and the "the neighbor" how many of us have neighbors with spay/neutered animals that can't even keep them contained within a fence...or other means?
> 
> ...


Yup! That was pretty much my point.


----------



## Mac'N'Roe (Feb 15, 2008)

Xeph said:


> I look at shelters the way I look at breeders. If you've screened and done all you can and deemed the person/family to be responsible enough to take home one of your babies, then you should trust them to follow contract and do what they said they would do.


While I agree Xeph that this should be the case, it is unrealistic to expect this from shelters...especially when there are so many dogs to adopt. Unfortunately, most people you cannot really assume they will do the right thing. Unfortunately.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I am against mandatory spay/neuter, but I do think that it is imperative that the majority of dog owners understand the importance of spay/neutering their pets if only for the pure reason of birth control.


Here's the thing...I'd MUCH rather have vets say "This is better for the pet population due to shelter overcrowding. You really don't want to contribute to that as opposed to "Your dog will get mammary tumors/testicular cancer and die if you don't speuter them."

Scare tactics are not viable in medical practices IMO



> Unfortunately, most people you cannot really assume they will do the right thing. Unfortunately.


That's a sign of the times, isn't it?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

poodleholic said:


> I love Dobes. If I were to get one, I would want the ears cropped. My choice. If the Dobe was a male, I would not have him neutered because I know that the health risks stated by vets have been grossly exaggerated, and *the risk of surgery (anesthesia) is greater by far.*


Interesting that the risk of anesthesia for the ear cropping doesn't bother you.



Spicy1_VV said:


> To me birth control is no justification at all.


 So what should we do with all the unwanted puppies that will come if average dog owners don't fix their pets? Should we go back to the way it was in 1970, when 30 million pets were being PTS in shelters and millions more were being drowned by Joe Shmoe?



> I didn't say a non working dog. I don't see a need to crop a non working dog either.They said they are against cropping/docking for cosmetic reasons yet how does one prove their dog will or won't be a working dog when he/she goes to the vet for the crop. They can say they don't do it for cosmetic reasons and you tell them your pup is going to be working then they will just do it? You could be lying. Or you could be telling the truth but they don't believe you? The vets just decide not to do it because they think dogs don't work anymore?


As I understand it, a working crop is very different from a show crop. Not hard to tell the difference. And vets have the right to not perform surgeries they're not comfortable with for any reason. I honestly don't think very many dogs do work that would require being cropped anyway. 




FilleBelle said:


> Having said that, I don't see how cropping/docking a dog is cruel, especially if one argues that spaying/neutering isn't. They both hurt for a while, they both have fairly easy recoveries (provided everything goes right), they both have their problems *and their benefits.*


What benefits (to the dog) come from cropping and docking, exactly?



> I think there is a mistake here in assuming that because something is painful, it must be cruel, but that is illogical. I had my gallbladder removed about a year ago. It was awful. Painful, inconvenient. I bet a boob job would be pretty awful, too. Painful, inconvenient. But is either of them cruel? If we stopped doing everything that caused pain because it might be considered cruel, we'd never go to the dentist, have sex for the first time, play football, ride horseback, fall in love, lift weights, etc.


Yes, but humans make reasonable, logical, educated decisions to do these painful things. Dogs have no choice in the matter. 



> What about cropping/docking is cruel, exactly?


It's painful, there's risk to any surgery, and it's not necessary. You try having your ears "trimmed down" and tell me how it feels.


Mac'N'Roe said:


> IMO, I think it is VERY conflicting that this sort of argument is being debated on this forum in a manner that suggests that spay/neuter is elective and quite frankly, unnecessary.
> 
> I do think that it is imperitave that the majority of dog owners understand the importance of spay/neutering their pets if only for the pure reason of birth control.


Thanks, M&R. ITA completely  .


----------



## GearGirl (Feb 19, 2009)

I completely agree with you Willowy! It amazes me the things people tell themselves to justify something like ear cropping.


----------



## sw_df27 (Feb 22, 2008)

> So what should we do with all the unwanted puppies that will come if average dog owners don't fix their pets? Should we go back to the way it was in 1970, when 30 million pets were being PTS in shelters and millions more were being drowned by Joe Shmoe?



and there's not that many being put down now......


For me I will never spay another dog ever I have one that has spay inc. and has to take 3 diff. meds for the rest of her life so she won't pee on herself ever few min. to me having to deal with and be responsable for a bitch in heat for a month is alot better then medicating one for the rest of thier life. JMO however I do recommend spaying/neutering to anyone that can't properly contain and prevent unwanted pups. but I just won't ever do it again........


----------



## Mac'N'Roe (Feb 15, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Here's the thing...I'd MUCH rather have vets say "This is better for the pet population due to shelter overcrowding. You really don't want to contribute to that as opposed to "Your dog will get mammary tumors/testicular cancer and die if you don't speuter them."
> 
> Scare tactics are not viable in medical practices IMO


Okay, I guess I'm not out. I see where you are coming from on this. And, I agree that scare tactics shouldn't be used in medical practices. But, I see nothing wrong with a vet presenting information that show the decrease in mammary tumors/testicular cancer a potential benefit for why it would be a good thing to do, if controlling the pet population isn't a good enough reason for an owner. 

I guess I didn't realize it was common practice for a vet tell someone that if you don't spay/neuter the dog, they will die from cancer. That seems a little over the top. 

In any case, this wasn't my point...I just wanted to make sure that if any casual observer was reading this post...they would understand that this argument isn't really viable for the normal, average...family dog. It is important to convey that spay/neuter, while it is an elective procedure, is still extremely important to have done. And, in addition, important to have done at 6 months, as most people do not possess the characteristics necessary to be vigilant enough to properly contain an intact bitch or male for much longer than that. It IS more convenient to get it done at this age, but that doesn't mean that its wrong to do it for that reason. Its the more responsible thing to do...for most people. 

How many times do you hear of people keeping their in season bitch in the backyard because they think no dog would be able to get in their yard? These are the people that DEFINITELY need to have a spay/neutered pet.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sw_df27 said:


> and there's not that many being put down now......


BECAUSE spay/neuter has become so common. Spay/neuter saves lives. In 1970 almost nobody spayed their pets. Even though Dr. James Herriot was doing routine spays in England in 1930.....evidently it just didn't catch on in the U.S. for a while. The animal welfare agencies started a spay/neuter campaign in the 1980s that made the biggest difference. 



> For me I will never spay another dog ever I have one that has spay inc. and has to take 3 diff. meds for the rest of her life


I feel for you. My first dog had spay incontinence. It was a pain. Fortunately she "outgrew" it when she was 8 and never leaked after that. So maybe your dog won't need meds forever. And I've spayed dogs since (none of whom have SI) and I'll still spay my future female dogs. Have you looked into any of the natural remedies?


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I also had a bitch with spay incontinence. I WILL still spay my females (if I get one again) but I will wait until they are fully grown and have had one heat cycle. That is how it worked out with Inga and she never leaked a drop even when she got very old. 
I feel for people with dogs that have SI but I worry that people will let their dogs become pregnant instead.


----------



## sw_df27 (Feb 22, 2008)

I really hope she outgrows it but she's 5 now and if she doesn't take the meds she will leak ever 15-20 min I do however once a year take her off the meds just to see but she always ends up leaking about a 3-4 days later.... I didn't know there were natural remedies for SI. 


Inga that's why I still recommend spay/neuter to people even though I won't


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

sw_df27 said:


> I really hope she outgrows it but she's 5 now and if she doesn't take the meds she will leak ever 15-20 min I do however once a year take her off the meds just to see but she always ends up leaking about a 3-4 days later.... I didn't know there were natural remedies for SI.
> 
> 
> Inga that's why I still recommend spay/neuter to people even though I won't


I use fresh parsley right now. Parsley is a natural diuretic so it encourages the bladder to empty evertime. This has worked for us so far. 
*crosses fingers*


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Here's the thing...I'd MUCH rather have vets say "This is better for the pet population due to shelter overcrowding. You really don't want to contribute to that as opposed to "Your dog will get mammary tumors/testicular cancer and die if you don't speuter them."


Odd. I've never had a vet try scare tactics like that. IF they say anything on the subject (not usually), they say something non-committal like "yeah, wouldn't want more kittens/puppies running all over". But then I've never asked a vet's opinion on the subject. I just say "I want ___ spayed, when can we get an appointment?". I wonder if the scare tactics are more of a regional thing.



Inga said:


> I WILL still spay my females (if I get one again) but I will wait until they are fully grown and have had one heat cycle.


Yeah, I plan to do that in the future, too.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I'm sorry, my comment "Your dog will get mammary tumors/testicular cancer and die if you don't speuter them." was misinterpreted slightly.

I'm not saying they say that literally (well, some do...I've heard it myself with my own pets x.x), but the exaggerate the health risks of an intact animal.

If you're going to spay/neuter pets, fine, but they deserve ALL the info, not just the "positives"...some of which have been proven to be myths or near myths (such as neutering "calms a dog down"...please).


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

Willowy, I think we've already covered ways in which cropping and docking are beneficial to dogs. Nearly all of the dogs that are traditionally cropped or docked are cropped/docked because their jobs make it dangerous for them not to be. As I said, my dogs don't have those sorts of jobs and therefore I will not crop/dock, because it is clearly unnecessary.

In the cases of a crop or dock that is performed so that an animal can safely do its job, we make the choice to crop and dock because the dog cannot see into the future the way we can. It is not capable of thinking, "My ears might get ripped off in the process of doing this job...perhaps I should just have them trimmed now." A neuter or spay is also painful, unnecessary, and runs the risk of complications, but we don't ask our dogs if they want to do it anyway. If one is cruel, then the other must be as well. In fact, I would say most procedures done to animals are probably cruel, if those are your only criteria. Has anyone here elected to give chemo to an older dog with cancer? Did you ask your pet if that's what they wanted, first?

