# Why do vets willingly ear crop dogs?



## bugmankeith (Feb 14, 2013)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cydaea (Feb 14, 2013)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Damzlfly (Feb 14, 2013)

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?!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Meezerkoko (Feb 14, 2013)

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 (Feb 14, 2013)

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.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Cydaea (Feb 14, 2013)

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 (Feb 14, 2013)

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!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## rob0t (Feb 14, 2013)

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!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Niffarious (Feb 14, 2013)

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 (Feb 14, 2013)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pitbulllady (Feb 14, 2013)

bugmankeith said:


> 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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bugmankeith (Feb 14, 2013)

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


----------



## poisoned (Feb 14, 2013)

rob0t said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Niffarious (Feb 14, 2013)

bugmankeith said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Formerphobe (Feb 14, 2013)

> 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 (Feb 14, 2013)

Formerphobe said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2013)

Niffarious said:


> 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..."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Niffarious (Feb 14, 2013)

Formerphobe said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2013)

poisoned said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2013)

rob0t said:


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


Is that sarcasm, or are you serious?


----------



## Shell (Feb 14, 2013)

+1 to everything Formerphobe said. 

I own a Doberman, he is both cropped and docked. I am also a licensed vet tech. I brought my dog home the day after the breeder took the litter to have their ears done, they never bothered him, he was in no pain. 

The cropped breeds were originally cropped for a reason, Danes it was to prevent the ears from being shredded by the animals they were bred to hunt, pits and boxers to keep the ears from being destroyed while fighting/hunting, dobes to keep the ears from being grabbed by an attacker (they were bred to be personal protection dogs). This has become the breed standard for these breeds because it did have a purpose when the breeds were created. Most reputable breeders will not sell uncropped puppies because it is almost impossible to rehome an uncropped Dobe (for example) if the buyer returns the dog to the breeder for whatever reason. The breed is what it is, and most people who love the breed want what the breed standard is. For show standards it is also the "accepted" standard. You can show a natural dog sure, but there is debate over whether or not being natural works against them or not.

I am glad my boy is cropped and docked, I wanted a Doberman, and not to look tough (he is in training to be a therapy dog for my 2 autistic kids), but because that is how the Doberman was created to look. If I wanted a black and rust dog with floppy ears, and long tail I would have bought a black and tan coonhound. 

I can tell you from both veterinary experience, and Doberman experience (my grandfather bred and showed them for years), that cropping is done humanely, with anesthetic, and aside from being a little itchy while healing does not bother the puppies in the least. I have yet to see a freshly cropped puppy show any signs of pain, they are acting like crazy, playful puppies within hours of the anesthetic.

You don't have to like it, but if you don't just don't buy a cropped breed. Do not start spouting your PETA crap when you have no real understanding of why it's done, or how it's done. I am a tech because I love animals, not because I want to hurt them. If it was really as cruel and painful as people seem to want to believe I wouldn't have bought a cropped breed.

I should also add that ear cropping should only be done by an experience ear cropping vet. A breeder, or vet with no experience should not do it. It is an art form, and very easy to make them look awful if not done right. A reputable cropping vet will also do it properly so that is does not cause the puppy any pain.

Cropped ears also greatly minimize chance of ear infection, aural hematoma etc. My last dog who suffered chronic, awful ear infections, and more than one hematoma likely would have been very grateful to have been a cropped breed. No matter what my boss and I did for him, his ears (natural eared breed) always caused him pain. Had he been a cropped breed I can guarantee he wouldn't have gone through the hell he did with his ears. I have yet to ever see a cropped dog with an aural hematoma, and very minimal ear infections (and usually very mild in the odd times that they do occur).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## rob0t (Feb 14, 2013)

Niffarious said:


> Is that sarcasm, or are you serious?


I'm saying its the same thing as in they are both body modification for cultural or religious reasons. You guys are missing the point completely.


----------



## Galapoheros (Feb 14, 2013)

We can't forget that vets are running a biz, you want it done, they make $, everybody is diff of course.


----------



## Formerphobe (Feb 14, 2013)

Galapoheros said:


> We can't forget that vets are running a biz, you want it done, they make $, everybody is diff of course.


I've worked for practices that cropped ears, and for some that didn't.  Those who didn't do the surgery, just didn't.  We have a fair number of breeders in the area with traditionally cropped breeds.  Our veterinarians don't crop ears, money maker or not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Shell (Feb 14, 2013)

Formerphobe said:


> I've worked for practices that cropped ears, and for some that didn't.  Those who didn't do the surgery, just didn't.  We have a fair number of breeders in the area with traditionally cropped breeds.  Our veterinarians don't crop ears, money maker or not.


Ditto. It is not about money. The vet who my breeder uses is the very best cropping vet in the province, he doesn't charge much at all for cropping considering the anesthetic and other materials that he uses. I have worked for practices who don't do cropping, and vets who do, it's really not about money, and the ones who do don't typically charge a ton for it. There are many other procedures that cost much more.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## advan (Feb 14, 2013)

bugmankeith said:


> Pitbulls frequently get ear cropped to make them look tough, same with dobermans and *Great Danes*.


Tough? I'm sorry but there is no way Scooby-Doo will ever look tough.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## The Snark (Feb 14, 2013)

Let's get real and simplify the issue. First and foremost, the reason is $$$$. Cropping is a multi-million dollar industry. Second, it is fashionable to the degree that various show standards require cropping. Third is the animals health considerations.


----------



## rob0t (Feb 14, 2013)

I wouldn't say the main reason is money. After all the people that get their dogs ears cropped are the ones paying. The reason money is made is because of reasons two and three.


----------



## Moonfall (Feb 14, 2013)

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I have a chi. These are not dogs who are cropped. However, their ears do stand up by themselves. I would not want one with floppy ears (they are incorrect and related to having weak cartilage) because they aren't meant to. 

I also wouldn't want to risk having ear trouble with a doberman, and, being honest...they look lovely with the pointed ears.


----------



## bigjej (Feb 14, 2013)

Formerphobe said:


> 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 ----------
> 
> ...


just an aside since you brought it up ( not weighing in on the original question, though must say I did think the same as OP until I saw some very informative posts regarding the reason behind crops ) but do you have a s source for that last remark?

---------- Post added 02-14-2013 at 11:26 PM ----------




rob0t said:


> 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.


Actually, anatomically the clitoris is equivelant to the glans and the labia are equivelant to the scrotum - they have the same embryological origin and retain almost the same innervation and blood supply. In societies where female circumcision is practiced, many people DO object to it. But that has nothing to do with what the original post is about. back to the discussion.


----------



## Formerphobe (Feb 15, 2013)

bigjej said:


> just an aside since you brought it up ( not weighing in on the original question, though must say I did think the same as OP until I saw some very informative posts regarding the reason behind crops ) but do you have a s source for that last remark?






bigjej said:


> just an aside since you brought it up ( not weighing in on the original question, though must say I did think the same as OP until I saw some very informative posts regarding the reason behind crops ) but do you have a s source for that last remark?
> 
> ---------- Post added 02-14-2013 at 11:26 PM ----------
> 
> ...


----------



## Galapoheros (Feb 15, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Let's get real and simplify the issue. First and foremost, the reason is $$$$. Cropping is a multi-million dollar industry. Second, it is fashionable to the degree that various show standards require cropping. Third is the animals health considerations.


Show me da moanAAAAy!


----------



## Yehecatl Quipol (Feb 15, 2013)

poisoned said:


> 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.


They're similar but not the same however that is wholly irrelevant as the argumentation against both remains the same, that non-consensual and forced mutilation is wrong which is what ear cropping, tail cropping and other such nonsense is, canine mutilation for the pathetic emotional benefit of the human.

Aesthetics are just that important, <edit> animals.


----------



## Niffarious (Feb 15, 2013)

Yehecatl Quipol said:


> They're similar but not the same however that is wholly irrelevant as the argumentation against both remains the same, that non-consensual and forced mutilation is wrong which is what ear cropping, tail cropping and other such nonsense is, canine mutilation for the pathetic emotional benefit of the human.
> 
> Aesthetics are just that important, <edit> animals.


