What's Your Opinion?

 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.

Yep, that is  why they took that stance. The AVMA's focus is on animal *health* in a *medical* sense, not how well said dogs would fit into show rings. That's something that should be left to the breeders and clubs. Medical governing bodies like the AVMA do just that - govern medicine. If they decide to keep cropping/docking, vets should be under no obligation to perform those services unless they are medically needed. If you're ok doing it, then fine. If you aren't refer out. You may lose clients because of it, but that's life.

 I absolutely agree that vets should never be under an obligation to perform a procedure with which they are uncomfortable. 

Just to clarify my position, having posted earlier before I'd finished my coffee, I don't support docking so that sporting dogs fit the breed standard set by the KC, and thus the show ring.  It's the reverse.  I support docking in sporting breeds so that the dogs who are held up as the idea by the KC are dogs who are actually physically capable of doing their intended job. 

Why do you think an English pointer's tail is never docked and yet a Weim's is always docked?  Hmm...............

sillysally

  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. 

  Largely due to propaganda that has nearly brainwashed even otherwise reasonable people into thinking that any behavior issue an intact dog has must be due to it being intact. IME as a professional trainer, very few behavioral issues are solved by altering.

sillysally

 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.

 And those dogs who do thrive on social contact are not likley to be ones having issues with other dogs at dog parks. I worked for years at a daycare which allowed intact dogs providing they weren't in season and could pass the evaluation. Early on in the business, when there were no intact males at the daycare a bitch was allowed to come while in season. And wouldn't you know it, despite all the males being altered they still tried to breed the bitch and still got quarrelsome with each other. No more bitches in season at daycare. So much for neutering solving such things ;)

sillysally

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.  

 And if Oops breedings happen to responsible breeders or owners, it isn't really that bad. The puppies get placed carefully and life goes on. Saying intact dogs are "exposed to danger" is being a bit dramatic. I have always had an intact male, ever since I was a child and my family just had pet dogs. None have been obsessed with escaping to find girls, none destroyed the house to get to a bitch in season, none had "hormone related behavior issues", none died of "hormone related health problems" and we've never had a strange dog get into the yard (would be rather hard since the dogs go out as a group and are rather territorial).

sillysally

 

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)"

  And most fatal dog attacks (and many bites) involve dogs that are poorly raised and managed as well (running loose in packs, breaking their chains and attacking, dogs which are encouraged to be aggressive to people), so I'm not sure that really "proves" anything.

[qupte user "sillysally"]The MOST territorially aggressive dogs I have run into have all been intact males..... 

 Perhaps it is because I am a trainer and because I work at a grooming shop but I have seen a fair share of extremely territorial spayed and neutered dogs as well. I have done private lessons with dogs who had aggression issues and all the dogs were altered. I used to do a monthly "behavior night" at the local shelter where people who were having issues with their own dogs and wanting to surrender them or issues with dogs they have adopted would come in for behavior advice. I don't think I saw even one intact dog during those sessions but many had aggression related problems such as on lead aggression, fighting with other dogs, resource guarding, territorial aggression. So much for altering preventing such things huh?

I currently multiple people with dogs who are altered, all were done by a year and a half - most younger, who have or had serious territorial, fear or dominance aggression (dogs who have gone through windows to bite, who have bitten multiple guests, have gone after their owners, have serious dog aggression issues, who are serious resource guarders). I recently was emailed by someone from another board I'm on for advice about their two spayed littermate dogs getting into serious fights resulting in the dogs needing medical care. Territorial aggression is largely genetic and a trait many guarding breeds are supposed to have. It is the owner's job to ensure the dogs are properly trained and managed to prevent the dog's guarding instinct from getting them in trouble. Dog aggression is also largely genetic and same sex aggression is common and expected in some breeds (and in other breeds dogs are expected to get along well with other dogs, regardless of if they are intact or altered).

Most pet owners these days alter their dogs and yet, many still have behavioral problems. Altering does not prevent dogs from developing aggression issues and IME it doesn't even seem to make them less likely to have such problems. What does make a dog less likely to have such problems is coming from sound parents, being properly socialized, being properly trained and properly managed. If those things are done, altering really doesn't matter one way or another. If those things aren't done, altering won't fix the problems bad genetics and poor training/management have caused.

