How do you feel about ear cropping, tail docking, and dewclaw removal?

Question

Is it okay? Wrong? How do you feel about it in general?

Answer 1

It's a personal choice/preference. I like my Danes with cropped ears and some with out. I stopped removing dew claws because I am not taking 2 day old puppies to the vets office where a bunch of sick dogs are hanging out. My dogs are not out in the brush hunting wild boar so dew claws on them are no problem. How I feel about these things is not what I think others should feel nor do I want the government to step in and make laws telling me how I should view it and what I can or can not do.
If done properly these procedures are not painful or cruel. No more cruel then you or me getting a small procedure done. We are knocked out, the procedure is done, we don't feel a thing, we wake up and heal. Dogs do the same.
Like Cleoppa said.. It is no more mutilating or cruel then spaying and neutering. What about circumsizing young boys. NOW that is mutilation! Go fight your fight there!

Answer 2

I think it is a personal preference. My Dobbies I prefer tails docked and ears cropped. Boxers, tails docked and ears depend on the dog. Danes, same as Boxers. Many breeds have reasons (which do make sense) as to why it was done.

If done with the proper sedation and pain relief medication then it is much different than if we had an elective surgery (tummy tuck, breast augmentation, etc). If you really want to go all out and say it is just cruel and inhumane then think about this....What about a new born baby boy that is circumcised? No anesthesia is given, no pain reliever is given, and he doesn't have a say in the matter either! So again, I think it is a personal preference and there is no right or wrong.

Ohhh and dewclaws....I do prefer them to be removed from my dogs for their safety. They can scratch their own eye with them or hurt their foot if it gets snagged on something while playing, hunting, etc. If I get a dog and the dewclaws have not been removed then I usually have the vet remove them while they are getting spayed/neutered.

Answer 3

There is nothing wrong with cropping/docking or removing dewclaws. This is all a personal decision. It isn't as bad as some think, I have tails cropped on my Yorkies. As long as a licensed vet is performing these surgeries , it's no different then spay/neutering .

Answer 4

Well, if you have registered show-quality dogs whose breed standard requires them, you have to.

I believe that if you have working/herding dogs, or dogs who will be spending lots of time in rough country, dewclaw removal helps with keeping them from injuries caused by the dewclaws getting caught in brush, fences, and so forth. Same thing for docking tails - sometimes depending on the breed it is necessary.

Ear cropping I do not like, as I cannot see the reason for it.

Answer 5

I am all for dewclaw removal, for practical reasons. They can get caught on things quite easily, not even things like trees and bushes but even on their own collars when they sleep in odd positions, or in pieces of cloth, etc. This can lead to a really bad wound if the nail is ripped out. Another reason is that they tend to experience a lot of pain and discomfort if the dewclaw is allowed to grow to a full circle.

Answer 6

I don't like ear cropping. I have no opinion on tail cropping, and from this point forward, every puppy I get will indeed have its dew claws removed. I have three mutts and one of them constantly - no matter how much it is trimmed gets his dew claws stuck in things. I am waiting for hte day that it rips, starts pumping blood and we have to make an emergency trip to the vet. Murphy's law states that will happen at midnight - which means emergency trip to the more expensive emergency vet.

Answer 7

I hate them because the procedures are really only for humans and serve NO useful purpose for the dog. Even those that argue that dewclaws are best taken off because they can get 'caught on branches' don't make a good enough argument. Most dogs that get their dewclaws removed are lap dogs that will hardly touch the ground anyway.

If the procedures actually improved the quality of the dog's life, then I would not be against them. But these things are done because someone decided that a certain breed should look a certain way. It's nothing more than cosmetic surgery of the dog, for the owner.

Answer 8

In spite of the resent anti-alteration surge, I believe that all of these practices started for a purpose, and still serve a purpose today.

Dewclaws that are not removed can easily grow long toenails back into the ankle, which is very painful. They can also be torn off completely, leaving a lovely bloody wound that needs emergency medical care. A quick snip as a 2-day old pup, and he'll never know any different, and never be at risk for this pain.

I worked in a shelter for a while, and have seen some 'natural' dogs from breeds that typically get docked tails, and I have seen MANY of these large breeds (like Rottweilers) wag their big, heavy tails so hard they split the skin right open and started pouring blood everywhere. One owner told me it was a constant recurring problem and the dog was ALWAYS going to the vet for it! How can that possibly be more humane than removing the tail at birth? I believe it is perfectly justified for many dogs.

And though many people will argue, I've been grooming for years, and I have almost NEVER seen an ear infection in any dog of any breed with upright ears, be they natural or cropped. 99% of ear infections, in my personal experience, occur in dogs with long, dropped ears. Wild animals were NEVER intended to have dropped ears, just look around! Wolves had pricked ears too! We BRED dogs to have long floppy ears, and the results were disastrous. The long ears catch food, dirt, moisture, and who knows what else, keep it warm, dark, and damp, and breed all sorts of bacteria and fungi. The result? Chronic, painful, itchy ear infections. Again, is that more humane that cropping? 10 to 20 years of constant pain? My mom has a phalene that will barely let you NEAR his ears because he remembers the chronic ear infections and all the washing and medicating. It's awful, I would have done anything to spare him that.

I know I'll get thumbs down for this, but I'm okay with that. People look too hard at the short-term consequences- yes, they are all surgical procedures, yes, they all cause some pain, but they should also all be treated with painkillers, topical antiseptics, and antibiotics to prevent too much discomfort or risk. But if it spares the animal a much more painful, unexpected injury later in life, I believe it still serves a purpose. I don't think that owners who choose to stay natural are wrong or bad either, it's their decision. But I think the people who want to continue those practices have every right to do so.

Answer 9

I think it needs to be a choice of the owner and/or breeder.

All of these things have been done for centuries to protect the dog. There are many stories of bird dogs with mangled tails or dogs getting their dewclaws caught or getting ear infections. There is plenty of good reason for this surgery.

People who don't believe in "mutilating" a dog should be against spaying and neutering, too. What do you think that is? They're all done for a reason and should be the personal choice of the owner.

Answer 10

If done for 'cosmetic' reasons, I think that it's nothing more than mutilation. Ear cropping has been illegal here for a long time, and tail docking became so a couple of years ago. There are occasionally medical reasons for parts of the pinna (ear flap) or tail to be removed and in this sort of case I have no problems at all.

Dewclaw removal- most vets I've worked with recommend removal of hind dew claws when they are present because they can be traumatised so easily. They are usually vestigial, with no bone attachement. I see no need to remove dew claws on the forelegs unless the dog is at high risk of, or repeatedly injuring them.