dog cruelty

[~Abyss~]

me and some people were discussing how cropping a dogs ears and/or tails is animal cruelty even if done as puppies. i would like to hear everyone and anyones opinion on this? I'll post my opinion later but all answers are welcomed

 

[ErikH]

I don't know. I never really thought of it as being cruel, although I think most breeds are just as attractive without the cropping. It certainly isn't as nasty as de-clawing a cat is, IMO.

 

[Ryan C.]

If its done professionally its not cruel but I've watched Animal cops and a guy will have rubberbands on the dogs tail so tight that it will eventually dock it.

 

[OldHag]

I guess it doesnt NEED to be done. But I think it looks better Guess its up to the owner.
As far as being cruel. I dont think so. Cruel is hitting, kicking, screaming at the poor dog. Making it cower in your presence. I think its just unnecessary not cruel.

 

[Crotalus]

It takes away the dogs ability to visualize its emotions to humans and other dogs and the procedure isnt nice either.

 

[PA7R1CK]

IMO its like circumsizion, it doesnt need to be done but some people think it looks better. Kind of a gross referance but I think it works. I dont think its cruel if its done professionally.

 

[Vys]

I haven't read that much about it, but if the only point lies with the eye of the human beholder, then I think it's fairly pointless, and therefore cruel.

 

[pitbulllady]

I have bred and shown dogs(American Pit Bull Terriers)which are typically cropped, though the tail MUST be left intact(a docked tail is an automatic show ring DQ for this breed in any registry). I would take pups in early that morning, and pick them up that afternoon. Surgery is done under general anesthesia, just like spay/neuter surgery. The ears are sutured and left unbandaged, since puppies will be more likely to claw at a bandage. Once the effects of the anesthesia wore off, the pups would not even notice their ears, but would go about their normal puppy business as if nothing had happened. Twice a day for about five days, I would apply vitamin E to the sutured edges, and the pups really seemed to enjoy this. When the edges started healing, there would be some itching, so the hardest thing would be to distract the pup from scratching and prematurely removing a suture, which would cause thicker scar tissue to form there, making it more difficult for the ear to stand. I'd remove the sutures myself after 10 days. Most of the time, the ears would not need "posting", but occasionally I'd have to tape a "lazy" ear, or one that wanted to lie flat on top of the head. I would only do this after the ear had completely healed, and it was seldom necessary to tape for more than two days. With breeds that have a much-longer, tapering style of crop, like Dobermans or Danes, that taping/posting process can drag on for months and often still is unsuccessful. Once I stopped showing dogs in conformation, I stopped having pups' ears cropped, NOT because I could see any cruelty in it, but because it was an unnecessary expense and aggravation for ME.

I personally find it horribly hypocritical that the same people who go on and on about how cruel ear cropping is are the very ones who so strongly advocate spaying and neutering pups as young as five weeks of age! What difference does it make which body part you lop off? Why is it cruel to sedate a pup for one surgical procedure, yet not for another? Both require pain to the animal; don't let anyone tell you that animals do not feel pain after being spayed or neutered, as many as I've had that done to! With very, very few exceptions, spay/neuter surgery is NOT needed for that animal to live a normal, healthy life, either, anymore than an ear crop surgery is. Ear cropping and tail docking alter the animal's APPEARANCE to suit human whims, while for the most part, spay/neuter alters the animal's BEHAVIOR to suit human whims, and since the latter is often used as a replacement for training and responsible ownership(in the case of dogs, anyway), to me it is just as unnecessary to put a dog through one as the other.

pitbulllady

 

[~Abyss~]

IMO its like circumsizion, it doesnt need to be done but some people think it looks better. Kind of a gross referance but I think it works. I dont think its cruel if its done professionally.

LOL THAT WAS THE SAME ARGUMENt I USE

 

[~Abyss~]

I haven't read that much about it, but if the only point lies with the eye of the human beholder, then I think it's fairly pointless, and therefore cruel.

I would compare it with earpiercing, its just atractive and pointless but not cruel

 

[Darwinsdad]

Not really weighing in on the whole apperance thing but just from growing up around dogs and having them all of my life I have noticed that of the dogs we owned the long eared ones had significantly more ear related problems than did the short eared ones. So from that standpoint alone some might consider cropping a dogs ears to be more of a health benifit issue than anything else.

 

[~Abyss~]

I have bred and shown dogs(American Pit Bull Terriers)which are typically cropped, though the tail MUST be left intact(a docked tail is an automatic show ring DQ for this breed in any registry). I would take pups in early that morning, and pick them up that afternoon. Surgery is done under general anesthesia, just like spay/neuter surgery. The ears are sutured and left unbandaged, since puppies will be more likely to claw at a bandage. Once the effects of the anesthesia wore off, the pups would not even notice their ears, but would go about their normal puppy business as if nothing had happened. Twice a day for about five days, I would apply vitamin E to the sutured edges, and the pups really seemed to enjoy this. When the edges started healing, there would be some itching, so the hardest thing would be to distract the pup from scratching and prematurely removing a suture, which would cause thicker scar tissue to form there, making it more difficult for the ear to stand. I'd remove the sutures myself after 10 days. Most of the time, the ears would not need "posting", but occasionally I'd have to tape a "lazy" ear, or one that wanted to lie flat on top of the head. I would only do this after the ear had completely healed, and it was seldom necessary to tape for more than two days. With breeds that have a much-longer, tapering style of crop, like Dobermans or Danes, that taping/posting process can drag on for months and often still is unsuccessful. Once I stopped showing dogs in conformation, I stopped having pups' ears cropped, NOT because I could see any cruelty in it, but because it was an unnecessary expense and aggravation for ME.