 I am not suggesting anyone not alter their dogs but I don't have much patience with the "Spaying and neutering is the best thing you can do for your dog but other elective surgeries are inhumane" arguments. They are all elective surgeries that dogs don't need to live long, healthy, happy lives and the choice to have elective surgeries done on pets should be made by the pet's owner. And I would hope that such choices are made after researching facts :)

Perhaps, since you are a dog trainer, you realize that the majority of pet owners do not get dogs from sound parents, do not properly socialize, train and manage their dogs.  I have seen altering males make a difference in unwanted behavior.  Not always and sometimes it makes no difference. It certainly prevents unwanted litters which are much more likely to be from your average dog than a responsible breeder's animal.

 I certainly don't think that the majority of pets should remain unaltered to prevent the "animal rights" people from eventually eliminating all pets.  That sounds like the people who were afraid the world would end when Barack Obama was elected and I guess it still could since he hasn't taken office yet. LOL  I understand where you are coming from. I fight our local politicians all the time against stupid legislation such as breed bans, breed permits, etc. I just think that the fear of the "animal rights" agenda can be taken too far.  Certainly Vet's would not want to jump on that bandwagon or soon they would have no patients.  You are passionate in what you feel and I respect that tremendously.  The bottom line for me, in this issue, is that ear cropping and tail docking are done for cosmetic reasons.  Spay/nueter should be done to pet quality animals to try and control the unwanted pets that fill every shelter in America.

I own a JRT with a docked tail and yes I like the looks but would I have wanted to be the one to dock his tail, absolutely not. Do I support the AVMA and their right to say they no longer want to do this and ear cropping for cosmetic reasons, absolutely yes I do.

JackieG

Perhaps, since you are a dog trainer, you realize that the majority of pet owners do not get dogs from sound parents, do not properly socialize, train and manage their dogs.  I have seen altering males make a difference in unwanted behavior.  Not always and sometimes it makes no difference. It certainly prevents unwanted litters which are much more likely to be from your average dog than a responsible breeder's animal.

  Genetics and/or improper trained, socialized or managed is what is at the root of most pet owner's issues with their dogs. Altering has very little to do with any of it, unless the issue is a problem with male to male aggression within the home, which may be solved by altering. If the owners are having problems with their dog's destructive behavior, jumping, barking, pulling on lead, guarding the house/yard, resource guarding, on lead aggression, fear aggression or shyness altering will not fix it but training and management could. I'd rather be an advocate for proper training, socialization and management personally. I don't feel people should be mislead into believing that altering will prevent or solve problem behaviors.

 Again I want to say - I am not against altering. I am against the continued spread of misinformation about altering which helps to further the AR agenda. When I had my males dogs neutered on suggestion from my training instructors at the time, I felt mislead and a bit betrayed. We never had dogs neutered before and I didn't like the changes that it caused in my dogs.

 Altering isn't the only way to surgically prevent breeding - a vasectomy is just as effective and there are a couple different alternatives for females. I have known people to use such alternatives, unfortunately many vets aren't willing to perform them.

JackieG

I certainly don't think that the majority of pets should remain unaltered to prevent the "animal rights" people from eventually eliminating all pets. 

  Where did anyone say that?

JackieG

 our local politicians all the time against stupid legislation such as breed bans, breed permits, etc. I just think that the fear of the "animal rights" agenda can be taken too far. 

 Actually most pet owners, breeders and professionals are not taking the threat of AR seriously enough and we are slowly but surely losing are rights because of it.

JackieG

Spay/nueter should be done to pet quality animals to try and control the unwanted pets that fill every shelter in America.

 That is assuming you believe that there is an "overpopulation" of pet dogs which is causing animals to end up at shelters. An interesting thing happens with pet ferrets. Ferret shelters and rescues are almost always full of unwanted ferrets and they are almost always available through classifieds to be rehomed. That in itself isn't interesting, of course. What is interesting is that the vast majority of pet ferrets are altered prior to being sold, you actually have to look very hard to find an intact ferret from a private breeder. All petstore ferrets are from commercial breeders and are spayed/neutered prior to sale. Yet even without pet owners breeding them, accidental breedings and the such there is still an issue with owners abandoning them in large numbers. This was not an issue when ferrets were largely sold only by small, private breeders to pet owners, even though the kits were sold intact. This is because the issue is not due to "overpopulation" or "irresponsible breeders" but due to a lack of comitment on behalf of the owner when the pet is purchased.