I have already said I will probably never crop or dock because I do not see myself owning a dog who would require it and I think that if it doesn't serve the dog in some way, it shouldn't be done. To say it is cruel, however, is illogical...unless everything that is unpleasant, unnecessary, and runs the risk of complications is also deemed cruel.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

FilleBelle said:


> Willowy, I think we've already covered ways in which cropping and docking are beneficial to dogs. Nearly all of the dogs that are traditionally cropped or docked are cropped/docked because their jobs make it dangerous for them not to be. As I said, my dogs don't have those sorts of jobs and therefore I will not crop/dock, because it is clearly unnecessary.
> 
> In the cases of a crop or dock that is performed so that an animal can safely do its job, we make the choice to crop and dock because the dog cannot see into the future the way we can. It is not capable of thinking, "My ears might get ripped off in the process of doing this job...perhaps I should just have them trimmed now." A neuter or spay is also painful, unnecessary, and runs the risk of complications, but we don't ask our dogs if they want to do it anyway. If one is cruel, then the other must be as well. In fact, I would say most procedures done to animals are probably cruel, if those are your only criteria. Has anyone here elected to give chemo to an older dog with cancer? Did you ask your pet if that's what they wanted, first?
> 
> I have already said I will probably never crop or dock because I do not see myself owning a dog who would require it and I think that if it doesn't serve the dog in some way, it shouldn't be done. To say it is cruel, however, is illogical...unless everything that is unpleasant, unnecessary, and runs the risk of complications is also deemed cruel.



I once had a 14 month old Rottweiler docked.  Yup! It is true. I will say, I was 100% against it at first. Then once the dog had lit his tail on fire by standing too close to a camp fire and didn't feel it until I thankfully smelled it, I knew it was time. The vet is the one that talked me into it. I was alright with him keeping his tail. He was 10 weeks old when I got him and he had his tail. I didn't see any reason to get rid of it. The vet claimed he had met other Rottweilers that had deadened nerves in their tails and that injuries were common. I didn't believe him at first since there are Rottweilers that live just fine with their tails. Turned out in the case of this dog however, he was right. The best option was docking the tail. I have now heard of other Rottweilers that have had adult docks for the same reason. Injury after injury is more painful then just doing a 3-4 day old docking. IMO


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Inga said:


> Spicy but keep in mind that YOU are a VERY experienced dog owner. Think about the AVERAGE owner. To them, it is not much different. To them, they don't think a male dog can go over a fence of dig under to get to a female. To them put the dog out on a leash and you are good even with no fence around your females yard. I have an intact male right now. I don't think it is that hard either, but I don't think I am the average owner either.


True but then I wasn't always a very experienced owner and gee still no accidents. People are just lazy or need to educate themselves.When they are s/n they won't make more pups but it still doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't own dogs at all because they can't contain them. That is the #1 thing in my mind. Why do these people have dogs in the first place. What is worse is some KNOW their dogs will get out/loose. If they are intact then there is the possibility of making unwanted litter. If not then they just cause other problems. With the breeds me and you both have think how that reflects on us. The people shouldn't have dogs at all, even ones that are s/n. 

Anyway I never said people shouldn't s/n their dogs. It is an elective surgery as Xeph said. Not everyone needs to s/n. I don't understand how we can compare irresponsible owners who should elect to s/n to those of us who have no problem controlling birth (or lack there of) without surgery and removing organs. I did not say in this thread everyone should leave their dogs intact. That's actually the point really, its an elective surgery and I'm fine if people chose to do it. At the same time they should respect other responsible owners choice not to. Not citing other peoples mistakes (oop litters) as reason for s/n being necessary.



Mac'N'Roe said:


> The average owner doesn't know how to teach a dog how to sit or stay, much less keep an unaltered bitch or male contained. This argument is for the purebred, EXPERIENCED owner that shows dogs. This is not really a viable argument for the average dog owner. IMO, I think it is VERY conflicting that this sort of argument is being debated on this forum in a manner that suggests that spay/neuter is elective and quite frankly, unnecessary.
> 
> I completely understand Xeph's point of view, and consider it a viable argument for an EXPERIENCED owner of working, purebred, dogs that potentially will show conformation, etc...but for the average mixed breed dog owner or purebred "pet quality" dog...there shouldn't be a question if the dog is going to be spay/neutered. I am quite frankly very surprised, and am thankful the title of the thread isn't "should I spay/neuter my dog?" There is a huge difference between a dog owner like xeph and spicy, and the "the neighbor" how many of us have neighbors with spay/neutered animals that can't even keep them contained within a fence...or other means?
> 
> ...


It is elective. Whether it is "necessary" depends on the dog/owner. If they can't keep their dog contained or supervised then obviously s/n would prevent the possibility for accidental breeding. 

Most of my dogs are intact, pets included. As it is unnecessary to s/n. If I can keep show quality dogs from mating there is no reason why I can't keep pet quality dogs from mating. 

Frankly they shouldn't own pets in the first place. I'm sick and tired of the loose dogs around here so maybe that hits a nerve with me. I'm sick of the dogs peeing on my fence posts, chasing my car or running in front of it, charging me on walks, ect, ect. 

If these people didn't have dogs in the first place there wouldn't be a need for "birth control". 

Again I'm not saying dogs shouldn't be s/n. I'm not saying it isn't beneficial for some dogs/owners. The point is that it is an elective surgery you make the choice of. If it is in your and/or your dogs best interest. Personally I'm not anti s/n or arguing against.



Willowy said:


> So what should we do with all the unwanted puppies that will come if average dog owners don't fix their pets? Should we go back to the way it was in 1970, when 30 million pets were being PTS in shelters and millions more were being drowned by Joe Shmoe?


Sorry what? 

Why would we do that? 

I've no problem with owners be they average or above average super responsible s/n their own dogs. 

I myself don't need to fix my dogs to prevent them from reproducing. 

So you missed have really missed my point or else I'm totally missing yours. 

To prevent birth you don't let dogs mate, its as simple as that. If you chose to s/n which makes it very impossible that's your or others choice. Just as it is mine to elect to have intact dogs that don't procreate.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Spicy1_VV said:


> True but then I wasn't always a very experienced owner and gee still no accidents. People are just lazy or need to educate themselves.When they are s/n they won't make more pups but it still doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't own dogs at all because they can't contain them. That is the #1 thing in my mind. Why do these people have dogs in the first place. What is worse is some KNOW their dogs will get out/loose. If they are intact then there is the possibility of making unwanted litter. If not then they just cause other problems. With the breeds me and you both have think how that reflects on us. The people shouldn't have dogs at all, even ones that are s/n.
> 
> Anyway I never said people shouldn't s/n their dogs. It is an elective surgery as Xeph said. Not everyone needs to s/n. I don't understand how we can compare irresponsible owners who should elect to s/n to those of us who have no problem controlling birth (or lack there of) without surgery and removing organs. I did not say in this thread everyone should leave their dogs intact. That's actually the point really, its an elective surgery and I'm fine if people chose to do it. At the same time they should respect other responsible owners choice not to. Not citing other peoples mistakes (oop litters) as reason for s/n being necessary.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Oh yes I totally agree. They need serious fines. Less banning of "dangerous breeds" and more enforcement of laws that make it harder for irresponsible people of any breed to be an owner. Even to have your rights to own dogs taken away if you can't contain them. A lot of dogs that do keep making more litters or bite people are loose all the time or have multiple complaints against them without a single thing done. If you hit people in their pocket book it might not stop 100% but it will help with some of them. If you take away their right that's even better. 

Yes it is amazing making a big stink about cropping and docking when there are such bigger issues to worry about. Not that people can't be against many things, but I'd rather see a dog cropped and well taken care of then all the abused/neglected uncropped dogs out there. It should only matter if the dog is taken care of.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

I'm not going to read the entire thread, because it's probably the same old same old when it comes to this type of thread.

In my honest opinion... it doesn't really matter if you like or dislike it. Please respect my right to choose, and please understand that there are bigger fish to fry - like dogfighting, puppy milling, dogs dying from exposure to the weather, gross neglect, etc. than focusing on a medical procedure that is done by a licensed veterinarian in a sterile, medical environment. Not to mention that the ARists won't stop at cropping and docking - they will move on to other rules and regulations that may affect YOUR dogs, and your method of owning and loving dogs - give a mouse a cookie, and it's going to ask for a glass of milk.

All my dogs are docked, all my dogs are sans dewclaws, and all but the corgi are cropped. When done by a skilled veterinarian, I see no problem with it. NOW, I will say that I think cropping should be regulated, and not just anyone should be able to do it. I've seen some HORRIBLE crops out there, many done by vets that have no idea what they're doing. I'd rather see no crop than a bad crop. Cropping is not only a cosmetic surgery, it's a work of art, and vets who do it should be trained in the art of it.

This is a crop done by a vet who doesn't specialize in cropping. It's uneven, jagged, with no shape and a bell that made it difficult to get these ears to stand. I fixed this dog's ears from a posting standpoint, when I first saw the dog, her ears were in terrible shape... folding in on themselves, flopping over, etc. This was in part because the vet that cropped her offered nothing in the way of proper aftercare. Wham bam thank you ma'am, now give me $300 and enjoy your cropped puppy, goodbye.









