Animal Cruelty or Art Form?

[Kokopelli]

I said I would never seek to deny that reproductive cancer exists. So frankly, I'm not sure what this is about - I can't help but feel like you're leading the conversation somewhere different out of avoidance.

I never, ever suggested anyone ignore reproductive cancer, so please do not make it out like I did. I'm simply suggesting that eliminating the risk for reproductive cancer can also heighten the risk for other cancers. Similarly, you have no way of knowing how many dogs died of osteosarcoma that would have avoided it were they not altered early, or how many dogs will suffer from hypothyroidism that could have avoided it were they not altered. In the states, the stats for dogs dying of testicular cancer are thought to be less than 1%. Of course, bitches are much more prone to mammary cancer, which is why I would likely spay a non-breeding bitch after she matured.

To suggest, however, that routine altering in the name of prevention is of "absolute" benefit to the animal is false. Spare the dog one health condition, subject them to the other. It is all about the owner and their dog, and making the decision that is right for them.

Which is why I reserve the right to perform other elective procedures on my pets.

-You- can do whatever you want, I can't nor am I trying to force you into anything. Your post is filled with presumptions about me avoiding or not avoiding... I am talking statistics- said cancer is common, and has a high mortality rate- that's a fact. What you offered however is theories- if you can show me in numeral facts, statistically, that there's a high mortality rate due to obesity or other complications caused by such procedures(equal to, or above the mortality rate of said cancer)... than sure, I may end up agreeing with you.

I originally also posted that every case is different and should be considered as such.

However, I will keep on insisting that having animals go through medical procedures for aesthetic reasons is vastly different than doing so for medical reasoning originating from concern for the animal- even if it's a bad call.
Tattooing a dog is intentionally inflicting pain to satisfy an incredibly shallow whim of the owner- and I have very little respect for such a decision.
I will be able to stomach someone who has his cat/dog neutered/castrated out of comfort- so that the owner won't have to deal with situations he may not be able to, which can result in the animal having to be re-homed.

If you wish to reply, I'll gladly read it... just try refraining from implying my stance of lack of valid arguments because I am supposedly "avoiding"- I make no claims or arguments regarding your manner, I would like to have the discussion continue in the same manner.

And Oren, your position is entirely untenable.

According to your position as you originally articulated it, you can't eat meat if the cattle were branded or ear-notched, you can't eat animal by-products if so much as a rope was passed through the septum of the animal in question to keep it confined. And that also means you can't eat any of the crops produced with animals who are tethered by ropes through their noses. So far as I've seen where people still keep animals to till their fields, that's all of them.

I'll have to first say that at least as far as I am concerned, there's a difference between animals destined for slaughter and those animals we take under our wings as pets.
Prey is preyed upon, so inflicting pain is inevitable. As I know very little about what are the options and exact reasons to subject cattle/chickens to various procedures... as I admit my ignorance, I do not feel comfortable about judging the people who practice it.
Fact of the matter is though, that a lot of earth's population requires meat, and some way to produce enough of it is necessary. As I am not a farmer, I do not feel it is right for me to condemn anyone for doing what they do because I don't know the fine lines of it all... if there are reasonable alternatives- in this day and age it is possible that we have made it impossible for farmers to make any profit if they do not use these methods.... cause usually most people who do that for a living are of low economical status... can they afford different and possibly more expensive alternatives?. I do know however that if we -can- spare pain and do things differently, than we should do so.
I for one do not eat stuffed liver, or steaks from calfs who only drank milk/beer and all those "prestigious" brands...

I am not a hypocrite, I enjoy modern medicine due to cruel experiments conducted on animals- I am aware of it. I do know however, that if there is a reasonable way to prevent said pain, it should be taken.

That's how I see things, that's my opinion... and that's it really.

 

[Emily1188]

Any claims on your manner were out of confusion, plain and simple, because you were arguing against something I never said.

Altered dogs are at a two fold risk for osteosarcoma.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790092/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...=1024261&md5=5ce7bc9343d92ad9f7c88e345b26d326

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434.full

Is that a theory?

