Recently the New Brunswick Veterinary Association held their AGM. Apparently in very close vote it was decided that cosmetic surgeries being performed by veterinarians are to be deemed unethical, and veterinarians who perform such surgeries risk losing their licenses.
I own dogs which traditionally have cropped ears and I have chosen not to crop them. I consider that my decision as a dog owner. Much like it would be my decision as a parent as to whether to pierce my child's ears or allow my child to have his or her ears pierced. Some would argue that ear cropping and tail docking is purely cosmetic and therefore an unnecessary surgery that should not be performed. Yes, it is mostly cosmetic, although having had a dog that blew out his tail regularly (banged the tail so hard against the wall wagging it that it caused the skin on the tail to open and bleed) , I can certainly understand the desire from a practical standpoint to have a tail docked. Yes, it is a surgery, and therefore does come with some inherent risks and some short term pain. However, here is the simple truth: Dogs who have had tails docked or ears cropped go on to live perfectly normal lives with no ill after effects on a regular basis. The risks and benefits of such a surgery should be discussed with a veterinarian and the decision should ultimately be made based on that discussion by the owner of the dog. They're called rights, people! We really ought to stop giving them up so easily!
Here's what bothers me about this:
1. Veterinarians are bullying owners and breeders by taking away their choice to go to a veterinarian who will do cropping or docking.
2. Veterinarians are bullying other veterinarians. So you don't want to do ear cropping? Don't, that's your decision to make as a business owner. Take a stand, be my guest. To say that other veterinarians can't do it either is where the problem lies.
While I'm at it, let me remind these veterinarians that a lot about dogs is cosmetic. Many breeds hardly resemble natural animals anymore, dogs are purely man made at this point, after years of breeding for form and function. When was the last time you saw anything resembling a Shih Tzu (not cropped or docked by the way) in nature? Are we to stop grooming long coated breeds too, since that is cosmetic and might stress the dogs? A lot of dogs don't like having their nails clipped. Perhaps we should stop clipping nails and let them be “natural”. Yes, my sarcasm is coming out to play. But it strikes me as a bit wrong for one group of people to decide what another group can and can't do, and since the hundreds of dog breeds in existence were developed based on historical use (the root of cropping and docking by the way) and appearance it just doesn't sit right.
Some other very routinely performed surgeries are not absolutely immediate life saving measures. Such as neutering and spaying. There are benefits to those surgeries, and there can be drawbacks. Yet most veterinarians discuss these with the owner and a decision is made by the owner based on that information. Some, not all, veterinarians will euthanize dogs which are treatable. Why is that allowed and cropping and docking are not?
Since we are discussing unethical veterinary practises, here is a possibility for discussion that no veterinarian seems to question and seems to be quite a common practise: Keeping animals overnight following surgeries, charging for hospitalization, and not having anyone, not so much as a janitor present to watch over the animal. Is that ethical? I personally know of two dogs who have died overnight with no one present at veterinary clinics. I'm not saying that they would have necessarily survived with someone present, but I think it would take away any doubt on the part of the owner. I also have personal experience with this, a veterinarian attempted this with my dog, post surgery, and I insisted on taking him home. She argued with me at the time, and asked me to meet her at the clinic after he had been there for a couple of hours and check on him. When we arrived, we found that he was quite stressed and had removed his intravenous, and only at that point agreed that taking him home and returning in the morning for fluids was a better course of action.
The New Brunswick Veterinary Association has seemingly set itself up as a moral authority. The problem is that this association has no accountability to anyone but itself, and they have control over the licenses (and therefore the livelihood) of members who disagree with them.
I have contacted the Association for more details and a statement, and will update if and when I receive a reply.
Okay, I've got my flame suit on. Have at it!
Great article. I have 2 dobermans both with the tails docked and only one with the ears cropped. I feel that it is a personal decision as long as it is done with the proper veternarian care. I love my dogs dearly and I'm tired of feeling like a monster because believe ear cropping/tail docking should be a personal decision. My dogs live a better life than some children that I know. I'm sure you will get many nasty letters and I just wanted to let you know that at least one person appreciates your point of view.
thanks, I appreciate the support. I have no problems with people not docking or cropping, I just think it should be a choice. Also, the culture will probably change on its own gradually, if allowed to just do so.
