Animal welfare vs Animal rights

[thereservoirdog]

This is an easy one. First, animals don't and shouldn't have any rights, and I thought No Imagination summed the point up well.

Second, I will perform tail docks, remove dewclaws, crop ears, and do declaws if the client so chooses. I will also use appropriate pain medication when possible depending on the age and procedure. I feel that if you think you're torturing an animal by doing any of these things, then don't do them. Just don't tell your clients they're horrible people for wanting them done, because that client owns that animal and makes decisions for them. If you feel like you can offer some different alternatives, then there's nothing wrong with that.

I personally can't seem to find any psychological problems with my pets, all 3 of which have docked tails and 1 which has cropped ears.

I don't really think my opinion will matter much though, as I'm sure in my lifetime some or all of these procedure will eventually be illegal to perform.

Yeah, I guess it really is an "easy one" when you don't have to explain your reasoning or present any arguments of your own.

I'm glad you think pets are nothing but property and we should perform risky, useless procedures on them just because the client hands you a wad of cash.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[vnair2]

Yeah, I guess it really is an "easy one" when you don't have to explain your reasoning or present any arguments of your own.

I was thinking that but I didnt want to say anything.

@Pointer1330: you probably shouldn't refer to this complex moral issue as "an easy one", because it makes you sound like a douche.

Carry On.

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[Pointer1330]

I was thinking that but I didnt want to say anything.

@Pointer1330: you probably shouldn't refer to this complex moral issue as "an easy one", because it makes you sound like a douche.

Carry On.

My point is, it's not a complex moral issue for me, because I am comfortable with my stance on such things and don't feel like they are horrific ways to torture animals as some of you do. If it's a complex moral issue for you, then that's your problem, douche. By the way, calling someone a douche makes you sound immature and idiotic.

I was simply answering the original poster's question with my honest opinion - not looking to piss you off (as if I care if you're offended anyway). I know quite a few veterinarians in my area that do all of the aforementioned procedures, and like them, I don't see a problem with them. I think it's funny how many people on this board think their opinion is the only possible way to think. This topic is especially funny, because you somehow think someone is cruel or doesn't care about animals if they are willing to perform these procedures. Like I said, if you aren't comfortable with it, DON'T DO IT. But don't judge someone else for performing a legal procedure.

 

[Pointer1330]

Yeah, I guess it really is an "easy one" when you don't have to explain your reasoning or present any arguments of your own.

I'm glad you think pets are nothing but property and we should perform risky, useless procedures on them just because the client hands you a wad of cash.

You're an idiot if you make the assumption that I see pets as nothing but property. Why would I be wasting my time with such a profession if that were true?

Also, I don't plan on being a clinic owner, and therefore will more than likely be paid a salary. Therefore, I have nothing to gain by performing such elective procedures, so that can't be a motivating factor for my decision. And I have presented my argument - I don't believe these are horrific and traumatizing procedures we're performing. Prove to me they are negatively affecting the animals and I will reconsider.

If you think surgeries like these cause suffering or problems in pets, then you must not support the continued breeding of many dog breeds that may require 'horrible' elective surguries in the future (such as bulldogs and C-sections) or breeds that have a high predisposition for painful conditions (such as many large breeds and osteoarthritis). Should we put an end to these breeds since we are causing pain and suffering for future animals?

 

[Shanomong]

[

 

[Pointer1330]

I've always been a fan of the "I grew up eating lead paint and I turned out fine" argument. If you're dogs are fine, it must be OK! I'm in! Let's chop some ears!

Prove to me that it produces negative side-effects. I didn't have a problem with it being done on my own animals, therefore I don't have a problem doing it on other people's. Again, if you don't like it then fine - there's no reason to throw out an idiotic comment. Why not give a scientific response as to why it's such a problem? Or is your only reason an ethical one? If that's the case, what makes your decision right and mine wrong? No one here seems to understand that two people can have different viewpoints on a subject and neither may be wrong.

 

[Pointer1330]

Self mutilation is also legal. So is smoking. Doesn't make them smart, healthy things to do.

You cannot be trying to associate smoking and self-mutilation with a cosmetic procedure, are you? That comment isn't well thought out enough to deserve a response.

 

[Pointer1330]

Self mutilation is also legal. So is smoking. Doesn't make them smart, healthy things to do.

