A question of ethics

[Spitfire]

This might be a dangerous post - and maybe it will get closed. But if we all try to keep the argumentation on track, it could be interesting to hear the different oppinions.
We know so much about style here. What about the style of cats and dogs.

In the good old days many dogs had their tails and ears docked (cut off) in order to look better. Or sharper. Some had it done in order to spare the dog for wounds on tails and ears when working in rough terrain, bushes etc. There was a reason for doing it. (Allthoug today most of these dogs never leave the sofa.)
But in may cases it was also a matter of "creating a look"
Great Danes and Boxers had large parts of their ears cut off, in order to get pointy ears that stood straight up. It obviously looked better.

In many countries this is now forbidden - but not everywhere.

What is your oppinion on that?

Another thing is, that many breeders try to breed animals - cats and dogs - which are to the limit or maybe over the standard of the animal.
Heavier and shorterlegged and longer Bassethounds. (With backproblems to follow).
A neighbour to me bought a Persian kitten. With a VERY flat nose.
The kitten had to be put down, because it could not breath normally.
British Bulldogs can not give natural birth anymore, but have to have an operation - caesarian section - in order to give birth.
Inbreeding is the answere to many peoples wishes of the appearance of their animals. In order to get the right fur, the right (fashionable) colour etc.
Is it ok? Or is it too much?

I have always thought that Cockerspaniels should have a little short tail, and Boxers no tail at all. Because that's how they had always looked.
Offcourse it isn't so. They are all born with long tails. And Boxes with very long, ridicolous thin tails. But that's how they are from nature.
I also know from vets, that the docking of tails is a piece of cacke.
I am a bit confused in this.
I think cutting off ears are stupid and brutal. Tails or part of tails maybe not.
(Doesn't make any sense, I know)

While inbreeding and going to the limit of standards is a crime, that only creates troubles and pain for the animal.

Let's hear what you all think.

 

[Mike K.]

There is a distinct difference between inbreeding and selective breeding. What you are talking about is more selective breeding, a practice almost as old as the human race itself. For as long as humans have domesticated animals (or cultivated plants for that matter) they have sought ways to improve the breeds' strength, appearance, temperament, etc. In fact, Charles Darwin used selective breeding as the prime example of how evolution can work...it parallels the process of natural selection. Ethically is it wrong? Except for a few extreme cases, I don't think so. As for things like the docking of ears or tails, while I doubt the animals care, as long as it's done in a humane and painless manner, there's no real harm. It is not the practice itself that has the ethical issues necessarily, but rather the human intentions behind the practice.

 

[Fatdutchman]

I have a Standard Schnauzer (not very common in this country). His tail is bobbed, but his ears were left alone. As I understand it, this is the common way of doing it now. Tails are relatively easy to cut off, but cutting the ears leaves the dog with a long, uncomfortable recovery time.

Selective breeding is the exact opposite of evolution.

 

[Mike K.]

Selective breeding is the exact opposite of evolution.

Huh?! You have read Origin of Species haven't you? Artificial and natural selection are both similar processes...just one of the ways by which evolution occurs. But we won't get into this debate again...it's already been thoroughly discussed in a previous thread.

 

[LadyDeWinter]

For me cutting off ears is brutal but cutting off the tail or parts of it too. Declawing cats is also brutal.
Why must people mutilate animals? And that's it in my opinion. Why can't a boxer keep his tail, isn't the boxer less beautiful with a tail? No, for me animals are just beautiful as they were born.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I have no experience with dogs, so I won't comment on that -- but I've associated with cats all my life, and I know that declawing is an absolutely barbaric practice that many vets of conscience rightly refuse to perform. If your furniture is that precious to you, it's best that you don't have a cat in your home.

Not to rant, or anything, but this is something that I feel quite passionately about...

 

[Fatdutchman]

... But we won't get into this debate again...

We won't? You just did!

Suffice to say, evolution requires new genetic information to be created. Selection/speciation/whatever you wish to call it, does not produce new genetic information, it only weeds out information. No new DNA codes are created, they are only lost. It is often called "micro evolution", but this is a misnomer and actually quite deceptive. It bears no relation to "Macroevolution", even though it is often used as an example of macroevolution. Now, let's not get into this debate again. (see, I can do it too! )

 

[scotrace]

Well then.