Given the fact that neutering is militantly promoted by vets and given that it is life-altering, not without many health risks and largely unnecessary in males, I find it rather hypocritical that ear cropping and docking are considered unethical. It's probably because they are more visible.
Yeah, the vets had best stop drinking the AR Kool Aid or they will indeed be out of business. For people who are smart, they certainly seem stupid a lot of the time.
Here's the real downside to this: idiots who can't get their dogs ears, tails (and I presume dewclaws) done at the vets will do it themselves or go to back alley surgeons. Then they'll stop going to vets altogether so they don't get the AR tongue lashing about cropping/docking. So much for animal welfare, eh?
I know a lady with Standard Poodles. She has an optional surgery done on each of her dogs to prevent the stomach from twisting should the dogs get what is commonly called torsion or bloat (GDV), because it is prevelant in the breed. She wonders if this too would now be considered unethical.
Certainly I know of vets who have performed invasive and questionably necessary tests. Of vets who have used questionable vaccination protocol. Of vets who have performed multiple unsuccessful knee surgeries on the same dog. Of course, vets are not the enemy: Most vets out there do want what's best for the animal. And like I said, if they don't want to perform certain procedures, fine, that's their choice. But telling other vets that they can't? Questionable for sure.
Kelly's comment made a good point too: Her dogs are well cared for. Many animals are not. The NBVA should be more concerned with those animals than with some of their membership choosing to perform optional surgeries. And that's another reality: All surgeries, ultimately, are optional. There are dog owners out there whose dogs have teeth literally resting in their gums (believe me, I've seen it in my grooming salon) and who refuse to have any dental work done. There are dogs with arthritis or other manageable / treatable problems whose owners take them to a vet to be euthanized rather than treating them. One former client took her dog to a vet to be euthanized for having diarrhoea. Her regular vet refused to euthanize the dog without examining it and determining whether it was something treatable (and let's face it, likely it was). She left, went to another vet, and had the dog euthanized, and was quite angry at the first vet. And the NBVA is worried about people truly invested emotionally and financially in their breeds having cosmetic surgery performed? Breeders who typically take extremely good care of their dogs? Big deal!!
These vets are forcing the breeders that do crop, remove dew claws and dock to regress back to the kitchen table. Before the vets cropped, removed dew claws and docked the breeders would remove them “on the kitchen table”. The dew claws were removed with large nail clippers, and stitched with needle and white thread. The tails were “banded tight” with an elastic band and left to rot off, often causing an infection in the lower spinal area. The pups that were cropped on the kitchen table were done under ether, rubbing alcohol or hydrogen peroxide, sharp scissors and white thread and needle. I truly hope that the vets rethink their position, as a breeder that is determined to have the pup's dew claws, tail removed and cropped will look for a vet that will do it under humane , sanitary conditions OR do it themselves.
Lillian
Different species…I'd like to see declawing of cats outlawed. It's an unnecessary and painful amputation (yes, amputation) that can cause a cat to live in chronic pain. People who declaw cats are more interested in their furniture than the animal's wellbeing.
Back to dogs….I think docking and cropping should be a choice, and breed standards should be altered to reflect that. I feel sorry for upright-ear dogs that are cropped; must be bloody cold in the winter when the wind howls down that open ear canal. And docking the tail…imagine losing one of your primary means of expression. Keep the choice, but think of the animal.
I believe most breed standards have been changed to allow for a choice. The American Staffordshire standard actually says uncropped preferred.
I think we are on the same page as to this: While I might not choose to crop or dock a dog, I would like the right to choose, and don't hold it against others that they have had these procedures done. If someone wants cosmetic surgery performed on their dog, if it is done as safely and humanely as possible, the dog is provided with appropriate after care, and the dog is a well cared for animal, so be it. There are bigger problems in the dog world to contend with, let alone the rest of the world.
