Ear Cropping Ban
In California, there is a proposal to make it a misdemeanor to crop a dog’s ears. While I personally don’t have my dogs’ tails, ears and dew claws removed, I think if someone wants to do that then it is their right. After all, we alter dogs to prevent them from breeding.
Good thing for dogs they’re not cows because we just kill them.
August 5th, 2004 at 5:42 pm
[…] ping Ban Update |By SayUncle| California’s proposed ear crop ban, that I mentioned here, is not to be: What began in June with an amendment to an otherwise widely-s […]
July 8th, 2004 at 1:39 pm
I would actually support an ear cropping ban, unless somebody can come up with a legitimate health reason why cropping could continue.
Your comparison to altering dogs to prevent breeding rings hollow, because the benefits of such altering are clear.
But there’s a better way than legislation, in my opinion. I was watching a European dog show a couple of months ago (hosted by Ron, Jr., by the way) where ear-cropping had been banned, so all of the breeds had full ears. If the AKC and Westminster were to dock points for cropped ears (not likely, I’ll admit), the practice would cease practically overnight.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:41 pm
Why are dew claws removed to begin with?
July 8th, 2004 at 2:42 pm
dew claws for appearance.
Ear and tail cropping have their origins in dog fighting. Cut them off and there’s less for other dogs to grab.
Some hunters of feral pigs crop ears and tails so the wild hogs can’t grab them.
These days it’s for appearances mostly but in some cases it’s done to keep the ears clean. Long eared dogs can trap moisture in them and that leads to infection. I think they should crop ears of a springer spaniel for health reasons but they don’t. After all, it was bred for appearance and that includes long ears.
July 8th, 2004 at 5:54 pm
Oh, and to be fair, we don’t “just kill” cows. We kill them, eat them, and wear them. 🙂
July 8th, 2004 at 10:03 pm
Seems like ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ to me — and to an innocent dog. Only hunting dogs are benefitted, IMO. I seem to remember that California outlawed cat de-clawing a while ago too. More ‘cruel and unusual’ and unnecessary surgical adjustments to accommodate humans. There was a grass roots movement by veterinarians to outlaw declawing at one time. My vet will not do the amputation – which is what the procedure is.
July 9th, 2004 at 7:23 am
I support the ban. Our schnauzer has her ears and tail. She looks great and her tail wagging tells us a lot.
Dew claws not just for appearance. Our schnauzer still has her dew claws and they are always getting caught in things when she is playing. They break and bleed and it is very painful to her.
Ears and tale cropping were also done for hunting purposes, to not get caught in the bramble bushes, etc.
July 9th, 2004 at 9:04 am
Excuse the typos (tail), always in a hurry. Like the wite rabit. I’m late, I’m late for a very important date.
July 9th, 2004 at 11:23 am
My daddy had a hunting dog when he was growing upin Napa, CA, which hadn’t had any cropping or docking done to it. He told me that after every hunting expidition, the dog’s tail was bleeding from its’ owner wagging it in the brush and high grass.
In Yorkies, the cropping and dew claws are done a couple of days after birth, and the pups seemed to be okay when we picked them up from the vet.
If this passes, I guess the next step would be a ban on using masking tape to stand up the ears so that they’ll be erect in the adult dog.
This techniques has the side-affect of actually increasing their hearing ability vs. a floppy-eared, untaped dog.
July 9th, 2004 at 12:27 pm
I think tail-docking should be banned too. There was a study done in Australia about whether dogs with docked tails suffered more or few injuries than dogs with their tails, since the theory has always been that the docked tail prevents a dog from injuring its tail while hunting in the underbrush. The study showed that dogs with docked tails actually suffered more injuries, mostly from being bitten and attacked by other dogs. The researchers theorized that the missing tail took away an important method that dogs use to communicate with other dogs, leading to misunderstandings, leading to fights and attacks. Most dogs with docked tails aren’t used for hunting or herding these days anyways, they are just housepets.
July 9th, 2004 at 4:20 pm
I am a small animal veterinarian, and except in very limited cases (dogs destined to hunt), this is all cosmetic and for the owner’s vanity. The AKC (and AVMA, for that matter) could end this tomorrow, and should. The procedures are very painful and ultimately unnecessary.
July 9th, 2004 at 4:32 pm
The AKC (and AVMA, for that matter) could end this tomorrow, and should. The procedures are very painful and ultimately unnecessary.
I agree completely. But don’t want the state involved in the decision.
July 9th, 2004 at 7:58 pm
Corgis are cattle herding dogs with short legs. When their tails are docked a cow’s kick will miss the dog completely. It also makes it easier for the dog to sit.
I am not sure that the various types of surgeries should be outlawed. We have modified dogs through breeding in many ways. AFAIK, some of these surgeries fix things which are bad for the dog. You could call them undesireable side effects of the breeding process. Aren’t some ears docked to cut down on ear infections?
I am so suspicious when the government wants to get involved…
Yours,
Wince
July 9th, 2004 at 10:58 pm
The govt. is involved when a person abuses or neglects a dog, so
why not this? It’s just veterinarian-approved (could it be for the
fee?)abuse, in my opinion.
