Questionable Procedures

[bee83]

---

Members do not see this ad.

As far as I see it, I'm going to be (hopefully) in the business of saving lives and alleviating suffering, not cosmetic surgery. So unless the owner can convince me that there is a NEED, for the well-being of the animal, to do any of these surgeries, then I will not. I don't and won't need the money that badly.

 

[dier930]

I've tried not to comment on here because it is a very touchy subject. I'm sure some of you will jump down my throat for what I'm going to say, but I'm ok with that. I only ask that you do really think about the points I bring up and re-assess your own opinions. What's the point of hearing from others if you aren't willing to be open-minded? If you really do think about my points and stick to your original beliefs, that's completely fine with me.

First off, I'm struck by how many of you are so adamant against some or all of these procedures but say that you would give in and go ahead with the procedure(s) if the alternative was euthanasia…… Why? If you believe these procedures are so vile and/or painful that you would do them under no other circumstance, why are they suddenly the better alternative to death? Why would you rather put them through what you believe is a brutality than let them die a relatively peaceful and painless death? I find this extremely interesting.

Secondly, I find it curious how many of you are adamant that you will sit down with the owners and try to educate them and/or get them to try alternatives, especially in the case of declawing. Maybe I'm cynical, but I really don't think that most pet owners care as much as you think they do. And not for lack of morals, but due to a different value system, culture, or background. Or because (as someone previously mentioned), little old ladies have quite the hard time trimming Muffin's paws, or using softpaws. Same goes for the stressed out single mother who got a kitten for her now-shredded child. And let's say for arguments sake that they do try these alternatives. What do you think ultimately stresses out a cat more? Having one declaw procedure, or wrestling their owners every two weeks for trims or softpaws, etc.? I assure you, except in cases of poor declaw jobs, it is the latter. Not to mention the stress the owners must go through, which may lead to abuse or abandonment of the cat…

I think that as vet students, many of you forget what "regular" pet owners are like. They don't have the time to train Fuffy to only scratch the post. Does that mean they should never have gotten Fluffy in the first place? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the point. Do they love Fluffy? I bet they do. That's probably why they are asking the vet to declaw her, so they can keep her and love her, instead of throwing her away or hacking off her nails themselves.

Third. Many of you say you wouldn't dock or crop unless it was a "real" working dog or a show dog. I don't understand the logic here. You are either confessing that docking and cropping is not so horrible, because you will allow it on show dogs (show dogs are real dogs too you know!), or you are at least saying that it is a better alternative to ear or tail damage as an adult. Yes, tail damage for a cow dog is likely high, but where do you draw the line?? I could argue that tail damage is high for the Yorkshire Terrier that lives in a household with tail-pulling toddlers and where it is under people's feet often. I think that it is very hard for you to make a case for offering such procedures to one section of the population and not another based on your personal opinions. It's a matter of medical ethics.

I am confused by those of you who mention that you are here to save lives and/or alleviate suffering, not do cosmetic surgery. You don't think that these procedures save lives and alleviate suffering? I know many cases where cats - had they not been declawed - would've been taken to the shelter or abandoned outside. I think being taken to a shelter involves a certain amount of suffering, and many times also death. As does outside life (there's a reason outside cats don't live as long). I bet getting your tail crushed by a cow involves some suffering.

Someone else mentioned that these procedures are for human convenience. Yeah, they are. In case you haven't noticed, this world has been shaped pretty radically for human convenience and I don't think it's about to stop anytime soon, sadly. Companion animals are a human convenience. So are agricultural animals.

Sure, there are complications from these procedures, especially if those who perform them don't know what they're doing or decide to cut corners. But as someone else mentioned, we've never been better at doing these procedures successfully, efficiently, and with as little pain as possible. We have freakin' LASER declaw surgery for crying out loud.

For those of you who think that owners will give up on cropping Fido's ears, I ask you to go to breed rescue sites for Dobermans, Pits, etc. and look at all the terrible crop jobs they find on a regular basis. And tail docking? Please, anyone can do that. Can they do it humanely is the question. Believe me, if all the vets agreed not to do these ‘optional' procedures, people will not just suddenly accept floppy-eared Dobermans and long-tailed Aussies. It's a capitalist society where supply and demand reigns, and where there is demand for a service…. Someone's gonna do it.

Would I do these procedures? Yes, yes I would. That came out of left field, I know. 😉 ((In the case of debarking I'm undecided, as I think the lasting psychological trauma may not be worth it, but I need to do more research.)) And you know what? I'd make sure I was darn good at all these procedures. And I'd make sure that everyone in my community knew I was darn good too, so that they wouldn't go to some shady back alley hack, who wouldn't use proper pain management, etc.

 

[No Imagination]

Wall of txt 🙂 and while I don't agree with everything you said, very well written.

So, I just re-read your post (last night I couldn't do it justice). I just wanted to say again, how much I enjoyed your view point, not to mention your arguments. I for one am going to rethink my personal stance on Declawing. I never really had a problem with Docking. Cropping, well, thats a harder pill to swallow - I personally will probably never do it, if for no other reason, I've seen so many go bad even when vets do it, seems like more headache then its worth. I did know a vet who was VERY good at it, and people would bring in their hack jobs for him to fix, made a nice niche for himself there.

I was watching the movie Grown Ups the other day, and they had a (botched) debarked dog in the movie, the reason they did it was there neighbors complained, and they were given the choice, "Do it, or Euthanize it". The running joke throughout the move was "You should have killed it". Couldn't help but think of this SDN thread.