"As for ear and tail docking, I personally find it unattractive and think it looks like mutilation, and may be inclined to ask a client if they've ever considered the "au natural" look, but if they're certain they want it then I have no strong objections to it. And I have absolutely no issues with dewclaw removal, especially since it can be done easily while the animal is being spayed/neutered."

That's a quote from you on May 8th of this year. So you're jumping on a different bandwagon, now, huh? Funny to see someone jumping down another person's throat when just a short time ago you mentioned you have no strong objections to it. Makes you seem confident in your decisions...and real classy to boot.

That's all for me on this thread, all I wanted to do was give my opinion to the OP but I ended up getting jumped on instead.

 

[Shanomong]

[

 

[vnair2]

A couple things:

1) I didnt call you a douche, I said the way you phrased your last post makes you sound like a douche. There is quite a difference between the two. I was merely suggesting that you be more careful about how you phrase things on the internets.

2) I should have been clearer with my response, because quite honestly I couldnt care less about ear cropping and tail docking. In this topic I have mainly been discussing what are inalienable rights and whether people or animals have them. To me this is a complex moral issue and to jump into a page long discussion just to say "this is easy, here is how it is" with out really contributing anything to the discussion does in fact make you sound like a pompous douche.

3) Luckily I dont mind coming off as immature because I am in fact quite immature.

4) You really dont need to get so defensive, some douches go on to live long productive lives.

edit: Im sorry for calling you a douche, I really am just kidding.

 

[nyanko]

4) You really dont need to get so defensive, some douches go on to live long productive lives.

We always outlive the good people, that's for sure.

I definitely see the points you guys are making about defining rights as it relates to animals, but I still don't agree that it is the proper term, I guess. To me, assigning natural rights to a group means that they should also have legal rights. And to assign any legal rights to a non-human animal is a very, very slippery slope, and one that if followed to its logical end is precisely where the animal rights activists we think of want it to go.

 

[dgm]

Also, I don't plan on being a clinic owner, and therefore will more than likely be paid a salary. Therefore, I have nothing to gain by performing such elective procedures, so that can't be a motivating factor for my decision.

Lots of associates have at least some portion of their pay based on production. And I didn't see any posts where someone said their way is the only way and that there is not room for you to have a different opinion. I did only skim the thread, so maybe it really did exist though.

Oh and PS, not to fan the flames, but I *do* think we should stop producing breeds requiring C-sections...

 

[Pointer1330]

Lots of associates have at least some portion of their pay based on production. And I didn't see any posts where someone said their way is the only way and that there is not room for you to have a different opinion. I did only skim the thread, so maybe it really did exist though.

Oh and PS, not to fan the flames, but I *do* think we should stop producing breeds requiring C-sections...

I'm aware many associates get paid a portion of their production, but was trying to make a point. I just don't think anyone is naive enough to think they're going to get rich doing these procedures - that's why I said it.

Also regarding bulldogs - how humane is it to breed and own a dog that has trouble breathing doing everyday things? Anyone that's handled some bulldogs probably knows that if they get a little stressed or worked up they're basically choking.

 

[CatVet2Be]

Prove to me that it produces negative side-effects.

From an animal behavior perspective cropped ears and docked tails can give off unintended signals to other dogs. Standing ears are indicators of arousal and if a another dog is trying to display aggression the cropped ear dog may be unable to show one of the signs of submission which is to bring the ears down. Also tails are used as modes of communication to indicate arousal, submission etc... Unless you're using your dog as a working dog and worry about tail injuries as a result of the work then cropping their tail is purely cosmetic and serves no benefit to the dog. On the breeds with very, very short tails the procedure can have risks of nerve damage and loss of sphincter control. Is it really worth it just so it has a stubby butt? We forget that animals use body language a lot more than we do in order to communicate with each other. When we alter them we mess with their abilities to communicate effectively. I'd call this a disadvantage of the procedures.

 

[Trilt]

How about the possibility of infections/healing problems with docked/cropped animals? I know that good care will fix a vast majority of those problems, but even a small percentage of problems for a procedure that produces no good seems inhumane to me.