This is a dog, my dog, cropped by a vet who *only* does cropping. This vet travels all over the world to crop. She is a true artist, and a master of her skill. Her aftercare instructions are thorough and detailed, and her ears rarely have the "problems" associated with cropping... infections, rough edges, excessively painful post-op, long recovery time, puckered edges, excessive bleeding, etc.









To me, there is a world of difference between these crops. I wholeheartedly support the latter, the former... well, I'm critical of the former.


----------



## sheltiemom (Mar 13, 2007)

Eh, cropping and docking...I don't think it's cruel, but given the choice I would not crop/dock a dog of mine. I have a docked dog that came from a shelter, was docked before I got her...I think her waggy nub looks cute but I also think she would have been gorgeous with a tail. One of my breeds of choice is traditionally docked...if I ever buy one from a breeder I will see if I can have the dog left with a tail. If I cannot, I would not pass up an otherwise great breeder who insisted on docking, I just don't feel that strongly about it.

Speuter...I have changed my mind a bit on this. I used to be 100% for it, but I have an intact female now and I have no plans to spay her in the near future. I am very concerned about spay incontinance...I hear about it alot, and sorry, but it would be a big problem for me. I know I can keep her contained, my males have all been neutered quite a while ago, sooo...we'll see how it goes. If my males were intact I dunno. I don't trust myself at this time to keep intact opposite sex dogs separated, especially since I own three merles, and an oops would have more serious consequences than even a regular oops. I would never fault anyone for keeping an intact dog responsibly, and I would never fault anyone for speutering a dog if they feel it's best for their dog and their situation.


----------



## Mac'N'Roe (Feb 15, 2008)

I personally think cropped ears on a doberman is gorgeous, especially when done right.


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

Im pro cropping and docking. I dont know if I would ever own a breed that needs to be cropped, and if i did, I dont know if I would crop. only becuase I personally dont think i could look after the ears properly, might be a hassle to me if Im not showing, which I doubt I would be.

But I will for sure owned a docked breed soon enough, a toy poodle, I do NOT like the look of a tail on a poodle. period. So yes it will be docked 100%. Docking is done so early on in a dogs life its over and done with before they can blink (literally) I want dewclaws removed as well, I hate them.

I think though if I was ever to get a doberman (which may happen down the road) I would more then likley find a good cropping vet and have the ears done. Dobermans were bred to look on guard and serious, not doopy houndy looking with big floppy ears IMO. I love the look of a cropped doberman.

great danes, boxers, pitbulls ect I could go either way, but a doberman to me looks 1000X better with a good crop.




Rowdy said:


> I'm not addressing the cropping topic. Cropped collies would look ridiculous.


But they are taped or glued to hold a certain position (I obviously didnt bother with doing it) So although not cropped, it is sorat similier.


Xeph said:


> I'm sorry, my comment "Your dog will get mammary tumors/testicular cancer and die if you don't speuter them." was misinterpreted slightly.



My old vet tried scare tactics with me.
he will die young.
he will turn agressive to humans and other animals.
he will get cancer.

blah blah blah. Not he *may* it was he will, as in it was some fact. Lucky I have a new vet who is a amazing lady, asked me why he isnt neutered, I explained that I can easily handle him, he is adult with no bad habits, he will not ever be bred, is never out of my sight, that and I also explained that yes there are pros to neutering, but also cons. such as increased rick of other cancers and such.

She agred with me, at almost 6 years old he is a good dog (even complemented me on raising such a good dog, since it was his first time even in that vet. Didnt flinch at anything she was doing to him.checked teeth, took temp,, touched him all over, ) She laughed when I told her one of the resons I was looking for a new vet was becuase of the crazy other one saying that my dog will turn on me if not neutered.

Crazy old vet was just out for money though. Since crazy vet told me Blaze needed a imeadiate dental (which is right when I started to look for a new vet. why does a dog with no tarter, no cracks or chips or any issues need a immediete dental is beyond me, and 700 some odd bucks ha) New vet said that he did not need a dental at all.

Plus with a bad heart, I will not just put him under for a surgery that is not 100% needed at all.


----------



## PitBully (Mar 12, 2009)

*Willowy*:




> So what should we do with all the unwanted puppies that will come if average dog owners don't fix their pets?


Maybe "average owners" need to attend classes to understand the simple concept of *properly containing* their animal. It's quite simple not to permit a dog to breed. Control your males and keep bitches in heat under close eye. A male can't just mount a female and connect easily. 



> Should we go back to the way it was in 1970, when 30 million pets were being PTS in shelters and millions more were being drowned by Joe Shmoe?


What significant difference has fixing dogs made today? I still see unwanted puppies/dog in shelters more than ever. 



> As I understand it, a working crop is very different from a show crop.


Obviously.



> And vets have the right to not perform surgeries they're not comfortable with for any reason.


Like owners have the *right* to decide whether to dock, crop or fix their animals? Frankly, there are far more reputable veterinarians who'll do any of those things if the owner is willing to pay for the services. Show crops are more common than "working crops" in America. By logic, wouldn't the show crop be a more common and more acceptable procedure? Wait, it is.


> I honestly don't think very many dogs do work that would require being cropped anyway.


Research "live stock guardian dogs." You'll understand why it's important for these dogs to have the crop. 



> What benefits (to the dog) come from cropping and docking, exactly?


Working dogs with crops almost always do some sort of fighting. Whether it be fighting other dogs, wild animals in defense of livestock or man stopping, the ears and tail are easy targets.

For bully breeds, it's basically this:










Live Stock guardian breeds (such as the Turkish Kangal) not only have the crop, but usually a spiked collar. This is because the dogs are used to protect live stock from predators. A single wolf, for example, would not be much of a problem since the dogs out weight typical Turkish wolves by 50 pounds, but if the wolves decide to attack in a pack, the dog has some protection. 

I've talked to some LGD owners and they stated the more LGD watching over the stock, the need for the spike collar is unnecessary. 









Docking of tails seems to be a pattern for breeds utilized for "stopping man." (Guard or protection dogs in other words). They don't specialize in fighting animals, but humans. 

But these are working dogs. The reason for docking and cropping for show is up to the owner to decide. You have a right to your opinion and beliefs. Kindly keep it that way. Don't tread on mine or others.



> Yes, but humans make reasonable, logical, educated decisions to do these painful things. Dogs have no choice in the matter.


Why would a dog have a "say" in these types of things? Last time I checked humans were the owners and dogs were the owned. Careful and educated procedures are enabled when we decide to properly crop, dock or fix an animal. It's quite simple. Those happen to be simple procedures. 

I'm sure if it was so horribly cruel, registrars would stop accepting dogs with crop and dock jobs. But they don't.


> It's painful, there's risk to any surgery, and it's not necessary. You try having your ears "trimmed down" and tell me how it feels.


Why must people compare their own emotions and feelings with that of animals to this extreme? I understand people can get very attached to their animals but this is insane. A person would look ridiculous with cropped ears, some dogs do not. 

PB


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Yup! A Doberman is the one breed that I think requires a ear crop to look right. Like Sizzle I have seen far too many bad crops. It is those that I think the people that are so against it are thinking about when they voice their opinions against it. I can't even imagine paying the big bucks to have my dogs cropped and then end up with cropped and flopped ears because of improper surgery and post surgical care. NOT to mention the pain the poor puppy goes through in the hands of the wrong vet.

Sizzle, Serenity is lovely! Then again, I am a sucker for any black and tan. Dobes or Rotties in particular.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Sizzle,
I know what you mean about a bad crop, I agree that most vets out there DON'T know what they're doing from a artistic standpoint. My own girls ears are massed up, not by her vet, but from the people who owned her before not posting properly and allowing the ears to get infected. She has a severe pocket in her right ear and scarring, but IMO she still looks better than an uncropped dobe. 

This is he normal ear position:









And on a good day:









Unfortunately I don't have anyone hereto help me correctly post her to get rid of the ear pocket.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

I hear ya... pockets can be tough to get rid of, especially if they've been allowed to hang out for awhile!

Here's a progression of the puppy I posted in my previous reply to this topic. She's a SWEET, sweet dog, her name is Maya.

Here's the first photo I saw of her... look at those poor ears!


















I stepped in to fix things... but it was another 2 months or so before her owner actually made the 90 minute drive down to my house for help. It required months of corrective taping to fix them.

Here's what she looked like after 2 taping sessions...


















*continued on next post*


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

After about three months of corrective taping...









Five months... all done!









Maya now... still a bad crop, but it looks as good as it could ever look!



















PS - on the cosmetic side of things - nothing makes an iffy crop look better than a good shave. In those last photos, I'd shaved the hair on the ears (the part that used to be the underside of the ear, as well as the edges to get rid of the scraggly look.)


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

*Pitbully said - Why would a dog have a "say" in these types of things? Last time I checked humans were the owners and dogs were the owned*

Ah, that's one of the most sensible things I've heard all week.


----------



## KelliCZ (Aug 1, 2008)

Inga said:


> Yup! A Doberman is the one breed that I think requires a ear crop to look right. Like Sizzle I have seen far too many bad crops. It is those that I think the people that are so against it are thinking about when they voice their opinions against it. I can't even imagine paying the big bucks to have my dogs cropped and then end up with cropped and flopped ears because of improper surgery and post surgical care. NOT to mention the pain the poor puppy goes through in the hands of the wrong vet.
> 
> Sizzle, Serenity is lovely! Then again, I am a sucker for any black and tan. Dobes or Rotties in particular.


 
I have to agree Dobes are a man made breed and the whole head shape and breed type looks best with cropped ears 

Most people don't even know my dogs are dobes since they are natural eared- especially the fawn one


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

PitBully said:


> What significant difference has fixing dogs made today? I still see unwanted puppies/dog in shelters more than ever.


