Lakota
Active Member
Cavy Slave
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Posts
- 36
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 36
What in the world? Is this only for looks or do these people actually think there's some sort of medical benefit in doing this?
I know that some floppy-earred dogs are prone to ear infections due to mositure remaining trapped in the ear canal (most yeast and bacteria do well in moist and warm environments), but I've never heard of a bulldog needing something like this to keep the ears back. Their ears seem to be better off than spaniels' and basset hounds' ears.
At least it seems to be relatively harmless. It's just stupid.
In addition most of those problems can be prevented if that area is just cleaned and washed properly every day, esp after they urinate.
Dewclaws are removed because they serve no use to the dog and can cause a whole lot of pain if/when the dog catches it on something. It's a preventative measure, but unlike the claim that tail docking is preventative for tail injuries, dewclaw injuries are much more likely to happen.
You can't even say it's uncommon for a dog to snag that claw on something! My own dog snagged one of hers, she was in a whole lot of pain, and bled everywhere for 5 hours until we could bring her to our vet (she snagged it during the night). Don't believe wikipedia about those accidents being rare. I saw several when I was observing area vets this semester.
I should explain that the dewclaw on dogs is not at all like the other claws or like cat claws (which require the entire first knuckle to be removed during declawing). The ones on the back legs esp. tend to have little bone or muscle structure, which makes them prone to injury. Also many dogs can't wear the nail down like their other claws. Most of the time the declaws are removed when pups are 3 days old. But I've seen older dogs have theirs removed (under anesthesia or even just local), and they don't seem too sore afterwards.... esp. if it's been accidently torn before it was removed. Those that nearly pulled the claw off on their own by accident actually seem to feel better once it's removed completely. Poor dogs.
I prefer leaving the dewclaw intact to be honest despite the fact I find them highly annoying. However I can't lie and say that the reason to remove them is unlikely to happen.
Tail docking on the other hand is more pointless as a preventative measure. However it does benefit a select few dogs. Please hear me out. In the past dogs had their tails docked mostly because people thought the tails would interfer with their jobs before it was done for fashion. The tails could get injured or something during the job. While the chances of that happening are slim (and maybe were slim back then too; though if it did happen the wound could get infected and the dog could die), it meant that those breeds that were docked normally didn't have much focus in breeding programs to keep their tails strong and supportive. There was no reason from the breeders' point of view since the tails were to be removed anyways. The end result now is that a few dogs of those breeds have poorly 'designed' tails that remain relatively fragile and that they benefit from being docked. That is esp. true when those dogs do the work they were intended to do, such as hunting. Though a few have also been injured just being normal pet dogs too. This is a real risk; however it is very uncommon and tail injuries can and do occur in breeds that are not traditionally docked.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not saying all dogs of those breeds should be docked as pups to prevent those tail injuries. The chances of tail injury still remain very slim for most dogs, and because of that I don't see the reason to dock every pup's tail of a litter just because one of them might have a tail injury in the future. It's just that I feel a few dogs should be docked, and it's up to owners or breeders to decide if they want to dock their dogs. I do not agree with the anti-docking laws in Europe because they ignore the legimate concerns of owners and hunters who want their dogs docked even after the dog undergoes multiple injuries to its tail in the field or home that are impossible to prevent. That results in a lot of pain for the dog (and owner) and the tail only gets removed if infection spreads (resulting in even more pain for the dog).
Personally I think breeders of those docked breeds should either start concentrating on improving the tail in their breeds or try to infuse pembroke welsh corgis into their breeds because those corgis can have a naturally short or bobbed tail. That would elimate the need to dock the dog's tail to achieve the dog's traditional look. That actually was done in Germany I think with boxers, and it did prove to be successful. It's still not very common though.
True ear cropping includes that plus surgery to cut part of the ear to make it stand upright. It involves a lot of pain for the puppy. If your Yorkies were truely being cropped, then your parents were cheating; a yorkie's ears are supposed to be able to stand up on their own.... without cropping. They have natural ears. Sadly a few breeders have been known to crop the ears of dogs whose ears don't stand up the way they normally do in their breed; this is frowned upon by other breeders because cropping is not part of the breed standard (though it is a couple of these breeds in which case it just depends on individual breeders if they agree with cropping) and the dog could pass on its traits to its pups.
I can't deny that some breeds do look nice with cropped ears, but I don't see why they should have their ears cropped just because some people think they look nicer that way. That's stupid. It's not worth putting them thru that pain for fashion. Dogs with upright ears do have fewer ear infections, but cmon, we were the ones who bred floppy earred dogs in the first place! Now some people complain about that?!? Why not simply infuse dogs with up-right ears into those breeds, breed out the unwanted characteristics, and then encourage further breeding with up-right ears? That way the dogs can achive a similar look to cropped ears... just this time they do have natural prick ears.
