hollywood is trying to ban pet cosmetic surgery

hmmm, I think its a good idea,
they already ban declawing
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... gery_x.htm

 

I agree also. Tail docking and ear cropping were done originally to protect certain working dogs from injury "on the job" but it really makes no sense for family pets.

 

I'm certainly not against the idea.

 

horay! its time the US caught up with the rest of the world on this issue.

 

Kyles, yea that bugs me, tht here we are low on the totem pole when it comes to animal welfare

 

I think its the most wonderful thing I've ever heard. I agree that its about time! I sure hope it goes through - keep your fingers crossed!

 

I always enjoy watching the Krupps Dog Show in the UK because you can see what all the breeds really look like unaltered by surgery. It is a good start for one city in California to pass this law but the only way we will really be able to put a stop to the practice is to get the AKC and other registration groups to change the "Standard" for those breeds that must get clipped, docked, and otherwise altered to be able to meet the current standard.
When I took Freckles to obedience class there was a Dobie with full floppy ears and a tail. It was a beautiful dog but I didn't recognize it in its natural state.
I'm glad Freckles is a mutt because he has that beautiful fan tail instead of the typical spaniel nub.

 

dukesad, I have seen dobies with ears but the tails are always docked, that would be interesting to see.

I heard something last year about trying to get AKC to change their standards., but no way which is double standard, ie the working labs and show labs, you never see a working lab in comp. why not?

and so most of these show dogs are meant to show their working heritage which rarely exists anymore. I just wish they would make the change, I see it coming, but very slow

question - why do dogs like dobies and spanials have their tails docked?? I know corgies do, so the person can pull them by the tail out of foxholes

on a sad note, not long ago our news program weekly featured pets were a llitter of lab mixes, they were seven weeks old , someone offered to foster them, a few weeks later they were dumped off back at the shelter with their tails docked and sick and mired in their own feces, just make me sick, and how this person got passed their screening process

 

Let me clear up a couple of misconceptions.

The AKC does NOT set breed standards in any way, shape, or form. Breed standards are set by the national breed club of each breed. It is up to the national clubs to change their standards to disallow cropping and docking. I'm not aware of any breed standard that REQUIRES cropped ears or docked tail. They only state that those procedures are allowed.

Some breeders in the US opt to keep their dogs, even show dogs, natural. The may find find their dogs are harder to finish, but this is ignorance and/or predjudice on the part of the judges. This is slowly changing, as more breeders seek international championships, and must forgo cropping and docking. While I've seen a few dogs that may have deserved a win go unplaced, I've never seen a judge excuse or disqualify a dog simply because it's being shown in it's natural state.

One problem that may present itself as things start to change is that more breeders are also starting to focus on duel championships, ie a conformation championship and a field trial championship. Some breeds, like the spaniels, have traditionally been docked to prevent injury to the tail as these small dogs work in heavy cover. I don't know how valid that reason is, but those people who do field work with spaniels have to answer that question with valid examples of injury to undocked dogs before they can expect it to be taken seriously. IMHO, I can see no valid reason to dock these dogs, as I've known several working spaniels with natural tails that have never had an injury to their tail.

I can honestly see no valid reason for ear cropping on modern dogs at all. The only reason it was done was to prevent the ear from being torn during a fight, be that with another dog or with prey. If the current fashion is for an upright ear, simply for cosmetic reasons, let them focus on breeding a natural, upright ear. It can be done. It HAS been done in several breeds, like the bull terrier. Otherwise, let the ear drop.

 

shine, you always have such good explainations

thanks

honeybear

 

On the other side of the fence...

I do not support this bill for various reasons.

The first of which being that history has shown that people who want to do something bad enough often will, regardless of the legality of it. In other words, if people want to crop or dock their dogs bad enough, they'll find a way. Whether it's taking the dogs out of the area to have it done, or if they buy from a breeder out of state, having it done before they receive the dog. How will the law punish people who have these procedures done on their dogs anyway? If it just fines them, some people may be willing to pay that to get what they want, and that's even if they get caught. If the dogs are confiscated, what will happen to them? Will they be PTS? I'm not in the least in support of dogs being uprooted from otherwise good homes just because the owners did something someone else thought was cruel. Then you also have the delinquent element... people who don't care what happens to their dog, nor do they care about the laws. If people continue to fight their dogs even after it's a felony, they will continue to crop their dogs' ears or dock tails even after it is illegal. The only difference is that rather than having the procedure done at the vets, more will choose the home-job route, subjecting those animals to far more agony than if they were cropped or docked by a professional.

