What's Your Opinion?

calliecritturs

We're about the only "civilized" country that *allows* it -- I think it's heinous to be honest, and simply dismissing something as "ok because they're little" -- is just wrong.  We (some of us) pay thousands of dollars to alter our own looks for some artificial standard -- could we look at the conformation, the behavior, the abilities of the animal (and person) and get beyond something that is carved up simply to appease what we are USED to seeing?

Muffin the Intrepid had a docked tail as does Billy.  Muffin's was done badly - it ALWAYS hurt him and used to break open.  It gave him nothing to 'wag' and caused him pain his entire life (we got him as a dumped rescue at 18 months so I've no idea what/how/who did it).

Billy's is at least properly docked so he has something to wag. 

The article talks about purely cosmetic things -- it's not about docking done for safety. 

Breed standards shouldn't be about mere vanity or what looks "cool" or good.  It should be about the benefit of THAT dog, not any idea of what looks good today.

 If you want a real shock, go get a breed book from 25 to 50 years ago and just SEE how things have "changed" just pandering to popular demand.  *sigh*

Boy Callie, opened a can of worms there!

Yes, things have changed due to "popular demand" but, look back through the history of dogs.  ... they've changed for a reason. A singular reason, too, mankind.  Wolves probably wouldn't have evolved into pugs naturally.  So, to say that things have changed in 25-50 yrs... yes.  They have.  And probably 25-50 years prior to that.... and so on and so on.

Cropping and docking were originally done for a purpose, WORKING dogs.  Yes, most people probably don't dock their weims for fear of working related injury.  But many, many people still need it done or your dog is going to end up with much longer lasting injuries that will result in an amputation done at an age that the surgery is major. Versus done at a young age when nerves are still forming.

About the only "Civilized" country that allows it.. hmm. What are Canadians ;)  Just kidding.  But, while you feel that it's being dismissive to allow docking of young dogs because they are "little" is also dismissing the pain and injury that will follow them for their LIFETIME of work.  Yes, some breeds are cosmetic, but many have practical value and I think painting with such a broad brush can also be dismissive. 

4HAND

Given the choice,I would always prefer to have a dog that has never been put through any docking,cropping or dew claw removal.

Tena

I wish that Lillie and Kujo's dewclaws were not there. They are a pain the the butt to trim,thier black, and get long way too fast. When I get Lillie spayed and Kujo's teeth cleaned they will be getting taken off. I cant take it anymore!!!

Im ok with docking tails. Of course I've had aussies and now Joker who has a docked tail. But I think if your not showing your dog cropped ears are unneccary. If I was to ever get a dog that cropped ears was an option for the breed I wouldnt get them cropped. If their just gonna be a pet what's the point of cropping them? Now Im not saying a Dobie,Boxer,Great Danes,etc with nice cropped ears dont look nice because they do,they look great, but I wouldnt do it if I had one just as a pet. 

I think it should be left up to the owner if the decision to do docking/cropping if they are for good intentions(showing,preventing injuries,etc).

BEVOLASVEGAS

 I will nicely point out that other uncropped breeds are posted in order to get erect ears as well...GSD's & Collies come to mind.

Not always though, and I think a lot of people get paranoid and tape GSD ears that would have stood on their own anyway.  Nikon's ears went up at 10 weeks and his left ear just dropped yesterday (15 weeks) and I have no plans to tape.  Their ears go up and down as they grow and teeth.

I guess the same arguments could be made about tattoos.  I had Nikon tattooed at 10 weeks (usually they are done at 6-8 weeks and need to be done before 4 months or so when the ear cartilege gets thicker).  The breeder really really didn't want to do it (b/c of the pain) but it just saves so much trouble in the long run.  She said if I did it and went first she would do it, so we took all the puppies and I had Nikon go first.  He squealed, but it was b/c he was being restrained (he squealed BEFORE the tattoo was stamped).  The process takes about 3 seconds b/c the tattoo is a stamp so it's instant, not drawn on with a pen.  As soon as he was set down he was off running and playing with the other dogs.  That night he was back wrestling with Coke and Kenya, who were biting on his head and ear and he never cared.

mudpuppy

And I disagree this is a matter of "owner choice". Most people agree owners don't have the right to choose to abuse their dogs; most people agree cutting body parts off of a dog for non-medical reasons is abuse; thus owners have no right to choose to have their dogs body parts cut off for non-medical reasons.

 Do you feel the same way about spaying and neutering for non-medical reasons?

AgileGSD

misstrouble

I think it's a personal choice of the breeder or owner.

 I personally have found it strange that people (in general) are ok with removing a dog's reproductive organs but removing part of the tail or ear or having a dog debarked is thought of as being "cruel".