If it's to be done, a vet should do it, not someone in their garage. The vets here always try to talk people out of it first, which should also be done.
The only dogs that 'benefit' from cropped ears anymore are fighting dogs. It prevents them from having an easy target during fights, and thereby helps prevent them from losing their matches. Having their ears cropped is the least of those dogs' problems though. Plus dog fights are illegal anyways, so there really is no good reason to have it done.
In this case he prob. drowned the kittens because he didn't want them and he didn't think he could find someone to take them off his hands. Animal shelters have come a long way in recent years; however they were unheard of in the 1930s. When my grandfather was a young, he didn't even realize that you could take unwanted animals to one instead of releasing them or umm killing them. Poor gramps grew up during the Depression and it was just impossible to keep too many cats around. Money was better spent elsewhere. Perhaps your grandfather was similar. He may very well have liked animals; he just didn't know what to do with all those unwanted kittens. Taking them to a vet for euthanizia wasn't an option because that would cost too much money.
Not that I agree with him for drowning inoccent kittens, mind you. It is cruel, and the kittens deserved better. I'm just trying to explain things from his point of view. Despite what PETA says about farmers and just about everyone else, I do think most people care about their animals and try their best to provide for them. Farmers and ranchers may have to limit care somewhat (for lack of better terms) to make a profit, but many of them don't purposely abuse their animals either.
You even bring up a better example than I could have in regards to diabetics and their cats. People who have their cats declawed do love their pets.
Declawed cats should be kept indoors or supervised outsides. However those that are only declawed in the front paws could in theory be allowed out on their own because they could use their back claws to climb trees to get away from dogs or other dangers. In fact many of them do. Only those that are declawed on both front and back legs need to be kept indoors.
Also owners should be prepared for the cats acting differently at least intially (and possibly permamently); the cats may not like using their kitty litter anymore for instance.
I know that some floppy-earred dogs are prone to ear infections due to mositure remaining trapped in the ear canal (most yeast and bacteria do well in moist and warm environments), but I've never heard of a bulldog needing something like this to keep the ears back. Their ears seem to be better off than spaniels' and basset hounds' ears.
At least it seems to be relatively harmless. It's just stupid.
Actually some baby boys are recommended to have circumcision for medical reasons. It's just pointless to do it when they're what three days old because that's way too early to determine if they would have those medical problems.
In addition most of those problems can be prevented if that area is just cleaned and washed properly every day, esp after they urinate.
People in the UK (back when they allowed docking) felt banding was less painful and more humane. While that procedure is considered more painful in the US and we prefer those special scissors for docking. I always find that funny.
Dewclaws are removed because they serve no use to the dog and can cause a whole lot of pain if/when the dog catches it on something. It's a preventative measure, but unlike the claim that tail docking is preventative for tail injuries, dewclaw injuries are much more likely to happen.
You can't even say it's uncommon for a dog to snag that claw on something! My own dog snagged one of hers, she was in a whole lot of pain, and bled everywhere for 5 hours until we could bring her to our vet (she snagged it during the night). Don't believe wikipedia about those accidents being rare. I saw several when I was observing area vets this semester.
I should explain that the dewclaw on dogs is not at all like the other claws or like cat claws (which require the entire first knuckle to be removed during declawing). The ones on the back legs esp. tend to have little bone or muscle structure, which makes them prone to injury. Also many dogs can't wear the nail down like their other claws. Most of the time the declaws are removed when pups are 3 days old. But I've seen older dogs have theirs removed (under anesthesia or even just local), and they don't seem too sore afterwards.... esp. if it's been accidently torn before it was removed. Those that nearly pulled the claw off on their own by accident actually seem to feel better once it's removed completely. Poor dogs.
I prefer leaving the dewclaw intact to be honest despite the fact I find them highly annoying. However I can't lie and say that the reason to remove them is unlikely to happen.
Tail docking on the other hand is more pointless as a preventative measure. However it does benefit a select few dogs. Please hear me out. In the past dogs had their tails docked mostly because people thought the tails would interfer with their jobs before it was done for fashion. The tails could get injured or something during the job. While the chances of that happening are slim (and maybe were slim back then too; though if it did happen the wound could get infected and the dog could die), it meant that those breeds that were docked normally didn't have much focus in breeding programs to keep their tails strong and supportive. There was no reason from the breeders' point of view since the tails were to be removed anyways. The end result now is that a few dogs of those breeds have poorly 'designed' tails that remain relatively fragile and that they benefit from being docked. That is esp. true when those dogs do the work they were intended to do, such as hunting. Though a few have also been injured just being normal pet dogs too. This is a real risk; however it is very uncommon and tail injuries can and do occur in breeds that are not traditionally docked.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not saying all dogs of those breeds should be docked as pups to prevent those tail injuries. The chances of tail injury still remain very slim for most dogs, and because of that I don't see the reason to dock every pup's tail of a litter just because one of them might have a tail injury in the future. It's just that I feel a few dogs should be docked, and it's up to owners or breeders to decide if they want to dock their dogs. I do not agree with the anti-docking laws in Europe because they ignore the legimate concerns of owners and hunters who want their dogs docked even after the dog undergoes multiple injuries to its tail in the field or home that are impossible to prevent. That results in a lot of pain for the dog (and owner) and the tail only gets removed if infection spreads (resulting in even more pain for the dog).