 If/when AR laws have become widespread, I suspect we will see the same thing - most purebred puppies will be purchased from commercial breeders already altered and there will still be dogs in shelters. Most dogs end up in shelters due to people taking them as puppies on impluse but not being able to commit to caring for them long term or due to behavioral issues (not always serious ones but ones which are problems for owners none-the-less such as destructive chewing, jumping up, barking and the such). Those problems would be the same whether the dogs in question are altered or not.

AgileGSD

sillysally

  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. 

  Largely due to propaganda that has nearly brainwashed even otherwise reasonable people into thinking that any behavior issue an intact dog has must be due to it being intact. IME as a professional trainer, very few behavioral issues are solved by altering.

Or maybe they just have a different opinion or made different observations?  Not everyone believes what they do because they have been brainwashed by PETA.........  

AgileGSD

sillysally

 

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)"

  And most fatal dog attacks (and many bites) involve dogs that are poorly raised and managed as well (running loose in packs, breaking their chains and attacking, dogs which are encouraged to be aggressive to people), so I'm not sure that really "proves" anything.

[qupte user "sillysally"]The MOST territorially aggressive dogs I have run into have all been intact males..... 

 Perhaps it is because I am a trainer and because I work at a grooming shop but I have seen a fair share of extremely territorial spayed and neutered dogs as well. I have done private lessons with dogs who had aggression issues and all the dogs were altered. I used to do a monthly "behavior night" at the local shelter where people who were having issues with their own dogs and wanting to surrender them or issues with dogs they have adopted would come in for behavior advice. I don't think I saw even one intact dog during those sessions but many had aggression related problems such as on lead aggression, fighting with other dogs, resource guarding, territorial aggression. So much for altering preventing such things huh?

I currently multiple people with dogs who are altered, all were done by a year and a half - most younger, who have or had serious territorial, fear or dominance aggression (dogs who have gone through windows to bite, who have bitten multiple guests, have gone after their owners, have serious dog aggression issues, who are serious resource guarders). I recently was emailed by someone from another board I'm on for advice about their two spayed littermate dogs getting into serious fights resulting in the dogs needing medical care. Territorial aggression is largely genetic and a trait many guarding breeds are supposed to have. It is the owner's job to ensure the dogs are properly trained and managed to prevent the dog's guarding instinct from getting them in trouble. Dog aggression is also largely genetic and same sex aggression is common and expected in some breeds (and in other breeds dogs are expected to get along well with other dogs, regardless of if they are intact or altered).

Most pet owners these days alter their dogs and yet, many still have behavioral problems. Altering does not prevent dogs from developing aggression issues and IME it doesn't even seem to make them less likely to have such problems. What does make a dog less likely to have such problems is coming from sound parents, being properly socialized, being properly trained and properly managed. If those things are done, altering really doesn't matter one way or another. If those things aren't done, altering won't fix the problems bad genetics and poor training/management have caused.

 I am not suggesting anyone not alter their dogs but I don't have much patience with the "Spaying and neutering is the best thing you can do for your dog but other elective surgeries are inhumane" arguments. They are all elective surgeries that dogs don't need to live long, healthy, happy lives and the choice to have elective surgeries done on pets should be made by the pet's owner. And I would hope that such choices are made after researching facts :)

If all you see all day long is aggressive altered dogs, then I wonder why the stats cited above even exist?  I would think that if altering caused behavior issues and tons of people were altering their dogs, then we would be seeing a higher incidents of altered dogs attacking then we do.....

The most dog aggressive dog I know (as in, would kill another dog if given the chance) is intact.  One of the most territorially aggressive dogs I knew was intact until well after his aggression issues started.  He has been put down after biting several people and attempting to attack several children--almost going through a window to get one.  Jack was recently attacked by our idiot farrier's intact ACD.  After he attacked Jack the owner tied him up in the truck bed and he proceeded to attempt to attack anyone who can anywhere near the truck, including a child. 

I agree that altering is not going to be a magical fix, but there is strong evidence to suggest that there is a link between being intact and aggression issues--a link too strong to just ignore, IMHO.

You will notice that nowhere did I say that cropping/docking is inhumane.  There are some very good dog owners on here, owners who I would happily leave my dogs in the care of, who have cropped and docked dogs.  I do however, think that the dog world needs to take a good, hard look at this practice and what its purpose really is.  In the vast majority of cases, it is cosmetic surgery for dogs, period.  In the vast majority of cases, there is no purpose other than to make the dog more pleasing to the eye.  IMHO, it is not a matter of whether or not people *should* have the right to have the procedure done, but rather *is* it right to have the procedure done.....

