What's Your Opinion?

I have never seen ears I did not like... but some tails are pretty rat like in the natural state.... and if you have ever dealt with a bleeding tail tip ...

Bonita of Bwana

jennie_c_d

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. 

 

In our house we have had ear and tail injuries (an outdoor cat bit completely through Sally's ear and Jack has split his tail open a couple of times), but (knock on wood) we have not had dew claw issues, even with them running through some of the stuff they run through and the playing they do.  They both have only their front dew claws--Sally just came that way and we never saw a need to remove them and Jack's breeder left them on.  They actually seem to both use their dew claw to grip things.

 Teenie, the Dachshund, had ear and tail injuries. Of course, I've never seen a Dachshund without it's ears and tail, LOL. She had a big time waggy tail, and I could just *see* a door closing on it. It never happened, but it could have, easily. That thing was like a whip! She had dewclaws, and never had a problem with them. Emma's were just bad news.

sillysally

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 knew a spayed bitch who would and nearly did kill another dog (all of her attacks were made grabbing for the neck and ripping). Of course, she was of a breed which was originally bred for fighting and perhaps her owner should have been more careful with her. I know a fairly early neutered male who is both dog aggressive and human aggressive and is human aggressive towards strangers and his owner. One of the most owner aggressive dogs I have known was a neutered male done 4 months old, he was put to sleep after he had bitten the owners multiple times.

 I am around altered dogs all day because most people's pets are altered. And guess what? People still have behavior problems with them. Of course, I am around intact dogs at shows and the training building. If intact dogs were so terribly dangerous, people would be getting bitten left and right at dog shows. Now I do see dogs at shows with poor temperaments but not so much things which can be blamed on hormones but things which are genetic temperament traits (shyness, noise sensitivity, sight sensitivity).

 As for the ACD, I'm sure you believe that he would be a perfectly behaved dog if he were neutered and that his genetics and upbringing have nothing to do with his issues. I would say that there is a lot wrong with even just as much as you said - both dogs sound like they were loose and the ACD sounds like he has a known history for aggression. Leashes or confinement of both would have prevented the whole problem and I'd suggest that for any future interactions.

 Which brings us to the statistics. As I said in my other post, if you actually read about fatal dog attacks, beyond "intact dogs were involved" you would see that there is usually a lot wrong with the situations. The dogs are poorly kept, poorly socialized, poorly trained and the whole situation is usually due to poor management. Dogs breaking their chains and attacking, kids being left to play in the yard unattended with a strange, unsocialized dog or dogs which people have always encouraged to be aggressive attacking someone. IMO such statsics prove nothing about intact dogs and everything about extremely irresponsible ownership.

AgileGSD

 Which brings us to the statistics. As I said in my other post, if you actually read about fatal dog attacks, beyond "intact dogs were involved" you would see that there is usually a lot wrong with the situations. The dogs are poorly kept, poorly socialized, poorly trained and the whole situation is usually due to poor management. Dogs breaking their chains and attacking, kids being left to play in the yard unattended with a strange, unsocialized dog or dogs which people have always encouraged to be aggressive attacking someone. IMO such statsics prove nothing about intact dogs and everything about extremely irresponsible ownership.

I said something similar on another thread - if those dog's owners bothered so much to get them neutered, they would probably also bothered to contain, train etc..... 

But I am getting confused because there are 3 threads on overlapping topics!

AgileGSD

sillysally

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 knew a spayed bitch who would and nearly did kill another dog (all of her attacks were made grabbing for the neck and ripping). Of course, she was of a breed which was originally bred for fighting and perhaps her owner should have been more careful with her. I know a fairly early neutered male who is both dog aggressive and human aggressive and is human aggressive towards strangers and his owner. One of the most owner aggressive dogs I have known was a neutered male done 4 months old, he was put to sleep after he had bitten the owners multiple times.

 I am around altered dogs all day because most people's pets are altered. And guess what? People still have behavior problems with them. Of course, I am around intact dogs at shows and the training building. If intact dogs were so terribly dangerous, people would be getting bitten left and right at dog shows. Now I do see dogs at shows with poor temperaments but not so much things which can be blamed on hormones but things which are genetic temperament traits (shyness, noise sensitivity, sight sensitivity).

 As for the ACD, I'm sure you believe that he would be a perfectly behaved dog if he were neutered and that his genetics and upbringing have nothing to do with his issues. I would say that there is a lot wrong with even just as much as you said - both dogs sound like they were loose and the ACD sounds like he has a known history for aggression. Leashes or confinement of both would have prevented the whole problem and I'd suggest that for any future interactions.