Honestly, the bigger issue here is that people who wish to continue to share their lives with dogs (or other animals) in the future, MUST set these individual issues aside. We must set our less immediate issues aside for the moment, and unite against the AR movement. If we continue to argue amongst ourselves about things like whether dogs should be cropped or docked, or whether dogs should be used for hunting, what kind of collars to use for training, or even (and I choke on this one myself, honestly because I see the fallout of the impulse puppy purchase) where people get their dogs we are going to lose on the larger issue, which is of course whether or not we can have dogs (or other animals) at all! So we sit here as animal lovers arguing the finer points of animal ownership / guardianship, whatever you want to call it, and in the meantime, PETA and HSUS and other AR organizations are all boldly walking in, right through the front door while we are nitpicking. They are united with one goal, with funding, with celebrity spokespeople with more cameras than knowledge on the issue, and they are slowly getting their way! The rest of the animal loving world is fragmented. Arguing. Or blissfully unaware that their dog loving future is at serious risk. The only way to get out of this very quickly advancing mess, is to unite ourselves. Just my opinion, not so humble.
I agree 100%. I was against docking and cropping before I was FOR it :>)
We must get on the same page before it's too late, which I hope it isn't already. Time to kick ass and win this war, and it is a war make no mistake. No time for sentimentality.
Im going to take a wild stab that the people who think cropping and docking are either breeding or showing their dogs? Someone made a comment that there are bigger things in the dog world to worry about, and that point I couldn't agree with more. But you see, im not a breeder, and im definately not a pretty-dog conformation person. Im a regular Joe who just happens to love dogs. Big dogs, small dogs, fat dogs, skinny dogs – it makes no difference to me because a dog is a dog. I work at obedience and conformation shows year round and I have to tell you, I hear so much whining about these purebreds, its sickening. So, while you say there are larger things to worry about in the dog world, I suggest maybe looking outside of thet ring because that is not the real world. In the real world, people call the cutting off half of a dogs ear mutilation. It sickens people, in the real world. You seem to think you should have a right, or a choice, to mutilate animals, and thats about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Don't compare the mutilation of a dogs ear to getting your childs ears pierced, that is a foolish comparison. Cutting off their hand is a better one, but you would never consider doing that, would you? Why? Because of the pain you'd be inflicting? How about because its not natural? They were born with hands, they should grow old and die with hands. Same goes for your dogs. Its about time these practices were banned. And guess what folks, im no PETA activist or HSUS employee, im just one of millions in the real world that think conformation is complete nonsense.
You are certainly entitled to your point of view, but let me guess, you believe that mutilating by amputing their testicles is okay though?
My point is that (and I said up front that I didn't crop ears on any of my own dogs) the availability of this choice shouldn't be handled by an unelected body, with no accountability, vets telling other vets what they can and can't do. It was a close vote, which tells me that it's controversial among them as well.
As far as natural goes, as I said, not much is natural about dogs. And optional surgery done safely has not been exactly leaving these dogs with emotional scars. Just like neutering doesn't.
I am not a conformation person. Not a breeder. I am an obedience trialer. I have owned mixed breeds / unregistered dogs too. It's not about me. Or my personal feelings. I don't even demat dogs for crying out loud. It's about the bigger picture. While we nitpick on all of this stuff and argue with one another about cropping and docking, training methods, pet stores and every little thing to do with dogs, AR groups are walking in and making sure these arguments are all moot. What will it matter if we can't even have dogs? I am very passionate about how I think dogs are best treated and raised and loved, and by the way, some of the best treated, most well loved dogs I've ever met have been docked and or cropped. But I try every day to remember that it won't matter what I think about HOW to have a dog if we can't have them at all.
Specious at best. I suppose you are opposed to orthodontistry, growth hormone injections, ear adjustments, etc in children? None of these procedures are necessary, they are strictly cosmetic.
Here's my question: Why did the vets in NB, in a split vote, decide that declawing cats is OK? How about dewclaw removal? Neutering has long-term health and behavioural effects, many negative, a few positive. Why are vets so militant about neutering, especially juvenile, if this is all about health?
You DO realize that many dogs will be killed because their ears, tails, etc, do not conform to acceptable conformation standards? Like Ridgebacks born without ridges, or like chocolate Labs used to be before they caught on. Red rottweilers are another example.
Sure, it's cosmetic and sure, it's just stupid human vanity, barring health reasons for cropping or docking, which do exist.
So what? These kinds of positions are nothing more than another way to clamp down on breeders. They have absolutely nothing to do with dog welfare, that's just the spin for the sleeping masses.