I'm starting to have a really hard time believing you aren't trying to just stir stuff up. We've had a very civilized debate about this up until now, with most agreeing that the surgery is safe and painless when done by professionals, and sometimes necessary.


----------



## bugmankeith (Feb 15, 2013)

Yehecatl Quipol said:


> They're similar but not the same however that is wholly irrelevant as the argumentation against both remains the same, that non-consensual and forced mutilation is wrong which is what ear cropping, tail cropping and other such nonsense is, canine mutilation for the pathetic emotional benefit of the human.
> 
> Aesthetics are just that important, <edit> animals.


I agree, this topic is about dogs not people, only people mutilating dogs because they find it makes them look better. People just back up why breeders do it but breeders also develop dogs with deformities so to speak or to make a dog that suits our needs, completely selfish of humans! Dogs don't need ear cropping and tail docking and if it wasn't for people making rules about animal overpopulation they wouldn't be spayed or neutered either, in other words natural like how they were born. 

So again I argue no surgery is necessary for a dog breed for looks only and if you don't like how the dog looks don't buy it at all! That's why so many shelters are full people go by looks, go by temporment and personality. If you can't develop a dog breed that is so unhealthy surgery must correct health issues than you shouldn't be breeding these animals they are in a sense deformed and should stop being bred, its like breeding human midgets to get more midgets even though they suffer from major health problems. 

Makes no sense why people purposely deform animals for our benefit to keep them and perform surgery to fix our experiments in the end, that's all breeding is is experimenting with genetics.


----------



## Shell (Feb 15, 2013)

bugmankeith said:


> So again I argue no surgery is necessary for a dog breed for looks only and if you don't like how the dog looks don't buy it at all!


Do you bother to read before you reply? The reasons why cropping happens in some breeds, and continues to happen have been well pinpointed, and explained to you by a few of us (with FAR more dog experience, and medical experience than you have - Formerphobe and I are both certified vet techs, and PBL knows her stuff too). If you're going to argue something try having the proper knowledge to at least back up the argument you're attempting to make.

I don't mind a good discussion about cropping (I've had many being both a tech, and a Doberman owner), and I don't mind people who don't want to own a dog that is cropped. What DOES bug me is someone ignorantly spouting a bunch of PETA garbage, when it's obvious they don't have a single clue what they are talking about. Go back and read,  you can still not like it all you want, but at least bother to educate yourself about it so you actually make a coherent argument. 

I'm done trying to educate those who think it's all about "mutilating", and "just for looks", and all this garbage about breeders purposely creating dogs with deformities (what?? a true breeder is doing their damndest to better the breed they love). I will save my knowledge for those who are genuinely interested in learning why cropping started, and why it's still done, and also how it's done so that people can learn that aside from itching a little while healing is does not bother the puppy in the least when done correctly.

Oh and spaying and neutering is NOT just for population control, it also prevents a myriad of health problems that can occur by leaving a dog intact. But again, you seem to be so far off in crazy land (aka PETA land) regarding these topics that nothing I (or anyone else) say will get through.


----------



## bugmankeith (Feb 15, 2013)

Shell said:


> Do you bother to read before you reply? The reasons why cropping happens in some breeds, and continues to happen have been well pinpointed, and explained to you by a few of us (with FAR more dog experience, and medical experience than you have - Formerphobe and I are both certified vet techs, and PBL knows her stuff too). If you're going to argue something try having the proper knowledge to at least back up the argument you're attempting to make.
> 
> I don't mind a good discussion about cropping (I've had many being both a tech, and a Doberman owner), and I don't mind people who don't want to own a dog that is cropped. What DOES bug me is someone ignorantly spouting a bunch of PETA garbage, when it's obvious they don't have a single clue what they are talking about. Go back and read,  you can still not like it all you want, but at least bother to educate yourself about it so you actually make a coherent argument.
> 
> ...


Vets are a kind of doctor. You only learn what other vets taught you and in veterinary college. whether you agree with it or not you have to follow their standards, and in different states are different standards and you are in different country so what you say doesn't mean it applies here.

My point is even with human doctors, you'll always have doctors that won't agree on the same approach to treating the patient, which means even as vets, some vets will disagree with you, and others won't, it just depends on what they were taught and by who. Only way I can explain this is in Human doctors some doctors push antibiotics for infection, others don't. But they are all doctors and all have a medical degree, yet their opinions vary greatly.

So doesnt mean your right at all just because one vet (you) says so.


----------



## Shell (Feb 15, 2013)

bugmankeith said:


> Vets are a kind of doctor. You only learn what other vets taught you and in veterinary college. whether you agree with it or not you have to follow their standards, and in different states are different standards and you are in different country so what you say doesn't mean it applies here.
> 
> My point is even with human doctors, you'll always have doctors that won't agree on the same approach to treating the patient, which means even as vets, some vets will disagree with you, and others won't, it just depends on what they were taught and by who. Only way I can explain this is in Human doctors some doctors push antibiotics for infection, others don't. But they are all doctors and all have a medical degree, yet their opinions vary greatly.
> 
> So doesnt mean your right at all just because one vet (you) says so.


Umm?? You really don't get it, and again didn't bother to read any of the posts explaining cropping to you (mine, Formerphobes, PBLs). I have worked with MANY vets, some who crop, some who don't. I have years of experience, and I also have years of dog experience. I am not new to cropped breeds, both in owning them and working with them. Seriously, your replies make no sense. I'm out, have fun.

Btw, you also know nothing about vets. Overall, things are run pretty much the same between Canada and the US as far as veterinary practices go. I have many veterinary contacts in the US, that I am in regular contact with, discussing veterinary medicine. Any differences are very minor. But hey you just keep claiming to know stuff you obviously don't...


----------



## Gilberator (Feb 15, 2013)

Ive had Dobermans all my life. All had cropped ears and nubs for tails besides one. It doesn't seem like they enjoy their ears flopping around...at least from my own experience. I prefer my dogs to have chopped ears, but not necessarily raised to stand up. All my dobies (which were female) had this done. Shells got it down so I won't go into further detail.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pouchedrat (Feb 15, 2013)

No... some female circumcision is just the skin around the clitoris and nothing more.  There are varying degrees of female circumcision.  Either or, My sons aren't nor are my brothers.  Just like with animals, I'd rather they stay how they were born.  

As a teenager, I helped out at a vet's in the back room for a while (my father was friends with the vet there, and I was interested in it at one point in my life) and there was an adult great dane with messed up cropped ears.  They had to knock the dog out and recrop her ears because the owners tried doing it at home and it was done "incorrectly"....   I just felt bad.   

I think being in a back room of a vet helping out was the best way to realize I'd NEVER want to do that for a living.  The vet was pretty much desensitized by that point.....   kitten with maggots in a gaping wound?  put down.  Fawn with two broken legs?  put down.  Found a ferret in someone's back yard?   Not my problem and sent them on their way.


----------



## Shell (Feb 15, 2013)

pouchedrat said:


> I think being in a back room of a vet helping out was the best way to realize I'd NEVER want to do that for a living.  The vet was pretty much desensitized by that point.....   kitten with maggots in a gaping wound?  put down.  Fawn with two broken legs?  put down.  Found a ferret in someone's back yard?   Not my problem and sent them on their way.


Not all vets get this way. I've worked for many with great compassion; and I've seen them shed tears, on many occasions, for animals they couldn't help. Yes, Ive met a couple who were desensitized, but more that weren't. I always said that the day I "didn't care" anymore was the day I needed to quit. Instead I had kids, so I took a break for that instead lol.

To say that you don't want to be in that industry because one vet was desensitized is making a generalization that everyone in this field will turn out that way, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. It would be like saying all doctors just don't care, and that's also not true. My doctor has been practicing for 30 yrs, yet when I had something awful happen a few months ago he called me personally, and broke down into tears talking to me. There are great doctors, good doctors and crap doctors. It's the same with vets, and actually 2 of the very best, most caring vets I know/have worked for, also did/do ear cropping (and unlike breeders who should never try to do it, they did a damn good job at it). 