Next, these procedures are deemed "elective", meaning they aren't generally necessary for the dog's well being (this is not always the case, but I'll address that below). People also describe them as cruel and inhumane. All of these are subjective terms, cruel for one person isn't necessarily cruel for another, just as one person may find one procedure elective and another absolutely necessary. I am automatically suspicious of anything that categories things by opinion only. Many people feel that spay/neuter is something that should not be done unless a dog has a problem, therefore it too is an elective surgery for some. I'm sure most dogs would not choose to have parts that functioned fine for them taken out as a precautionary measure... and often for the owner's convenience of not having to be super-responsible with an intact dog as well. There are other procedures that would fit in this category as well, though S/N if the easiest for me to demonstrate. Regarding the issue of cruelty, the same subjectiveness applies... IMO, if a dog with a good loving home is cropped, it's a relatively minor glitch in the dog's otherwise pleasant life. I'm more concerned with the real cruelty... dogs starved, dogs abused... dogs that ONLY have cruelty in their life, and have never seen the love of a good family. I'm sure we've all done things to/with our dogs that could be considered cruel by someone, somewhere, and I don't want to give overealous animal rights groups the opening to step in and tell good dog owners they're unfit because they don't like something the people do.

The last thing I'll address is that in some cases, docking, dewclaw removal, and even cropping can be a preventive measure in keeping a dog from injuring those extremities (much like spay/neuter can be a preventive measure in keeping some illnesses at bay). I have APBTs, a breed not normally docked, and I've seen tail injury in one of our dogs, as well as some others of the breed. They generally have thin, whiplike tails, without the fat covering breeds like labs have, so they can do a lot of damage beating their tails onto things while wagging them. Both our dogs are housedogs, and rarely crated, but the younger injured (and continued to reinjure) her tail by beating it against certain areas of our walls where quarters were close, and it took several months for it to finally heal. In the meantime, she had an open wound at the end of her tail, which put her at risk of infection, and no doubt did not feel very good when she wagged it and smacked it off of things. Some breeds (dobes, boxers) tend to have even longer, equally bony tails, which are even more predisposed to problems, especially if the dog is kenneled. If I had one of these dogs, I have little doubt that it would be docked as a pup as a preventive measure. You can see more examples of tail injury here: http://www.cdb.org/ (obviously, they are pro-docking, but the photos speak for themselves). The same holds true for dewclaws, especially in some breeds, they are prone to snagging and tearing, leaving the dog bleeding and in pain, needing surgery to remove them anyway. If people want to take the preventive measure of having them taken off pups, I can't say much about it. Cropping today serves little purpose, though it can still be of use to dogs used for hog hunting or other jobs where the dog will be running in brush. When ears are torn, they are slow to heal, and bleed profusely because of all the veins, so again, it could be seen as a preventive measure, though torn ears are not as common as tails. And for the record, most fighting dogs of old (and even more recent ones) are not cropped, that's a myth, supported by many humane groups, but completely unfounded. If a dog were going to bite another dog's ear, but the ear wasn't there, the dog would bite the dog's head instead, causing even worse damage.

I wouldn't really be upset if this law did pass, but I think there are far more important issues people could be addressing.

 

we all know that NONE of these procedures are preventative. perhaps i should chop my fingers off because i might slam them in a car door?

 

I'm all for dew claw removal on puppies. Much easier than removel at an older age. The dew claw serves no purpose and get's torn easily, even in house pets. It's also the nail that is most often ingrown and infected because it doesn't get worn down like the other nails.

I'm ambivelent about tail docking. I'm sure it's necessary when a dog continually injures it's tail in some way. But it's impossible to tell with a litter of new born pups who's going to injure his tail, and who isn't. On the other hand, when it's done on 2-3 day old pups, there is little if any discomfort. I've seen many pups being docked that never even wake up, much less fuss about it. Even the ones that do wake up and fuss don't seem to fuss for long. A couple of yips, and then it's business as normal. Certainly no worse than an injection.

As for ear cropping. I've assisted on those too. Some breeds fare worse than others. The terriers, schnauzers and such don't seem to experience much discomfort or complications. The Dobes and Danes, on the other hand, do seem to have more problems, not only with post op pain, but with bleeding and infection. It seems like an awful lot to put a dog through for purely cosmetic reasons, and I still don't see any valid functional reason to crop ears. It's purely cosmetic.

But I am firmly opposed to legislation that would ban any of these procedures, for the same reason I'm opposed to legislation to license pet groomers. For one thing, such laws are worse than useless. They're unenforcable, many of them are redundant, and I think the government has bigger fish to fry and needs to keep it's nose out of people's pockets.

 

Taking sides on this issue is difficult. But I have to agree and disagree with all of you. Being as I work dogs, and see injury day in and day out, I know the preventative measures that can and need to be done to WORKING pups.

Goob, you made a great comment about trying to inforce this law. there are ways around everything. So I find it quite hard to see them try to enforce a law that no one will obey. Dog fighting and cock fighting are great examples. Its against the law and cruel in some eyes, but its still done.

Kyles. I found your statement odd. There ARE preventative measures for everything. Weather or not one chooses to utilize those measurements, is up to ones choice.

I do however agree that to put a dog through the proceedure when it is purely for cosmetic or personal prefrence is non sense.