IMHO, there is a long list of benefits of altering pets-

-reduced chance of "oops" litters (which is a big deal if you own dogs from already over populated breeds)

-reduced chance of passing on undesirable physical and mental traits (Sally is shy and has allergies, Jack has elbow issues)

-reduced chance of dog being injured by other dogs due to hormonal issues (in dog park, male dogs getting in the yard duing heats, etc)

 -reduced chance of dogs escaping and being injured as a result of hormonal issues

-reduced chance of behavioral issues in many cases

-prevention of hormone driven cancers 

Benefits of cropping or docking:

-to save the dog from tail injury (which I understand but does not apply at all to ears)

-so the dog can be cosmetically altered to conform to an arbitrary written standard 

The truth is that while there may have once been a historical reason for the alterations, these reasons only really apply to a small number of dogs at best.  Even the tail injury thing confuses me--it's not like anyone took a survey of which breeds injured their tails most and then decided to cut off the tails of those dogs.  Labs hurt their tails all the time and you don't see the breed docked.  There are also a number of breeds with very whip-like tails that are not docked.  If you have a dog that repeatedly injures the tail then I could see having something done, but as a wholesale practice?

I also agree that it impedes communication between dogs.  Any behaviorist would tell you that both the ears and tails are important communication tools.  

I have no problem with the AVMA coming out with this.  I don't think there should necessarily be a law against it, but I see nothing wrong with breed clubs being strongly encouraged to allow for natural dogs in the standard and would love it if these dogs were actually placed by judges so that it would become for common for good breeders to leave pups undocked.

janetmichel3009

when i went to germany i saw a few undocked cocker spaniels and their tails really didnt seem very fragile at all... on top of that they are covered by a lotta fur for cussioning, so whithout knowing many facts about cocker tails (moca is docked, i got her when she was about 7 months, so it wasnt up to me) i'd think they'd be ok with their tails...

With Cocker Spaniels (we used to own one, he lives with my parents now) their tails weren't docked soley for appearence. They were bred for hunting small bird game that hang out in low brush. So, hunters would dock the tail to avoid it getting tangled and matted in the low brush. It's now the AKC standard to have docked tails for Cockers.

IMO with regards to docking and cropping, it's up to the breeders/owners.

To me the leading question is :"How does the dog benefit long term from a surgical procedure ?" Spaying and neutering have been shown to have long-term benefits for the dog, the only point of contention - as I understand it - being when the operation should be done in order to reap the most benefits for the dog, depending on the dog's sex and breed.

I can understand tail docking done properly by a vet on a couple of days old pup of a breed prone to tail injuries that can lead to reoccuring pain, a more severe operation (amputation), etc. later on in the dog's life. I have way more trouble with the ear docking since it is in itself a heavy operation (complete anesthesia, removal of way more tissue) done later in the pup's life followed by a lengthy time of pain, still can fail to achieve the desired outcome (some ears fail to stand or do not stand "right";) with seemingly no strong health benefits for the dog.

I do not see a problem for both to be removed from a breed standard because to me, it does not mean cropped/docked dogs may not be shown, it just means that uncropped/undocked ones may. So, I would tend to agree with the AVMA statement since it opposes the procedures when done for "cosmetic" reasons only; however, I would like it better if they did not lump tail docking and ear cropping together and if they were a bit more explicit on the potential non-cosmetic reasons for either operation.

sillysally

IMHO, there is a long list of benefits of altering pets-

-reduced chance of "oops" litters (which is a big deal if you own dogs from already over populated breeds)

-reduced chance of passing on undesirable physical and mental traits (Sally is shy and has allergies, Jack has elbow issues)

  A case for altering due to convenience, as such things can be prevented without altering it just is harder. Debarking is also done for the owner's convenience but it generally regarded as "cruel".  

sillysally

-reduced chance of dog being injured by other dogs due to hormonal issues (in dog park, male dogs getting in the yard duing heats, etc)

-reduced chance of dogs escaping and being injured as a result of hormonal issues

 The dog park issue is actually more of a breed/temperament issue than an issue of a dog being intact. Some breeds/dogs just aren't into mingling with strangers once they are mature and that doesn't tend to matter if they are intact or not.Dogs don't need to make dog friends at the dog park to be happy and healthy.

  The dogs escaping and being injured due to "hormonal issues" is a bit of a stretch.The intact male GSD I had "escaped" from the back yard once due to the gate being left open. He escaped to the front porch where he jumped on the door to be let in ;)

 I know lots of dogs who have escaped, been lost, injured or killed and the majority have been altered pets and the incident had nothing to do with hormones. Again this is an owner issue - people can secure their yard and not leave bitches in season unattended.

sillysally

-reduced chance of behavioral issues in many cases

  That certainly is the claim but beyond male to male aggression within a household, it doesn't seem to prevent behavioral issues. In fact, some studies suggest altering may actually increase some issues. 