I may be taking some time off to raise my kids, but I've been a tech for a long time. I love my patients, I care, I fight for them, I cry over them...we aren't all desensitized jerks.


----------



## Cavedweller (Feb 16, 2013)

In the vein of dewclaw removal, how does that work out in the wild? The primary argument for removal is to prevent injury (understandable when the claw has a weak connection), but what about fully attached ones? Wolves have dewclaws, so I would assume they don't pose that much of a problem?

My dog's got fully attached dewclaws, and she broke one of hers while playing a few months ago. It looked quite painful, and she wouldn't let anyone near her while it was healing. Fortunately it's fully healed now, but I wonder how common that type of injury is in the wild.


----------



## bugmankeith (Feb 16, 2013)

advan said:


> Tough? I'm sorry but there is no way Scooby-Doo will ever look tough.


Wanna put a Scooby snack in this mouth?
http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...Gjdq1bMge3nwM/cC/f=0/ps=50/r=0/rx=550/ry=400/


----------



## grayzone (Feb 16, 2013)

i was going to add some stuff to this thread until i clicked FormerPhobes links..

now all i have to say is i feel terrible for David Reimer. That guy must have suffered mentally his whole life (well, from teenage years until death) in ways i cant even bare to imagine..


----------



## The Snark (Feb 16, 2013)

Makes me wonders it does. A group of women got together to purchase 6 Great Danes. In the process of purchasing they all had to sign a contract that they would get the ears cropped. I queried this and an affronted matronly battleshippy type lady looked down her nose in disgust at me and explained in an acidic snarl, "They're AKC!!"


----------



## Shell (Feb 16, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Makes me wonders it does. A group of women got together to purchase 6 Great Danes. In the process of purchasing they all had to sign a contract that they would get the ears cropped. I queried this and an affronted matronly battleshippy type lady looked down her nose in disgust at me and explained in an acidic snarl, "They're AKC!!"


Well that woman was a bit out in left field. AKC is simply a registration, if a breeder has money and purebreds AKC will register them. The other "iffy" thing about those women and the 6 dogs, is that a good, and reputable breeder will look after the ear cropping for their buyers, and puppies will be sent home with cropped ears already. Sounds like some women who didn't know too much (many people think AKC is the be all, end all, and your dog has some kind of special status just because it's AKC registered), bought puppies from a BYB (backyard breeder), who couldn't be bothered to make sure the puppies were properly cropped by a reputable ear cropping vet (this is just one reason why good breeders have it done before the puppies go to their new home).

AKC registration is required to compete a dog (show ring, confirmation, agility, obedience, rally etc), but good breeders register all their dogs whether they are show quality, or just pet quality. The majority of AKC registered dogs are just average pets, of regular pet quality. BYBs cash in on the publics ignorance, by registering with the AKC and passing it off a some sort of status symbol when selling their crappy bred pups. AKC means nothing more than registration, and they do not require that the dogs be cropped. I know a few people with un cropped dobes that have AKC registration. In Canada it's the CKC, they are pretty much exactly the same just different countries, and some dogs will have dual registration.

Then there is the other "CKC" (not the Canadian Kennel Club, but the "Continental Kennel Club"), and they are quite the joke. They will register pretty much anything if you have money (I know someone who has a mutt registered as some made up breed through them),  but it's not legit like the real CKC and AKC. 

I've seen natural eared dogs from traditionally cropped breeds showing in AKC/CKC shows, which means they are registered with said kennel clubs. They usually don't do as well, but they can still be registered.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Feb 16, 2013)

rob0t said:


> 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.


I believe removing the clitoris would be similar to removing the head of a penis, not just the skin covering it.

---------- Post added 02-16-2013 at 11:52 AM ----------

This is going to be totally hippy of me and I'm sure there will be some argument here, but I feel like the only dogs that should be specially bred are those to be used for working. Thousands of perfectly healthy dogs are being put to death everyday. Just a quick glance through Raleigh's craiglist pet section is proof that there are way too many dogs out there that need homes for people to be breeding new dogs for vanity purposes. Not judging those of you have purposely bought special breeds because they're cute or awesome looking or whatever reasons . 

And this has been njnolan1's opinion on dog breeding and adoption!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## poisoned (Feb 16, 2013)

njnolan1 said:


> I believe removing the clitoris would be similar to removing the head of a penis, not just the skin covering it.
> 
> ---------- Post added 02-16-2013 at 11:52 AM ----------
> 
> ...


I don't think there's anything wrong if someone buys a healthy bred dog, even if not for working puposes. But breds whose characteristics are bad for their health like pugs shouldn't be bred IMO. If some breeds need surgeries to remain healthy, couldn't they be bred in a way that would remove this requirement? Or maybe pick another breed, that is also suitable for same kind of work?


----------



## Niffarious (Feb 16, 2013)

njnolan1 said:


> [/COLOR]This is going to be totally hippy of me and I'm sure there will be some argument here, but I feel like the only dogs that should be specially bred are those to be used for working. Thousands of perfectly healthy dogs are being put to death everyday. Just a quick glance through Raleigh's craiglist pet section is proof that there are way too many dogs out there that need homes for people to be breeding new dogs for vanity purposes. Not judging those of you have purposely bought special breeds because they're cute or awesome looking or whatever reasons .
> 
> And this has been njnolan1's opinion on dog breeding and adoption!


If people supported ethical, proper breeders there would be fewer dogs in the shelters in the first place. I said earlier in this thread that every single person I know who has adopted a shelter dog (all mutts) has a dog with health and behaviour problems. This is not an exaggeration. I don't feel like it's my responsibility to saddle myself with an unhealthy or hard to manage animal because some backyard breeder had a litter. It bothers me that people do not do their due diligence when breeding and buying and the solution becomes 'adopt all the shelter dogs!'. Do those dogs deserve a good life? Absolutely. But stopping shelters full of dogs means stopping the root of the problem, not continuing to give these jerks a get out of jail free card by taking their cast-offs with no penalty to them.

Don't get me wrong, I support my shelters - I donate food and used dog beds/toys on a regular basis (in many cases, such as the SPCA, a high portion of monetary donations goes to upper management salary. Check this info before donating just money) but I don't think the solution is adopting, but finding a way to stop backyard breeders and mills.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Shell (Feb 16, 2013)

Niffarious said:


> but I don't think the solution is adopting, but finding a way to stop backyard breeders and mills.


This this this. I personally love dogs, and for the breeds we love to continue (and for their health to continue to improve), we *need* good, reputable breeders. The issue is not breeding, it is backyard breeders, puppy mills etc Adopting will never fix the issue of too many dogs, ending puppy mills/BYBs will. If the only people breeding were solid, reputable breeding the dog world would be a pretty damn good place. Yes, there would still be health problems, but a real breeder focuses on breeding specimens that are healthy (and they spend a lot of money on health testing their breeding stock), and over time the idea is to better a breed in every way (this includes health, and longevity).

The dogs that end up in shelters came from puppy mills, pet stores, BYBs etc. A reputable breeder stands by their dogs *for life*, and will take back (and rehome) the dogs they produce if that issue ever arises. They work very hard to keep what they produce out of shelters and rescues. I have worked closely with a number of reputable breeders (of various different breeds), mentoring under them, handling their dogs etc etc. Life long backing of their puppies in this way is just one mark of a good breeder (solid, complete health testing of their breeding stock, and titling their breeding stock, in the show ring, obedience, agility etc, to prove their dogs can work/hold up under pressure/prove their temperament are two other important ones).

A real breeder rarely makes money off they puppies the produce, some litters (due to complications during pregnancy/whelping) can even lose them money. Health testing the parents costs A LOT of money, and some health tests (like holter testing Dobermans to check on the health of their hearts, as DCM (dilated cardiomyopathy) is a big problem with this breed) need to repeated yearly or even more. Titling their dogs to prove they are worthy stock to breed also costs a lot of money. A good breeder is breeding to better the breed they love, not to profit. A BYB/puppy mill is doing it for the money, they don't care about titles or health, and it shows. Those are the dogs who wind up in shelters/rescues etc.