And, no, there’s no effect on ear infections. That’s a myth that
helps those that condone cropping feel better.
July 10th, 2004 at 12:14 am
The government’s involvement in the case of abuse is different. Plus, as i said, we kill cows to eat them with a sledgehammer to the head usually. That’s legal. As much as I love animals (particularly mine) at the end of the day they’re legally property and can be treated as such.
You’d have to prove that a procedure is abuse (and i think most mentioned are pretty bad for the critters, like cat de-clawing). But these do provide benefits in many cases (for example, how many cats would not be adopted if they couldn’t be de-clawed?).
And i know from experience that the ear cropping thing can prevent infections but typically breeds that get their ears cropped aren’t prone to infections anyway.
July 10th, 2004 at 7:55 am
Re: corgi docking
Welsh corgis ( pembroke ) are generally born with no or very small tails, while cardigan corgis generally have a long bushy tail. Docking is unnecessary.
July 10th, 2004 at 8:58 am
Not wanting to get snarky, but you know from ‘experience’, and I know from education and training, along with more experience than a few dogs. What is your experience, and how can you prove it helped?
And you say this is different than abuse, but you don’t explain how. My feeling is that it is the cause of pain and suffering with no greater benefit than the wishes of the person. There is NOTHING of benefit to the procedure to the dog or dog population (which is why we neuter animals).
July 10th, 2004 at 11:53 am
What is your experience, and how can you prove it helped?
On the word of another vet, a dog had it’s ears cropped due to the frequency of ear infections as a pup (i.e., the vet recommended it and it seemed to help). Also, I know that springer spaniels (which some friends have) are prone to ear infections because they are bred for long ears. It’s easy to deduce from that that long ears = more likely to have ear infections and shorter ears aren’t.
And you say this is different than abuse, but you don’t explain how.
Don’t get me wrong, i think these procedures are unnecessary and painful which is why i don’t have them done. As to why it’s not abuse, for one, animals tend to be under anasthesia when the procedures occur. And the procedures tend to serve a purpose (like cats who have homes who wouldn’t if they still had claws).
July 10th, 2004 at 12:43 pm
One breed (springer spaniel) does not a case make. In fact, they are one of the breeds most likely to have atopy (allergy), and that’s the main reason for having ear infections, not big ears. Lateral resection, where the ear canal is remodeled, can be helpful for chronic infections, but that is much different than asthetic cropping.
When they wake up from the surgery, wouldn’t you agree that they feel the pain then? Imagine a similar procedure on you, and you’ll know that the pain doesn’t stop after the cutting.
Don’t mean to be strident or an ass, but this issue is important to me, and I just find the arguments for it sorely lacking.
July 10th, 2004 at 1:52 pm
You misunderstand me then, I am not actively arguing for it. I oppose it. But i think that it should remain legal and left up to individuals and registries.
And all it takes is one case to make an exception (springer spaniel). And a dog feels pain after being spayed/neutered.
And I don’t think you’re an ass.
July 10th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
People should be willing to take the minor steps necessary to keep their dogs’ ears clean and dry if cropping really does help with ear infections (personally I don’t believe it does, and neither does my dog’s veterinarian).
And I don’t think people should be allowed to mutilate their animals by hacking off their limbs at will. I am not a big fan of big government either, but protecting animals is very important since they cannot protect themselves. I bet that if I decided my dog would be more attractive with only three legs, so took her over to my neighbor, and held her down while he used a chainsaw to hack her leg off, people would think I should go to jail for animal cruelty. I don’t see much difference between that and people who cut off puppies’ tails without so much as a painkiller for the poor things. And the myth that newborn puppies don’t feel pain is a myth – with what scientists now understand about the way nerves develop and work, it is clear to neurologists that if anything newborn puppies feel pain more acutely than adult dogs. Another study that looked at tail-docking showed that on average puppies screamed in pain for over two minutes after having their tails cut off. Two minutes is a long time to be screaming in pain. I can’t even remember the last time I screamed in pain for more than a few seconds, let alone two minutes. I think it is a shame that the AKC has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the Middle Ages.
July 19th, 2004 at 11:23 pm
I vote against dewclaw removal. I have owned dogs with and wothout them and the only difference has been having two extra nails to clip. I’m not lazy enough to mutilate my pups. 😉
July 19th, 2004 at 11:24 pm
Had to add the name!
August 5th, 2004 at 4:53 pm
I am a assistant at a veterinarian’s office and we are all glad the ban didn’t go through. If it did, that would force more and more people to do it illegally in their basements, without the right anesthesia or pain killers. All that the government needs to do is pass a law stating that any ear crop done by a person without a veterinarian’s licence would be practicing without a licence. In addition, dewclaws are the nails in the position right above the foot, the “ankle” so-to-speak. They are removed because sometimes they’re very loose and hang there. They can be easily caught and ripped while the dog is playing, working, etc.
August 5th, 2004 at 4:59 pm
Jen, thanks for the insight.
August 31st, 2004 at 11:42 pm
Why the fuck is everyone crying about earcropping. In vegas its legal to walk up to a dog and shoot it. I think thats a more important issue than ear cropping.