So... I crop my dog's ears, work him, train him, feed him a fresh, whole foods diet, groom him.... and it's wrong. But it's alright for my neighbor down the street to castrate his dog because "He pees on stuff and has too much energy" because there's a potential incidental benefit to the dog?

Lol. K. If that's the case, then that's all I need to know.

 

[wstphal]

I would say that the owner of a working dog who crops that dog's ears in a hygienic way under anesthesia, and provides an excellent home for that working dog, is doing fine. If the neighbor down the street simply can't handle the behaviors of an intact dog, and opts for castration in order to be able to keep the dog he loves & wants to provide an otherwise excellent home to, that owner is doing fine too within his limitations. I wouldn't get in the face of either one of them.

I very much appreciate the links provided about consequences of spaying/neutering! I will read them.

 

[Emily1188]

I very much appreciate the links provided about consequences of spaying/neutering! I will read them.

They're very interesting, I think. I feel the "safe option" for most dog owners is to wait until sexual maturity and then alter, but much is dependent on the breed/individual dog.

 

[Emily1188]

I would say that the owner of a working dog who crops that dog's ears in a hygienic way under anesthesia, and provides an excellent home for that working dog, is doing fine. If the neighbor down the street simply can't handle the behaviors of an intact dog, and opts for castration in order to be able to keep the dog he loves & wants to provide an otherwise excellent home to, that owner is doing fine too within his limitations. I wouldn't get in the face of either one of them.

That is all I'm asking for.

 

[danielle]

I agree with both situations actually. You wanna work your dog thats fine with me, and if the neighbor down the street wants a calmer dog that won't pee in the house thats fine too My one lab a male is still not neutered and he's 6, not hyper, and would never pee in the house. Neutering a dog after a certain age will not correct the issue of territory marking anyway it becomes a learned response that only consistent training is going to solve. The issues of cancer either way aren't issues to me anyway- cancer is cancer. Neutering/spaying to reduce the risks of one does nothing for the other. The only reason my male is not neutered is because he's studded out yearly otherwise like all my other dogs he would have been neutered at a year because I would have no reason for him to be able to reproduce which should be the biggest reason to do it in the first place.

It comes done to preference here and no one persons is right or wrong. Not every dog owner purchases a dog to breed them...as a matter of fact most aren't, nor are most purchased to work. The average person buying a dog is buying a companion for themselves and/or family. An unaltered dog with most breeds is going to require a little more training and consistency to teach them to ignore natural hormonal urges to breed, mark territory, and act like a hormonal ball of energy; and that is something your average do owner 1) does not know how to do, and 2) does not have time for. My male is lazy these days, but in his prime needed at least 3 20 min. walks a day or he would find himself restless and in trouble. I am home all day so this task was doable, but assuming everyone else with a dog can and will do this is not logical.

I figure think about why you got the dog first and then decide whether altering this dog is necessary to your lifestyle because for "most" dog owners it is

 

[wstphal]

Getting back to the original tattooed cat, you know what I don't understand? Why not just Photoshop it? Trying to get the details right so the Photoshopped image looked so real people fell for it would be way cool & harmless to the cat, who would have to pose for a few pictures!

My own decision with regard to dog neutering, is that we waiting until our Sammy was biologically adult & had had a few heat cycles, then we spayed her. She was an escape artist & would have managed to get herself pregnant & we did not want to be a breeder, so this was the best decision for us. But I would tend to leave most owners alone as along as they THINK about the issues involved & act in the best interests of the animal (which may include continuing to live with them or avoiding fights [ie, the pittie pup mentioned earlier in this thread]).

 

[Emily1188]

My own decision with regard to dog neutering, is that we waiting until our Sammy was biologically adult & had had a few heat cycles, then we spayed her. She was an escape artist & would have managed to get herself pregnant & we did not want to be a breeder, so this was the best decision for us. But I would tend to leave most owners alone as along as they THINK about the issues involved & act in the best interests of the animal (which may include continuing to live with them or avoiding fights [ie, the pittie pup mentioned earlier in this thread]).

I think you made an excellent decision and I agree with your general take on the subject.

 

[Kokopelli]

Any claims on your manner were out of confusion, plain and simple, because you were arguing against something I never said.

Altered dogs are at a two fold risk for osteosarcoma.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790092/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...=1024261&md5=5ce7bc9343d92ad9f7c88e345b26d326

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434.full

Is that a theory?

So... I crop my dog's ears, work him, train him, feed him a fresh, whole foods diet, groom him.... and it's wrong. But it's alright for my neighbor down the street to castrate his dog because "He pees on stuff and has too much energy" because there's a potential incidental benefit to the dog?

Lol. K. If that's the case, then that's all I need to know.

If the ears are cropped merely for aesthetic purposes... than yes, I have an issue with that... because that's turning an animal into a furniture, to look pretty. If it serves a practical purpose, than I won't have any issue with that...
You won't convince me otherwise, some needs are more shallow than others, that's my opinion and you can't change it- you think differently and that's fine too, it doesn't make you wrong, it just means I disagree with your reasoning.

In regards to the articles, I skimmed through them and I didn't see any tables that show that the risk an owner takes by having their dog/cat undergo such a procedure is greater than not going through with it... and that's why I claimed it's a theory, I have yet to see it substantiated... any medical procedure can go wrong... you'll find an example for every single procedure going wrong.... for it to actually mean something you need to prove it statistically...
If there are such studies I'd love to read them... but currently these articles merely show that there -is- an inherent risk in said procedures... which isn't really new.
If the risk is greater than the benefit... than I'd admit to being wrong.

There are a lot of articles out there, with statistics, that show that cancer in the reproductive organs is a big risk such as this article:

http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/dogs/assorted-faq/007-Facts-and-Opinions-about-Neutering.html

Don't get me wrong, it is entirely possible that you're right- I haven't seen it documented in a way that it is proven in a definite way. I am all for re-studying and re-examining ourselves, but veterinarians have studied a hell of a lot more than I did, and many if not most of them agree on it... so I am not so keen on arguing on things I am less informed about. Some vets don't, and that's good too... All I am saying is, if eventually it will be proven than it does more harm than good than... yes, I'll be less accepting of the "trend" to do so.

 

[ForkedTung]

My dog that recently passed last year had dewclaws on both hind legs, one was attached and one wasn't. I remember when he was younger and the vet recommended that I have them removed, I asked why and he said that some day he "might get them caught on something and they could be torn off". I thought well some day I might get my thumb smashed in a car door, but that doesn't sound like a very good reason to cut it off...Wouldn't you know it that dog lived 14 years and pretty much ran free in every type of environment we have here in the US, high plains desert in Colorado, forested woodlands in Ohio, scrub brush in Texas, etc... and never a problem. I'm sure it happens, but it didn't with my dog. That being said, I have all my dogs/cats 'fixed' mainly to prevent copulation but secondly for health reasons.

 

[Emily1188]

What, pray tell, is the "right reason" for sending your dog to fight a several-hundred pound boar? Get real.

Haha, well, the approximately $800 million a YEAR in damage done by feral pigs estimated by the USDA is a great place to start. That seems pretty real to me, lol. In places where gunfire isn't allowed, dogs are often the only option. Hogs also learn about traps and poison bait quickly and resist such efforts.

I'm not talking about sending the Lucky the Lab in the play with Hogzilla. Big game hunting dogs are bred and trained for this their whole lives, and typically wear vests and collars to protect their throats and guts. Is it riskier than doing "Canine Freestyle Heeling"? Yes. But it also removes a dangerous animal from a booming population.

You might think simply hunting them with guns would be an option, but because of their level of aggression and their speed, even hunters with guns can be attacked unexpectedly. Of course, that's negated with a dog who can smell the pig from miles away. I would not go hunting pigs without dogs for protection, at the very least.

They're not sent in "to fight". They're sent to catch and pin down for the hunter. That's it. This isn't dog fighting. It's not a contest to see who can do the most damage. It's to safely restrain the hog until the hunter can kill it. It's not bear or bull baiting. It's a not a blood sport. It's an efficient means of hunting a very dangerous feral animal that is destroying local ecosystems and farming efforts.

In fact, the manner in which "catch dogs" seize their prey is non-lethal enough that they are often used catch pigs for relocation rather than slaughter.

