Why do vets willingly ear crop dogs?

[bugmankeith]

Pitbulls frequently get ear cropped to make them look tough, same with dobermans and Great Danes. Especially in pit bulls not only ears cropped up, but sometimes chopped off!

Why do vets still do this? I think ears should be left alone and all is does it make the breeds look scary and develop a bad rap when no dog naturally is aggressive.

I think it should be banned I've seen all these breeds with natural ears and they look friendly with floppy ears and the dog doesn't suffer through unnecessary surgery.

 

[Cydaea]

I'm so glad it's banned here, not just ears but tails too. Dogs get to keep all their body parts (except, you know, certain dangly bits)! I think (but I'm not sure) exceptions are made for working dogs where cropping is considered a necessity and you need a permit to have it done.

Love seeing dobermanns and boxers with their floppy ears and waggy tails, way better (and friendlier!) looking.

 

[Damzlfly]

I hate it I hate it I HATE IT! I have 2 great danes...and i think they look cuter without cropped ears!! We were recently at the vet with one of them, and there was a dob who had just had her ears done...and it looks AWFUL!! I think the breeder did it (I dont think vet's actually do it here)...but they looked disproportional and so so painful. And really, what purpose does it serve?!

 

[Meezerkoko]

I agree I hate tail and ear cropping. However I have a toy fox terrier that probably would have been better off if his tail had been docked because he HATES his tail so much. He growls at it when cuddled up under a blanket or when he's eating or in his crate at night. He's a very silly little dog but man does he hate his tail.

 

[Formerphobe]

With many working, guard and fighting breeds, ear cropping was done to remove 'handles' on the dog that could be latched onto by opponent, intruder, prey or predator. Then, for show purposes, the cropping got fancier. For some breeds with heavy hanging ears, cropping while young 'may' improve air circulation to the ear canal and ward off chronic infection and/or chronic aural hematomas which can result in a caulifowered ear, which, on rare occasion, may require surgical removal if the scarring obstructs the canal completely.

Tail docking purposes depended on the breed. Terriers had tails docked so handlers had to grab the tail up close to the body to extract the dog from a hole. This prevented degloving of the more distal ends of a longer tail. Many large, smooth coated, long tailed dogs are prone to 'happy tail' where injury occurs to the end of the tail. If allowed to become chronic or infected 'happy tail' can be painful or even cause the demise of the animal if infection travels up the spinal cord. Even within some breeds whose standards call for a long tail, individuals end up with amputated tails as adults because of injury. Docking sporting breeds' tails minimized risk of the animal getting hung up in brambles and briars. If tails are done on 2 - 3 day old puppies, it is 'docking' and is a minor procedure. When done as a medically necessary amputation as an adult, it becomes surgery and can be quite problematic for the patient, owner and veterinarian.

Legality of ear cropping and tail docking is based on country and jurisdiction. While most veterinarians (and some kennel clubs) are leaning away from the tradition, some continue to crop ears and many to dock tails in countries where it is legal. Many of the ear crops you see are NOT done by veterinarians. Some breeders (and veterinarians) do an awful fine and humane job ear cropping. Others should have the same done to them, with a dull, rusty blade.

I can see, and appreciate, both sides of the coin. Some working dogs probably should have their ears cropped and/or tails docked as puppies in the best interest of the long term well being of the dog. If done merely for cosmetic reasons for a pet dog, probably unnecessary. If it's going to be done, it should be by someone who has a clue, an appropriate facility and appropriate meds for pain control.

 

[Cydaea]

I can understand that for some dogs cropping is in their best interest, either for their health or because of their 'job' . I have nothing against that. However, I can't get behind cropping because 'it's supposed to look like that! it's a breed standard!' It's for aesthetic reasons, because WE like it, and not because it's in the best interest of the dog.

 

[Formerphobe]

For breeds that it is part of the standard, it became part of the standard because of what the breed was used for. It was for health or preventive reasons and the respective kennel clubs decided to fancy it up a little for show purposes, which was also in the interest of the dog. Why whack the whole ear, if you could get by with only taking part.

One of the things I have issues with is dewclaw removal. Dogs use their dewclaws!

 

[rob0t]

Why are little boys still circumcised and that is not considered bad to some? Why are little girls circumcised in some countries but that is considered barbaric?

It's all about social acceptance as a society. What seems wrong to one may not seem wrong to another. I personally don't willingly chop any part of my children or pets off but hey to each their own!

 

[Niffarious]

My family has always had pointers with docked tails, and I can tell you first hand that un-docked tails on dogs that actually do field work is a freaking nightmare. They just get destroyed, and cause the animal a lot of pain. They then require amputation anyway.

One of the things I have issues with is dewclaw removal. Dogs use their dewclaws!