It's currently 4 million (cats _and_ dogs) euthanized each year now (out of 75 million total population). 75% of all pets in the U.S. are altered. So some people's perception may be that shelters are still full (and many are) but the reality is there has been a _huge_ improvement in the past 20 years.

The majority of dogs in shelters now are large, older mix breed dogs sent there for behavioral or economic reasons, not because there aren't enough homes that want dogs. If you look at the number of pets sold each year in the U.S., that number is actually higher than the number of animals that are annually euthanized. Only 15-20% of people get dogs from shelters however, and _that's_ where you get the shelter overpopulation coming in -- *not enough people adopt.*

The reasons for shelter numbers nowadays is not as much about _over-reproduction_ of pets as it is about a* widespread lack in owner responsibility and education* (especially when it comes to where they should get a pet from). In other words, an educational movement besides simply 's/n your pet' needs to be more strongly pushed to the pet owning public to actually affect things any more. S/N education made an _enormous_ difference over the past 20 years, but* education in better overall responsible pet ownership* will take us the rest of the way to success (in my opinion). To be frank, we all know that the average pet owner is sadly ignorant, and that ignorance is what leads to most pet relinquishments to shelters.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Oh yes I totally agree. They need serious fines. Less banning of "dangerous breeds" and more enforcement of laws that make it harder for irresponsible people of any breed to be an owner. Even to have your rights to own dogs taken away if you can't contain them. A lot of dogs that do keep making more litters or bite people are loose all the time or have multiple complaints against them without a single thing done. If you hit people in their pocket book it might not stop 100% but it will help with some of them. If you take away their right that's even better.
> 
> Yes it is amazing making a big stink about cropping and docking when there are such bigger issues to worry about. Not that people can't be against many things, but I'd rather see a dog cropped and well taken care of then all the abused/neglected uncropped dogs out there. It should only matter if the dog is taken care of.


I agree 100% with this post!....I have been on every side of this...I had a dogs ears cropped ,I have other dogs I have not cropped, I have dogs S/N, I have had intact dogs.......All my dogs are loved and very well taken care of members of the family....There are so many other atrocities going on in the world right now (with regard to dogs)..that I hardly find it cruel with done in the right environment under the hands of a trained professional.

With regard to S/N....I think this is a personal choice for a dog owner.....and to me as long as you can be responsible for your dog do what makes you most comfortable.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

pugmom said:


> I agree 100% with this post!....I have been on every side of this...I had a dogs ears cropped ,I have other dogs I have not cropped, I have dogs S/N, I have had intact dogs.......All my dogs are loved and very well taken care of members of the family....There are so many other atrocities going on in the world right now (with regard to dogs)..that I hardly find it cruel with done in the right environment under the hands of a trained professional.
> 
> With regard to S/N....I think this is a personal choice for a dog owner.....and to me as long as you can be responsible for your dog do what makes you most comfortable.


Same here

I have cropped and uncropped.

I have altered and intact. 

I also believe in the end it comes down to personal choice. I will always crop LGDs ears. They are typically done short and very young, not much healing time no posting or messing around. I remember seeing a video of an Ovcharka pup being cropped and the saying went something like -Lose ears, keep balls, stay a CO- I thought that was interesting, in many other cultures they do not see altering of great important. 

I won't typically crop my guardian ears as I don't feel their ears to be a big target. If someone can get close enough to them to actually grab their ears and discourage the dog then that dog isn't a guard worth much. Being shot would probably be the more realistic scenario for injury or possibly stabbed. 

I won't crop my bulldogs ears just for some look, even most pit dogs ears were natural so I certainly don't have a need to crop a pet/show/working bulldogs ears.

I don't plan to crop any others ears and I would probably only break my own beliefs for a Doberman. Not that I will likely have one anyway, most other breeds I can handle natural but Dobies to me don't look right. If I did get one they'd probably be older anyway and I wouldn't be the one who had them cropped in the first place.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Spicy1_VV said:


> I did not say in this thread everyone should leave their dogs intact. That's actually the point really, its an elective surgery and I'm fine if people chose to do it. At the same time they should respect other responsible owners choice not to. Not citing other peoples mistakes (oop litters) as reason for s/n being necessary.
> 
> I've no problem with owners be they average or above average super responsible s/n their own dogs.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I think most of my posts were more directed at Xeph, who seemed to be saying that NOBODY should s/n, for whatever her reasons are. 


Spicy1_VV said:


> Yes it is amazing making a big stink about cropping and docking when there are such bigger issues to worry about.


I've said it before and I've said it again. I think it's all part of the same issue. If people can disregard a dog's comfort and well-being by cutting off ears and tails without anesthetic, they'll disregard the dog's comfort and well-being in other areas as well. Don't discount the number of "garage jobs" done with scissors and no medications. If cropping did not enjoy the legitimacy it does right now, "garage jobs" wouldn't be as widely done either.


PitBully said:


> What significant difference has fixing dogs made today? I still see unwanted puppies/dog in shelters more than ever.


Far fewer. 4 million is a lot less than 30 million. The shelter situation is still very grim, but it's a lot better than it used to be.



> Working dogs with crops almost always do some sort of fighting. Whether it be fighting other dogs, wild animals in defense of livestock or man stopping, the ears and tail are easy targets.


While I recognize the legitimacy of using dogs to guard livestock or property, I find NO legitimacy in dog fighting. Cruelty is cruelty. I especially hate to see a cropped pit bull, because I know in most cases that means it's a fighting dog. No other reason to crop a pit except to look mean or to fight.



> I'm sure if it was so horribly cruel, registrars would stop accepting dogs with crop and dock jobs. But they don't.


My. You have much more faith in the registries than I do.


The last thing I'll say about cropping/docking is that I believe that NO level of pain and/or risk is acceptable when the procedure has no benefit to the animal---purely cosmetic. I'm not saying it should be illegal (giving the government that level of control is just asking for trouble), but I in no way think that cropping and docking should be as commonly done as they are now.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> who seemed to be saying that NOBODY should s/n, for whatever her reasons are.


No, what I'm saying is that people shouldn't speuter because people are throwing medical statistics at them to SCARE THEM into doing it.



> If people can disregard a dog's comfort and well-being by cutting off ears and tails without anesthetic, they'll disregard the dog's comfort and well-being in other areas as well.


#1 cropped breeds are most DEFINITELY anesthetized when they go to have their ears done...the garage crops are NOT the majority. And I had no idea that since Inga's Rotties had their tails docked at 3 days old made her a bad dog owner. Or the fact that she had a Rott's tail amputated out of KINDNESS after he'd turned himself into a German Torch Bearer x.x

I had no idea that my friends at club with their Dobermans were irresponsible and disregarded the care of their dogs because their dogs' ears are cropped. Who knew that a raw diet, frequent play and bike jogs for conditioning, and therapy work were the marks of a negligent owner?


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Sorry, I think most of my posts were more directed at Xeph, who seemed to be saying that NOBODY should s/n, for whatever her reasons are.


Oh I see. I just responded due to my opinion being quoted at spots and wanted to throw my 2 cents in.



> I've said it before and I've said it again. I think it's all part of the same issue. If people can disregard a dog's comfort and well-being by cutting off ears and tails without anesthetic, they'll disregard the dog's comfort and well-being in other areas as well. Don't discount the number of "garage jobs" done with scissors and no medications. If cropping did not enjoy the legitimacy it does right now, "garage jobs" wouldn't be as widely done either.


I think most of us here are talking about going to a vet though. Not chop jobs. Perhaps they wouldn't be as common, but other abuses still would be and I doubt it'd stop that much really. The bad type of people don't seem to care about public bad perception of them or laws for that matter. 



> While I recognize the legitimacy of using dogs to guard livestock or property, I find NO legitimacy in dog fighting. Cruelty is cruelty. I especially hate to see a cropped pit bull, because I know in most cases that means it's a fighting dog. No other reason to crop a pit except to look mean or to fight.


Interesting view you have there. As most cropped APBT (or AST) are in fact show dogs while most fighting dogs have natural ears and always have. Very few fighting dogs were cropped when you compare the stats (ratio wise). It offers them no real benefit in the fight. I'd say after show dogs are probably pet dogs, I see so many pet people cropping just for the hell of it. I also note that the majority of Am Bullies are cropped, 9 times out of 10, certainly the opposite of fighting pits. Most Am Bullies also have very short crops too, not something you'd say is refined, just an ugly chop job as best. (that's all a matter of opinion though on what looks good vs bad)

You shouldn't make such assumptions when you see a cropped Pit. You don't KNOW you assume and bad assumption. In small cases it could mean that, after all I know morons exist who use bait dogs (or other animals too). 

If APBT are cropped to make them look mean then that should be the same reason for cropping a Dane, Dobie, Dogo Argentino, Boxer but we know that it is not. In some cases yes, people do want their dog to look mean and have a tough breed with a crop to increase that. Usually it's for showing, pet dog but they like the look (not because they want the dog to look mean though) or working dog.


----------



## PitBully (Mar 12, 2009)

*Pai*

Thank you for the information. I live in a rural location where if you can't afford to feed more dogs than you are currently feeding, you don't leave your bitches where males could get to them. 
*
Willowy*



> I find NO legitimacy in dog fighting.


Neither do I but it's apart of my breed's history. Understanding it helps not only me but others understand the breed. 



> I especially hate to see a cropped pit bull, because I know in most cases that means it's a fighting dog.


Well, I would expect you to think that because you are ignorant. Of course _*you*_ would assume most pitbulls with crops are fighting dogs. General public thinks the same. 