If you don't think that aggression towards people, destruction of local ecosystems, and the protection of agriculture is the "right reason", then we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as I'm concerned, with the state of feral pigs in America right now, every catch dog that brings a hog down is doing us a service. If that's not ok, then is there ever a "right reason" to send a 90 lb dog against a crazed man with a gun? No K9 units then, I guess.

FYI the "right reasons" for altering are anything that's not based on ridiculous propaganda stating that unaltered dogs are ticking timebombs full of disease or that "altered dogs never have any of the behavior problems that intact dogs do". Or, conversely, believing that neutering takes away their dog's "manhood" - that also should not factor in. Anytime the owner steps back and makes an educated choice, then that's a great reason.

 

[desertanimal]

Haha, well, the approximately $800 million a YEAR in damage done by feral pigs estimated by the USDA is a great place to start. That seems pretty real to me, lol. In places where gunfire isn't allowed, dogs are often the only option. Hogs also learn about traps and poison bait quickly and resist such efforts.

I'm not talking about sending the Lucky the Lab in the play with Hogzilla. Big game hunting dogs are bred and trained for this their whole lives, and typically wear vests and collars to protect their throats and guts. Is it riskier than doing "Canine Freestyle Heeling"? Yes. But it also removes a dangerous animal from a booming population.

You might think simply hunting them with guns would be an option, but because of their level of aggression and their speed, even hunters with guns can be attacked unexpectedly. Of course, that's negated with a dog who can smell the pig from miles away. I would not go hunting pigs without dogs for protection, at the very least.

They're not sent in "to fight". They're sent to catch and pin down for the hunter. That's it. This isn't dog fighting. It's not a contest to see who can do the most damage. It's to safely restrain the hog until the hunter can kill it. It's not bear or bull baiting. It's a not a blood sport. It's an efficient means of hunting a very dangerous feral animal that is destroying local ecosystems and farming efforts.

In fact, the manner in which "catch dogs" seize their prey is non-lethal enough that they are often used catch pigs for relocation rather than slaughter.

If you don't think that aggression towards people, destruction of local ecosystems, and the protection of agriculture is the "right reason", then we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as I'm concerned, with the state of feral pigs in America right now, every catch dog that brings a hog down is doing us a service. If that's not ok, then is there ever a "right reason" to send a 90 lb dog against a crazed man with a gun? No K9 units then, I guess.

FYI the "right reasons" for altering are anything that's not based on ridiculous propaganda stating that unaltered dogs are ticking timebombs full of disease or that "altered dogs never have any of the behavior problems that intact dogs do". Or, conversely, believing that neutering takes away their dog's "manhood" - that also should not factor in. Anytime the owner steps back and makes an educated choice, then that's a great reason.

Those do seem like a reasonable reasons to send dogs to catch pigs. Given the rate at which pigs reproduce (which is why they are such a problem), do these dogs and their pig catching make an appreciable difference in local pig populations? If they do, then why are not dogs used more often for wild pig elimination? I know it's a terrible problem on the tiny little islands off the east coast, so if dogs were effective at reducing pig populations, dogs should be used to entirely eliminate geographically isolated populations of pigs. Crop-raiding pigs, I would think, are like crop-raiding monkeys. You kill one, another will take its place tomorrow. But maybe there is some research out there on the effect of dog-aided hunting on wild boar population density?

You say that you are pro-altering if it's done for the right reasons. What, pray tell, is the "right reason" for sending your dog to fight a several-hundred pound boar?

Get real. Don't go on about 1) cat obesity being neglect on the one hand, which is a common by-product of indoor-only cat-living, which results in, statistically, a much longer lifespan than the fit and trim outdoor kitties, while 2) championing cutting the ears off dogs so that they can more safely be sent into inarguably dangerous situations with no obvious benefit to society or the dog itself on the other.

This should have read like this. The "get real" wasn't supposed to go with the challenge to give a good reason for sending dogs to catch pigs, it was supposed to go with your bringing cat obesity into an argument about surgical alteration and calling it neglect and asking why no one was up in arms about it, which I thought was rather silly and which, I felt, detracted from your argument rather than bolstering it. Sorry for the lack of clarity there. But I do now amend my verbage to "with only potential benefit to society and no obvious benefit to the dog on the other." I may amend it again, because you clearly know more about pig-hunting than I do and you may provide evidence in this thread that sending the dogs after the pigs makes a real, measurable progress toward the goals you listed above.

