[Dusty the Dog]

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

[Pai]

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

[0hmyd0g]

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

[sizzledog]

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

[ValtheAussie]

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

[Tami]

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

[wabanafcr]

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

[MissMutt]

Originally Posted by wabanafcr

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

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

[peppy264]

I thought whiskers were used by dogs for tactile sensation.

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

[Wolfiee]

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

[animalcraker]

Originally Posted by Wolfiee

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

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

[peppy264]

Originally Posted by animalcraker

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

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

[Jr. Dog Expert]

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

[txcollies]

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

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

[animalcraker]

Originally Posted by peppy264

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

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

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

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

[peppy264]

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

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

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

[Dakota Spirit]

Originally Posted by peppy264

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

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

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

[Wolfiee]

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

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

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

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

[alphadoginthehouse]

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

[peppy264]

Originally Posted by Dakota Spirit

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Wolfiee

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

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

Isn't it really that simple?