|
|
Post by DogGoneGood on Apr 21, 2008 11:00:53 GMT -5
I think it would be interesting to start some kind of weekly/bimonthly debate. ;D I know sometimes debates can turn one-sided but it's always nice to know everyone's opinions anyway  Debate Rules:1. Keep it civil and mature! Everyone is intitled to thier opinion. No name calling etc. You are allowed to debate and have a differing opinion but try and keep it civil at the same time 2. No one sentance answers. (Ex: "I think it's wrong.") TTry to back up your opinion with thoughts, articles, website links etc. 3. Try to keep the topic from running off track. If it starts to go somewhere else you can start a new thread about whatever it's gone off track about Debate Question:How do you feel about cosmetic surgery in dogs? Such as: Cropping (cuting the ears and manipulating them to stand up), Docking (cutting the tail shorter) and Dewclaw removal (removing the "extra" toes on dogs wrists). I will add my two cents later |
|
|
|
Post by rexandbaby on Apr 22, 2008 8:14:36 GMT -5
I can't stand to see a dog with cropped ears.
But, I don't mind the tail cropping. Baby had her's done at 3 days old.
I think that dew claws are a nuisence.(sp) Both of my dogs now have them, and I wish that they didn't. Baby is always snagging one of hers, I have to keep dog wrap around and use it sometimes, because she pulls it too much. Rex's claws seem to grow faster than the rest of them. I think that I clip them every week!
|
|
|
|
Post by DogGoneGood on Apr 22, 2008 12:14:40 GMT -5
Linkin's dew claws grow faster than the rest too!! I thought he was just a freak lol He's got four though; two attached dewclaws on the front and two unattached on the back. I was advised at one point to remove the back ones but I got Linkin when he was 8 months old. To me the odds of him snagging it off are pretty slim and it seems like a lot of unnecessary pain for him to go through. I'm not much for cosemetic surgery unless it's preformed at a young age. Also, because they're detached that means you can turn them in the complete opposite direction  This means there's a lot of give to them unlike an attached dewclaw, so if it get snagged it's more likely to flip backwards than tear, unless he snags it in a different direction. I personally LIKE the look of ear cropping but I don't think I could ever actually put my dog through that. I think manipulating the ears to stand up in a breed that's ears already do this (like the GSD) is acceptable, though personally I like ears like Linkins where they're all over the place and don't know what to do ;D But to actually CUT the ears and manipulate them up doesn't seem to have much purpose in it to me. Docking on the other hand, use to, and still sometimes does today, have a legitimate purpose. Field dogs were often docked so that they had a stiff tail that stuck straight up and could be seen through fileds, rather than a long whispy tail that was more likely to hang to the ground or over the back. Also some breeds are prone to breaking their tails (like Boxers). They wag that tail so darn hard they whack it against something and actually BREAK the tail. I think it's totally acceptable to dock a tail in this situation. For breeds that the docking has hung around for looks mostly (like the rottie and the aussie) I personally don't like it. I love long tails on dogs, and I think a rottie and an aussie look much better WITH tails! Aussies have BEAUTIFUL bushy tails, I just love them. I don't understand why anyone would want to lob it off  |
|
|
|
Post by lilredridinghood on Apr 24, 2008 21:19:44 GMT -5
I don't mind dew claws at all. Cru had his and Jack still has his. No problems. But Deli had hers removed before I got her and it was a HUUUUUGE ordeal. One of them got really infected and we had to have her on antibiotics and had a huge cone on her head. It was waaaaaaaay more hassle than it was worth. Especially when she would come up BEHIND me and run into my knees, thus making me stumble.  Unless they are loose, I personally don't see a point in removing them. Here's my Deli with her cone. If you look closely you can see her lack of dew claw in all of its nastiness.  |
|
|
|
Post by DogGoneGood on Apr 24, 2008 23:03:07 GMT -5
Awwwe! She looks so sad! There was a Shar Pei in my class that had his dew claws removed. It was all healed by then, done when he was a puppy but it STILL looked nasty to me. Like a big indent on his ankles |
|
|
|
Post by lilredridinghood on Apr 25, 2008 7:06:57 GMT -5
