To crop & dock or Not ??

[SRC]

I have Doberman's and I have both done (cropped and docked). It's a personal decision. If you don't want it done to your animal...then don't. I know parents who make their kids go to church when they don't want to, have their ears pierced as a baby, and various other things that could or may cause discomfort.

Doberman's have long floppy heavy ears...they have the possibility of developing great ear infections like the Cocker. Their tails are long,spindly, and boney...all it takes it for them to whack it on a door frame or gate and it's instantly broken..and they will be in pain. I don't care if you think it's cruel or just for looks (or just for fighting..for the record that was a very stereotypical and very uneducated response btw) it does have a purpose..it's called preventative maintance. Regardless of if you want to look at it that way.

As a pet owner you have to look at the broad picture..and what could or may happen in the future..and make decisions at the present to accomodate that.

 

[OrkyBetta]

It is cosmetic, and painful. A tail is vertebre, and vertebre have EXTREME nerves in them. Unless you have medical or hazard reasons I think it is just not necessary. I do, however know a few dogs with dock/crops and they can and do live just fine and healthy lives. I think if you really want it done, get it done by a qualifyed vet. Most breeders do it themselves, and cannot properly anesthesize the fish.

 

[3fsh]

I fully support cropping and docking because there are reasons for them. Cropping was/is done for the dog to hear better and the ears are also easier to clean and less prone to infection. (Much more painful than the actual trimming of the ears. Ever seen a dog with an ear infection? They are absolutely miserable.) Docking was/is done for the simple reason that it prevents their tail from getting caught in the bushes or getting weed-seeds or ticks all over it.


BTW- I love it when you guys say that it is "messing" with them and changing them into something un-natural. What do you think selective breeding does? Why do you think there are Dobermans, Briards, Min Pins, etc. etc.? Those dogs all have medical problems inherent to their breeds due to the fact that humans literally molded them into what they wanted them to be. I think selective breeding of traits such as "teacup" dogs or dogs that are so huge that they only live a few years is monumentally worse than cropping ears or docking tails.

 

[MegTheFish]

First things first Julibob you dog looks far better looking without cropped ears than the one with them looks.

I agree! When I saw the picture of the dog WITH cropped ears...I just laughed It looks so funny.

I don't know much about it but if I were to get a dog that could have that done, I wouldn't do it. It just seems...so unatural. Like dyed or painted fish, for example. I wouldn't get that kind of dog anyway, I would rather get one from a shelter. I'm not too fond of purebreed dogs. I prefer my mutt

 

[Haiku]

I'm sorry to contradict you, but that myth of "chance of increased ear infections if ears are uncropped" has been pretty much debunked. Breeders will tell you that, but studies have not shown that to be true at all. If that were the case, why in the world crop only breeds such as dobermans and boxers with very low incidence of ear infections (yes, even in uncropped dogs), and leave cocker spaniels, the dogs with the highest incidence of ear infection, with long floppy ears? It is not the ears flopping over that causes ear infections, it is lots of hair in the ears trapping moisture in, as well as is affected by healthy or unhealthy diets. When I had my collies, had to regularly keep the ears trimmed to prevent this and they had natrually pricked ears! Certainly my sister with her natural eared dobies never had any problem. Even the tail injury thing has been called into question and studies showing even working dogs with tails don't usually ever injure them. Dobermans have the same type of tail as great danes, greyhounds, and other dogs with similar builds.

The preventative maintenance line does not make sense to me. It's like saying "I could break my arm so I'll have it amputated before it happens."

Here's a beautiful dobie with natural ears and tail:

And here are a couple more in depth and interesting sites that talk about and explain ear cropping.

http/www.outlawdanes.com/ears.html

http/www.thepetcenter.com/gen/earc.html

And, if we are going to talk about infection, after a cropping is first done there is a huge risk of infection, especially if not kept clean enough, and complications from the surgery, the dog's ears can heal disfigured if not properly taped and kept stretched tight. All of this is painful for the dog. Ear cropping is a major surgery, and not at ALL comparable to the piercing of an ear. A major part of the ear is actually cut off the dog, and then it must endure weeks of pain afterwards. The ears are packed with nerve endings and are one of the most sensitive places on the body.

edit: Selective breeding bears zero correlation to cosmetic surgery, and is a whole separate issue... and dogs with cropped ears most certainly do not hear better than dogs without. That is the first time I've ever heard that one, even from a pro-cropping proponent.

 

[3fsh]

There is always a greater chance that dogs with un-cropped ears will get ear infections. You can't debate that. And you didn't say anything about the fact that it helps them hear better. This is absolutely necessary for hunting dogs. It is also necessary for hunting dogs (with long hair) to have their tails docked because it gets caught on things. (I didn't specify, but I think it's stupid to have tails docked when the dog has short hair.)

edit: Selective breeding bears zero correlation to cosmetic surgery, and is a whole separate issue... and dogs with cropped ears most certainly do not hear better than dogs without. That is the first time I've ever heard that one, even from a pro-cropping proponent.