You ever seen one of these get torn off? VERY common, again especially with working/running dogs.


I'm going to be 100% honest here - I love the look of dobes and danes and such with PROPERLY cropped ears. If it's done without pain, and humanely done to the animal...is it really that bad? Of course, my solution was to get a dog with natural pointy ears...

 

[bugmankeith]

I just have this to say.
If cropping is used to improve the health of the breed (ex happy tail or ears prone to infection from poor air circulation) why not change breed standards so HEALTHY dogs result that don't need their body parts altered to stay healthy. Like Bassett hounds having shorter ears. Pugs having longer snouts so they breathe easier.

Why purposely make dogs with health problems? That's why I support mutts and shelter dogs mostly, mutts usually are healthy because they don't inherit pure breed health related issues as often.

 

[pitbulllady]

Pitbulls frequently get ear cropped to make them look tough, same with dobermans and Great Danes. Especially in pit bulls not only ears cropped up, but sometimes chopped off!

Why do vets still do this? I think ears should be left alone and all is does it make the breeds look scary and develop a bad rap when no dog naturally is aggressive.

I think it should be banned I've seen all these breeds with natural ears and they look friendly with floppy ears and the dog doesn't suffer through unnecessary surgery.

Wow, BMK, you really need to put down that toxic Kool-Aid that the AR's are pushing, dude, big-time! Next thing you know they'll have you convinced that it's cruel to keep tarantulas and other "exotic" critters, too. If you're gonna buy into one aspect of the PETA/HSUS mantra, might as well go whole-hog...or should that be whole-TOFU?

I have had many cropped dogs, since I used to show AmStaffs/APBT's. Properly done by a vet, an ear crop is NOT painful to the puppy! Mine would come home the same day, playing and getting into the usual mischief, only seeming to notice their ear crop when it started healing and started to itch, as any surgical sight will. Why is it "cruel" to cut off part of a puppy's ear under general anesthesia, but it is not cruel to cut out his testicles? Both involve surgery to a sensitive part of the body, both involve general anesthesia, and contrary to what the AR's want you to believe, there is NO benefit to early spay/neuter insofar as the health of the dog. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that early spay/neuter predisposes dogs, large breeds especially, to some very painful and even life-threatening health issues later on, especially orthopedic problems. Breed standards that emphasize tail docking(which is usually done within a few hours of birth, btw)and ear cropping include those aspects because it is still expected that the dog is to perform its original task for which it was bred, even though most purebreds today don't. I used to hunt wild hogs with Catahoula Curs and American Pit Bull Terriers, and most of my APBT's were cropped(you do NOT dock the tails on this breed). I often had Catahoula ears get torn up on briars and bushes just running through the woods, and an adult dog has some serious blood vessels in their ears that bleed profusely when torn, so I wound up more than once having to staple, stitch and cauterize ripped up Catahoula ears and twice had to take a dog in for a blood transfusion just because of a torn-off ear that happened because the dog snagged it on something in the woods. Never once had that problem with one of the APBT's. Many of the traditionally-docked breeds were bred to work in close brush, and they tend to wag their tails while running through the brush, resulting in the end of the tail becoming bloody. That part of a dog is very slow and difficult to heal, and often once the tip of the tail gets injured, the dog keeps aggravating it by either wagging it against obstacles while working, or by chewing and licking it, often resulting in recurring infections that lead to the tail having to be amputated anyway. In an adult dog, tail amputation is major surgery, comparable to a limb amputation, and often throws the dog off-balance, requiring considerable time for it to learn how to "quarter" and "turn on a dime" without falling over, since they have become accustomed to using that tail as a rudder. When the tail is docked when they are newborns, they grow up being used to having an abbreviated tail. People who aren't used to being around working and hunting dogs don't take those things into consideration. It's hypocritical to say it's cruel to chop off part of one body part, but "kindness" to remove another, when both are natural and normal parts of the dog! I personally like the look of a nice ear crop, but I've learned to live with natural ears on APBT's since I no longer show them. A cropped dog does look more alert, and cropped ears do not have issues with infections, hematomas, or fly bites as do many flop-eared dogs. My vet performs ear crops with a laser, so there's not even any bleeding or need for sutures. Within a couple of days, the incised edges are completely healed and if it is a breed that does not require taping(which is done AFTER the incisions heal, to "train" the longer ear crops to stand properly, giving support while the puppy's body builds more cartilage), the pup takes no notice at all of their ears. You cannot compare a crop done by a vet to the often-horrible home ear crops that many "ghetto" "pit bull" breeders do, usually with a razor blade or scissors, anymore than you can compare state-of-the-art human surgery done in a top-rated medical facility to a chop-job done in a back alleyway.

pitbulllady

 

[bugmankeith]

Opinions are not right or wrong and I still stand by my opinion.