 "The study that identified a higher incidence of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in spayed or neutered dogs also identified an increased incidence of sexual behaviors in males and females that were neutered early.(5) Further, the study that identified a higher incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs neutered or spayed before 5 1/2 months also showed that early age gonadectomy was associated with an increased incidence of noise phobias and undesirable sexual behaviors.(6) A recent report of the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation reported significantly more behavioral problems in spayed and neutered bitches and dogs. The most commonly observed behavioral problem in spayed females was fearful behavior and the most common problem in males was aggression.(12" http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

 Also bitches which are same sex aggressive may become MORE aggressive after altering.

sillysally

-prevention of hormone driven cancers 

 And an increased risk of other cancers, some of which are as common or more common than reproductive cancers. Actually the only cancer risk which is decreased would be mammary tumors and testiclular cancer (not very common).

"A retrospective study of cardiac tumors in dogs showed that there was a 5 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma, one of the three most common cancers in dogs, in spayed bitches than intact bitches and a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact males.(7) A study of 3218 dogs demonstrated that dogs that were neutered before a year of age had a significantly increased chance of developing bone cancer.(8) A separate study showed that neutered dogs had a two-fold higher risk of developing bone cancer.(9) Despite the common belief that neutering dogs helps prevent prostate cancer, at least one study suggests that neutering provides no benefit.(10) There certainly is evidence of a slightly increased risk of mammary cancer in female dogs after one heat cycle, and for increased risk with each subsequent heat. While about 30 % of mammary cancers are malignant, as in humans, when caught and surgically removed early the prognosis is very good.(12) Luckily, canine athletes are handled frequently and generally receive prompt veterinary care." http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

 I am not really against altering and some of my bitches are altered. I doubt I'd neuter another male though unless it was for a medical reason. I think it is the right choice for some dogs and owners but certainly not all.

 But altering does have some significant risks and those risks are a bit more serious than risks of cropping/docking. To think otherwise is buying into Animal Rights propaganda that dogs are some how "better" when they are altered (people do refer to it as being "fixed" - as though the dog was broken to start with!). Altering has been heavily promoted by Animal Rights organizations because it is very much in line with their agenda. Now that they have convinced the general public that owning intact animals is bad, that intact animals suffer and it is in their best interest to be "fixed" and that any owner who owns intact animals must be irresponsible they are moving to the next phase - greatly restricting or outlawing the keeping of intact animals.

 Interestingly, altering is not routinely done in many European countries and some actually consider it a form of mutilation unless done for a medical reason (not unlike how some people consider cropping/docking). It all comes down to it should be the owner's choice as to what is best for their dog.

I own a docked corgi and I honestly wish she had her tail still. It's a cute nub but I feel like she should have been allowed to have what she was born with as she is a house pet and in no danger of having her tail stepped on and degloved by cattle. The thing is, I couldn't find a Corgi with a natural tail! I think docking is pretty pointless for a dog that is not a working dog. Honestly I don't really buy the "these dogs are prone to tail injuries" stuff. I'm sure it's true, but other breeds with thin, whip like tails don't have them removed. It's not like if a greyhound isn't being used for racing we cut them off. Don't think "dobermans should have their tails removed because some of them might get a tail injury" is really a valid arguement. It's pretty much cosmetic and as for cropping... totally ligit for military animals so they can't be grabbed by the enemy etc. Though fighting dogs should be cracked down on 10 times harder than it is, it makes sense for that. If a vet were positive they were cropping the ears of a dog that was going to be fought, I can understand the vet doing it. Otherise they'll do it at home, put the dog through terrible pain without sedation, and god knows what sort of hack job they'd end up with and what sort of infection would follow. That being said, I think it is also the moral bligation of the vet to contact the authorities and tip them off said person at X address might be involved in dog fighting. Anyway,. there's nothing wrong with the arguement "I like the way it looks". I love the way dobies look cropped or cropped and docked, pit bulls, cropped Danes, etc. It's uncomfortable for the animal but I wouldn't say it is torture or abuse. If someone wants a doberman and crops its ears, isn't it worth it if that dog will have a great and loving home? With all the the true and blatant abuse going on I think this isn't an issue to really work against. People should put energy into stopping chaining of dogs, dog fighting, etc. Just my opinion (or non-opinion as it turns out)

re: spay/neuter tumors.... neutering also definitely helps prevent perianal adenomas and perineal hernias (not cancer, but very hormonally related, suprisingly) also prostatic hyperplasia (common again). Off topic but jumped in for a sec ;)

I'm really iffy on docking/cropping. I don't like it....but it can be useful in some  working animals. I don't exactly see the point to doing it cosmetically. If I were in practice and someone wanted me to do it for cosmetic reasons, I'd probably refer out. I'm not comfortable with it.