Most pitbulls I came across with crops never had the "battle crop." The battle crop look is very distinctive. The entire ear is removed. So, you must live in an area that is crawling with fighting pitbulls or you just don't know what your talking about. The breed looks good with or without the ears and don't assume because you see a "cropped" pitbull it's a fighting dog. There are other signs (ex. fighting scars) that determine if it was fought. 



> No other reason to crop a pit except to look mean or to fight.


Crops in general make dogs look "mean" to the general public. In my eyes your statements do not classify you as any different from typical joes. 



> The last thing I'll say about cropping/docking is that I believe that NO level of pain and/or risk is acceptable when the procedure has no benefit to the animal---purely cosmetic. I'm not saying it should be illegal (giving the government that level of control is just asking for trouble), but I in no way think that cropping and docking should be as commonly done as they are now.


Read it. Got it.

PB


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph;501254I said:


> had no idea that since Inga's Rotties had their tails docked at 3 days old made her a bad dog owner. Or the fact that she had a Rott's tail amputated out of KINDNESS after he'd turned himself into a German Torch Bearer x.x


I have a Rott, too, and I assume his tail was cut at 3 days also. He was a rescue, so I had nothing to say about it, but even if I had wanted to buy a Rott, I'm under the impression that no good breeder will leave them undocked. So much for the CHOICE everyone's so big on. I didn't say having a docked dog made anyone a bad pet owner. I'm more blaming the breeders and show registries.....the vast majority of pet Poodle and Yorkie owners (that I've spoken to) have no idea their pets are docked----they think the tails are natural. 

And if a dog NEEDS a veterinary procedure, that's between his owner and his vet.


> had no idea that my friends at club with their Dobermans were irresponsible and disregarded the care of their dogs because their dogs' ears are cropped. Who knew that a raw diet, frequent play and bike jogs for conditioning, and therapy work were the marks of a negligent owner?


If they were able to disregard their dogs comfort for the sake of looks.......I didn't say irresponsible.



PitBully said:


> Well, I would expect you to think that because you are ignorant. Of course _*you*_ would assume most pitbulls with crops are fighting dogs. General public thinks the same.
> 
> Most pitbulls I came across with crops never had the "battle crop." The battle crop look is very distinctive. The entire ear is removed. So, you must live in an area that is crawling with fighting pitbulls or you just don't know what your talking about. The breed looks good with or without the ears and don't assume because you see a "cropped" pitbull it's a fighting dog. There are other signs (ex. fighting scars) that determine if it was fought.
> 
> Crops in general make dogs look "mean" to the general public. In my eyes your statements do not classify you as any different from typical joes.


Yep, I admit to being fairly ignorant when it comes to pit bulls. I have only met a few, and they were all (uncropped) cuddly housepets. I see others being walked occasionally, and, to be honest, the people a cropped dog is being walked by are not the sort I'd want to mess with. I don't see a legitimate reason for a responsible dog owner to want his dog to "look mean" to the general public.

I consider myself to be an average dog owner. A "typical Joe" if that's how you want to put it. Part of the General Public. From talking to others I think my views are pretty common.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Xeph said:


> I had no idea that my friends at club with their Dobermans were irresponsible and disregarded the care of their dogs because their dogs' ears are cropped. Who knew that a raw diet, frequent play and bike jogs for conditioning, and therapy work were the marks of a negligent owner?


I find this comment hypocritical. According to you if someone has their dog spayed or neutered they are irresponsible, and lacking of common sense. You made that comment without taking into account the owners who take extremely good care of their dog with proper diet,exercise and training. Just that, reguardless if the reason(since apparently none are justifiable to you) they are automatically irresponsible. I made the decision to have my dog spayed after discussions with veterinarians, other responsible pet owners and breeders. But apparently, I am still shirking responsibility?
I also find it slightly hypocrtitical that you are so anti-spay/neuter because it is taking something away from the dog but are pro-docking/cropping? Ears and tails do serve a purpose. If the dog is not working it is purely cosmetical. Personally, I feel that in both cases it depends on the dog, the owner and the situation whether the dog should be spayed/neutered or cropped/docked. Also, in both cases, I think it is necessary to look into the whole situation before passing a blanket of judge.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 27, 2008)

Actually Xeph said...

"No, what I'm saying is that people shouldn't speuter because people are throwing medical statistics at them to SCARE THEM into doing it."


----------



## PitBully (Mar 12, 2009)

> I see others being walked occasionally, and, to be honest, the people a cropped dog is being walked by are not the sort I'd want to mess with.


Where on earth do you live?


> I don't see a legitimate reason for a responsible dog owner to want his dog to "look mean" to the general public.


The general public believes feeding raw meat to pitbull terriers gives them a lust for blood. The general public tends to be educated idiots regarding some of the simplest concepts I grasp. When I see a cropped dog of any breed I don't think, "Now why on earth would that responsible dog owner take the time to invest in a reputable veterinarian to crop his/her dog's ears? Does he/she have any idea how mean the general public thinks that dog looks?" 



> From talking to others I think my views are pretty common.


I noticed the people who are against cropping and docking tend to stick around others who only agree with their views because they have trouble expressing something as simple as their own opinion to those who do not oppose cropping and docking.

PB


----------



## Pepper (Jan 27, 2008)

In all reality, true pitt fighters don't care if the ears are cropped or not.

When I used to have my pitty, I kept him in excellent prime condition. He was "ripped" but not overly muscle, just a well muscled dog. 

He didn't have cropped ears, and I had a few people come up to me and ask me if they could buy him for a few grand, use him to breed, if he was any good at...."scuffles"...Of course I passed them up, but really, they don't care...yeah it makes them look meaner, but that's not what makes a good fighter.

To add, the general public also still believe pitty's have locking jaws and were bred to hurt people.

In all reality, they were bred to be nice to people and scientifically there jaws are no different than any other dog, they just have a lot more jaw muscle and facial muscles.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

PitBully said:


> Where on earth do you live?


South Dakota. Generally rural but some city areas. Most people are not really dog-savvy.



> When I see a cropped dog of any breed I don't think, "Now why on earth would that responsible dog owner take the time to invest in a reputable veterinarian to crop his/her dog's ears? Does he/she have any idea how mean the general public thinks that dog looks?"


I guess when I see a close crop on any dog my mind immediately goes to "garage job". Even the local BYBs of Mini Schanuzers, etc. tend to do the pup's ears on their own. And besides, most people with cropped dogs got them that way from the breeder. Most of the crops I see are pretty bad  . If they paid a vet to do it, they wasted their money and that vet should be smacked.



> I noticed the people who are against cropping and docking tend to stick around others who only agree with their views because they have trouble expressing something as simple as their own opinion to those who do not oppose cropping and docking.


Maybe. I don't think I could be close to someone who approved of docking/cropping. Most people I know have no opinion on the matter, or think it's "mean" to crop/dock, without knowing much about it (without knowing THEIR dog has been docked/cropped  ). But, like I said, most people around here aren't dog-savvy and tend to go by looks. And some people WANT their dogs to "look mean". Those kinds are not nice or responsible people. And they're the kinds I see walking cropped pit bulls.

When a crop style is called the "battle crop", I tend to make snap judgements. Call me crazy.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

I agree with Willowy.

I have been in this same topic thread before so I won't get into it besides just my basic opinion - that if it's purely for a "look" (breed standard) I think it's shallow, and wrong.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

The bottom line is that cropping ears, docking tails, removing dew claws, neutering, and spaying are all elective procedures altering or removing some part of the dog. 

Whether it is done to alter appeareance, convenience, or for other reasons, it is ALL elective. 

Probobly the most invasive of all these procedures is spaying. Cropping ears is less invasive than either a spay or neuter. The only thing that lengthens the process with ear cropping is the posting and taping to ensure the ears set right. 

Tail docking if done right is the more simple and less invasive than ear cropping, spaying, or neutering. Its typically done about three days old. A quick snip and its over.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The bottom line is that cropping ears, docking tails, removing dew claws, neutering, and spaying are all elective procedures altering or removing some part of the dog.
> 
> Whether it is done to alter appeareance, convenience, or for other reasons, it is ALL elective.
> 
> ...


WINNER!!!! Great post. 100% agree.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

its shallow and wrong to crop/doc....but its totally ok to just assume someone is a bad dog owner and fights their dog because they have cropped ears????

Groovy what kind of dog is in your avatar?


I cant believe some of the things being said on this thread ....I could see if they were new members but this is coming from people that have been on this forum for more then a year......and they still have the same messed up ideas about certain breeds.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Pepper said:


> Actually Xeph said...
> 
> "No, what I'm saying is that people shouldn't speuter because people are throwing medical statistics at them to SCARE THEM into doing it."


No, you didn't go back far enough...
_There is a reason for spaying and neutering _

"Of course....convenience, shirking responsibility, lack of common sense..."


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> According to you if someone has their dog spayed or neutered they are irresponsible, and lacking of common sense.


Yes, and it's usually so because nobody asks what the cons are about altering, and the vet doesn't voluntarily put forth those cons...and it is done for convenience. Convenience of not having to treat a dog with tumors (whether they're malginant or not), not having to take care of a bitch in season, not having to deal with a dog that lifts his leg (seriously, WHAT is the big deal about that?)...

It is irresponsible not to ask what the downsides are to early altering.

Heck, being at a kennel club I realize that people with intact pets tend to be more responsible....most of the ones with altered animals are less so. Why? They don't have to worry about their dog reproducing, so why be as diligent, or give them as much training? After all, they don't "Need it".



> So much for the CHOICE everyone's so big on.