I personally find it horribly hypocritical that the same people who go on and on about how cruel ear cropping is are the very ones who so strongly advocate spaying and neutering pups as young as five weeks of age! What difference does it make which body part you lop off? Why is it cruel to sedate a pup for one surgical procedure, yet not for another? Both require pain to the animal; don't let anyone tell you that animals do not feel pain after being spayed or neutered, as many as I've had that done to! With very, very few exceptions, spay/neuter surgery is NOT needed for that animal to live a normal, healthy life, either, anymore than an ear crop surgery is. Ear cropping and tail docking alter the animal's APPEARANCE to suit human whims, while for the most part, spay/neuter alters the animal's BEHAVIOR to suit human whims, and since the latter is often used as a replacement for training and responsible ownership(in the case of dogs, anyway), to me it is just as unnecessary to put a dog through one as the other.

pitbulllady

I personally do NOt think it is cruel. Even the rubberband procedure doesnt seem to bother most dogs because it's applied one day tightened the next, and again the next day untill it comes off. I have heard of some who do it in one day claiming that it's quick and painless which I assume the puppy would forget about the next day. As far as neuturing or spading an animal i would personally not do it but i understand why some people do. The people I was discussing this subject to tougth that all three of these things were cruel. One ignorant BOY was using completely wrong terms to make these things sound worst. He called ear trimming DECAPATATING(?){oh he pissed me of so much} and neuturing CASTRATION. I explained to him that these words were faulty and he kept using them . GOD I HATE HIM.......................ok chill ...........................................okay im beter *exhale* yah so thats my opinion on the subject

 

[Arlius]

Neutering and spaying is more than 'personal choice' by far, what are you thinking?

Female dogs. If you don't spay a female, she risks getting pregnant (off leash walking anyone?) and secondly, every single year, you have to deal with a leaky twat. Unless you enjoy watching a dog lick at its swollen genitals, and leave nasty red stains everywhere (or make them wear a diaper!?)

Male Dogs. If you don't neuter a male dog, there is much less downfall, but you do run a risk if you go to offleash (you are responsible if your dog knocks up another), and a horny dog isn't always pleasent.

And switcing over to cats....

Same for Female cats as dogs, except switch the offleash to going outdoors freely (many people don't, but alot do)
Male Cat! You MUST neuter a male cat, unless you plan on breeding. If you don't it will start spraying, and then you will seriously regret it.

And for the topic (heh) cropping is not cruel, but it is not without complications either. A cropped dogs ears are more susceptable to ear infections. If you don't show, don't do it.

 

[The Snark]

Well, how would a human feel in their pet demanded they get surgically modified?

I would also point out, ALL surgeries involve some degree of risk. As far as I am concerned, subjecting ones pet to a health hazard, regardless how small, for purely aesthetic reasons is simply assinine.

 

[~Abyss~]

Every one is entitled to their opinion but it doesnt necesaraly have to be surgical ( except neuter and spading) but some people feel that it's safer. And again i dont neuter or spade my dogs but i understand if people do If it was an incoviniance for me I would too

 

[Tim Benzedrine]

I'm not sure I follow the proposed correlation between cosmetic surgery and spaying or neutering. In the former the owner is generally the ONLY beneficiary, they have a pet that appeals to them visually and conforms to what a breed is "supposed' to look like.
With spaying and neutering, the benefits still weigh heavily on the side of the human, but it also can improve the pets quality of life. Keep in mind that an animal doesn't have much concept of what the natural way to be is, a female almost* certainly does not miss having heat cycles or litters, and males probably* do not miss the incessant urge to procreate. Neutering is also supposed to reduce the risk of mammary cancer, I believe.

I'm not hard-core against the practice of cosmetic surgery for animals., but I sure see no need for it, and I've never found a dog to be more visually appealing after docking or cropping. In fact, the ears and tails are two of the nicest things about a dog.

*I'm allowing a tiny window open for doubt simply because I am not a dog, so I cannot make such statements with 100% certainty. But I'm sure enough that I do not feel that I am infringing upon the psychological well-being of a pet if I have it spayed or neutered.

 

[~Abyss~]

Thats a good response but I wouldnt say "'supposed' to look like" because most people just do it to make a dog look better, meaner, or whatever reason it is not to make them look like what there "suppose to". But keep in mind that nature made the dog the way it is and humans change them with "surgery" for their own benefits. Nature also gave dogs ovaries and testes and humans change that with surgery to for their own benifit. Most people preach nudering because of the overwhelming boom of homeless dogs. Which is a good thing but why oppose one kind of surgery and no the other, I think spaying and nutering is a more riscky procedure than say cropping or docking.