 

[168135]

The second to last thing you said really offends me as a shelter worker and someone who plans to dedicate their life to combating overpopulation. So billions of animals die in shelters, and there's nothing anyone can do about it? Is that really how you look at life? Are you going to bother advocating spays and neuters for your patients since billions of animals are dying anyway? That is disgustingly complacent and makes me wonder if you really value animal welfare at all. Since it appears that you have never been in a shelter, I will tell you with 100% certainty that it is better for a cat to be declawed than it is to leave their home, be shoved in a cage in a room with hundreds of other cats, inevitably get sick, and then sit in that tiny cage for a few months with people staring at them, dogs barking at them all day, and no chance to exercise. Every cat that is surrendered for scratching means another cat that is euthanized. Every cat that we can find a way to keep in their home means another cat that lives. It's as simple as that. And if we as vets and animal welfare advocates don't think unwanted animals dying is our problem, then who is going to fix it?

This is why I hate online debates. Things get misinterpreted really quickly.

I was going to add to my post, but removed it, that all I can do is exhaust all other possibilities. I might be able to change a few minds, but I won't be able to change them all.

I volunteer at shelters. I realize what's going on. But people on here are going on about how if getting the cat declawed is the only way for it to find a home, then by all means do it because it's better than leaving the cat at a shelter. I just ment that I'd like to see those numbers and see if declawing is actually making a significant dent in the number of cats being adopted.

This may sound sick, but I was thinking about this and was wondering if it was, for lack of a better word, humane to mutilate an animal and have it live an otherwise normal life, or to have it be put to sleep because nobody wants to adopt a cat with claws? Until I live the life of a cat (or cats learn to talk ), I can't really answer that question

And for some reason, declawing doesn't seem to be that big around here. I've spent many days watching surgeries and I've only seen two declaws so far. At the shelter, I only remember seeing one cat who had no front claws... this shelter is home to 50+ cats and I'm guessing 25% of those were surrendered by owners and were not strays.

And that's all I'm going to say on the subject because somebody will just turn around and say that I'm disgusting and don't value animal welfare. If that was true, I'd be eating animals and dissecting them and not wasting my time trying to convice people from doing otherwise. Do you know how many times people have come up to me and said I was crazy and that animals don't feel pain and it is natural to torture them and eat them? Don't judge people you don't know.

 

[DVMDream]

I can see both sides to the arguments that cropping ears, docking tails and dews and declawing can be "inhumane". But, I am not sure making these procedures illegal is the way to handle it. At least now people can go to veterinarians, who can perform these procedures properly and observe for complications and place the pets on pain management. If these become illegal, people may attempt them on their own (some already do). Kind of reminds me when abortion became illegal way back when and since it had more negative impacts than positive it was made legal again. As far as animals having "rights". I am not sure that is quite the proper phrase. Does a dog/cat/pig/chicken/goat/guinea pig understand what the pursuit of happiness really is or even what life really is? I believe that they can feel and understand some things, but not to the same extent that a human can understand (we have a massive frontal lobe compared to other animals). But, to me dragging a dog or cat behind a car is on a much different level than declawing a cat while under anesthesia and providing pain management. I believe the first is downright absurd and cruel, but I would not consider the second cruelty, IMO.

 

[jpeterman13]

How about the possibility of infections/healing problems with docked/cropped animals? I know that good care will fix a vast majority of those problems, but even a small percentage of problems for a procedure that produces no good seems inhumane to me.

yea complications are always a concern. But deeming a procedure as "inhumane" because of the potential complications (even in small percentages) would result in labeling a ton of other procedures as "inhumane". Many times there is a slight risk of a complication that may produce no good.

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[vnair2]

I think its inhumane to subject me to such a long post.

 

[nyanko]

Seconded. That is clearly a violation of my inherent unalienable rights.

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[katryn]

I'm wondering if anybody has worked in a place that truly provides/requires client education before elective surgeries such as declawing. All of the places I have worked dont' even bother handing out information on the procedure beforehand and with five docs in the current practice, sometimes the doc doing the surgery hasn't even seen the animal or met the owner. And I would be willing to bet that the post-surgical information doesn't get read in most cases.

I guess what I'm wondering is, is it even feasible to expect owners to be forcefully educated about the subject when most owners take the procedure for granted, and realistically don't read 25% of any materials sent home? And if you have worked in a place that has such a policy do you think it works?