AgileGSD

sillysally

IMHO, there is a long list of benefits of altering pets-

-reduced chance of "oops" litters (which is a big deal if you own dogs from already over populated breeds)

-reduced chance of passing on undesirable physical and mental traits (Sally is shy and has allergies, Jack has elbow issues)

  A case for altering due to convenience, as such things can be prevented without altering it just is harder. Debarking is also done for the owner's convenience but it generally regarded as "cruel".  

 

Sorry, but I do not consider the prevention of major physical issues a matter of convenience.  I deal every day with a disabled dog and would *never* want to chance this upon my puppies.... 

AgileGSD

sillysally

-reduced chance of dog being injured by other dogs due to hormonal issues (in dog park, male dogs getting in the yard duing heats, etc)

-reduced chance of dogs escaping and being injured as a result of hormonal issues

 The dog park issue is actually more of a breed/temperament issue than an issue of a dog being intact. Some breeds/dogs just aren't into mingling with strangers once they are mature and that doesn't tend to matter if they are intact or not.Dogs don't need to make dog friends at the dog park to be happy and healthy.

  The dogs escaping and being injured due to "hormonal issues" is a bit of a stretch.The intact male GSD I had "escaped" from the back yard once due to the gate being left open. He escaped to the front porch where he jumped on the door to be let in ;)

 

 I know lots of dogs who have escaped, been lost, injured or killed and the majority have been altered pets and the incident had nothing to do with hormones. Again this is an owner issue - people can secure their yard and not leave bitches in season unattended.

 

 

I know a number of experienced vets and trainers who disagree with you as far as intact dogs at the park and escaping due to hormones.  In addition, there are dogs who *do* thrive on regular social contact with a variety of other dogs.  Just because this may not be the case with your dogs does not mean that it does not occur.

In addition, I seem to remember a member that was a very experienced breeder who had a dog climb *into* her securely fenced yard after a bitch in heat and get into a bloody battle with one of her intact males.  There is only so much that the owner can control.  There are experienced breeders who have oops litters and "incidents."  If the dog is not going to be bred I see no reason to expose them to further danger.  

AgileGSD

 

sillysally

-reduced chance of behavioral issues in many cases

  That certainly is the claim but beyond male to male aggression within a household, it doesn't seem to prevent behavioral issues. In fact, some studies suggest altering may actually increase some issues. 

 "The study that identified a higher incidence of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in spayed or neutered dogs also identified an increased incidence of sexual behaviors in males and females that were neutered early.(5) Further, the study that identified a higher incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs neutered or spayed before 5 1/2 months also showed that early age gonadectomy was associated with an increased incidence of noise phobias and undesirable sexual behaviors.(6) A recent report of the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation reported significantly more behavioral problems in spayed and neutered bitches and dogs. The most commonly observed behavioral problem in spayed females was fearful behavior and the most common problem in males was aggression.(12" http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

 Also bitches which are same sex aggressive may become MORE aggressive after altering.

 

I believe the highest group of biting dogs is intact males, no?

 "It's a fact - neutered dogs are three times less likely to bite."(Source: AVMA)

"In a survey of the sex of the dogs involved in the last 6 years (Jan. 2000 thru Dec. 2005) of fatal dog attacks revealed the overwhelmingly majority were males (over 91% of these cases a male dog was involved, i.e. either a single male dog or a male dog accompanied by other males and/or female dogs). Of the cases examined, the overwhelming majority of dogs involved were unaltered (92% of the dogs involved were unaltered - not spayed or neutered). (Source: National Canine Research Council)"

The MOST territorially aggressive dogs I have run into have all been intact males..... 

 Cropping, I agree, is mostly cosmetic, though I have heard some arguments in favour of it that talk about cropping as being a way to prevent the prey, usually in go-to-ground dogs, from having one more part of the hunting dog to grab on to.

Tails...are a different matter.  In true sporting breeds, I support docking.  Not because it's how the dog "should" look, but because it's safer for hunting dogs with a certain type of tail to be docked. Practicality dictates that the kennel clubs are here to stay and aren't going to remove breeds like weims and vizslas from their recognised breeds list.  Yes, any one person can go tell the KC to pound sand and not dock their dog...that's personal choice and they have every right to do so.  BUT...if docking was banned for cosmetic reasons, that means that any dog - not just any breed, but any SPECIFIC dog - who does not hunt would have to be left undocked.  And that dog may not hunt not because of any problem with the temperament needed for such an activity, but because the owners don't have the time, or inclination, or disagree with it morally, or are disabled in such a way that prevents it...or...or...or...