Personally I think breeders of those docked breeds should either start concentrating on improving the tail in their breeds or try to infuse pembroke welsh corgis into their breeds because those corgis can have a naturally short or bobbed tail. That would elimate the need to dock the dog's tail to achieve the dog's traditional look. That actually was done in Germany I think with boxers, and it did prove to be successful. It's still not very common though.
That's not true ear cropping. That just helps natural upright ears stay and grow upright. Many German shepherd pups have that done too. Think of it like how Native Americans used to strap their babies to a broad to give them a flat forehead. Confining and constricting-- yes; painful-- maybe slightly.
True ear cropping includes that plus surgery to cut part of the ear to make it stand upright. It involves a lot of pain for the puppy. If your Yorkies were truely being cropped, then your parents were cheating; a yorkie's ears are supposed to be able to stand up on their own.... without cropping. They have natural ears. Sadly a few breeders have been known to crop the ears of dogs whose ears don't stand up the way they normally do in their breed; this is frowned upon by other breeders because cropping is not part of the breed standard (though it is a couple of these breeds in which case it just depends on individual breeders if they agree with cropping) and the dog could pass on its traits to its pups.
I can't deny that some breeds do look nice with cropped ears, but I don't see why they should have their ears cropped just because some people think they look nicer that way. That's stupid. It's not worth putting them thru that pain for fashion. Dogs with upright ears do have fewer ear infections, but cmon, we were the ones who bred floppy earred dogs in the first place! Now some people complain about that?!? Why not simply infuse dogs with up-right ears into those breeds, breed out the unwanted characteristics, and then encourage further breeding with up-right ears? That way the dogs can achive a similar look to cropped ears... just this time they do have natural prick ears.
If it's to be done, a vet should do it, not someone in their garage. The vets here always try to talk people out of it first, which should also be done.
The only dogs that 'benefit' from cropped ears anymore are fighting dogs. It prevents them from having an easy target during fights, and thereby helps prevent them from losing their matches. Having their ears cropped is the least of those dogs' problems though. Plus dog fights are illegal anyways, so there really is no good reason to have it done.
Your grandfather could very well have liked animals. It's relatively normal for people in the country to 'cull' their animal herds of inferior animals, and in a sense that's what your grandfather was doing. His children may have been too young to understand that, which is why he did it at night.
In this case he prob. drowned the kittens because he didn't want them and he didn't think he could find someone to take them off his hands. Animal shelters have come a long way in recent years; however they were unheard of in the 1930s. When my grandfather was a young, he didn't even realize that you could take unwanted animals to one instead of releasing them or umm killing them. Poor gramps grew up during the Depression and it was just impossible to keep too many cats around. Money was better spent elsewhere. Perhaps your grandfather was similar. He may very well have liked animals; he just didn't know what to do with all those unwanted kittens. Taking them to a vet for euthanizia wasn't an option because that would cost too much money.
Not that I agree with him for drowning inoccent kittens, mind you. It is cruel, and the kittens deserved better. I'm just trying to explain things from his point of view. Despite what PETA says about farmers and just about everyone else, I do think most people care about their animals and try their best to provide for them. Farmers and ranchers may have to limit care somewhat (for lack of better terms) to make a profit, but many of them don't purposely abuse their animals either.
THANK YOU!! I can't tell you how many people from the UK look at me funny for saying that it's better to declaw a cat in some instances. I would rather they didn't declaw them of course, but if all other options have failed at stopping the cat from scratching and the only other option left is leaving them at a shelter or worse euthanizia, then it is simply in the cat's best interest to be declawed. Why can't the Brits understand that?!? Declawing is a last resort.... or should be. Sadly like many things, some owners misuse it and seem to think they NEED to have their cats declawed even when they don't.
You even bring up a better example than I could have in regards to diabetics and their cats.
People who have their cats declawed do love their pets.Declawed cats should be kept indoors or supervised outsides. However those that are only declawed in the front paws could in theory be allowed out on their own because they could use their back claws to climb trees to get away from dogs or other dangers. In fact many of them do.
Only those that are declawed on both front and back legs need to be kept indoors. Also owners should be prepared for the cats acting differently at least intially (and possibly permamently); the cats may not like using their kitty litter anymore for instance.
Last edited:
