• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Animal Cruelty or Art Form?

Also, Daniel, to clarify, ears are cropped and tails are docked, and in the Dogo Argentino, tails are never to be docked but always left hanging. The dog has a sturdy enough tail to sustain running through underbrush with damage.
 
I guess what I am getting at is I like certain breeds with ears cropped and don't see it as animal cruelty at all. I grew up with dobes and labs and we ALWAYS cropped and docked our dobes- their tail naturally looks ridiculous if not docked IMO. When people would stop and ask why crop/dock one and not the other my answer was always because I like it end of story. No working excuse or other hubbub just the honest truth. I see how the shorter working cut is far shorter than the normal dogo ear and how goofy that show cut on the dobe is but I still have questions on how much protection an inch or two makes and honestly that second dogo's crop looks like it was already shredded by a boar and repaired no offense intended btw:)
 
honestly that second dogo's crop looks like it was already shredded by a boar and repaired no offense intended btw:)

Nope, that's a real rustic crop. I can practically guarantee you there's been no "repair". That's what a real crop job looks like. No nonsense, no pretty curved tips, nada. I'm not offended if you don't like how it looks; it's not meant to be pretty.

I hang around hunting boards and have seen dogos with bloodied ears in countries where it's illegal to crop. One dog had the ear ripped in half clean up. And then you've got the whole other problem; now the boar has a hold on the dog's head, potentially!

I don't think it's cruel to do it for cosmetic reasons either, though.

This is Exodus de Argentum, and I know that his crop has never been "repaired", but his ears are only about and 1 or 1.5 inches off his head.

Exodus083.jpg
 
Any medical procedure/physical alteration made for owner's behalf rather than the benefit of the animal is in my eyes abominable, period.
Animals were not created to amuse us, inflicting pain for something they cannot appreciate nor is in their absolute medical welfare is as far as I am concerned, crossing the line.
 
With the advent of microchipping, why would you feel the need to tattoo your dog for id purposes?

Because a microchip can migrate or be removed. Not every scanner can read all types of chips. A tattoo can be altered, but removed? That's much harder to do.

I've seen microchips move all over the place under the skin. The newer ones have a roughened surface to prevent that by forming more scar tissue around the chip, but still. My dog is chipped, but the next time he is under for any procedure I'd like to have him tattooed as well.
 
No altering then, right Oren? There are benefits AND risks for the animal, and there's no way it's in their "absolute medical benefit" to have their sex organs cut out. Responsible ownership would negate the breeding issues too.
 
No altering then, right Oren? There are benefits AND risks for the animal, and there's no way it's in their "absolute medical benefit" to have their sex organs cut out. Responsible ownership would negate the breeding issues too.

Great post!
 
Although I am not going to insist on a hard & fast position, there is a difference between spaying & neutering, which may have health benefits for the animal (certainly reduces risk of death from pyometra or breast cancer in dogs & cat), and purely cosmetic cropping & docking. If the working dog is SAFER because of these procedures (which I can see are very different from what is done to show dogs) then it may well benefit the working dog. Likewise, ID tatooing may benefit the animal, by preventing it being dognapped. Chipping is too easy to defeat, just excise the chip. Cosmetic tatooing of a cat gets right back to ONLY benefiting the human. For companion animals I don't think we should do painful procedures to them unless it benefits the animal at least a little. Have you ever lived with an intact tom cat? Most male cats would NOT HAVE HOMES if they weren't altered, so that's a benefit for the cat.

But given the tendency of reformers to generalize & generalize, I would be very loathe to ban show crops/docks or tattooing the cat, as it is likely to morph into banning altering, IMHO, ie more of a toehold for PETA/HSUS.
 
But given the tendency of reformers to generalize & generalize, I would be very loathe to ban show crops/docks or tattooing the cat, as it is likely to morph into banning altering, IMHO, ie more of a toehold for PETA/HSUS.

Exactly. I strongly favor my animals being considered MY property to do with as I see fit. If they lose the status of property and gain "rights," no matter how good and honest it seems at first (i.e. outlawing tattooing for cosmetic purposes or docking/cropping) it is a foothold for animal rights groups who can then build on that.
 
I'll be cropping just about any breed I own if it's traditionally done, and without remorse. Then again, I would work any purebred dog I bought, so there would likely be a benefit to them. I laugh hysterically at boxers or Dobes with their ears cropped so tall they flop over while they walk... that has nothing to do with function and any dog of mine would have a working, practical crop. It cracks me up when people say, "I only agree with it for the showing," like it makes a difference to dog. I'm sure he'll be more ok with because he got some ribbons. On the other, I'm fairly certain a big game dog would appreciate NOT having his ears shredded by a wild boar.

Hey, at least my dogs will get to keep their natural sex organs and hormones (at least) until they're physically and mentally mature. No unnecessary castration here. :D (Oh yes, I went there...)

I wouldn't tattoo a cat, but if it's done under anesthesia and with proper after care I honestly can't say it bothers me. If kitty gets food, a warm bed, and a visit to the vet once a year, I'll mind my own business.

And if we're still circumcising little boys without their permission, cropping and docking had better remain up to the owner. Routine circumcision better go before cropping and docking do. (The "medical benefits" of circumcision are by and large medical myth/propaganda or negated by simple hygiene, and unlike animals, kids grow up and have rights to their own body and can wonder, "Why?")

That's my piece; have at me! :rofl:

:sidestep:

To make matters hilariously creepy there is a company that manufactures artificial foreskins. Look it up, I dare you.
 
Lol, PETA and HSUS will never ban altering. They push mandatory spay/neuter laws because it's a PC way for them to eliminate domestic animals. :(
 
No altering then, right Oren? There are benefits AND risks for the animal, and there's no way it's in their "absolute medical benefit" to have their sex organs cut out. Responsible ownership would negate the breeding issues too.

I have to disagree- first off, if the owner has no intention of allowing the dog or cat to breed, sexual frustration can cause erratic and even violent behavior- if they become problematic to keep, yes, for their sake it is better to go through surgery than lose their household.
Also- cancer of the reproductive organs is both common and extremely violent- removing them eliminates those odds.

Are the risks worth the outcome... that's different for every case unto itself.

As for the term "responsible ownership"- well, I know many responsible keepers who has an escaped snake, or dog. Human beings will be human beings, you can't expect or demand that no mistakes will be made... and as such you can't have everything rely on the basis of "they are not supposed to make mistakes".
 
My friend pointed out that the cat is obese... Like it or not, that's gonna affect his quality of life way more than a tattoo. Why no outrage against that? Obesity is a form of neglect and has serious ramifications for the animal's health.
 
My friend pointed out that the cat is obese... Like it or not, that's gonna affect his quality of life way more than a tattoo. Why no outrage against that? Obesity is a form of neglect and has serious ramifications for the animal's health.

negligence is negligence, I don't recall anyone saying it's acceptable?
 
negligence is negligence, I don't recall anyone saying it's acceptable?

I don't recall anyone caring, either? I do recall a whole bunch of outrage over a brief procedure that is unlikely to affect the cat's long term quality of life, however.
 
Back
Top