I didn't say it had anything to do with cropping/docking. I DID say that I found it funny that someone could call cropping/docking "unnatural" while at the same time they own a dog who is, in and of himself, very "unnatural". All dogs are "unnatural" with the exception of wolves, coyotes, dingos, etc.

Honestly, selective breeding is in fact cosmetic surgery taken to an extreme. Instead of cropping some dogs' ears... they just bred them to have ears that stood up.

 

[Angry_Platy]

Honestly, selective breeding is in fact cosmetic surgery taken to an extreme. Instead of cropping some dogs' ears... they just bred them to have ears that stood up.

I disagree with you on this point in a BIG way. When breeders selectively breed their dogs there is no "mutilation" going on as there is with tail docking and ear clipping. They are merely selecting the best dog and the best ***** to breed together to have the desirable traits, and these aren't necessarily cosmetic traits. They aren't going to breed with a ***** who, say, has a tendency towards genetic eye problems etc. As for breeding for ears that stand up, if it is what is meant to be then it will come out in the pups, no medical intervention required.

As for justifying tail docking for hunting dogs, I disagree with this as well. Dogs in the wild do not have tails docked or ears clipped and they still manage to get by. If the dog can't hunt in its natural state than it shouldn't be hunting at all IMHO. And don't start me on my opinions on hunting, thats an entirely different topic which I am not going to go into here (for fear of getting this topic locked etc.)

I liked someones analogy to the broken arm. Yes, lets amputate our body parts cause something might go wrong later. Lets take out our appendix and tonsils at birth since so many people get them taken out later on.

 

[OrkyBetta]

Ah, another dog that is mutilated. I think the corgi looks SOO much better with an undocked tail, don't you?

here's one docked

what happined to that beautiful curled tail? I see corgi's, and other docked dogs, wiggle their butts since they don't have tails to wag. A sad sight.

 

[gaya]

I agree with Angry and others. It makes no sense to cut up our animals be it for hunting or not and how many people here are hunters anyway? I had a dog with big floppy ears and a tail growing up (a mutt though) and she was just fine. We cut her hair as needed and bathed her, no big deal. The fact that people surgically augment their animals (and themselves for that matter) for esthetic purposes is just ridiculous and bizarre.

 

[Opcn]

Now I'm against it for asthetic reasons but there are times when they get in the way, Forinstance dobermans (which I think should all be sterilised btw) need to have short or no ears so that they dont get taken ahold of my them,tails aswell. Australian sheperds have there tails docked because they get hurt and caught in things, a big beautiful tail like that is taken off for a reason, not asthetics. its our fault, we bred these dogs with genetic prob;ems that interfere with there day to day life, a dog with cropped ears or docked tail isnt handicapt but one witha broken tail or an ear torn up in a fight is. And its not a big surgery too, its done with a pair of sheers and or a rubber band, puppies being docled dont even wimper, they wimper when they fall off there wobbly little legs, picking them up to put it on is worse than the acctual procedure. There are dogs with hip problems and doing hip surgery to prevent or aleviate discomfort is looked at as a good thing, IMO purpose cropping and docking should be the same.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

"Who are we to tamper with nature???"

I don't think cropping and docking of tails should be made illegal for working dogs, but the whole concept of not docking and cropping simply because it is not natural is very hypocritical and controversal for so many breeds out there!


So many breeds of dogs people buy are completely unnatural in every way in their appearance and many suffer health problems just being what they are- sausage dogs for example have major back problems due to their very unnatural length of back- a friend of mine who used to breed these dogs back in australia, told me of how so many of her dogs died simply because of their backs breaking i.e she had one dog that jumped off a bed and broke its back, another died when it jumped out of her car when going to a dog show and broke its back etc.
Practically all British bull dogs cannot even give birth naturally to their extensive breading, many long haired dogs suffer constant of eye and skin infections from their hair always being in their eyes and their fur getting matted up all the time. I could go on, but the fact is the majority of dog breeds do not resemble anything like their wolf ancestors and are man made 100% and would have never occured in the wild naturally...You go on about these issues but many of these dogs are immoral to even exist and people buy them simply for their looks, but complain when others dock and crop their dogs for the look of it- so hypocritical!
Dogs aern't the only animals that are docked and cropped, practically all pigs have the same done to them with no anasthetic and no one even mentions them- pigs are 4 times more intelligent than labrador dogs but are yet battery farmed in conditions worse than what battery chickens are exposed to- but i bet most of you tuck into a good mac donalds meal from time to time or eat many other battery pig products but feel you are entitled to to complain about such issues with dogs- yes you are entitled to do it but i personally think you should make an example of yourself before complaining about others actions.
I eat no battery farmed animal products at all, the last time i ate a mac donalds or other similar company owned food product was 2yrs ago. I meant giving up alot of the foods i liked but then again at least i was no longer financialy supporting such an evil/imorral cause, i would never buy a dog that had an extended back/hair, shortened legs or tiny/small stature simply because i do not agree its right to buy such breeds whose only purpose in their existance is to appeal in their looks to humans. I think docking and cropping is wrong for people whose dogs existance is only as companionship to their owner, but i do think it is acceptable for people who use their dogs as working dogs as the procedure is in the animals interests.