You had a choice. Get a Euro Rott or no Rott at all.



> I also find it slightly hypocrtitical that you are so anti-spay/neuter because it is taking something away from the dog but are pro-docking/cropping? Ears and tails do serve a purpose.


Uhh...spaying and neutering is removing organs that produce necessary hormones for proper bone, muscle, and joint development, as well as getting growth plates to closer properly and a dog that looks and behaves like it should. 

The pinna (which is the part removed) doesn't affect the dog's hearing. He hears the same as he did before (if not better). The dog's ear drum, hammer, etc is all left intact. The outside of the ear isn't nearly as important as hormones that tell a dog's body to stop getting taller and start getting broader.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Convenience of not having to treat a dog with tumors (whether they're malginant or not)


But I don't think most of us consider that an inconvenience as much as we don't want our dogs to have to go through having a tumor. I gladly pay vet bills, they are no inconvenience.



> Heck, being at a kennel club I realize that people with intact pets tend to be more responsible....most of the ones with altered animals are less so...why? They don't have to worry about their dog reproducing, so why be as dilligent, or give them as much training? After all, they don't "Need it".


But again, you are casting a blanket of judgement on all owners with altered dogs. Can't you see how that could be offending to owners of altered animals who strive to take the best care of their animal that they can?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

And you're casting blanket judgements on those that choose to crop and dock. Can't you see how that's offensive to us who ALSO are working to take care of their dogs the best they can?

It's cyclical, goes both ways.



> I see others being walked occasionally, and, to be honest, the people a cropped dog is being walked by are not the sort I'd want to mess with.


That's a nice stereotype Willowy ^_^

Would you believe this is the mug of a scary 2 year old certified therapy dog?
(His ears are huge xD) Candee is most CERTAINLY the type I'd want to hang out with!









The breeder of this boy actually just did a repeat, and she is so concerned about their wellbeing and a crop job that ISN'T botched, she ends up spending an extra few hundred to take them out of state to have it done!

Heck, my breed doesn't have cropped ears, people are afraid of them just the same.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Xeph said:


> And you're casting blanket judgements on those that choose to crop and dock. Can't you see how that's offensive to us who ALSO are working to take care of their dogs the best they can?
> 
> It's cyclical, goes both ways.


I didn't cast any judgements about cropping/docking. I honestly think a lot of breeds look better cropped/docked. I like cropped dobes, and I like pembroke corgis docked. I only said that cropping/docking also took something away from the dog, not that it was irresponsible to do. In both situations, it is a choice the owner needs to make, but I do not think in either situation such judgement is necessary. I do think cropping/docking done by anyone besides an experienced vet is irresponsible, though, but I am sure you can agree with me on that one at least


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I do think cropping/docking done by anyone besides an experienced vet is irresponsible, though, but I am sure you can agree with me on that one at least;[p l


Indeed...ugh x.x Those people should be slapped


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Indeed...ugh x.x Those people should be slapped


It makes me nauseous to think of someone cutting a dog's ears with scissors. And the infections...ugh


----------



## Maureen (Jan 24, 2008)

To crop or not to crop. I have owned dobermans for the past twenty plus years and yes I would agree that it is not something that should be done unless you know what you are getting into or if the breeder is willing to help you initially with ear care. 
I have seen some pretty bad looking cropped ears simply because the owner did not properly care for the ears after the cropping.
Although it is not a requirement that their ears be cropped for the show ring an uncropped doberman(and this is only my opinion) has a strike against them before even getting into the ring. This would apply to countries that still have not banned ear cropping.
More places in Canada are starting to ban ear cropping so it is getting more difficult to get it done. Not all vets will crop ears as it is almost like a specialty.
I also don't think that a doberman with cropped ears looks any more vicious or mean with their ears cropped. I would say they look more majestic.
Both of our dobes that we have now have their ears cropped. Both were shown and are Canadian Champions. Our male has a very long cut so his ears required much more work and care than our female who has a shorter cut. The work and care put into his ears was well worth it as they turned out so nice.
If I could figure out how to put up a picture I would.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

pugmom said:


> its shallow and wrong to crop/doc....but its totally ok to just assume someone is a bad dog owner and fights their dog because they have cropped ears????
> 
> Groovy what kind of dog is in your avatar?
> 
> ...



I never said anything about bad owners or fighting dogs..?

I just mean if it's your choice and you (in general not you personally) do it for looks, I think it's shallow.

That's Leroy, my english bulldog in my avatar.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

pugmom said:


> I cant believe some of the things being said on this thread ....I could see if they were new members but this is coming from people that have been on this forum for more then a year......and they still have the same messed up ideas about certain breeds.


If you're talking about me, I do not have "messed up ideas about certain breeds". All dogs are a product of their breeding and upbringing, and are at the mercy of their owners. If the owner puts a lot of time and effort into training the dog to be a good citizen, chances are it will become a good citizen. I may, however, have "messed up" ideas about the PEOPLE who prefer certain looks in certain breeds.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

Well shoot, I hope no one thinks I'm some scary person that should be avoided if they see me out with my dogs. Unless of course, you have bad intentions... then by all means, be very very afraid. My dogs' cropped ears don't make them formidable protectors - their instincts and upbringing are responsible for that. 

What I don't understand is how an owner of an uncropped XYZ Breed that feeds low-grade food, lets nails get long, does NOTHING with their dog, let it sit at home an get bored = OKAY.

... and an owner of a *cropped* XYZ Breed who feeds high quality kibble, keeps their dogs healthy and well groomed, exercises their dogs, trains their dogs, goes on therapy and reading assistance trips = CRUEL & SELFISH.

I've had people give me mean looks and mutter horrible comments to me about my dogs (my cropped, docked, well muscled, well groomed and well trained dogs) - many of them have fat, icky, badly behaved dogs with tear stains and long talon-like nails at the end of *their* leashes. I fail to see how *I* am the one that is cruel.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I may, however, have "messed up" ideas about the PEOPLE who prefer certain looks in certain breeds.


Y'know, one of the reasons we get the breeds we get is because of the way they look. If I didn't like the way GSDs looked, I wouldn't own one.

And while the history of the Doberman shows that they COULD be man stoppers, mostly they were meant to look scary...their job was to look intimidating, so, technically speaking, a Doberman always has a job


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Nothing wrong with liking a dog's looks. Although you'd better enjoy the dog's personality, too....we all know how it turns out when owners choose dogs based solely on looks!

What I object to is removing body parts from dogs because humans like how it looks.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

GroovyGroomer777 said:


> I never said anything about bad owners or fighting dogs..?
> 
> I just mean if it's your choice and you (in general not you personally) do it for looks, I think it's shallow.
> 
> That's Leroy, my english bulldog in my avatar.



well you said you agreed with willow so I just thought thats what you were talking about.....

So you like English bulldogs...like the way they look right?


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

sizzledog said:


> Well shoot, I hope no one thinks I'm some scary person that should be avoided if they see me out with my dogs.


Quite the opposite,can you please stop posting photos of your Dobes,maybe even remove your avatar!

Your making me want a dobe!!
Your dogs are very beautiful.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Willowy said:


> If you're talking about me, I do not have "messed up ideas about certain breeds". All dogs are a product of their breeding and upbringing, and are at the mercy of their owners. If the owner puts a lot of time and effort into training the dog to be a good citizen, chances are it will become a good citizen. I may, however, have "messed up" ideas about the PEOPLE who prefer certain looks in certain breeds.


but that directly contradicts what you said in your previous post....."cropped ears on a pit bull=fighting dog"...it wouldn't matter how well trained or taken care of my dog is...that is what you are going to see...per your words


and lets be real ....at some point the way a dog looks is a factor when we chose a breed.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Although you'd better enjoy the dog's personality, too....we all know how it turns out when owners choose dogs based solely on looks!


The only way you "really" know what a dog's personality is is to adopt an adult. Puppies are a crapshoot, and the majority of breeders pick your puppy for you, because they know the litter best.

The firebrand in the litter can be an absolute LIE because once he's taken away from his littermates he becomes all "OMG WAT DO AH DOOOO!?!??!!"

And every now and then a breeder does pick a puppy who doesn't mesh with their person...but it doesn't happen often.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

pugmom said:


> but that directly contradicts what you said in your previous post....."cropped ears on a pit bull=fighting dog"...it wouldn't matter how well trained or taken care of my dog is...that is what you are going to see...per your words


Thinking a dog is a pit fighter is not a judgement on the dog, it's a judgement on the owners. Dogs don't choose to become fighters like that. 

And of course looks factor into picking a breed.....again: What I object to is removing body parts from dogs because humans like how it looks.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

Willowy said:


> . I may, however, have "messed up" ideas about the PEOPLE who prefer certain looks in certain breeds.


WTF!!

Ask curbside to show you his nans dog,that should end that generalisation you have going on in your head.

Maybe i'll get a yorkie next time im getting a dog,that way people wont think im preparing to rob the passers by in my neighbourhood.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Thinking a dog is a pit fighter is not a judgement on the dog, it's a judgement on the owners.


And what gives you the right to make that judgment? To decide right off the bat without knowing that person that they're "bad" or own a fighter because of the appearance of the dog?

Heck, I get annoyed when I'm out with my pack and people say "Those are police dogs!"

...No...no they're not (well, Ranger was, but that's a different matter). They're German Shepherd Dogs.

Doesn't matter if they're using it as a descriptor...it's the WRONG ONE!

You wouldn't believe how often I get asked "Are those police dogs?" >.<

Would I take a pack of patrol/narcotics K9s into Petco? ...no


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Xeph said:


> And what gives you the right to make that judgment? To decide right off the bat without knowing that person that they're "bad" or own a fighter because of the appearance of the dog?
> 
> Heck, I get annoyed when I'm out with my pack and people say "Those are police dogs!"
> 
> ...