A side question: why do they relocate pigs instead of eating them? Where do they put them since they are a scourge to the environment everywhere they already are?

 

[tom e]

From what I've heard, dogs make it a lot easier for hunters to get pigs. But I don't think that they can kill them on their own. They work in pairs and grab the pigs ears for the hunter to come along and kill them. The process is VERY dangerous for the dogs who are often gored and sometimes killed. I have no doubt that the dogs thoroughly enjoy it, but I wouldn't let my dog get near one.

 

[jesserca]

You have got to be kitten me!

 

[Michael823]

You have got to be kitten me!

Is that a Family Guy reference? Sorry to be off topic, I just watched a really funny episode last night, and that was in it.

 

[desertanimal]

From what I've heard, dogs make it a lot easier for hunters to get pigs. But I don't think that they can kill them on their own. They work in pairs and grab the pigs ears for the hunter to come along and kill them. The process is VERY dangerous for the dogs who are often gored and sometimes killed. I have no doubt that the dogs thoroughly enjoy it, but I wouldn't let my dog get near one.

Oh I'm sure dogs make it a lot easier for hunters to get pigs. And a lot safer.

But if pig-hunting doesn't make a dent on pig populations sufficient to significantly ameliorate the $800 million yearly damage I've now learned is done by pigs, then what we're left with is a situation in which the dogs are put at risk of life and limb for what effectively amounts to keeping hunters' asse(t)s safe. One is allowed by law to use one's dog for such (essentially) recreational purposes, and an argument can be made that it's ethically appropriate to do so, but I don't think it can reasonably be compared to using a dog in a K9 police unit, as the motivations and payoffs for putting the dog in danger are in different realms.

I think if you want to say that you think it's ok to cut off a dog's ears so that you can more safely put it in a dangerous situation to effect a goal that both dog and owner enjoy, then say it, and stick to it as an opinion. But don't say, "well letting your cat be overweight is bad for it, so that's no different from this." It's different. Don't say, "well hogs are bad for reasons x, y, and z, so endangering dogs in order to kill them is worth it," unless you can convincingly show that doing it makes good headway in solving problems x, y, and z. Killing a hog or two or three or four does not achieve goals x, y, and z. And don't say, "Well, you don't have any problem with K-9 units endangering dogs, so why this?" when you haven't shown that the benefits to society of endangering hog-hunting dogs match those of endangering police dogs. The cost/benefit ratios of those two different things are completely different. Hunters participating in a dangerous activity in their free time are not the same value to me as police officers participating in a dangerous activity on the job, crops are not the same value as innocent bystanders near a crazed gunman, and a pig isn't the same value as a crazed gunman--the only thing of equal value in the two situations are the dogs. Ethics is about drawing lines. Some of us say that torturing animals if necessary for biomedical research is ok but that torturing them to find out whether lipstick in your eye will make you blind is not. They are both uses of animals, but they do not have the same cost/benefit ratio, and claiming that they are no different from each other because they are both animal torture, and using acceptance of one to justify the other is something only a simpleton would do. A simpleton, or someone who is doing some hand-waving to deflect attention from the bottom line, which is that the person making the argument thinks it's perfectly ok to torture animals to see if putting lipstick in your eye will make you blind. I'm not suggesting Emily thinks this. I'm suggesting that she thinks that it's ok to cut off a dog's ears so that you can more safely put it in a dangerous situation to effect a goal that both dog and owner enjoy. And I'm suggesting that she's been doing a lot of hand-waving.

That said, if these are squadrons of hunting dogs and hunters who are effectively eradicating wild boar populations, ensuring the safety of innocent schoolchildren on their streets, restoring nature's balance, and protecting the nation's overproduction of Monsanto corn, then maybe they can be compared to K9 police units and I'm wrong about the handwaving. I'd just be very surprised to learn that that's the case.