Nothing wrong at all with buying a dog, but make sure you research very thoroughly to be sure you are buyer from a reputable breeder. Some BYBs are really good at making themselves sound reputable, so you really need to know the ins and out of the breed you're looking at. The health problems they have, and exactly what health testing needs to be done. A lot of BYBs will say they health test but never have any evidence, or only do the very basics. They will also say that titling isn't "important" because they aren't trying to breed show dogs etc etc. Don't ever fall for that crap. It doesn't matter if you only want pet quality, you still need to only support the good breeders.

If only we could stop the BYBs/puppy mills...it's a big dream that's for sure, but I won't stop trying to educate people about how and where to buy purebred dogs (if that's what theyre wanting to buy).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Feb 16, 2013)

Back to the original topic. Re: the 6 AKC Great Dumbs. I accompanied my former mother in law who got one of them to the ear cropping establishment. It was a registered veterinarian. In the back room, which dog owners and their friends were free to wandering through, there were about 8 tables with people whacking away at ears on an assembly line basis. Scissors were the main weapon of choice, and soldering irons for cauterizing. There was nothing remotely resembling sterility. The lighting in the room was very poor. As we waited for her dog to come out from under the anesthesia I wandered the place. It was legit. The ear cropping version of a puppy mill. It was one of the most popular and cheap places to get ear cropping done in the entire Los Angeles area. I wasn't impressed.


----------



## Shell (Feb 16, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Back to the original topic. Re: the 6 AKC Great Dumbs. I accompanied my former mother in law who got one of them to the ear cropping establishment. It was a registered veterinarian. In the back room, which dog owners and their friends were free to wandering through, there were about 8 tables with people whacking away at ears on an assembly line basis. Scissors were the main weapon of choice, and soldering irons for cauterizing. There was nothing remotely resembling sterility. The lighting in the room was very poor. As we waited for her dog to come out from under the anesthesia I wandered the place. It was legit. The ear cropping version of a puppy mill. It was one of the most popular and cheap places to get ear cropping done in the entire Los Angeles area. I wasn't impressed.


Not a place I would ever take a dog for ear cropping, and if someone had reported them I bet they would have had their licence revoked. Letting people wander through the surgical area, not allowed. Un-sterilized equipment (and using scissors) again not allowed. Everything about it says shady, and violating rules that are set in place to keep the animals safe. This is why I will only advocate a reputable cropping vet, who is doing everything by the book. I'm ok with ear cropping but only when done properly, and with the protocol that is in place for this procedure. When done with proper equipment (not scissors for a start), under proper anesthetic, by a vet who knows exactly how to perform this surgery, the puppy will be back to it's normal self within hours of the anesthetic.

You could say the same with any type of shady practice though, not just vets, but doctors, plastic surgeons etc. There will always be the "bad apples" in every profession unfortunately. There was a spay/neuter clinic around here that was shut down for shady stuff quite similar to what you mentioned. Again, they were cheap and popular, for all the wrong reasons. This is why I say go to a reputable breeder to start, they will deal with the cropping and take them to a good, reputable ear cropping vet. I am familiar with the vet my breeder uses for ears, and if I ever need any kind of surgery I hope the surgeon is as skilled at what they do, as he is with ears. 

If I had to choose between a natural eared dog (from a traditionally cropped breed), or a dog cropped by a shady vet/breeder, I would choose the uncropped dog. I love my dogs ears, and I'm glad he is cropped, but I will only advocate it if it's done properly. I worked in clinics where it was done properly, and I've also seen dogs come in done elsewhere that weren't done properly. This is why I'm comfortable with the procedure, if done by a reputable vet. I'm certainly not advocating the people who have no place doing this surgery though.

PS @The Snark, have you seen my Bruce updates? So far so good, still not a vicious maneater  He might lick you to death though.


----------



## Bugmom (Feb 16, 2013)

rob0t said:


> 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.


You seriously need to study your anatomy because you are 100% wrong. The clitoris is absolutely not skin. Ever. In any mammal in the entire world. It is a jumble of highly sensitive nerves. If you take away a woman's clitoris, she won't feel sexual pleasure, why is WHY it is done, same as if the head of a penis was chopped off (not the foreskin, the entire head). Show me a culture where men's pleasurable sensations are chopped off in the name of... anything (hint: You can't because it doesn't exist). 

So no, it's not even on the same planet as ear cropping or tail docking.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## The Snark (Feb 16, 2013)

Let's put this to rest. "The clitoris is homologous to the penis", according to the basic anatomy book I had to study. According to international health standards as WHO, "any damage, disfigurement or the removal of the clitoris" falls under the classification of female genital mutilation.

Shell, I fully understand where you are coming from and you are stating facts as you know them. However, as you are aware of, your take tends to lean towards the 'perfect world' scenario which we all know is not the case when it comes to animals. Registered professional breeders will produce animals with extremely undesirable traits in order to achieve certain appearances, gaits, temperament as often as they attempt to produce healthy animals. And even when they take efforts to produce healthy animals, thousands of animals with undesirable traits are euthanized each year when they could have lived relatively happy healthy lives. It's not a perfect world. Especially so when money has a firm grip on things. As my ear cropping establishment, the gray area is vast and authorities the world over tend to look the other way.

As in your example, just how many run of the mill owners and breeders will cough up the huge bucks to detect cardiomyopathy and how many of the animals that are detected with it could have lived relatively normal otherwise healthy lives instead of being removed from the gene pool?

What a lot of this boils down to is homosapien playing god. Making decisions of life and death where their intervention is not always a necessity issue.

Re Bruce. Got yourself a lickaholic, have you? Those are better than crotch hounds I suppose. Especially when the owners tend to wear shorter skirts and or entertain guests in the more genteel and sophisticated settings.   My mother had a lickoholic German Shepard which adopted a hamster. Carried it everywhere and cleaned it some 3600 times a day. She (the dog) was heartbroken when it died. As near as I could tell, she drowned it in slobber.


----------



## Shell (Feb 16, 2013)

The Snark said:


> As near as I could tell, she drowned it in slobber.


This actually made me laugh out loud. That's cute though  (aside from, you know, the hamster dying and the dog being heartbroken). Yes, Bruce loves to give kisses, but he also does the doberman "nose poke" though, and has a habit of doing it to butts when he wants attention. He also likes to get a running start before he jabs his nose into said butt...it's far less cute than his kisses.



The Snark said:


> As in your example, just how many run of the mill owners and breeders will cough up the huge bucks to detect cardiomyopathy and how many of the animals that are detected with it could have lived relatively normal otherwise healthy lives instead of being removed from the gene pool?


You would actually be surprised. The breeders that the DPCA support/recommend do holter/echo testing. I am also a member of a very large Dobe forum, and many, many "regular" owners do it regularly as well. If you research breeders before you buy you would be surprised just how many very reputable breeders exist who are spending a lot of money to health check their dogs. I'm not just stating what "should" be done, but from experience with what a lot of breeders, that I know of, actually do. DCM is a very big problem in the Dobermans, and yes the good breeders DO spend the money to check hearts, and so do a lot of owners. There are very big differences between good breeders, and BYBs (in every breed, I am simply using Dobes as an example). If you do a lot of research on breeders when looking into a specific breed you would see this. DCM rarely leads to a relatively normal life, it usually leads to either sudden, unexpected deaths (young deaths too), or years of meds while they go downhill anyway. Enter the Dobe community and you will understand just how seriously the good breeders take it, and just how much money they spend checking their dogs for it. Every breed has it's health issues, and the good breeders really do work hard to getting rid of them. I've worked closely with quite a few breeders, of different breeds.

Anyway, I'm just sounding like a broken record, and you know I'm not arguing with you Snark, I do get where you're coming from completely  So I'm off to bed.


----------



## The Snark (Feb 16, 2013)

Shell, we need to establish a common ground as we are both espousing the same thing from different points of view. As you have given in several examples, there are responsible people acting appropriately. However, look at the losing, and I mean losing BIG TIME, effort to just get the animals spayed/neutered. And there are numerous opportunities to get that simple operation done entirely for free. So if we can't get that happening, how in heck can we get people to drop hundreds, even thousands of dollars, for more sophisticated screenings and testings? It sadly turns into the elitist vs the vast majority and the international packs of unwanted animals grows each year. It's a heartbreaking mess that our modern society is contributing to with the nimby attitude and the somebody elses problem. 