Awwwe! She looks so sad! There was a Shar Pei in my class that had his dew claws removed. It was all healed by then, done when he was a puppy but it STILL looked nasty to me. Like a big indent on his ankles She was miserable, but not as miserable as that cone was by the time it finally came off.  Deli has those weird indents too. I question how good the vet was that did the dew claws and the spay because her spay scar is HUGE. It's one of the nastiest spay scars I've ever seen.  |
|
|
|
Post by charmingnancy on Apr 25, 2008 12:51:53 GMT -5
Luckily, neither of my dogs have ever had a problem with their dew claws, but if they did, then I would consider getting them removed. I see no real reason to crop ears, dock tails, or remove dewclaws, except for health reasons. As far as "keeping up with breed standards", dogs that don't participate in shows don't need their ears or tail surgically altered, and if the breed doesn't naturally have erect ears or short tails, then it shouldn't be a traditional "breed standard", in my opinion. www.thepetcenter.com/gen/earc.htmlwww.netpets.com/dogs/healthspa/case4dock.htmldogs.thefuntimesguide.com/2006/05/removing_dew_claws.php |
|
|
|
Post by abker17 on Apr 25, 2008 19:39:24 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with you, Shara.  Working at the SPCA I've seen a lot of boxer mixes come in with full tails and add that to a small cement kennel and there's a recipe for disaster. I'm (for the most part,) opposed to ear cropping because in this day and age it just seems like an unnecessary pain to the dog, and a selfish one on the part of the owner as well. Plus you really have to search to find a vet practiced and capable enough to do a good job with the least amount of pain inflicted on the dog possible. As for dewclaws, Abby had two rear detached dewclaws which were removed when she was spayed at the recommendation of my vet. I wasn't old enough then to think to protest, but I think I would have agreed to the operation anyway since hers were detached, and IMO, could easily have been snagged and ripped off. You can't even tell they're gone now. |
|
|
|
Post by DogGoneGood on Apr 25, 2008 20:38:33 GMT -5
First of all, hey Abker, welcome back Second; I have to disagree that detached are more likely to rip off... Detached have more give which means they're more likely to roll backwards than tear off, whereas an attached has no give so it'll tear. I haven't had any problems with Linkins, whereas Coal has ripped one of his toe nails (not a dewclaw) clear off |
|
|
|
Post by nattiej1976 on Apr 28, 2008 1:46:47 GMT -5
Im very much a fence sitter on these issues. I can understand and appreciate the arguments for and against them. Docking I think has its place certainly and sometimes is an appropriate surgury. I would like to think that it always done properly, I do shudder at the thought of the rubberband around a young animals tail waiting for a rot and drop of, but if done clean and sterile, for the purpose of safetey and well being for the animal, I can appreciate that reasoning. Although to be honest i doubt i would ever choose to do it to any of my own pets.
Ear cropping, I fail to see the benifit of this one, I could be wrong but from my understanding is this one purely cosmetic only? or is there a benifit or safe guard to the animal for cropping?
Dew claws???I actually know of no one who has had dew claws removed, nor know of anyone who have had problems with dew claws. Like tail docking though, I can understand why somone may choose removal, I have seen some dogs out there with them just flapping around like some sort of weired growth, I could see in these instances them being a risk of catching and damaging and hurting the animal.
|
|
|
|
Post by DogGoneGood on Apr 28, 2008 11:29:26 GMT -5
Ear cropping, I fail to see the benifit of this one, I could be wrong but from my understanding is this one purely cosmetic only? or is there a benifit or safe guard to the animal for cropping? That's right, ear cropping is purely cosmetic. I heard once that on Pit Bulls it was done to avoid ears getting torn in the pit, but did some further research on it and found it was often better to have a dog with big floppy ears. If grabbed onto by another dog the ear would get torn rather than the face... even if it was true that it was benifitial, I still wouldn't classify this barbaric act as a legit reason to crop a dogs ears |
|
This means there's a lot of give to them unlike an attached dewclaw, so if it get snagged it's more likely to flip backwards than tear, unless he snags it in a different direction.
Unless they are loose, I personally don't see a point in removing them. Here's my Deli with her cone. If you look closely you can see her lack of dew claw in all of its nastiness.
Working at the SPCA I've seen a lot of boxer mixes come in with full tails and add that to a small cement kennel and there's a recipe for disaster. 