Where does that get us?  The KCs changing the standard to allow undocked animals of those breeds, putting one more tick in the "show dogs who can't do their jobs" column.  Sporting dogs with thin whippy tails were docked to prevent injuries.  A weim with a tail in the show ring wouldn't be able to hunt without significant risk of tail injury and pain, so once again we'd have people, myself including, ranting that it's despicable that the "ideal" of a working breed is one that can't actually do its job.  

I'd rather see a dog in the field than in the show ring, doing what its breed was intended to do all day long.  But neither venue is going anywhere soon, and I don't support anything which increases the divide between hunting dogs and their ring-bound counterparts.  

AgileGSD

 

sillysally

-prevention of hormone driven cancers 

 And an increased risk of other cancers, some of which are as common or more common than reproductive cancers. Actually the only cancer risk which is decreased would be mammary tumors and testiclular cancer (not very common).

"A retrospective study of cardiac tumors in dogs showed that there was a 5 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma, one of the three most common cancers in dogs, in spayed bitches than intact bitches and a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact males.(7) A study of 3218 dogs demonstrated that dogs that were neutered before a year of age had a significantly increased chance of developing bone cancer.(8) A separate study showed that neutered dogs had a two-fold higher risk of developing bone cancer.(9) Despite the common belief that neutering dogs helps prevent prostate cancer, at least one study suggests that neutering provides no benefit.(10) There certainly is evidence of a slightly increased risk of mammary cancer in female dogs after one heat cycle, and for increased risk with each subsequent heat. While about 30 % of mammary cancers are malignant, as in humans, when caught and surgically removed early the prognosis is very good.(12) Luckily, canine athletes are handled frequently and generally receive prompt veterinary care." http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

 I am not really against altering and some of my bitches are altered. I doubt I'd neuter another male though unless it was for a medical reason. I think it is the right choice for some dogs and owners but certainly not all.

 But altering does have some significant risks and those risks are a bit more serious than risks of cropping/docking. To think otherwise is buying into Animal Rights propaganda that dogs are some how "better" when they are altered (people do refer to it as being "fixed" - as though the dog was broken to start with!). Altering has been heavily promoted by Animal Rights organizations because it is very much in line with their agenda. Now that they have convinced the general public that owning intact animals is bad, that intact animals suffer and it is in their best interest to be "fixed" and that any owner who owns intact animals must be irresponsible they are moving to the next phase - greatly restricting or outlawing the keeping of intact animals.

 Interestingly, altering is not routinely done in many European countries and some actually consider it a form of mutilation unless done for a medical reason (not unlike how some people consider cropping/docking). It all comes down to it should be the owner's choice as to what is best for their dog.

 

The article that you cited seemed to mainly concerned with early spay/neuter, which  I personally do not agree with.  Jack was neutered when he was over a year old.  While the study that that article took its info from did not find any health reasons to neuter male dogs, in regards to females it did state " For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may
exceed the associated health problems in many (not all) cases."  There have also been studies that show that altered pets live longer.  I have seen some stats up to 40% longer

Honestly, I do not care what Europeans or Animal Rightests think.  I do care how a procedure effects my dogs.  According to the evidence I have seen, and therefore in my opinion, this is the correct procedure for them, and honestly, for most dogs owners. 

This does not mean that I think it should be law to alter, nor do I think that there should be a law against cropping or docking.  It should be the owner's choice.  However, this does not change the fact that there really are no benefits of cropping/docking to the the *vast* majority of the dogs it is done on or their potential puppies.  One might be able to make a case for working dogs, but honestly, how many of the dogs that are altered are actual working dogs?  What would it hurt for breed clubs to open up showing for undocked/cropped dogs so that people can get such dogs from good breeders?  Life on earth as we know it is not going to cease to exist if tailed and eared Dobermans are shown.

You accuse ARists of refering to a dog as "fixed" as if it were "broken," but honestly, is that any better than wanting to remove a dog's ears or tail simply because the dog wouldn't "look like a Doberman" with those parts?  Isn't that implying that the dog was somehow inadequate before it was cropped/docked?  What exactly was wrong with the dog before it was done?   

Honestly, I think that the AMVA's decision makes sense.  It is a vet's job to be concerned with their animal patients, not to bow at the feet of breed clubs and traditionalists.