 Which brings us to the statistics. As I said in my other post, if you actually read about fatal dog attacks, beyond "intact dogs were involved" you would see that there is usually a lot wrong with the situations. The dogs are poorly kept, poorly socialized, poorly trained and the whole situation is usually due to poor management. Dogs breaking their chains and attacking, kids being left to play in the yard unattended with a strange, unsocialized dog or dogs which people have always encouraged to be aggressive attacking someone. IMO such statsics prove nothing about intact dogs and everything about extremely irresponsible ownership.

If you will actually read my posts, I never said that hormones were totally responsible for the dogs' behavior. However, knew two of these dogs as young pups, and most of their issues developed as they reached sexual maturity.  I do not have a crystal ball (nor do you) so I cannot say whether or not altering would have curbed the issue, but at the very least it may have taken the edge off, helped the dog be more focused on training, and most importantly eliminated the chance of making MORE dogs with bad temperaments.

BTW--the dog aggressive dog was not bred for fighting, he is GSD.  The dog that was put down was a St. Bernard who was great with his family but down right dangerous to others.

I think it's fantastic that you manage your intact males but MOST people in our area do not.

I see a difference between altering and cropping/docking.  We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.....  

sillysally

BTW--the dog aggressive dog was not bred for fighting, he is GSD.  The dog that was put down was a St. Bernard who was great with his family but down right dangerous to others..  

 GSDs are extremely prone to dog aggression, especially same sex aggression. Saints are a breed which temperament has been a major concern in for years. I know someone who had a BYB one (an early neuter FWIW) and would have been a big problem if he wasn't in a dog knowledgeable family due an unsound temperament. As it was he was with good dog people and lived a normal Saint life span without getting into much trouble.

Sera_J

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.

It seems to have been forgotten in all the claims of tail damage that the AVMA has stated that there is no medical reason to dock tails and crop ears in puppies. They don't want to do it and IMO they shouldn't have to just to satisfy a "breed standard". The only thing I fear is that many puppies will have tails done by breeders who don't know what they are doing. Heaven forbid if they try the ear cropping! BTW, when you look at some of the studies that were done, many of the so called tail injuries were actually complications from tail docking of puppies. One California study involved 12,000 dogs, of those 47 were seen for "tail injury". Some of the studies were tainted, IMO, due to the fact they were commissioned and carried out by clubs and groups with agendas.  My reading has shown that "limp tail" is a very common injury in hunting dogs  and is injury to the muscles at the base of the tail.  Docking would not prevent this injury. I have had a dog with this injury and have known of several others.  The dogs were Labs.  I alos have a JRT who tore his ear flap on a thorn and that was tough to heal and blood would fly when he shook his head but I don't wish that his ears had been removed at birth to prevent this from possibly happening.

I have hunted with English pointers in South Texas brush country so I do have a little experience.  I presently own a Lab mix who has a very long, whippy tail and I won't be surprised if she injures it at some point in her life.  I will deal with it just as I would any injury.  I think tails are important for dogs or they would be born without them.  The hunting argument just makes no logical sense to me if you don't dock ALL hunting breeds with long tails. Again, the docked dogs are docked because someone at some point decided they preferred that look. Hunting dogs face many dangers the average pet never encounters but pet dogs can injure their tails too, so saying that you have to dock a tail to allow the dog to do what it was bred to do just doesn't make sense to me. I know that a bleeding tail is a bloody mess and hard to deal with and I can sympathize with someone having to deal with it.  I just don't believe that the breed clubs that dock do it for the dog. Maybe I'm just dense or maybe I'm just stubborn. Some of you are probably saying " she's both" !  All of the thoughts and input have been very interesting to read and I'm glad we can discuss this without getting our tails in a knot.

 I can see no reason other than cosmetic to clip ears so I think it's something we should put a stop to. Not sure how you can convince everyone worldwide that it would be a good idea but of course it would be best if everyone stopped it at the same time.

 With tails there is definitely other reasons they should be docked. 

mudpuppy

Namely, because most changes are not cosmetic but to prevent injury.

not in most breeds of dogs. Dock/crop has been banned in Europe for some years, and the only dogs who seem to have suffered from it is boxers and certain hunting breeds (vizlas, GSPs) who suffer high rates of tail injuries.

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.