 

[poisoned]

Why are little boys still circumcised and that is not considered bad to some? Why are little girls circumcised in some countries but that is considered barbaric?

It's all about social acceptance as a society. What seems wrong to one may not seem wrong to another. I personally don't willingly chop any part of my children or pets off but hey to each their own!

You can't compare boy circumcision and girl circumcision. Boy circumcision is about taking away some skin. Girl circumcision is about taking away clitoris and lips. It's like taking your whole glans away.

 

[Niffarious]

I just have this to say.
If cropping is used to improve the health of the breed (ex happy tail or ears prone to infection from poor air circulation) why not change breed standards so HEALTHY dogs result that don't need their body parts altered to stay healthy. Like Bassett hounds having shorter ears. Pugs having longer snouts so they breathe easier.

Why purposely make dogs with health problems? That's why I support mutts and shelter dogs mostly, mutts usually are healthy because they don't inherit pure breed health related issues as often.

Actually, mutts are not always healthy. In fact, every single person I know who has adopted a shelter mutt has an animal with mild to severe health issues. Why? Because backyard breeders don't health check their animals. Unhealthy parents make unhealthy puppies, regardless of them being purebred or not.

I have two purebred and VERY healthy whippets, both originating from outstanding ethical breeders. Granted whippets are a sporting dog bred for their health, but still.

I'd rather support ethical breeders who love the dogs they work with than be saddled with an unhealthy mess produced from a backyard breeder. If more people supported ethical breeders there wouldn't be so many dogs in the shelters in the first place.

I don't think anyone should be breeding dogs with features that negatively impact their health. Pugs are a monstrosity, and people who support that baffle me. So I agree with you on that. However, mutts being healthy? Not so much.

 

[Formerphobe]

You ever seen one of these get torn off? VERY common, again especially with working/running dogs.

Over the last almost 45 years working in animal hospitals and with working dogs?, um, no. Though it was old school to promote removal for that reason. I see dewclaws broken on equal instance with primary toenails. As far as broken toes, nearly always one of the primary toes, especially in sighthounds.

---------- Post added 02-14-2013 at 06:47 PM ----------

Boy circumcision is about taking away some skin.

At least that is the original intention... Ask my friend's son and the millions of other botched male circumcisions about 'just some skin'.

 

[Niffarious]

Over the last almost 45 years working in animal hospitals and with working dogs?, um, no. Though it was old school to promote removal for that reason. I see dewclaws broken on equal instance with primary toenails. As far as broken toes, nearly always one of the primary toes, especially in sighthounds.

I've actually seen it a couple of times, and my folks have a rescued english pointer who damages hers on a regular basis. Perhaps it depends on what kind of working dogs we are talking about and where they are working, but I can assure you I would not want a dog running through a forest or any heavy vegitation with dew claws.

 

[Formerphobe]

I've actually seen it a couple of times, and my folks have a rescued english pointer who damages hers on a regular basis. Perhaps it depends on what kind of working dogs we are talking about and where they are working, but I can assure you I would not want a dog running through a forest or any heavy vegetation with dew claws.

Some individuals do have 'flyaway' dews. Those should be addressed on an individual basis, just like rear dews, etc. Accidents in the field do happen, just no avoiding them sometimes. If it is a repetitive injury, especially from one generation to the next, perhaps the bloodline needs cleaned out. To quote my friend who has been breeding working Labs for 30+ years, "a dog (Lab) with a good foot won't need the dews removed..."

 

[Niffarious]

Some individuals do have 'flyaway' dews. Those should be addressed on an individual basis, just like rear dews, etc. Accidents in the field do happen, just no avoiding them sometimes. If it is a repetitive injury, especially from one generation to the next, perhaps the bloodline needs cleaned out. To quote my friend who has been breeding working Labs for 30+ years, "a dog (Lab) with a good foot won't need the dews removed..."

Yeah, I basically agree with all of the above. I've never seen it with one line, but definitely it would be 'flyaway' dew claws causing the issues

 

[rob0t]

You can't compare boy circumcision and girl circumcision. Boy circumcision is about taking away some skin. Girl circumcision is about taking away clitoris and lips. It's like taking your whole glans away.

So the clitoris is not skin? It's basically the same thing. Just one is socially acceptable in our culture. Right or wrong, I'm not to judge but you can't say one I just cutting off skin. That's what they both are! If you grew up in a community with female circumcision as the social norm you wouldn't have a problem with it either.

Anyway that wasn't my point and I definitely don't want to justify either. My point was that people hav problems with things thu find out of the norm.

 

[Niffarious]

So the clitoris is not skin? It's basically the same thing.

Is that sarcasm, or are you serious?