Your thread hits me squarely on several levels, my good man.
I've been a student of canine history since childhoood. I've owned a Boxer, and I am a breeder of Bulldogs (the "English" is superfluous).

As a teen, I begged for a Boxer, and had its ears cropped, as was the standard for Boxers in America. But the horror of what that truly meant didn't hit home until I saw the poor thing just after the operation. NEVER again. It was brutal.

However.

I do like upright ears on Boxers, Dobermans, Danes, Schnauzers. The lovely sweep of neck is spoiled by those drooping ears, in my opinion. And cropping was the custom in the countries of origin. The reasons for cropping are gone now, and to have a nice, alert look on the adult dog isn't worth tormenting the animal as a pup. The solution is obvious - breed for erect ears. Boston Terriers were formerly always cropped. Now, the erect ear is natural (though still sometimes cropped), because breeders selected for it over the decades.
Tail docking is a very minor procedure and while no picnic, there are still good reasons to remove a long, whip tail. I once saw a Great Dane at a boarding kennel. He had wagged his tail constantly in his wire run, and beaten his tail against the fencing until half of it hung from a bloody stump.
To say that "the tails are long in nature" really doesn't apply; nothing about any breed of dog is natural. Pure bred dogs are an entirely man made creature, each bred selectively over centuries for very specific work. Each shaped and formed and moulded by man.
Bulldogs are shaped as they are because the sport for which they were bred - bull baiting - required it. A Bulldog's nostrils are behind its front teeth to allow the animal to breathe while its jaws are clamped to a bull's nose. They are wide at the front and narrow at the rear so that, when flung about by an angry and terrified bull, they were less likely to have their entrails dashed out. They could also plant themselves firmly on the gound with that body.
For centuries, Bulldogs were bred and selected for wide fronts, narrow rears. This was only moderately successful until C-sections became practical. If the pups were too wide up front, they couldn't pass the birth canal and both mother and pups died. Bulldogs are routinely born via C-section today (unless a breeder fancies the almost certain, painful loss of both mother and pups) as letting them try to give birth naturally is too big a gamble with the animal's life. A Bullbitch's pelvis is pretty narrow. The answer again is to select for wider hips, but then, you would not have a Bulldog that meets the standard.
When you see a Bulldog (or Pug, or any other brachiocephalic breed) that cannot breathe easily, then that is a poor specimen whose breeding has not been done with care. The Bulldog standard is quite clear about it. They should project vigor, health, strength and determination. None of these things are possible if an animal is wheezing to get enough air. Reputable Bulldoggers breed to avoid such problems. If you want a healthy Bulldog - buy a pup from a reputable breeder.

The sport of pure bred dogs is today fraught with ethical questions because we see things in a more enlightened way now. Alert ears are beautiful - but cropping is butchery. So we must find another way. Bassets (and Dachsunds) with back problems are the result of breeding too far past the ideal. Bulldogs who struggle to breathe are the result of breeding without regard to health.

One further point: "Inbreeding" as it applied to animal husbandry is not a bad thing. It has always been done with everything from dogs to horses. It is how the outcome of a breeding is controlled as much as possible. It is how you can have two specimens of the same species that look so completely different (think Irish Wolfhound and Chow Chow)! BUT you must know what you're doing, and not just cross closely realted animals without careful research.

Now you can pounce on me for saying droopy ears look bad on Danes - they DO!

 

[Pilgrim]

My feelings on this are a mixed bag. However, I start from this premise, which I know that not all on this forum will share: When I have pets, I have them for MY convenience, not theirs. Therefore I will not accept or keep pets which impose constraints or requirements on me which I find inconvenient or unacceptable.

We have two cats, both of which were essentially imposed on my wife and I by our daughters. Both of them clawed the furniture; both have been de-clawed. This position is non-negotiable, and my wife and I agreed on it. The alternative was to get rid of the cats, because having them claw the furniture is not acceptable. Neither of them seemed to be bothered very much by this, and they both continue to "sharpen their pads" on furniture and other objects. My judgment is that they're better off in a home that appreciates them than they would be in an animal shelter.

I have had dogs with tails and ears docked before I got them. I personally think that docking ears is purely cosmetic and imposes unnecessary pain on the animal, so I would not have done that. Docking tails is also something that I'm not very fond of. However, I don't acquire dogs for cosmetic purposes, but for companion purposes, so I know that my position is influenced by that viewpoint.