 

[black angel]

kimbowee
when a pointer is on set then they stop dead in their tracks and point. when it is tracking a scent the tail is constantly wagging and if the dog goes through bushes then it will injure the tail
my own dog is a german pointer and when i take her out she is constantly covering ground looking for a scent and in and out of gorse bushes. If she wasnt docked then she would have had to have her tail removed anyway from the damage she would have done. anyway, i prefer the sleek line that docking gives and as i said earlier i wouldnt care if the dog was docked or not.
As these are working breeds, the breeder doesnt know who is going to buy them, whether for work or as a family pet so they have to dock them anyway.
dogs in this country have to be docked by a vet but i'm sure many breeders will do it themselves anyway and i know my own vet wont dock tails unless the animal is a working breed.
as for other animals being docked, i worked on a farm where we had to dock the lambs tails with rubber bands, and they didnt even notice it, but i'm sure the male lambs felt it when their *bits* were tied off.

 

[Haiku]

There is always a greater chance that dogs with un-cropped ears will get ear infections. You can't debate that.

Actually that is VERY debatable. One of my collies with naturally pricked ears had trouble with ear infections when he was younger, my golden with naturally floppy ears, and he is even wet a lot, has never had a problem. There are vets with years of experience (including in the links I provided), who assert that cropped ears versus uncropped ears has absolutely no effect on whether a dog gets ear infections or not. I am certain our friends from the UK, Australia, and NZ can confirm they have no more problem with their uncropped dogs than we do with our cropped dogs when it comes to ear infections. Finally, if this is all purely for the dog's own good to prevent ear infections, why aren't we cropping all dogs with floppy ears? It's made to sound like any dog with uncropped ears is going to suffer endless and painful ear infections, and this is simply not true.

And you didn't say anything about the fact that it helps them hear better. This is absolutely necessary for hunting dogs.

This is a ridiculous claim in my opinion. You do realize most hunting dogs are hounds and sporting breeds without cropped ears? Not to mention dogs hunt by scent and sight, not by sound.

Yes, selective breeding has produced "unnatural" dogs, and in fact I am against extremes in selective breeding that has produced dogs with physical disability too such as breathing and back problems. However, no matter how many pups are docked and cropped, they will never start being born that way. Each time they have to be cut into and made to endure pain (especially with the ears). I am unwilling to cause an animal unnecessary pain for sheer looks.

 

[SRC]

No, most breeders do NOT clip their own pups tails. That is ridiculous. You have to seal the wound or the pup will continue to bleed. They may have done this in the "old" days but 9 out of 10 breeders today do not do this on their own. It only cost $2 a pup..why would they take the risk on a dog they are going to sell for $500? Maybe a "backyard" or "puppy mill" breeder might..but you shouldn't be buying dogs from those type operations anyways.

(hunting dogs actually need long floppy ears most times...it helps to trap scent so they can track (most hunting dogs have hard flat ears instead of soft, so they do not get so damaged while running through a thicket. Although if you look closely at a working hunting dog (like a search and rescue dog)..say a BloodHound...you will see tons of scars where they have been caught on briars.)..they usually benefit from a docked tail..so it does not get caught in briars and ripped and torn)

In regards to tail and dewclaw removal...

If you take your pups to a vet that does NOT provide the pups with a localized injection of lidocain they will feel pain, and they will yelp out (generally special surgical shears are used to clip the tail then surgical superlgue is used to seal the edges).....BUT even if they do not use the lidocaine the pup quickly forgets after you put it back with the mother. (the same as a baby that has just been circumcised. Yes it hurts, but babies have short attention spans..and when presented with food at this young age..pain is quickly subsided by the presence of something greater)

They do it at 1-3 days before the bone hardens in the tail, while it is still soft..like cartilidge. What they experience is no more then you cutting your finger. It hurts, then it's over just as quickly.


Yes, it is debatable for people to use the "ear infections", "broken tail", or "dewclaws can cut" excuses. But those situations CAN happen, do, and have happened....but that's not me saying that it definately will happen.

8 times out of 10 if a dog ever developes an ear infection they will recurr over and over again. This costs the owner tons of money in vet bills...plus the dog constantly has to be treated (which most dogs despise...being held down and having medicines put in their ears).