AgileGSD

sillysally

 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.

 And those dogs who do thrive on social contact are not likley to be ones having issues with other dogs at dog parks. I worked for years at a daycare which allowed intact dogs providing they weren't in season and could pass the evaluation. Early on in the business, when there were no intact males at the daycare a bitch was allowed to come while in season. And wouldn't you know it, despite all the males being altered they still tried to breed the bitch and still got quarrelsome with each other. No more bitches in season at daycare. So much for neutering solving such things ;)

sillysally

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.  

 And if Oops breedings happen to responsible breeders or owners, it isn't really that bad. The puppies get placed carefully and life goes on. Saying intact dogs are "exposed to danger" is being a bit dramatic. I have always had an intact male, ever since I was a child and my family just had pet dogs. None have been obsessed with escaping to find girls, none destroyed the house to get to a bitch in season, none had "hormone related behavior issues", none died of "hormone related health problems" and we've never had a strange dog get into the yard (would be rather hard since the dogs go out as a group and are rather territorial).

In my own dog I definitely saw a noted decrease in sexual behavior after altering, even in the presence of a bitch in heat.   However, I have no doubt that some neutered males will try to breed a female.  Still, I'm not sure how that is an argument against altering.   My gelding will try to breed mares that are in heat---doesn't mean that I feel that he may as well be a stallion.

It is because one of my dogs thrives on social contact that I worry about intact dogs in that park.  I've yet to have met an owner with an intact male that I thought handled the dog properly.  Jack is a lab and will try to defuse trouble when possible, but we have had several incidents with intact males. 

I think it is great that you have been able to manage your intact dogs.  However, the majority of the population is not like people on this board.  Most people I know can barely handle themselves and their kids, much less their intact dogs.  Again, while I think that altering is best for most dogs, I do think that it should be the owner's choice.    

The AVMA did not say that cropping/docking should never be performed, only not soley for cosmetic reasons.

It's odd that when there was discussion of mandatory speuter laws there were people claiming that vet's only wanted to make more money from the procedure. Now, it's reversed.

JackieG

Why do you think an English pointer's tail is never docked and yet a Weim's is always docked?  Hmm...............

... hmm....

Why do you think an English Pointer is judged as a "good hunter" by how much blood is on it's sides?.... most field dogs that work on any kind of regular basis need their tails amputated, usually at least the tip.  Do you think that the dog could be saved a lot of pain having it done as a baby versus major surgery?  Most certainly.

Sera_J

Why do you think an English Pointer is judged as a "good hunter" by how much blood is on it's sides?.... most field dogs that work on any kind of regular basis need their tails amputated, usually at least the tip.  Do you think that the dog could be saved a lot of pain having it done as a baby versus major surgery?  Most certainly.

 There are non-docked breeds who often end up with late-age docks as well. Greyhounds and Great Danes come to mind right away.

I have two natural eared dogs. One had her ears shaved, and taped, as a puppy. One of my dogs has a natural tail, and the other has a docked tail. Neither has dewclaws. One had hers removed as a puppy, and the other had hers removed as a young adult.

I can tell you the MOST trauma that came of any of it was the adult dewclaw removal. It came after five times healing ripped, infected dewclaws. It was very ugly, and there is scarring. The incisions became infected. It was just plain nasty. 

I am not, at all, against docking, cropping, or dewclaw removal. Now that I've met a bunch of debarked show dogs, I have formed an opinion about that, too. It's unneccesary (unless, of course, you have too many dogs), but not cruel, if the after care is done. 

AgileGSD

Sera_J

Why do you think an English Pointer is judged as a "good hunter" by how much blood is on it's sides?.... most field dogs that work on any kind of regular basis need their tails amputated, usually at least the tip.  Do you think that the dog could be saved a lot of pain having it done as a baby versus major surgery?  Most certainly.

 There are non-docked breeds who often end up with late-age docks as well. Greyhounds and Great Danes come to mind right away.

Absolutely!  But, the difference (small though it maybe) is that the pointers, when working, whip their tails like nuts... banging into trees, logs, etc. Making just doing their jobs inherently painful/dangerous.  I'm not sure why some pointer breeds kept their tails, but on the All Breed gundog groups I belong to, it's just part of life to have dogs tails partially amputated due to injury.