Ear cropping

[skeeter swatter]

The last poster got me wondering why people crop ears on some dogs. Purely cosmetic or is there some other reason?

 

[Boot Jack Bulls]

Quick research says it was developed as early as Roman times to prevent damage to ears on hunting and working stock. Can't say I've heard a reason in my lifetime that explained it as anything other than cosmetic....

We have docked tails on our ACDs before (hot topic in ACD circles!). Mostly to avoid damage to their tails when working in pens daily. We really don't do it as a rule anymore, its a pain to do and, conversely, can be a hassle if you don't...

 

[CG1]

To look scary and also so they don't get their ears ripped off in fighting, working etc. I don't know about the USA but it was made illegal in Canada a few years ago. We were about to get a Presa Canario a few years ago that typically has the cropped ears and we had long discussion with the vet about it. She is realistic and not one to make a fuss but she felt it was highly cruel, causes an array of issues for them and was a selfish choice. In the end of course we chose not to do it. Most of the time now here I see puppies come from breeders that way as the vets are legally not allowed to do it here.

 

[Brute 23]

I hate to break it to people but cropping the ears or not cropping the ears will make no difference in that dogs life. They are eather going to a good home or not.

It's another misguided, feel good, law that wasted resources that should have been used looking in to the care of the animals.

I'll also add, far more dogs are killed every year by "good homes" because they leave gates open or let dogs free range or dump them because the puppy is not a puppy any more and they have no clue how to handle it than in dog fights.

 

[CG1]

I hate to break it to people but cropping the ears or not cropping the ears will make no difference in that dogs life. They are eather going to a good home or not.

It's another misguided, feel good, law that wasted resources that should have been used looking in to the care of the animals.

I'll also add, far more dogs are killed every year by "good homes" because they leave gates open or let dogs free range or dump them because the puppy is not a puppy any more and they have no clue how to handle it than in dog fights.

If the Veterinary association decides that a practice is considered cruel and unnecessary than its safe to assume it is in fact cruel and unnecessary.

I hate to break it to you but a good dog owner and a good home would be defined by not being cruel. Ear cropping in terms of medical practice has been deemed cruel. They set those standards, not us.

https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/documents/cosmetic-alteration - quoted below

4. There is no scientific evidence that cosmetic surgeries provide any welfare or medical benefit to animals (8-10). There is evidence to suggest that some cosmetic procedures cause acute and chronic pain (9-12), as well as behavioural evidence that cosmetic alteration may be detrimental to canine behavior (10,13). In one study using a small dataset from Great Britain, it was found that there was a decrease in risk of tail injuries for docked dogs (0.03%) compared with non-docked dogs (0.23%). The very low incidence of tail injuries in all groups, however, shows that tail docking does not provide sufficient protection against injury to justify tail docking of all animals (according to this study, it would require 500 tail-dockings to prevent 1 injury) (9).

 

[Brute 23]

I hate to break it to people but cropping the ears or not cropping the ears will make no difference in that dogs life. They are eather going to a good home or not.

It's another misguided, feel good, law that wasted resources that should have been used looking in to the care of the animals.

I'll also add, far more dogs are killed every year by "good homes" because they leave gates open or let dogs free range or dump them because the puppy is not a puppy any more and they have no clue how to handle it than in dog fights.

If the Veterinary association decides that a practice is considered cruel and unnecessary than its safe to assume it is in fact cruel and unnecessary.

I hate to break it to you but a good dog owner and a good home would be defined by not being cruel. Ear cropping in terms of medical practice has been deemed cruel. They set those standards, not us.

https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/documents/cosmetic-alteration - quoted below

4. There is no scientific evidence that cosmetic surgeries provide any welfare or medical benefit to animals (8-10). There is evidence to suggest that some cosmetic procedures cause acute and chronic pain (9-12), as well as behavioural evidence that cosmetic alteration may be detrimental to canine behavior (10,13). In one study using a small dataset from Great Britain, it was found that there was a decrease in risk of tail injuries for docked dogs (0.03%) compared with non-docked dogs (0.23%). The very low incidence of tail injuries in all groups, however, shows that tail docking does not provide sufficient protection against injury to justify tail docking of all animals (according to this study, it would require 500 tail-dockings to prevent 1 injury) (9).

I think you misunderstood my post.