[peppy264]

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

From one of R-Ninja's studies:

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

Its pretty obvious to me too.

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

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

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

[rosemaryninja]

Thanks very much, Peppy!

Originally Posted by Pai

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

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

[Dakota Spirit]

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

[Pai]

Originally Posted by Dakota Spirit

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

*raises her hand*

[peppy264]

Originally Posted by Dakota Spirit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[animalcraker]

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

Originally Posted by animalcraker

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

__________________________________________________ ___

Originally Posted by peppy264

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

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

Originally Posted by peppy264

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

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

[bfoster]

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

[Hound]

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

[rosemaryninja]

Originally Posted by animalcraker

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

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

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

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

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

[peppy264]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

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

Or, more likely, the lack of an answer.

[Dakota Spirit]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

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

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

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

JMO and how I took that particular excerpt though.

[KBLover]

Originally Posted by animalcraker

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Dakota Spirit

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

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

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

[rosemaryninja]

Originally Posted by Dakota Spirit

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

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

JMO and how I took that particular excerpt though.

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

[Dakota Spirit]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

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

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

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

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

[rosemaryninja]

Originally Posted by Dakota Spirit

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

Thanks. I've really enjoyed this one too.

[FidoTheYorkie]

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