How can the responsible real people you cite help? Heck if I know, but building ivory towers isn't helping. Take the utter disaster in and around Jakarta a while back. National pack completely out of control then they have a rabies outbreak. The police and military started running out of ammunition from shooting stray dogs. Many locations resorted to cyanide laced bait. Well, the sad fact is, for every animal properly cared for there are dozens that aren't. I've worked as a vet assistant. One week we euthanized over 1000 dogs. I've burned a lot of ammo when there was no viable alternative. And right now there is a heavy cane riding on the front forks of my bicycle which I use about twice each week beating stray and uncontrolled but properly cared for dogs off.

So what is the solution? Well, how about this for just one start? Take a small percentage of the money being poured into needless unnecessary animal cosmetic surgeries and spend it on public education, stronger animal control laws based on common sense, and stricter more universal penalties for animal abuse offenders?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anonymity82 (Feb 17, 2013)

Niffarious said:


> If people supported ethical, proper breeders there would be fewer dogs in the shelters in the first place. I said earlier in this thread that every single person I know who has adopted a shelter dog (all mutts) has a dog with health and behaviour problems. This is not an exaggeration. I don't feel like it's my responsibility to saddle myself with an unhealthy or hard to manage animal because some backyard breeder had a litter. It bothers me that people do not do their due diligence when breeding and buying and the solution becomes 'adopt all the shelter dogs!'. Do those dogs deserve a good life? Absolutely. But stopping shelters full of dogs means stopping the root of the problem, not continuing to give these jerks a get out of jail free card by taking their cast-offs with no penalty to them.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I support my shelters - I donate food and used dog beds/toys on a regular basis (in many cases, such as the SPCA, a high portion of monetary donations goes to upper management salary. Check this info before donating just money) but I don't think the solution is adopting, but finding a way to stop backyard breeders and mills.


I agree with your first sentence. Unfortunately most people either don't know how to find one (good breeder) or just want to pay less money. If these same people stopped supporting these backyard breeders or puppy mills by adopting perfectly healthy dogs from local associations the mills/BYBs would not be making money and thus, stop breeding. 

Sorry to hear that everyone you know has mutts with health and behavior problems. I have two myself. They're not perfect but by no means is it a serious problem. My one mutt is near 19 years old. He didn't start having health issues until the past couple of years. He actually just beat cancer! Still going. Falling apart slowly but still going. 

My other mutt is around 6 years old. She's part chow for sure but the rest is unknown. Her only health issue is an imbalance with her thyroid that's corrected with two pills a day. As for behavior, well she's getting pretty darn good! She used to be unsocialized when my fiance and her parents lived with her in NJ. She actually got pepper sprayed in the face by a mailman she was charging after. 

We all moved to NC together and after about a year of not being a dog person I finally fell in love. Our bond grew stronger as well and as that grew so did her obedience. I work at PetSmart and was able to get a free 6 week beginner training course. This is where I really noticed the positive changes. I really don't feel like typing out all of the positive changes and new "tricks" she's learned at 6 years old just by being persistent and dedicated nor do I think you want to read them. She does have one flaw that I gave up on. When we walk around our neighborhood she flips out when she sees other dogs (she's fine at the dog park, she was actually flipping out on a dog on the other side of the fence and when we opened the gate she took off and completely ignored this dog! She's also great with people anywhere we go and mostly ignores other dogs when we're not in our neighborhood) The only reason we gave up on this has to do with the easy walk harness. It's still a pain in the butt but she's not choking herself and with quick tugs and a fast pace she keeps it moving. I would definitely not say she's misbehaved dog in anyway. I know plenty of people who have problem pure breed dogs. Behavior has more to do with the lack of or improper training techniques and less to do with mutt or breed. It's true some breeds train better than others but I believe most dogs can be trained if done properly. It can be easier to train a pure breed only because most people know more about the particular pure breed's behavior patterns thus knowing where to begin with training. You have to use a more trial and error approach with mutts and apparently "aint nobody got time for dat!"


----------



## Amoeba (Feb 17, 2013)

Niffarious said:


> Pugs are a monstrosity



WHOA WHOA WHOA Lets hold up just a cotton picking minute. 

I've had pugs since I was five. Three of them were pets and we had a litter of nine (one stillborn, and we kept one of them)

Never had a single issue except for an eye that popped out in a tiff between mother and daughter. We did our research in breeders and made sure we weren't getting some inbred prone to health issues. Even when we were looking for a stud we picked one with a good record. 

The breed itself is not the problem...it's the people indiscriminately breeding just to make puppies to sell.


Also male circumcision and female genital mutilation are in no way the same thing.

On topic: As stated cropping and docking have their uses besides just aesthetics, when done humanely it is no problemo. Declawing in cats is something I don't understand and would support banning.


----------



## The Snark (Feb 17, 2013)

Pugs are monstrosities. As are certain grade school teachers, a physics professor I once had, certain yachts, various bits architecture and some abstract art. Feel free to substitute any complimentary noun you care to for the word monstrosity. It's all in ones point of view.
For a real monstrosity the English bulldog probably takes top prizes for the simple reason they are so muclebound their personal hygiene tends to be fantastically lacking. 
And there we have a tie in and yet another Snark anecdote. A woman I know got a bulldog puppy just because it was stylish and very expensive. She discovered in about 1 hour their odor and ability to drool. It got consigned to a fenced area as far from the owners habitation as possible. I even offered to take it off her hands but no. Being a Thai elite she couldn't possibly part with her status symbol, much less admit she made a mistake. 
But the dog was a darling! Knowing I was going to have to wash my hands and take a bath soon anyway I got into her enclosure and romped with her. Talk about chaos! At maybe 3 months old she was built like the proverbial brick oop:house and was around 75 pounds of 10 inch tall playfulness. When I had to leave she was so distraught she put the entirety of her ancestry to work clamping that vice like jaw onto my pants leg. She was determined to keep me forever. After nearly 1 hour of cajoling I found the key to the lock by sitting  down, picking her up onto my lap and cuddling her. I then had to get to my feet with her in my arms, step out of the enclosure then set her back in it. 
You don't know what monstrosity is until one wants to keep you.

English bulldog: Like the pug in the face only worse. They look like they have spent their lives chasing parked cars. World champion farters (proven), unable to lick (clean) any surface of their body, commonly suffers from poo bottom, has deep 'ropes' of skin folds that can require cleaning every day, and tend to gurgle, wheeze and snore like a bow saw chewing on a hollow barrel.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Feb 17, 2013)

Amoeba said:


> WHOA WHOA WHOA Lets hold up just a cotton picking minute.
> 
> I've had pugs since I was five. Three of them were pets and we had a litter of nine (one stillborn, and we kept one of them)
> 
> ...


Our neighbor has a pug. Meanest thing alive! I know for a fact this isn't the standard for these adorable creatures but nonetheless, this thing will try to eat you! 

The only dogs I hate, well I don't hate the dogs, I hate the owners who don't do anything about it, are the little yippy dogs. The little dogs that do not listen nor shut the hell up no matter what. The dogs that see your dog walk by and bark for the next 45 minutes. The dogs that bark for hours while the owners are not home. The dogs that make you debate how much you enjoy your freedom. The dogs that start to create thoughts in your mind, murderous thoughts. Those dogs. Now, I'm not a fan of shock collars but citronella is a beautiful thing.


----------



## pitbulllady (Feb 17, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Back to the original topic. Re: the 6 AKC Great Dumbs. I accompanied my former mother in law who got one of them to the ear cropping establishment. It was a registered veterinarian. In the back room, which dog owners and their friends were free to wandering through, there were about 8 tables with people whacking away at ears on an assembly line basis. Scissors were the main weapon of choice, and soldering irons for cauterizing. There was nothing remotely resembling sterility. The lighting in the room was very poor. As we waited for her dog to come out from under the anesthesia I wandered the place. It was legit. The ear cropping version of a puppy mill. It was one of the most popular and cheap places to get ear cropping done in the entire Los Angeles area. I wasn't impressed.