Then you have dogs like great danes and other short haired breeds that naturally have long tails. Sure some are left long...you should go ask your vets how often they treat broken tails. You might be surprised at just how many they'll tell you. Having a dog that wags their tails hard and fast, that are quite aloof and clumsy, and sport an unprotected tail (unlike a lab who has a more bushy tail)...is dangerous for the dog (it's somewhat like you taking your fingers, opening your hand loosely..and whacking your fingers as hard as you can on the edge of a door facing...you should give it try sometime..must feel great)...and can consequently cause the owner even more in vet bills (and we all just love spending hundreds of dollars on unnecessary treatments at the vet don't we?) Ever seen an adult dog that has had to have it's tail amputated? It's a sad sad sight. They have to put the dog under anethesia, cut through bone, stitch the dog up, then put one of those Elizabethan style collars on the dog so they can't chew the stitches out when they start to itch..when the wound starts to heal. Amputating the tail of an adult dog is like having your arm cut off..it is quite painful for the dog after the bone has hardened. Not to mention the chance of infection..as cutting bone itself is a risky procedure as bone becomes easily infected; and the tail is placed on the ground where bacteria has a better chance of attaching itself..and they have no anteseptic tongue of a mother dog to wash their tail several times a day to stave off infection..like a pup does. Not to mention the tail is the absolute hardest place to get to heal..as the area is constantly moving..from the dog wagging it's tail..the wound take longer to heal because the wagging and moving keeps the wound area opened up. This procedure can also run you anywhere from $200-$500 depending on the severity of the damage..this includes nerve damage that the tail could sustain. And often times the dog is left with a handicap. They learn to use their tail as a center for balance...once they have grown up that way and you remove the tail..it leaves them at a disadvatage for quite a while until they re-learn how to operate without it; the tail will also remain hairless on the end..leaving it susceptable to a wide variety of injuries (this is not the case of dogs that have them removed at 1-3 days).

Then you have the dewclaws (these are removed at 1-3 days of age, at the same time as the tails. They are removed with a scapel then surgical superglue is used to seal the edges). Ever been jumped on by a dog that still has it's dewclaws? These are the 5th toe that resides further up the leg of a dog..a claw that serves no purpose what so-ever. They can cut you like a razor blade if they hit you at the proper angle. How bad would you feel, if your dog knocked down or jumped on a child and caught that dewclaw on her arm or possibly her face? The dog doesn't have to be being aggressive, or be trying to hurt someone, to hurt them with these "claws"...all they have to do is be playing and slide that claw across your soft, human flesh..and it will cut you ..sometimes very deeply.

Which is why I said these procedures should be viewed as prevenative maintance, regardless of if the person having it done is thinking of it that way or not. It's like using dental floss to prevent cavities. You might not ever get one..but you improve your chances by flossing and keeping your teeth extra clean..even though it is very uncomfortable while you do it. It's like giving children their vaccinations as babies. They probably won't ever get measles or polio...but they could. So you give them vaccinations to reduce the risks...even though it hurts them at the time you give them the shots (babies most often have extreme soreness at the injection site and will have a fever for 1-3 days afterward. And they will cry ALOT after getting a vaccination..because they don't feel good).

Prevenative maintance is not always pleasant or pain free...but it's the end result that is worthwhile.

All that being said, I am quite aware that this argument will never be settled. Because the people who disagree with the procedures only view their uses as "cosmetic" and refuse to the see the actual benefit from them (and I'm not saying that no one ever has these procedures done purely for cosmetic reasons..I know they do...I'm saying regardless of that fact...the procedures STILL have a logical/legitimate basis for being performed). I think it's sad though, that they cannot see that what might cause a little discomfort/pain now...can keep great pain from happening later...and instead choose to argue about it in such a hostile/bitter mannor (even though hostility seems to be what they are trying to avoid).

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Thankyou SRC, you have opened my eyes even further to the topic . I think most of this debate comes down to what is in the best interests for the animal, many breeds that exist in the world today, the breeders did not even take into consideration what was best for the dog, but even so docking and cropping seems to have many benifets for certain breeds of dogs but not all.
Instead of an outright ban, or an outright legalisation of the issue, i think there should be laws imposed for various situations;
a. It should be illegal for somone to perform the docking of a dogs tail once it is no longer in the care of its mother or the bones in the tail have hardened.
b. It should be illegal for somone to dock or crop a dogs tail without the veterany training to do the procedure or to do it without anesthetic etc.
c. If the particular breed of dogs physical appearance makes it more prone for its tail to become a serious hazzard, should it become manditory for that dogs tail to be docked? Or what about if you have a breed of dog thats physical appearance makes it so that its tail is unlikely to become a serious hazzard to its health, be made illegal to dock its tail?
Hmm...
What other situations are there that should be accounted for do you think and what do think about the ones i have listed?