Thank you Xeph...that is the point I was trying to get across


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Mr Pooch said:


> Ask curbside to show you his nans dog,that should end that generalisation you have going on in your head.
> 
> Maybe i'll get a yorkie next time im getting a dog,that way people wont think im preparing to rob the passers by in my neighbourhood.


Hmm, I think I need to see Curb's nan's dog  . Sounds intriguing.

Your dogs' ears aren't cut. If you look back, you'll see my generalizations are mainly based on that one issue. I suppose I know the wrong people or something. Perhaps there are millions of lovely, nice, responsible folks out there with cropped pit bulls. I have never met one.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Thinking a dog is a pit fighter is not a judgement on the dog, it's a judgement on the owners. Dogs don't choose to become fighters like that.
> 
> And of course looks factor into picking a breed.....again: What I object to is removing body parts from dogs because humans like how it looks.


and to me S/N is an elective surgery that is also done because of an owners likes and wants ....so whats the difference?......its all about weighing the risks of each procedure and what works for each individual owner and their dog.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Your dogs' ears aren't cut. If you look back, you'll see my generalizations are mainly based on that one issue. I suppose I know the wrong people or something. Perhaps there are millions of lovely, nice, responsible folks out there with cropped pit bulls. I have never met one.


Willowy maybe you've just met a few wankers with cropped dogs?
Look at it like this,how many people here on DF do have cropped dogs?? Loads right? so why would people who want to intimidate others with thier cropped beasts be here? surely the'd be on one of them "my dog could ripp your dog to f%$*" forums.

If you have met iresponsible owners with cropped dogs of *insert breed* then try to think of the many people who are responsible but just prefer the crop to the uncropped,you cant judge the many on just a few (well you can if you want to but i like to think we live in a world where people dont have to do that anymore)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Thinking a dog is a pit fighter is not a judgement on the dog, it's a judgement on the owners. Dogs don't choose to become fighters like that.
> 
> And of course looks factor into picking a breed.....again: What I object to is removing body parts from dogs because humans like how it looks.


Judging a dog or the owner based on ears is sort of hypocritical IMO....

First off..... A pit bull with cropped ears is a nice looking animal. If they owner wants his pit to have cropped ears, so be it.

I just got done with a class that had a Military officer in it. His dog is a young pit bull with cropped ears. The dog was a welcome home gift from his wife. 

Good looking dog... The thing of it is with pit bulls. Aside from tv, most folks have never seen a dog that is actually a fighter. With dog fighting being a felony in most states, the fighters keep their dogs as under wraps and as low key as possible. 

And I do not know this for sure, but I think it is pretty uncommon for fighters to crop their dogs ears. None of the ones I have ever come across did. 

So judging a dog/owner by cropped ears is pretty misinformed at best. 


And it still goes back to the same thing.... It is an elective procedure that is less invasive than spaying and neutering which is also an elective procedure. 

Frankly, if someone is against cropping for asthetics, they should be against spay and neuter for convenience. Because that is exactly what it is. Its a little more convenient to spay and neuter a dog than take just a little extra care that an intact dog does not participate in an unplanned litter.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

Pugmom - Ok, I understand. I meant I agree with her general stand on the issue - not every single thing she said.

Yes, bulldogs are cute, but I would never get a dog because of a cute factor. I did not pick out Leroy, my husband brought him home without discussing it with me! 

I stand by the fact that I do not agree with any type of surgury to meet a breed standard. I have never adopted/bought a dog based on looks, and I never will. 

That's my opinion, take it for what you will. I will politely discontinue to post on this thread, but enjoy reading all your thoughts on the subject.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

> Perhaps there are millions of lovely, nice, responsible folks out there with cropped pit bulls. I have never met one.


Visit a UKC dog show, you'll meet some. Visit an AKC dog show, you'll meet some (though they will be called AmStaffs)


I think this lady and her "pit bull" (AmStaff) look and sound VERY nice and lovely. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a4CDvK868w


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

GroovyGroomer777 said:


> Pugmom - Ok, I understand. I meant I agree with her general stand on the issue - not every single thing she said.
> 
> Yes, bulldogs are cute, but I would never get a dog because of a cute factor. I did not pick out Leroy, my husband brought him home without discussing it with me!
> 
> ...



I don't think looks should be the ONE reason anyone brings home a dog....but I think it is a factor in choosing a dog...along with temperament, grooming, exercise needs etc etc


----------



## Mac'N'Roe (Feb 15, 2008)

My dogs aren't cropped/docked...but one of the puppies of the litter I rescued was docked naturally. 

And, what about a person that adopts a pit bull that was already cropped. Its sad to think that if I adopted a pit bull that was cropped (and I like the look BTW, if its done right) that you would pass judgement upon me on the street just based on that. How do you know what the background is? Strange.


EDIT: well, I guess its not strange, because a lot of people have preconceived notions of pit bulls in general. But, too bad to think someone would look at my dogs and automatically think I'm a scumbag just because the dog I'm walking has cropped ears.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Mac'N'Roe said:


> My dogs aren't cropped/docked...but one of the puppies of the litter I rescued was docked naturally.


Technically, that's not "docked", they're natural bobtails. 

Yes, if someone rescues a cropped pit they will probably have to endure certain sterotypes. I'd rescue any dog that needed rescuing (if I were in a position to do so), and I'd have to endure the stereotypes if I adopted a cropped pit. It happens. 

Public perception is powerful---it's the force behind breed bans, mandatory spay/neuter, and other legislation that most dog owners would oppose.


----------



## PitBully (Mar 12, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Nothing wrong with liking a dog's looks. Although you'd better enjoy the dog's personality, too....we all know how it turns out when owners choose dogs based solely on looks!
> 
> What I object to is removing body parts from dogs because humans like how it looks.


I became interested in the Pitbull breeds because of their looks. Say what 

PB


----------



## Mac'N'Roe (Feb 15, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Yes, if someone rescues a cropped pit they will probably have to endure certain sterotypes. I'd rescue any dog that needed rescuing (if I were in a position to do so), and I'd have to endure the stereotypes if I adopted a cropped pit. It happens.
> 
> Public perception is powerful---it's the force behind breed bans, mandatory spay/neuter, and other legislation that most dog owners would oppose.


Okay, then...bobtail. I knew it was another name, thanks for clearing that up.

Believe me, I'm well aware of the stereotypes...as I endure it all the time. I'm just surprised that you are CHOOSING to participate in the stereotype. And, taking it a step further and passing judgement on the owner too. that's all. But hey, atleast your honest about it.


----------



## Zollow (Mar 26, 2008)

I just want to chime in with a big BOO to cropping. It's not medically necessary and not justified by an overpopulation problem (like spay and neuter). Some people may prefer the look, but we're talking about forced cosmetic surgery on baby animals. I frankly don't see the point and am pretty certain I never will.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Zollow said:


> I just want to chime in with a big BOO to cropping. It's not medically necessary and not justified by an overpopulation problem (like spay and neuter). Some people may prefer the look, but we're talking about forced cosmetic surgery on baby animals. I frankly don't see the point and am pretty certain I never will.


Spay and neutering is not justified by the over population problem either. It is a matter of convenience. With very little extra effort, intact animals are very easily prevented from breeding. 

I am not anti spay and neuter. But its in the same catoragory as cropping and docking. In fact having witnessed and or participated in all of them. 

The least invasive of any of them is tail docking, Next would be ear cropping, although there is a fair amount of after care involved. Then would be neutering, and spaying is the most invasive and carries the most health risks. 

Bottom line is that the dogs belong to the owners. If they choose to have them docked and cropped then so be it. Its the same if someone chooses to spay or neuter their animal. It is an elective procedure that carries some risks.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Y'know, one of the reasons we get the breeds we get is because of the way they look. If I didn't like the way GSDs looked, I wouldn't own one.
> 
> And while the history of the Doberman shows that they COULD be man stoppers, mostly they were meant to look scary...their job was to look intimidating, so, technically speaking, a Doberman always has a job


I know, and I must be retarded or something. I look at Rottweilers and see big smoochie teddy bears. I know there are Rottweiler owners out there that would smack me for saying that but it is how I see my favorite breed. I have owned them forever and known over a hundred Rottweilers. I loved them all. I never saw Dobermans as looking tough either. I see them as elegant and Nobel looking. Pit bulls I see as amazing athletes and YES, I am a little leery about the ones being walked down the street on a big bull chain by some thug looking person but I have also met some wonderful Pits who's ears have been cropped down to the skull. That not a look I appreciate at all though.


----------



## Zollow (Mar 26, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Spay and neutering is not justified by the over population problem either. It is a matter of convenience. With very little extra effort, intact animals are very easily prevented from breeding.
> 
> I am not anti spay and neuter. But its in the same catoragory as cropping and docking. In fact having witnessed and or participated in all of them.
> 
> ...


I only adopt from the shelter/rescue population. Perhaps I legally own Zoe, but I did not elect to have her spayed. That was done by the rescue. The fact of the matter is we don't live in a world of responsible dog people. Shelters and rescues have to make a difficult choice. Either spay/neuter or euthanize. That absolutely cannot be compared to elective cosmetic surgery. We're not living in a human for every dog kind of world.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Zollow said:


> I only adopt from the shelter/rescue population. Perhaps I legally own Zoe, but I did not elect to have her spayed. That was done by the rescue. The fact of the matter is we don't live in a world of responsible dog people. Shelters and rescues have to make a difficult choice. Either spay/neuter or euthanize. That absolutely cannot be compared to elective cosmetic surgery. We're not living in a human for every dog kind of world.