I breed ACD's. There is a HUGE misconseption in this breed that the tail is to be docked. WRONG. the dogs use the tails for rutters. Such as like on a boat. When a heeler is in working routine, they use their tails to help them make sharp turns, and keep their balance during full out runs.
However, many feel that they should be docked.
I've worked both docked and non docked dogs. I'll tell you, I've never seen an ACD properly work and efficiant without its tail. I know, I speak from experiance. YES, Smokey's tail was FULLY removed for medical reasons. And he still works. Properly? No, but he gets the job done. He can be clumbsy and can not turn as sharply.

HOWEVER, I feel that the bill is a great IDEA for cosmetic reasons but not for working dogs, However, but I don't see how they will pass it or enforce it.

The Dobes, Danes, APBT, ABT, ect... each dog is made up diffrently. And as Shine said, they can be bred to have erect ears, shorter tails, ect...

Take the Stumpy Tail Cattle dog for instance. This is a breed of the ACD's where the pup is born naturally with a tail no longer than 4 inches. Charllotte was a natural, though breeding this into the breed has proven quite hard. The dogs are with some problems. And faults that are outside the standards. Does this make a lesser dog in the working world? No, but showing does. The dogs have proven to come out leaner, and with diffrent coat types. But it CAN be done!!

So with every change, there are pro's and cons. your not going to get what you want every time.

Trying to enforce this, is like preaching to a brick wall. There will be supporters. But as Goob said, if there's a will theirs a way, and people who want it bad enough will go other roughts to have it done.

IMHO> Its better to have professionals do it legally, than to try to ban something and have people running around trying to either do it themselves, or have some one else who is not qualified, or worse, other alternatives.

 

This is the first thought I had when reading about this. History is full of examples of laws that made situations worse and even dangerous once people took the "violation" underground.

Unfortunately, these issues are not black and white. I personally have a problem with being told I cannot do something just because someone else doesn't have the same opinion as I do. That doesn't make mine wrong or theirs right.

I feel there are MANY other issues that could should take priority over this one and be addressed. Just my opinion ...

 

im reffering purely to cosmetic procedures sams. when people say 'i want to chop my dogs ears off because i like it like that', that is not preventative. also, the laws do work. just take a look at australia. you wont find any champion dog with cropped ears and i havent seen any regular dog with cropped ears either. cropping is almost unheard of here, along with the declawing of cats. the docking bans came in a while back and im seeing more and more dogs with their tails. judges are also becoming more accepting of natural dogs. the only people who continue to defy the docking law are professional breeders because god forbid they get one less ribbon at that show! little do they know the majority of australians purposely look for dogs with their tails. as well as the usual methods for enforcement, people can, and do, dob others in to the rspca and they will inspect the culprits within 2 days. the fine is big and there is a possibility that they will be jailed. perhaps we should all learn from poor kevins experience with ear cropping?

 

When cropping a docking bans work, it's not because of the law. It's because the buying public expresses a desire for a natural ear and tail. It's the same with anti-discrimination laws. They can pass all the laws they want, but until the hearts of people change, folks just get sneakier about how they discriminate.

I've seen way too many undocked dogs that owners have placed rubber bands around their tails. The owners mistakenly believe the tail will die and fall off. What they end up with is a swollen, gangrenous mess that has to be amputated to save the dogs life. While that situation may be obvious, if an owner really wants to circumvent a law, there are many ways to 'accidentally' injure a tail that would make amputation necessary. The same is true for ears, although the outcome probably wouldn't be as neat and pretty as a real cropping. And it would also be more painful for the dog.

As for enforcement, I'd much prefer law enforcement officials spend their time on more serious issues. We have far too many cases of real cruelty, neglect, and abandonment. I'd hate to see officers wasting time prosecuting a person for docking their dogs tails when animals are being straved, beaten, and left to live in their own filth.

Personally, I wouldn't crop my own dogs ears, if I had a breed where cropping was an option. I discourage owners from cropping if they ask my opinion. But I don't think I can or should force my opinion on someone else. And I don't think the government should force my opinion on someone, either.

Sadly, complications during surgery are a reality. I've also known of dogs and cats that die during spay/neuter surgery and dental cleanings too. And I think we'd all agree that's not a valid reason to forgo those procedures.

 

good pros and cons, I wonder though since procedures are banned in Australia, it has ahd a ripple effect of its just the norm not do the procedures. It seems like other well develop countries take their animal welfare much more seriously. I read recently , I wish I could find it that Europe has ver low rates of dogs and cats in shelters and so there is not hte need to euthanize, we have become the throw away society, and it went on to ponder why we have become like that.


I think working dogs need to get done what is appropriate for the type of work they are doing, As for dewclaws, Wylie has several times practilly ripped it off, and now its deformed just from playing, the vet recoommends taking it off, and we have seriously thought about it, to keep her from re-injuring herself. but she is now 8 years old I am hoping she will slow down