Ever been to spay/neuter clinic, or one of the popular mobile versions that roam large metropolitan areas?  Same thing, just different body parts.  Instead of cutting off parts of ears, they snip out testicles and remove overies and uteri, which of course involves abdominal surgery.  Animals are lined up like on an assembly line, knocked out, cut open, glued shut, and laid out like cordwood to recover from anesthesia.   I assisted at a cat s/n clinic once, and the people working there didn't wear surgical gloves or wash/disinfect their hands between surgeries.  There was no time.  As soon as one cat was removed to wake up, another was put on the table in its place, and the same hands bloody from the prior surgery would open up the next cat.  There's no way in hell I'd ever put one of MY animals through that, no matter how "cost effective" it is!

Here in the South, very few dogs and even far-fewer cats that wind up in shelters are purebred anythings, and I've volunteered in two shelters.  By far, most of the dogs are of such mixed ancestry that even someone well-educated in dogs and dog breeds cannot look at one and distinguish the overt traits of any one or two distinct breeds.  These dogs are NOT THE PRODUCT OF DOG BREEDERS; they are the product of dogs simply being allowed to run loose, 24/7, to mate, fight, hunt and do what they do without any human intervention, because their owners could care less.  Yes, they have owners, in the loosest sense of the word.  They have a place to go and hang out and someone who puts out food for them, maybe even has a dog house in the back yard, who pets them once in awhile and perhaps even has given them a name, but they receive no veterinary care, no vaccines(even though it is illegal not to vaccinate against rabies) and of course they are allowed to reproduce. When the resulting puppies get too big and become too much aggravation, they are carried off to the pound.  Going after legitimate dog breeders and purebred dogs will do absolutely NOTHING to prevent or curb that.  When a purebred DID show up, it either was a genuine case of someone's dog having gotten loose and being picked up by animal control, or a dog with a behavioral issue that had made living with it difficult.  To be honest, most of the behavioral issues had started out as normal dog behaviors, but had been allowed to escalate, and had they been "nipped in the bud" in time, would have never gotten to that point, but the typical dog owner is not savvy enough to be able to pick up on the cues and quite honestly expects a dog to act like a human being from the start.  It's easy to blame breeders again, for not "educating" puppy buyers, but I know from experience in having bred Catahoula Leopard Dogs and Akita Inus, two of the most difficult breeds for the average pet owner to live with due to their normal behaivors, that people often ignore you when you try to explain to them what to expect and how to handle it.  The numbers of "purebred" dogs and cats in shelters is horribly, horribly overinflated by the AR crowds; just pick a pure breed you're very familiar with and go to Petfinder.org and type it in the search box, and you'll see what I mean.  OR go to any online rescue site, or Craigslist.  You will see dogs that do NOT, in any way, shape or form, resemble the breed in question, labeled as such.  Supposedly it makes these dogs more adoptable, but it also misleads people into thinking that most of the dogs in shelters are purebreds and are the products of deliberate breeding practices, thus denigrating legitimate dog breeders and painting them all with the same ugly brush.  That's no mistake, folks.  The AR groups like HSUS and PETA have made one of their goals to eliminate ALL breeding and ownership of animals, period.  They are doing this by using emotional rhetoric to convince the public that breeding purebred animals is cruel and unnecessary and causes horrible suffering and that the only ethical way to obtain an animal is to get a mutt from a shelter or rescue.  They are succeeding at accomplishing this, and through restrictions on dog breeding, will eventually whittle the population of purebred animals to nil, while spaying and neutering the mutts, and THEN what?  Now, if you want to live in a world with no pets, that's you. It's clear that most of you here already have fallen for this, just as many of you believe that owning any animal YOU would not personally want is cruel and/or dangerous. You can go on about you don't support HSUS or PETA or ASPCA or any of the other AR groups all you want, but the truth is, if you believe them and their propaganda, and agree with at least part of what they believe, you DO support them and you ARE AR!  You are a willing recipient of their message and beliefs, a message coming from people who do not own animals of any kind and have no hands-on, real-world experience with them, for the most part, and yet you'll choose to believe them over people with decades of animal experience in many different situations.  It's almost laughable when some of you say, "I'm not an Animal Rights activist!  I don't support PETA or HSUS", when you are regurgitating their rhetoric, especially about how horrible all dog breeders and purebred dogs are.  You are falling for what the AR's WANT you to fall for, and then you'll be B&M'ing when they succeed in getting some ban or restriction on YOUR animals passed where you lived, like you didn't see it coming.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Niffarious (Feb 17, 2013)

Amoeba said:


> WHOA WHOA WHOA Lets hold up just a cotton picking minute.
> 
> I've had pugs since I was five. Three of them were pets and we had a litter of nine (one stillborn, and we kept one of them)
> 
> ...


I want to be clear about what I meant, and to respectfully disagree. I do think that they are normally well tempered, delightful little dogs. But the breed IS a disaster, and that people continue to breed them is, to me, the definition of what is wrong with people breeding for aesthetics. They have so many health problems PURELY because of the shape people want them to be. In the summer when I take my dogs to the park, and dogs are frolicking and then walking home with owners I ALWAYS see people having to carry their pugs who are now so worked up they can't breathe. Just from going outside to play. Healthy pugs are are the exception, and not the rule - and I can't believe people would support them being bred in their current shape/condition with that in mind.
If people started trying to make the breed healthy (change their shape so they can actually be a dog)I might start to reconsider. That people breed dogs who will likely have issues for life just so they have a squished face and big eyes boggles my mind. Pugs a few hundred years ago at least had a nose they could breathe out of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Moonfall (Feb 17, 2013)

I have a friend with one of the rare "healthy" pugs. It's a beautiful dog, rarely snorts and can run and play with the big boys no problem.

I myself have a chi who when I got him was a yappy little turd. Now he's mostly trained out of it, thank god, and barks only when he feels he is protecting me. He has a deeper bark than most also but it is very loud.

I rescued him. He was found as a stray and taken to a shelter, and I saw him and brought him home. I was looking for a girl and ended up with a boy- love him to death anyway. I saw a ton of purebreds there though. Pits and other bully breeds especially, beautiful dogs in every color imaginable, and I saw other purebred chis as well. Shelters do have them sometimes.


----------



## VickyChaiTea (Feb 17, 2013)

UNPOPULAR OPINION TIME WEEEEEE! 

This is gonna be a loooong post, so bear with me! First:



rob0t said:


> 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!



I WILL address female circumcision because you need to do some serious learning. It is barbaric, a lifelong torture, genital mutilation, and completely inhumane. It is a vile act done by vile people. It's done as a part of "raising a woman properly" to ensure she does not have premarital sex. Because A: she fears sex will reopening her vagina which is some of the worst pain imaginable and B: it reduces her libido. Women die left and right because of infection and complications. _But they are convinced it actually raises their status in society, so they should want it._ That is the epitome of the most horrific form of sexism I can imagine. It's not, under any circumstance "to each their own". There are certainly grey areas in morality but this... this is not one of them. And if you ever think for a single second that it's ok... you need to do some serious thinking alone in the corner. 

"According to Amnesty, in certain societies women who have not had the procedure are regarded as too unclean to handle food and water, and there is a belief that a woman's genitals might continue to grow without FGM, until they dangle between her legs. Some groups see the clitoris as dangerous, capable of killing a man if his penis touches it, or a baby if the head comes into contact with it during birth, though Amnesty cautions that ideas about the power of the clitoris can be found elsewhere.[28] Gynaecologists in England and the United States would remove it during the 19th century to "cure" insanity, masturbation, and nymphomania."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

So, back to ear cropping and tail docking. I see this logic a lot, actually. "I have caused a problem voluntarily. (breeding dogs with long floppy ears that get infected and long thin tails that break) Instead of fixing this new problem I shall treat the symptom (cropping/docking) and justify it even though it's barbaric. Under no circumstances will I fix the actual problem I have created." Dogs are bred with ears so long and floppy they're prone to ear infections... dogs with long delicate tails covered with short hair that are prone to breaking... how about we take initiative to breed those traits OUT of them? Instead of focusing on what _looks_ best we should draw a line and say this is not ok because it _puts the dog in danger when it does not need to be._



Shell said:


> ...about breeders purposely creating dogs with deformities (what?? a true breeder is doing their damndest to better the breed they love).