 

[pitbulllady]

I'm not sure I follow the proposed correlation between cosmetic surgery and spaying or neutering. In the former the owner is generally the ONLY beneficiary, they have a pet that appeals to them visually and conforms to what a breed is "supposed' to look like.
With spaying and neutering, the benefits still weigh heavily on the side of the human, but it also can improve the pets quality of life. Keep in mind that an animal doesn't have much concept of what the natural way to be is, a female almost* certainly does not miss having heat cycles or litters, and males probably* do not miss the incessant urge to procreate. Neutering is also supposed to reduce the risk of mammary cancer, I believe.

I'm not hard-core against the practice of cosmetic surgery for animals., but I sure see no need for it, and I've never found a dog to be more visually appealing after docking or cropping. In fact, the ears and tails are two of the nicest things about a dog.

*I'm allowing a tiny window open for doubt simply because I am not a dog, so I cannot make such statements with 100% certainty. But I'm sure enough that I do not feel that I am infringing upon the psychological well-being of a pet if I have it spayed or neutered.

Tim, you have fallen victim to the Animal Rightists' rhetoric, that an intact dog simply CANNOT survive; an intact dog is a walking time bomb, that having gonads is an automatic death sentence! If that were the case, you'd think more MEN would be rushing out to have their testicles lopped off!

Dogs do not reproduce by spontaneous generation. a RESPONSIBLE dog owner does NOT let their dogs run loose, spayed/neutered or not! How is the dog going to get pregnant when it's confined? I've bred dogs for over 20 years, and have yet to have an unwanted, unplanned litter of puppies. I have yet to have a male dog with prostate cancer, and none with testicular cancer, which is actually very rare in male dogs. Prostate cancer, on the other hand, is VERY common-in NEUTERED male dogs! The main reason that people spay/neuter dogs is because it alters the animal's natural behavior, the behavior that nature intended them to have. Rather than to try to control that behavior with proper enclosures and fencing, it's easier to surgically change the animal. I do NOT see a difference in surgically altering an animal's appearance to suit our whims and surgically altering its BEHAVIOR to suit our whims. Both involve surgury that is largely unnecessary and actually of questionable benefits, except in odd cases.

But, I doubt you will believe a word of what I said, so I have including a couple of links that back it up, from a medical standpoint.

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

http://showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/neutr.html

pitbulllady

 

[Tim Benzedrine]

Tee-hee! I'm a bit famous elsewhere for my rather vehement opposition to ARA's, so being lumped with them for a change is kind of funny! I don't think that a fellow that would create a thread called "PETA inhales inversely" (It was "PETA sucks", but there were those that found that title antagonistic for some reason, so I changed it) would be easily misled by ARAs.


Maybe I came across too strongly. I don't actually OPPOSE cosmetic surgery, I just personally see no reason for it, which is rather different than the views ARA's take on things of this nature. They want you to adopt their philosophy, FORCE you if need be, whereas I say do whatever feels right and your conscience allows for, as long as it isn't intentional cruelty. Crop your dogs ears and I'm fine with it, beat them, pit them, or neglect them and we have a problem.

Same goes for spaying or neutering. I don't care if somebody else has their pet fixed or not. But I think that the benefits to myself as a pet-owner along with the benefits that the animal receives makes it worthwhile to both parties.

I've never believed that an unaltered animal had a death sentence, nor did I claim that I find it a desirable option in order to change behaviour.
I'll be honest, I'm not keen on dealing with the heat cycle or the possibility of unwanted pups. Accidents happen, you know.

Those are interesting cites you supplied. Whether they are 100% unbiased, I have no idea, and am not qualified to even guess. They do seem to reflect views of vets involved in the show-dog/breeding hobby (industry?), how do vets in general feel about this? I've seen many who advocate spaying and neutering. But for all I know, they could be pawns of ARA organizations.
There was one line in the second cite that raised my eyebrows. "For certain, pet owners who think of their dogs along the lines of a piece of furniture should have their bitches spayed." I don't think I need to tell you who I am used to hearing from that sort of comment from, but just in case, it sounded a bit similar to some of the arguments that an ARA might use. It just has a "straw-man" feel to it.
But, it is merely one sentence of many, and I won't condemn the entire article for one questionable statement. But until the practice is more universally condemned, I have to feel that spaying and neutering is the best choice for myself and any applicable pet under my care. Mind you, right or wrong, that is a result of my own consideration and not the result of manipulation of any *ptooie!*)Ara*ptooie!* organization.

Finally, why would I dismiss your claims out of hand? I am familiar with your posts, and as far as I have been able to tell, your opinions are creditable. I don't even really disagree with you on this matter, I just think perhaps our philsophies may differ a little.

 

[~Abyss~]

Hear Hear Im All For Freedom Of Speech And We Seem To Share Similar Views