Our current dog is a complete sweetie - a Lhasa mix with intact ears and tail that came from an animal shelter. I am a strong believer in getting animals from animal shelters.

I regret the inbreeding that is a significant part of selective breeding in purebreds, but mostly because that inbreeding has been taken to such extremes that it has essentially destroyed some breeds. I have friends with Collies, and I know through them that some Collie lines have been inbred for narrow faces to the point that they have little intelligence anymore. Other breeds has terrible hip problems and other health problems because they are being bred strictly for conformation and not for health.

When it comes down to it, animals are property in our legal system. Owners can dock, trim, etc. as they see fit. (And some owners do darn near the same thing to themselves with facelifts and cosmetic surgery.) There are lines of ethics and humane treatment, but I accept the fact that people draw those lines in different places.

One place I draw those lines - IMO the people who run puppy farms in deplorable conditions should be shut up in their own cages for a month. It is neither ethical nor humane to breed animals in conditions that are unhealthy, uncomfortable or overcrowded.

 

[scotrace]

One place I draw those lines - IMO the people who run puppy farms in deplorable conditions should be shut up in their own cages for a month. It is neither ethical nor humane to breed animals in conditions that are unhealthy, uncomfortable or overcrowded.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap

And those cages should contain the person's own excrement! Fair is fair.

 

[Jack Scorpion]

My family has always owned a Great Dane. They have all been floppy-eared and long-tailed.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Here's a concept!!....

Why not let the individual pet owner decide what they will do with their own private property - the pet!

That way, everyone will be happy while minding their own business.

-dixon cannon

 

[Baron Kurtz]

[post deleted - the sentiments expressed here really are killing me]

bk

 

[griffer]

First, D. Cannon, thank you for the objective take on this. Your property, your call. How you treat your animals, however, is a reflection of how you respect yourself.

Second, unless animals have rights or are on some scale of more to less human, I can't see a purely ethical difference between body modification on say a cat and body modification on a cow (branding, gelding, etc.).

Third, this may seem like a flame attempt, but I will pre-empt the 'because animals can't give consent' argument and grant that cutting pets is not the same as piercing or tattooing adults. But what about piercing babies? Circumcision? Gender decisioning in hermaphrodites?

With that said, my wife and I decided not to de-claw our cats, and I have an overdeveloped empathy for flopsie-wopsie eared doggie woggies.

 

[jamespowers]

Why not let the individual pet owner decide what they will do with their own private property - the pet!

That way, everyone will be happy while minding their own business.

-dixon cannon

That concept is too simple for today's nanny society. You know that.
"You can only do what I let you. You can't think for yourself."

Regards,

J

 

[Haversack]

I dislike the idea of cropping for aesthetic reason yet do not have any problem with cropping for practical reasons. Take the case of merino sheep. Because of their dense wool, if their tails were not docked as lambs, the tails and the wool around their hindquarters would get incredibly daggy with excrement and lead to some very nasty and fatal fly-born parasites. To the other extreme, (still staying with sheep), you have the fat-tailed sheep found in North Africa. It has been specialy bred over the centuries to store fat in its tail. So much so that little carts are routinely built to carry the sometimes basketball-sized tails. The sheep pull them around carrying their tails behind them. Both are the result of selective breeding for a particular, practical feature.

Haversack.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Third, this may seem like a flame attempt, but I will pre-empt the 'because animals can't give consent' argument and grant that cutting pets is not the same as piercing or tattooing adults. But what about piercing babies? Circumcision? Gender decisioning in hermaphrodites?

EXACTLY!! This is why i disagree with parent-based decisions upon these very topics . . .

bk

 

[griffer]

If the act is the same, with the result of pain and discomfort for the animal, why does the intent matter?

Either it is or it isn't an ethical human act.

(Don't pull out that rubbish about animal torture. Torture is not an act of cutting or surgery, torture is an act of inflicting pain with no other end. Even aesthetic modification has a self described end beyond causing an animal discomfort.)

 

[Baron Kurtz]

If the act is the same, with the result of pain and discomfort for the animal, why does the intent matter?

Either it is or it isn't an ethical human act.

It isn't

bk

 

[griffer]

It isn't

bk

And the line is drawn. :eusa_clap