If this was true to any degree... why do German Shepherds have luxating patellas, hip dysplasia, Von Willebrands Disease, cataracts, and so much more? Why are award winning King Charles Cavalier Spaniels seizing almost every day because their skulls are deformed and squeezing their brain? Not backyard breeder dogs but AKC and Westminster show dogs. I'm sorry but actually testing for any and all genetic disorders or things that can be passed on is something done downright* rarely*, in the grand scheme of things. Otherwise we simply would not have these problems so often.

"Terriers had tails docked so handlers had to grab the tail up close to the body to extract the dog from a hole."
"Docking sporting breeds' tails minimized risk of the animal getting hung up in brambles and briars."
"The cropped breeds were originally cropped for a reason, Danes it was to prevent the ears from being shredded by the animals they were bred to hunt, pits and boxers to keep the ears from being destroyed while fighting/hunting, dobes to keep the ears from being grabbed by an attacker (they were bred to be personal protection dogs)."

How about we stop putting these dogs in these dangerous, unnecessary, and inhumane situations? That and as previously stated stop breeding floppy fluffy ears that get stuck in briars and cause ear infections... I mean really. A breeds ears used to be docked because it was for fighting. Ok, we don't fight the dogs now (or at least I hope we don't) so... tell me again why someone has their APBT ears docked? Or their stay at home terriers tail docked? Even a working terrier... do people seriously think it's ok to pull a dog out of a hole by it's tail? How about we stop using dogs for hunting all together if the prevalence of them getting injured is so high? Oh, that's right, because then we wouldn't have the luxury of casually hunting when there's a grocery store down the road. (if anyone wants to debate hunting we can do that through PM or something I don't want to get off topic TOO much here)

Neutering dogs is so different from cropping it's unbelievable. Cropping is done for aesthetics, or so you can put the dog in a dangerous situation there is no need for to please you and your hobby. _*Neutering is done to help stop the gross overpopulation of dogs in the US*_ It is part of many things needed to help in overpopulation. We cannot make progress in reducing dogs numbers unless we neuter and spay them in certain numbers. 

Now that we have established the gross lack of necessity for these practices we can bring up the question... who are we to take away a dogs right to it's own body so we can alter it for our own pleasure? Not out of necessity, as neutering or surgery, but for our own wants. A dog cannot *consent* to aesthetic surgery. Let that sink in for a second. This is an animal that has no concept of consenting to surgery and you are going to make that decision to have it done. Who are you to say what happens to it's body? What gives you that authority? This is an honest question, please think about and answer it. Is it because you're smarter? Well then by that logic we can extend this to humans. If someone is not as smart as you, or cannot comprehend consent you can do whatever you want with them because you're smarter. Some will stop there and say no! We can't extend that logic to humans! Why? What makes humans so special? That's a completely self centered way of thinking, as far as I can tell.

I understand why people keep bringing up PETA or animal rights activist groups. If you compare people who are against cropping/docking to PETA or what the public _perceives_ animal rights activist groups to be (not what they actually are) you can make them out to be hysterical, over-reacting, irrational, loopy lala people. When in actuality they're not, and as far as I know no one here including myself is a member of PETA so can we stop bringing them up?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Shell (Feb 17, 2013)

VickyChaiTea said:


> If this was true to any degree... why do German Shepherds have luxating patellas, hip dysplasia, Von Willebrands Disease, cataracts, and so much more? Why are award winning King Charles Cavalier Spaniels seizing almost every day because their skulls are deformed and squeezing their brain? Not backyard breeder dogs but AKC and Westminster show dogs. I'm sorry but actually testing for any and all genetic disorders or things that can be passed on is something done downright* rarely*, in the grand scheme of things. Otherwise we simply would not have these problems so often.


I didn't say ALL breeders are working to get rid of these, I said many good, reputable breeders. I have (and still am) worked very closely with a # of good reputable breeders, and YES they ARE testing for everything they can before breeding their stock. They are well aware these problems exist. GSDs have been absolutely destroyed confirmation/health wise by unethical breeding, but there are some breeders who are trying to "fix" that. Yes there are unethical show breeders, yes, not every breeder is trying but there are those that are trying. To say  "I'm sorry but actually testing for any and all genetic disorders or things that can be passed on is something done downright rarely" isn't completely accurate. I suppose if you're saying among every single person breeding dogs, then yes it's rare; but there are still quite a few true, ethical breeders in almost every breed, (there are a few breeds, like pugs, where it's arguable IMO) that are in fact spending thousands to health test their breeding stock for everything they can. 

I can give you a good sized list of Doberman breeders alone who are doing so (again using Dobermans as that is the breed I am currently very active with). I'm a vet tech (and if it weren't for confidentiality issues, could give you a list of various breeders that I personally know, doing extensive health testing on their breeding stock), and I have many years of dog experience, both in the show world, and the breeding world, so I'm actually speaking from hands on/first hand experience.  You can disagree with me, but the fact is that there are breeders trying their best to fix the issues that have been bred into these breeds. No, they are not the majority, but they do exist, and they are the only ones I will support when I buy a purebred dog. They are the only ones that I consider to be "true" breeders. I didn't say that every show breeder is ethical, because they certainly aren't. I was solely talking about ethical breeders, and among them, yes they are testing for everything they can. Yes, they are fewer and farther between but that's what I was talking about in regards to good breeders. Unfortunately for every really good breeder there are 10 not so great (or down right awful) ones, and I suppose I should have made myself more clear by exactly what I meant when I say "reputable", I don't consider just any AKC/show breeder to be reputable, they have to be actively trying to better the breed to get that respect from me. They do exist, but unfortunately they get overshadowed by the crap breeders.

Anyway, not trying to argue with you, just to make myself more clear about what I meant by a "good" or "reputable" breeder.

Btw, sorry if this post isn't totally clear/kinda jumbled. I've got an overactive child running around at the moment, and was trying to reply quickly...that usually means my thoughts don't come out quite the way I want them to.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## The Snark (Feb 17, 2013)

One thing I feel compelled to point out. Blanket statements are unbecoming of thinking caring animal keepers as we have on AB. PETA IS EVIL! Pugs are whatever. Come on, people. We are bigger than that.


----------



## Formerphobe (Feb 17, 2013)

> good reputable breeders, and YES they ARE testing for everything they can before breeding their stock. They are well aware these problem exist.


I've not kept up with the past few pages of this thread... however,
Just like people, dogs will have medical issues whether they be purebred or Heinz 57.
The primary problem with dogs, any dog, is people.
The people promoting poor breeding are the purchasers, Joe Citizen impulse buyers who saw a dog or picture and "W-a-n-t-s".  And wants it N-o-w.  Then finds out s/he didn't do the proper research... yadda, yadda, yadda... 

There ARE responsible breeders out there, though they are few and far between in the grand scheme of puppy mills, back yard breeders, and 'oops my dog got out'.
I know breeders who do:
OFA - hip, elbow, thyroid, etc
Penn Hip
BAER testing
Eye testing
The whole gamut before they breed their stock.  They are trying to improve their chosen breeds and using the latest technology to do so.

Aside from puppy mills, the Joe Citizen Back Yard Breeder is the worst:  
"My dog has papers and I'm gonna make my money back on him/her..."
"My friend has [name any breed] and our friends want puppies..."
"We want the kids to experience..." 

