Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The Utah VMA has proposed a resolution that revisits the "hard line" approach that the AVMA has recently taken toward ear cropping and tail docking It basically states that the AVMA, if they wish pets to be "owned" should not then attempt to limit what owners can do with their property/pets. The resolution indicates that veterinarians can act as they feel is appropriate according to their consciences and either agree to or refuse to perform the surgery. The AVMA is actually considering this resolution.

I know that there are a lot of people here who disagree with these elective surgeries, but this resolution puts the decision-making process back where it belongs. I pray that this resolution and the failure of many of the proposed anti-dog/anti-pet/anti-breeder laws means that AR is losing a bit of its grip here in the US.

www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jun09/090615f.asp

It doesn't withdraw AMVA disapproval altogether, but I suspect that if we can get a softer line in there and the AR star keeps falling, we might see a return to the days when the AVMA took no official position on the surgeries.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,765 Posts
I'm always find it strange that only those two elective procedures get all the attention.
What other procedures are you referring to?

As for these two, they are almost purely cosmetic and unnecessary so i can understand the controversy.

And though personally I would never consider cropping and docking unless it's for the health of the dog, I would say that owners should have their choice in the matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
What other procedures are you referring to?

As for these two, they are almost purely cosmetic and unnecessary so i can understand the controversy.

And though personally I would never consider cropping and docking unless it's for the health of the dog, I would say that owners should have their choice in the matter.
Neutering and Dewclaw removal two other procedures that are done for convenience and cosmetic purposes. (there are obvious exceptions just like in tail and ear dock/crop)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,765 Posts
Neutering and Dewclaw removal two other procedures that are done for convenience and cosmetic purposes. (there are obvious exceptions just like in tail and ear dock/crop)
Yeah I thought about dewclaws after I posted and I'm not really sure. I suppose dewclaw removal is usually done under the guise of making sure the dogs don't hurt themselves by getting them caught and they are none functional for the most part. It's convenient but not so much cosmetic. It kind of reminds me of getting the appendix removed in newborn babies :). I wouldn't get my dog declawed but man the way those thing are curled makes them a pain to cut :eek:.

As for neutering, there seems to be quite the controversy regarding it too. I saw a closed thread here that got quite heated to say the least. But again I don't know if its really a cosmetic surgery though i guess my dog's equipment isn't stick out at me from behind :rolleyes:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,296 Posts
I don't mind either cropping or docking if it's done soon enough; I do have a problem with them being mandated in a conformation standard. There are practical reasons for them in working dogs, but having them as a standard in a show dog that will never see the field seems a little ridiculous to me. It's like those SUVs built over a car chassis - they'd never actually survive off-road, but they look the part and drive smooth on city streets.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,765 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,966 Posts
??????????????????......*googling*....*googling again*....*reading*......????????????????
:confused:........:confused: I'm still confused.
*reading some more*.......
do they remove the whiskers :eek:?
Yeah, but it's not surgical. They just pluck them off.

Let's not open that Pandora's box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,467 Posts
Pluck? I always use scissors... :p

I don't have a cropped or docked breed, but if I ever get one I will crop and dock. I love the look.

And as for dewclaws, I hate them. I take them off of all of my puppies soon after birth. Snip, flick and that's there is to it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,997 Posts
Personally, I think it helps the consumer later on determine the quality of the breeder. For example, I recently came across a cocker spaniel in a shelter that was supposedly purebred, yet did not have a docked tail. This indicated to me that the dog is probably not well bred as the breeder did not make an effort to comply with a stated breed standard.

I don't get why people think neutering is a cosmetic surgery. It's not in any sense of the word. You can easily lump dew claw removal, docking and cropping under the cosmetic umbrella, but I don't have a clue how you can put neutering under there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
Personally, I think it helps the consumer later on determine the quality of the breeder. For example, I recently came across a cocker spaniel in a shelter that was supposedly purebred, yet did not have a docked tail. This indicated to me that the dog is probably not well bred as the breeder did not make an effort to comply with a stated breed standard.

I don't get why people think neutering is a cosmetic surgery. It's not in any sense of the word. You can easily lump dew claw removal, docking and cropping under the cosmetic umbrella, but I don't have a clue how you can put neutering under there.
I never said it was cosmetic, I said it was a surgery of convenience. AKA: an elective surgery


I have met one person once who turned neutering into a cosmetic surgery, they said they wanted to get their dog neutered so they didn't have to look at his balls all day. (their words not mine)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,451 Posts
There are practical reasons for them in working dogs, but having them as a standard in a show dog that will never see the field seems a little ridiculous to me.
Expect for the fact that a show dog theoreticaly should be able to do the work its bred to do and many actualy do. IMO it's kind of silly to have a standard based on a working dog, but not conform the the needs of one.

I suppose dewclaw removal is usually done under the guise of making sure the dogs don't hurt themselves by getting them caught and they are none functional for the most part.
Croping and docking is done for that exact same reason. To prevent injury to a less important appendage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,997 Posts
I never said it was cosmetic, I said it was a surgery of convenience. AKA: an elective surgery
Just because it's an elective surgery though doesn't mean it's wrong or bad in any shape or form. I have bad eyesight. If I had lasik or RK to fix my eyesight, it would be an elective surgery, but it wouldn't be bad or controversial.

Croping and docking is done for that exact same reason. To prevent injury to a less important appendage.
Docking does prevent injury, but how does cropping prevent injury in a working dog?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
Just because it's an elective surgery though doesn't mean it's wrong or bad in any shape or form. I have bad eyesight. If I had lasik or RK to fix my eyesight, it would be an elective surgery, but it wouldn't be bad or controversial.



