[ILuvLucy]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

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

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

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

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

[Keechak]

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

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

[katyblue]

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

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

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

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

[peppy264]

Originally Posted by alphadoginthehouse

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

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

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

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

[Wolfiee]

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

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

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

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

[animalcraker]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

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

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

Originally Posted by peppy264

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

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

Originally Posted by peppy264

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

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

[rosemaryninja]

Originally Posted by animalcraker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veterinary Nursing
D. R. Lane, B. Cooper

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

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

[Pai]

So how many dogs have you ever seen or heard of that are bumbling around and obviously unable to cope with not having whiskers? It's nice to be able to quote data that says that whiskers have a purpose (I would argue that smell and sight portions of the brain together outweigh the size of any 'whisker' section, if you want to make it all about comparing 'brain territory' size), but that doesn't prove the 'cruelty' allegation that's being debated here. I have never seen any shaved-face dogs that suffered chronic facial injuries or any other psychological or physical problem coming from the lack of whiskers. There is no foundation for bashing people who do it.

[Dakota Spirit]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

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

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

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

[rosemaryninja]

Originally Posted by Dakota Spirit

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Pai

So how many dogs have you ever seen or heard of that are bumbling around and obviously unable to cope with not having whiskers? It's nice to be able to quote data that says that whiskers have a purpose (I would argue that smell and sight portions of the brain together outweigh the size of any 'whisker' section, if you want to make it all about comparing 'brain territory' size), but that doesn't prove the 'cruelty' allegation that's being debated here. I have never seen any shaved-face dogs that suffered chronic facial injuries or any other psychological or physical problem coming from the lack of whiskers. There is no foundation for bashing people who do it.

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

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

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

[Dakota Spirit]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

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

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

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

[Pai]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

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

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

In fact, neither Peppy nor I ever used the words "abuse", "cruel", "inhumane" or similar.

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

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

[rosemaryninja]

Originally Posted by Dakota Spirit

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

Originally Posted by Pai

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

Originally Posted by animalcraker

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dakota Spirit]

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

[rosemaryninja]

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

[Dakota Spirit]

Mm, alright. Thanks for pointing that out, then

[rosemaryninja]

Just wanted to draw attention to these articles:

http://www.winweim.com/images/whiskers.pdf
http://admin.sibes.org/sdo/index.asp...sdo.id.A000077

[Pai]

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

And from the Sibes article:

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

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

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

[rosemaryninja]

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

[Pai]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

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

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

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

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