I know so many responsible breeders who practice Whelping box to the Grave philosophy.  They will take any of their dogs, pet quality or otherwise, back at any time during that dog's life, regardless of reason.  
When I was still in [Breed Specific] rescue, I acquired a 5 year old male as a foster that we elected to keep.  When he developed a medical issue, I was able to track down his breeder with what minimal info I had been given.  When I contacted her, she threw a royal fit.  I mean, whomping, earth moving, cow-sized wooly worm fit.  Seems the owners who had relinquished the dog to rescue had signed a "Return" contract with her at time of purchase (as well as a neuter agreement).  He was supposed to be returned to the breeder if, for any reason, they could no longer keep him at any point in his life.  She was preparing to fly from several states away to take him from me. _ >>GASP!<<  "Um, no... I've had him for > a year, I'm an LVT and have access to all kinds of specialists; the dog will be taken care of."_  AFTER she checked out my references (Yep, really), she allowed me to keep him.  Turns out, he is the only one of his lineage to have this particular problem.  She faxed me medical records on his mother, grandfather, a couple siblings, etc.  And asked if she could forward my info to owner's of his other siblings, nieces, nephews, etc.  Nine years later, the breeder and I still stay in touch.  She continues to breed sound stock and produces a lot of champions.  Pet quality pups are sold as just that, and with a spay/neuter contract.  My dog has had NONE of the problems normally associated with this particular breed, because the breeder worked hard to avoid them.  The 'breed related' problems are perpetuated by other factions.  But, that is another thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Shell (Feb 17, 2013)

Formerphobe said:


> I've not kept up with the past few pages of this thread... however,
> Just like people, dogs will have medical issues whether they be purebred or Heinz 57.
> The primary problem with dogs, any dog, is people.
> The people promoting poor breeding are the purchasers, Joe Citizen impulse buyers who saw a dog or picture and "W-a-n-t-s".  And wants it N-o-w.  Then finds out s/he didn't do the proper research... yadda, yadda, yadda...
> ...


I absolutely can't like or thank this enough. You just said everything going on in my head. In my case the Dobe breeders I know are also doing annual holter/echo ests, vWD DNA testing (the ELISA test just doesn't cut it when it comes to vWD, but why am I telling you this, you know this lol), and the list goes on and on. I know you were just covering a few of the tests that the truly good breeders are doing, but felt like adding a couple.


----------



## The Snark (Feb 18, 2013)

I would point out a minor little problem with all this rationalizing. It's sadly extremely narcissist. That is, it applies to various parts of the first world while the trouble, the puppy mills, back yard breeders et al are world wide. To put it succinctly, the vast majority of bred and sold animals are purely for profit. 
So this morning I made a list of the testing various people have mentioned here and I toddled on over to the two largest animal hospitals in the second largest city in this country. Only ~10% of the tests were even known to the vets and staff. Now Thailand is pretty advanced in the third world. 
So how much of reputable proper breeding intending to produce healthy generations of animals is really going on, taking into consideration the entire world's animal population? 5%? 10%? I'd be more inclined to guess <1%.
Okay. Back to your ivory towers.


----------



## Gilberator (Feb 18, 2013)

Niffarious said:


> If people supported ethical, proper breeders there would be fewer dogs in the shelters in the first place. I said earlier in this thread that every single person I know who has adopted a shelter dog (all mutts) has a dog with health and behaviour problems. This is not an exaggeration.


I dont doubt this is true, but my mom adopted 4-5 rottweilers from shelters and all were long lived and no behavior problems were seen really. They were all very good dogs. Not trying to contradict, just putting my 0.02 cents in.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Feb 18, 2013)

Gilberator said:


> I dont doubt this is true, but my mom adopted 4-5 rottweilers from shelters and all were long lived and no behavior problems were seen really. They were all very good dogs. Not trying to contradict, just putting my 0.02 cents in.


He means mutts have more health and behavior problems. I'd like to see some factual statistics to this not just anecdotal reports.

---------- Post added 02-18-2013 at 10:56 AM ----------




Niffarious said:


> If people supported ethical, proper breeders there would be fewer dogs in the shelters in the first place.


Or people could just adopt shelter dogs instead of bothering with breeders at all. Breeders don't make money, they stop breeding, less dogs make it to the shelter. 

What really pisses me off though are people who get dogs when they start a new relationship, the women get pregnant, they give up the dog because they don't want to have the dog and a baby. Too much work. It's like WTH were you thinking when you got the dog in the first place?

People need to realize that dogs aren't just commodities and not only to be used for entertainment when they're bored. They're living creatures with obvious thoughts and emotions. Their flaws are almost always our own fault. It makes me sick to my stomach that so many happy, healthy, friendly, dogs and cats are being put to sleep because someone doesn't think they're cute enough, or they're too lazy to fix their behavioral problems. Or they didn't put any thought into buying the thing in the first place because SOMEONE JUST HAD TO HAVE A {ENTER BREED HERE}. 6 months later unplanned events happen, as they always do and the dog suffers. I say stop breeding all together except for working dogs. Adopt, adopt, adopt. Have some patience as well. If you want a certain breed look around for awhile until one pops up. Beware of craigslist adoptions too as many of these are just backyard breeders.


----------



## Niffarious (Feb 18, 2013)

njnolan1 said:


> He means mutts have more health and behavior problems. I'd like to see some factual statistics to this not just anecdotal reports.


*she

And I mean that in my personal experience this has been the case, and I explained the reasons for it. Unhealthy parents with behavioural problems bred by irresponsible people make puppies with the same regardless of breed. This will vary with geography and breeds popular in the area. Where I live, the most common and overbred dogs are pit bulls. Most shelter dogs are pit and pit mixes. Most of these dogs suffer from common pit health issues (severe allergies) and behavioural problems (severe dog aggression). 






> Or people could just adopt shelter dogs instead of bothering with breeders at all. Breeders don't make money, they stop breeding, less dogs make it to the shelter.


Mills and backyard 'breeders' are the ones filling up shelters. Do not confuse them with people breeding for love of the breed.

On top of that, then we have nothing but poorly bred animals to choose from, thereby giving the jerks filling the shelters a get out of jail free card. We've discussed this in the thread several times: people who breed for love and health of the are not doing it for profit, and if people only supported those people producing healthy animals there would be far fewer shelter dogs. And in my experience, shelter dogs are often a mess. I support my shelters with donations of food and beds etc, but it's not where I get my animals from. Rescuing is great - one of my whippets is actually a rescue (private adoption) but I choose to not take on animals that could have significant health or behaviour problems. That's not a form of stress I want/need or feel prepared to deal with when I don't have to. Those people that do are awesome, but I still want to have that choice. How would you feel if the only spiders you were able to get were all the pet store species abandoned/neglected by importers and poorly informed buyers? You probably want the choice to have more available to you than that - like healthy stock from reputable breeders? 

The bottom line, IMO, is pretty sad though. MOST people view dogs as a commodity/property. Most people will do anything to amuse themselves or make extra money. Most people resent being told what to do with their things, and I doubt most countries will have any stricter regulations. In the end, I will continue to support ethical breeders doing the right thing when I choose my dogs. I will also continue to support with donations (again, material items and not cash unless I know it's going to the care of dogs and staff salary, not a CEO sitting on his ass) the shelters who look after the animals cast off.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Feb 18, 2013)

You cannot compare spiders to dogs! 

Either way you look at it adopting from the shelters instead of breeders will decrease the number of dogs in the shelter. 

I'm not concerned with the bad breeders and any justice they deserve. I'm more concerned with the dogs that need TLC now because of these people. Let them not get in trouble but let's stop their income. 

I'm not a fan of the "behavioral problem" argument either. Yes, some dogs have certain unfavorable traits that can be a serious problem if not nipped in the bud during those first weeks, I think 4-14, and that's our faults for not addressing these problems at this young age. Yes, some dogs are just going to be terrors regardless of training but I do feel that most can be corrected if we don't give up on the dog. 

As I've said, I have two mutts both of whom are both healthy. Well, one is 17-19 so he's not that healthy anymore but he was fine up until the past couple of years. He beat a bout of cancer last year too. Most pure breed dogs wont even see 16 let alone beat cancer at that age. I know some will though so don't bite my head off . 

My point is that I'd like to see some factual studies that prove that mutts are more likely to get sick or have bred in illnesses before I go telling people they shouldn't adopt mutts. 

We can go down the list of pure dog breeds and the illnesses that often accompany them, even if they're from good breeders but I have neither the time nor patience  

At least we can both agree on the bottom line.


----------