For the record, I think ear cropping is painful to dogs. I am unconvinced that cropped dogs sustain significantly fewer injuries than un-cropped ones. I think hog-hunting is dangerous for dogs. I know anesthesia poses dangers for cats and think tattooing them is frivolous. I think cutting out a dog's reproductive organs is painful to it. I think obesity is not ideal for a cat's health. But I'm not going to get my boxers in a wad over any of it, because owners who are willing to spend money to do all those things to and with their pets are also going to feed them and give them a pat on the head every now and again, and in a world full of starving domesticated dogs and cats, that is good enough for me. (And also, I bet those hog-hunting dogs have a hell of a rip-roaring good time, and if you gave them the choice and they understood the risks, they'd choose to go every day and twice on Sundays.)

 

[Hypancistrus]

(And also, I bet those hog-hunting dogs have a hell of a rip-roaring good time, and if you gave them the choice and they understood the risks, they'd choose to go every day and twice on Sundays.)

Okay, this was very funny... literally laugh out loud funny.

 

[jesserca]

Is that a Family Guy reference? Sorry to be off topic, I just watched a really funny episode last night, and that was in it.

Oh yes most of my life is family guy quotes. lol.

 

[Emily1188]

A side question: why do they relocate pigs instead of eating them? Where do they put them since they are a scourge to the environment everywhere they already are?

Some actually go to slaughter, some for studies, etc. This is rare though, and is by no means the typical end to a pig hunt. I was just on a guy's website who used his dogs to catch live pigs for somebody, but I can't for life of me remember why he wanted them alive... If I can find it again, I'll let you know, because there aren't too many reasons to catch keep them alive.

Hand waving? :wavey:

Here's me getting real:

We are accepting of some elective procedures and not of others, and our attitudes are based much more on what is acceptable in our culture than of the animal's long term health. I will always throw accepted elective procedures back in a person's face if it will dig out hypocrisy. And I don't feel bad about it. And I can't imagine why I would hand wave, because I don't care about cosmetic procedures that do little to nothing to reduce the animal's long term quality of life. I've stated that multiple times.

Ironically, on another web board, I just heard a girl who said she would never, ever dock poor Poopsy's tail just because she liked how it looked tail turn right around and say that she would spay a female dog ASAP because the heats were disgusting. Such bull. Can't tolerate it. If she can do that, I can dock my dog to keep from knocking my coffee off the coffee table with his tail. I don't care if her dog gets potential, incidental health benefits from it; for her to criticize me for the latter and do the former for the same reasons is wrong.

You can't clip the dog's tail but you can cut out the sex organs. There's no good reason to send a dog to catch a dangerous boar, but there's a good reason to send him against a raving lunatic with a gun... and on, and on, and on, ad nauseam.

Now it's just old. No one's made any compelling arguments and I doubt they will.

 

[tom e]

As for boar hunting: As I said it's for us to decide what's good for them. My dog wants to get at every big dog on the street, but it would be foolish of me to let him do something like that. I'd sooner take him in for a tattoo then let him at a wild animal that could kill him. Still, if someone wants to and the dog is a help to the task of putting meat on the table or (if it could be done) eradicating a pest, so be it..

For ear cropping: I also agree boar hunting is foolish excuse to crop ears, why would a pig go for the dogs ears when it surely knows instinctually there are much better targets on a dog? People should just call it what it is. I don't think it's so horrible to say, "I had my pups ears cropped because that's how a _______ should look to me." There isn't much else to it really, and if we make excuses we probably aren't comfortable with the decision to do so from the get go.
I'm sure it IS painful. I also pierced my cartilage (upper ear) at one point in high school and the throbbing pain was unbearable. Honestly though, the thudding headache passed instantly when I took the stud out, so I'm not sure it's the same? The new hole left behind didn't hurt even a tiny bit. Nor did it hurt in the least when my friend stabbed it with a safety pin. I guess I'll never know how to compare them, cause I won't cut my ear off (unless I have too much of this absinthe!)
Ear cropping is like a circumcision. Done mostly today for no reason but tradition and maybe aesthetics. Once in time it probably served a real purpose, but it's now not much but a holdover to times when maybe we didn't live so cleanly, lol. (That's the reason I've heard anyway for the practice, who knows if it was ever even a help then?) At any rate, it probably hurts like hell and the pain gets forgotten quickly.