Docking does prevent injury, but how does cropping prevent injury in a working dog?
No of course not, I never said it was bad. I just said I'm always surprised only docking and cropping are mentioned when it comes to elective surgeries.

Cropping prevented injury in the past for war dogs and fighting dogs. It also is still a common practice on flock guardian breeds like the Briard, and Kengal to stop wolves from grabbing their ears.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I'm always find it strange that only those two elective procedures get all the attention.
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, to be honest. Because they are frequently perceived to be purely elective and cosmetic, in that the general public has no understanding of their historical use, they are the two surgeries that are the easiest for the animal rights community to demonize. The fact is that spaying and neutering are equally elective surgeries, either of which may require general anesthesia (which makes them far more risky than docking) and both of which might cause permanent difficulty urinating (which makes them both more debilitating than cropping) seems to make little difference to the people who wish to remove the right to have these procedures performed. Dewclaw removal, apparently, is not considered a major enough surgery to bother with right now in many circles, although some AR extremists are seeking to have that banned as well.

Pluck? I always use scissors... :p

I don't have a cropped or docked breed, but if I ever get one I will crop and dock. I love the look.

And as for dewclaws, I hate them. I take them off of all of my puppies soon after birth. Snip, flick and that's there is to it. :)
It's funny, I have a docked breed, but I won't trim whiskers for the show ring. I guess it's because the tails are done one time, before the dogs learn about how to balance using a tail, while the whiskers are sensory organs that are used throughout the dogs' lives. I won't say that I noticed any real difference in my Collie's gait or balance the one time I allowed her whiskers to be trimmed, but it's my personal preference not to trim them. In addition, I've owned pet Dobes that did not have their ears cropped--I couldn't see the point if they were not being shown or worked. That being said, I feel it was important that I had the opportunity to choose to have the surgery done or not, based on my own values and beliefs.

Docking does prevent injury, but how does cropping prevent injury in a working dog?
As someone mentioned, cropping prevents another animal from grabbing on and causing the dog injury. It also provides less of a handhold for a person to grab onto. What I found very interesting is that the Dalmatian was once a cropped breed; when Dals were used as carriage dogs their ears were often cropped (almost down to their heads) to prevent robbers from being able to drag them out from under or outside of carriages when set to guard. In addition, Dals were sometimes docked, especially when they were used for hunting or as carriage dogs. I'm glad to see that the practice fell out of favor over time, since they are much nicer looking as entire dogs, but unlike Dobes, German Pinschers, or various hunting breeds that are still active in their historical roles, Dals are no longer used as either guardians or hunters by the vast majority of people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,997 Posts
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, to be honest. Because they are frequently perceived to be purely elective and cosmetic, in that the general public has no understanding of their historical use, they are the two surgeries that are the easiest for the animal rights community to demonize. The fact is that spaying and neutering are equally elective surgeries, either of which may require general anesthesia (which makes them far more risky than docking) and both of which might cause permanent difficulty urinating (which makes them both more debilitating than cropping) seems to make little difference to the people who wish to remove the right to have these procedures performed. Dewclaw removal, apparently, is not considered a major enough surgery to bother with right now in many circles, although some AR extremists are seeking to have that banned as well.
Let's be honest, the risks of general anesthesia on a dog are extremely minimal. Even on an unhealthy dog there's only something like a 2% chance of them not surviving. You can easily do bloodwork on a dog ahead of time and determine their liver and kidney function and their likelihood of surviving anesthesia. Granted, there are some dogs who will have a bad reaction and sometimes things happen with any surgery, but the risk is statistically minimal.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Let's be honest, the risks of general anesthesia on a dog are extremely minimal. Even on an unhealthy dog there's only something like a 2% chance of them not surviving. You can easily do bloodwork on a dog ahead of time and determine their liver and kidney function and their likelihood of surviving anesthesia. Granted, there are some dogs who will have a bad reaction and sometimes things happen with any surgery, but the risk is statistically minimal.
And there is even less risk and pain associated with docking the dog's tail, considering no general anesthesia is used at all. If we're arguing risk, the docking and cropping have by far the less risk.

However, even if you accept that there is such a small risk associated with general anesthesia (and I don't accept that figure, since I have such tiny dogs), there is still the possible risk of 2 dogs of every 100 having a negative reaction to anesthesia. Even if you say that 2 of every 100 dogs from that 2 percent that's still a pretty significant risk to the people whose dogs die--especially considering the rate at which vets are encouraged to crank out spays and neuters these days--and will be in the future if mandatory spay/neuter laws go forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Cognitive dissonance.....

If a phenotypical characteristic is considered so essential to the working ability (to include safety) of the breed that the breed standard requires surgical modification for conformation, why does the founding population not include any animals exhibiting that phenotype? Prick ears and bobtail are relatively common phenotypes, why not just open up the studbooks to acquire those phenotypes?

Ancient herding dogs had their canines filed, broken, or removed to prevent injury to stock. It enhanced working ability. Should we do that, too? Should we go so far as to codify it in the breed standards for herders? If not, why not?

It seems to me that a rational breed standard would DQ surgical modification of any kind.

It also seems that a breed standard that mandates surgical mutilation is cognitive dissonance on par with rules requiring dogs competing in obedience to wear choke collars. File both under "epic failure."

If the animal is never going to do the actual work (getting dragged around a conformation ring is not work) for which those characteristics are essential, why should it be subjected to surgical mutilation?

What's the beef with animal rights? Do you think that animals ought not to have any?
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top