Sure it can be compared. As I said, I am not anti spay neuter. I own a neutered dog (from a shelter) I have also owned dogs that I had neutered. But it is purely by choice and convenience. The more folks I know that have had issues relating to spay and neutering the less likely I am going to have the procedure done in the future. 

People are either responsible with dogs or they are not. That encompasses being completely responsible. Preventing the dog from biting folks, roaming the streets, attacking other animals, breeding, etc.

Spaying and neutering are not required procedures to prevent unwanted litters. They are invasive surgical procedures that require anethesia, sutures, and recovery time. Therefore they are in fact comparable to docking and cropping. Well cropping anyway. Docking is typically done without anethesia and without sutures.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Zollow said:


> I only adopt from the shelter/rescue population. Perhaps I legally own Zoe, but I did not elect to have her spayed. That was done by the rescue. The fact of the matter is we don't live in a world of responsible dog people. Shelters and rescues have to make a difficult choice. Either spay/neuter or euthanize. That absolutely cannot be compared to elective cosmetic surgery. We're not living in a human for every dog kind of world.


Umm...fail. Where did you get that we were comparing euthanizing a dog and cropping? That is certainly not what we are talking about here. We are talking about dog owners, who aquire a dog and the decision is left in their devices when it comes to altering both cosmetically or reproductively. It was my choice to get my female dog spayed and it was my choice to NOT get my dog Rowdy cropped. I had the opportunity to make those decisions for my dogs and so should other responsible dog owners


----------



## Zollow (Mar 26, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Umm...fail. Where did you get that we were comparing euthanizing a dog and cropping? That is certainly not what we are talking about here. We are talking about dog owners, who aquire a dog and the decision is left in their devices when it comes to altering both cosmetically or reproductively. It was my choice to get my female dog spayed and it was my choice to NOT get my dog Rowdy cropped. I had the opportunity to make those decisions for my dogs and so should other responsible dog owners


I'm not trying to be antagonistic. That isn't who I am. I'm a nice person, and that's a big part of why I'm against elective cosmetic procedures for feeling animals. However, I must correct you. I never said or meant to imply that you were comparing euthanizing a dog and cropping. You've clearly misunderstood. I was just stating why I believe in the real world (not on some philosophical level), spay/neuter is important in the rescue community (and thus, why it's not always comparable to cosmetic procedures). I'm not going to argue with you. I just wanted to advocate for animal ears. That's all.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Can I advocate for animal uterus and ovaries? LOL


----------



## Zollow (Mar 26, 2008)

pugmom said:


> Can I advocate for animal uterus and ovaries? LOL


If you like! I do understand the arguments, especially on an individual basis. It's just all more complicated within the real world of animal rescue. Unfortunately.

Here's an interesting entry on uteri and ovaries from a vet's blog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Spay and neutering is not justified by the over population problem either. It is a matter of convenience. With very little extra effort, intact *animals* are very easily prevented from breeding.


Perhaps this is true of dogs (although I've heard of too many "oops" litters to think it's such little effort), but I guarantee that if you have an intact cat, it WILL end up breeding at least once in its life, no matter how hard you try to prevent it. And no health problems have been identified as a result of spaying and neutering in cats, even at very early ages. Just want to clarify that, because too many people put cats and dogs in the same category.

Even so, I have seen too many "oops" litters to think that spaying/neutering is not necessary for most dog owners. One trip to the shelter should convince anyone of that. I went to the local shelter yesterday.....a litter of 7 Lab-mix pups AND a Lab mama dog that was not their mama, but had obviously had way too many litters (her teats were practically dragging the floor!). I understand the arguments against automatic altering of dogs, but most people can't handle it, and the more they think they can handle it, the more likely they are to have an oops litter, because they get overconfident.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Pardon my ignorance, but why isn't it possible to (in the case of females) only remove the uterus and leave the ovaries? Wouldn't that both remove the possibility of pregnancy while allowing the normal hormone development in the dog?


----------



## animalcraker (Nov 9, 2006)

Pai said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but why isn't it possible to (in the case of females) only remove the uterus and leave the ovaries? Wouldn't that both remove the possibility of pregnancy while allowing the normal hormone development in the dog?


The reason for not leaving the ovaries is because if there's any piece of uturine horn or tissue left, and the ovaries are still there, then you run the risk of a pyo developing. Since Pyo is really the only health problem that spaying prevents, it's not really practical to leave a risk for it.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I'm more ok with cropping a pup then spaying a pup. Cropping is cosmetic (even for working purposes you are still removing something that changes the look but that the dog doesn't have a great need for). Removing part of the ear or removing the uterus. There is a huge difference. Of course it doesn't have to be a choice between one or the other, you can do neither or both. It isn't ear cropping vs spaying, but when I look at it like that in my mind I would certainly crop a pup before I would spay a pup.


----------



## LoupGarouTFTs (Oct 27, 2007)

I have a litter of puppies that I will be taking to the vet on Monday to have their tails docked. Why? I do it because the breed standard says they should be docked and because at least one of these pups has a good chance of being a show dog (I have shown both parents and the parents' ancestors are largely show dogs). Would I have their tails docked even if they were not going to be show dogs? Probably, because Toy Fox Terriers have historically been docked and because I did not find the tails on the couple of undocked TFTs that I have seen to be attractive.

I have never seen a TFT have an issue with balance or with communication. I have never seen a TFT dam think less of their puppies after they've been docked and I've never seen a puppy search for its tail once it was gone. I'm sure that there are dogs that have had chop jobs done on their tails, but all of the docked tails that I have seen were neatly closed--even those that were docked by the breeders instead of by the vet. Having witnessed the docking of more than a couple of litters, I can safely say that most discomfort associated with docking is experienced by people who have never seen the surgery performed and who have permitted their imaginations to run away with them as they anthropomorphize their dogs and decide how their dogs would feel based on their own emotions.

Oh, also . . . in decades of owning intact animals I have never had an "oops" litter--cats or dogs. It's called "taking responsibility for our pets and their actions," which really isn't hard at all.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

This thread is a couple months old, guys


----------



## GSDGAL (May 27, 2009)

In Australia it is highly illegal to crop, dock, debark or de-claw and fines reach 5000 dollars and imprisonment is possible for repeat offenders...


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

GSDGAL said:


> In Australia it is highly illegal to crop, dock, debark or de-claw and fines reach 5000 dollars and imprisonment is possible for repeat offenders...


Yikes thats crazy ....its it illegal to own a dog that has been cropped or docked?


----------



## Eris13021 (May 16, 2009)

Mac'N'Roe said:


> *The average owner doesn't know how to teach a dog how to sit or stay*,



Im the average owner. I taught my dogs to sit, stay, lay down and basic commands...lol. Also we are the average family and i cook homecook meals..maybe im an odd duck or something. lol

ANYWAYS, I believe that all non-breeders those who dogs/cats are just pet quality should be neutered. Either way from what i have read you have health risks from keeping the animal intact or s/n the animal. Its a personal decision. 

TO EACH THEIR OWN!!


----------



## GSDGAL (May 27, 2009)

pugmom said:


> Yikes thats crazy ....its it illegal to own a dog that has been cropped or docked?


it's relatively new law, i think 2003 so not it's not illegal to own one, but if the dog was born after jul 10th 2003 and has docking or cropping without paperwork from the vet saying it was necessary then the fines come...people still do it illegally though, through pretty horrible means, not so much the cropping, but lots of shoddy dockings


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Dakota Spirit said:


> This thread is a couple months old, guys


Yeah but this war flares up every couple of months so we'll probably about due for another . At least it seems more efficient this way, rather than someone starting yet another thread on it lol


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Lol, I suppose that's true enough


----------



## emily445455 (Apr 8, 2008)

I much prefer how dogs look with natural ears and tails, but as long as the puppies are cropped/docked young...I see that as a personal choice on the owner's part.

Kind of like circumsizing a baby boy, which is something I plan on doing if I have sons in the future. But I respect people who don't do it...no big deal to me.


----------



## Dozi (Jun 9, 2009)

GearGirl said:


> I think it is horribly abusive, and absolutely ridiculous. Other countries have laws against show dogs having this done, but the United States is way behind in that. Poor dogs.


I disagree.... I don't think it's abusive if it's done by a vet. If you've ever had a cut and needed stitches you'll know it's not that bad - pretty much the same concept from my point of view. 

It becomes abusive when people become idiots/want to save money and try to do things that they have no knowledge about.


----------



## LoupGarouTFTs (Oct 27, 2007)

I've docked my puppies' tails by myself and have had them docked by a vet. The last time I went to a vet, she told me that she uses the same technique that I was taught for docking. The only difference between us was that she put a single stitch to hold the skin flaps of the tail together--and I mean the ONLY difference. The puppies show more upset about being taken from the teat than they do over the entire procedure and they quiet immediately after being given back to their mother.

I'd be more concerned about people performing their own cropping, rather than their own docking. People who crop their own puppies' ears use any number of methods, including cutting with scissors, and they may or may not use anesthesia, which is necessary for this surgery since the puppies are older and their nervous systems are fully developed.

I've never had an issue with infected tails; I've never had a dog crippled by the procedure or one that had balance issues or lingering pain. It's just another way that the animal rights people have infiltrated our lives and have made it more difficult to own our dogs, setting it up for us to use our own judgment on treating our own animals respectfully and well.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Dakota Spirit said:


> This thread is a couple months old, guys


restarted by a spam advertisment so I'm closing it down.


----------