 

[168135]

First off, I’m struck by how many of you are so adamant against some or all of these procedures but say that you would give in and go ahead with the procedure(s) if the alternative was euthanasia…… Why? If you believe these procedures are so vile and/or painful that you would do them under no other circumstance, why are they suddenly the better alternative to death? Why would you rather put them through what you believe is a brutality than let them die a relatively peaceful and painless death? I find this extremely interesting.

Last time we had the thread, I made a similar point and people jumped down my throat. I agree with you there.

I do believe though that if someone is denied a declaw or cosmetic procedure that majority will find another clinic to have the procedure done at. Convienence euthanasias is a touchier subject... it seems that vets are a heck of a lot more reluctant to do those or won't do them for new clients ect., and I worry about the fact that I were a vet and turned them down, that they might take the matter into their own hands and kill the animal themselves, let them loose, etc.

 

[milkmaid]

Good post, dier930.

To those of you against tail docking for anything other than working or show dogs... as a general rule it's done around 3 days of age. There's no one out there who can tell if a 3 day old pup will be a decent cowdog or show dog. Not every pup in a litter has working potential or is show quality - so the whole litter is docked and at 8 weeks some go to pet homes and some go to show/working homes. Sometimes a pet pup gets shown later in life, sometimes the show pup doesn't turn out and gets sent to a pet home.

With that in mind, it's really not a logical statement to make that you'd only approve of tail docking on working or show dogs. I'd rather see them docked at 3 days than at 2 months or 2 years of age.

 

[nyanko]

((In the case of debarking I’m undecided, as I think the lasting psychological trauma may not be worth it, but I need to do more research.))

What kind of "lasting psychological trauma" do you attribute to debarking? The dog can still make sounds - the Pyr in my avatar is debarked and I'm pretty sure he still thinks his "whuff" is the loudest, bad-assest bark in the entire neighborhood with how often he decides to let loose with it...

 

[roughleggedhawk]

More great food for thought. Thanks, dier930.

If you believe these procedures are so vile and/or painful that you would do them under no other circumstance, why are they suddenly the better alternative to death?

For me, it's not so much that I think the procedures are horrendous, but more that I don't like them. I have two main reasons for this. First, the thought of taking away a cat's first line of self-defense or one of a dog's means of communication (that covers debarking and docking in my book) makes me uncomfortable. Second, I just don't think that "because it would look good" or "because I don't want to fix his behaviour problems" (not that these are the only reasons, but they're common) are good reasons to do surgery on an animal. It's not just the pain and risk, which I agree have decreased as techniques have improved. I don't like the idea of surgically altering an animal for superficial reasons.

Secondly, I find it curious how many of you are adamant that you will sit down with the owners and try to educate them … Maybe I'm cynical, but I really don't think that most pet owners care as much as you think they do.

You make a good point here. I wouldn't expect all, or maybe even most of my clients to agree with me if I asked them to consider other alternatives to any of these procedures. But I would always ask. I've heard of too many people who had declaws (or docking, or whatever) done just because they didn't realize they didn't have to. I would want people to think about it and make an educated decision, though I realize that might be asking too much of some people.

And you're right, there are some situations where declawing a cat is a better alternative. I wish that wasn't the case, and I wish people who can't handle cats claws and all didn't have cats. But of course this is the real world, and so I am willing to do declaws if I must.

It always frustrates me to see people who have to wrestle with their animal and stress them out to trim nails or do other maintenance. Clicker training makes it SO EASY, but I know there are lots of (perhaps most) people who aren't interested in taking the time to make it happen.

Third. Many of you say you wouldn't dock or crop unless it was a "real" working dog or a show dog.

For one thing, I'd really like to see the breed standards changed so that dogs could be shown without cropped ears or docked tails. It's always seemed odd to me that in a competition over who can breed the best dog, some are required to have pieces surgically removed.

I would feel better about docking the tail of a dog that was likely to be in a high-risk situation for tail injury, because then at least the reason is something beyond "it will look good".

You don't think that these procedures save lives and alleviate suffering?

I do. This is why I would be willing to do them. It doesn't make me like them though.

Believe me, if all the vets agreed not to do these ‘optional' procedures, people will not just suddenly accept floppy-eared Dobermans and long-tailed Aussies.

Spot on. A decrease in these procedures has to come from a decrease in demand. One reason I'd like to see the breed standards change is that perhaps then floppy-eared Dobes and other breeds would become more common, and a decrease in demand for docking and cropping might follow. I don't think it will ever go to zero. I might wish it would, but I'm sure it won't. People are always going to want fierce-looking guard dogs, if nothing else.

Thanks for asking the questions. This is a really interesting debate.

 

[168135]

We had a baby lamb come into our clinic for a procedure and the owners asked about tail docking. The vet managed to convince the owner that it wasn't necessary and that with proper brushing (I think, I'm not all that familar with lambs), it's not necessary.

Funny how the vet brought up the alternatives when a lamb is involved but not when it comes to declawing or tail docking for example. I think in this case it comes down to $$$, which is sad, because how is a lamb any different than a dog?

I believe that you never know until you try. Sure, a lot of owners set in their ways and want a declaw now, but there are people out there who are just ignorant and don't know any better. You don't know until you try. I have yet to see a vet try. It's usually either "Yes, we do that procedure. I'll book you an appointment" or "No, we don't offer those services."

 

[No Imagination]

Does anyone know the history of tail docking (or I can guess that one) or cropping in specific breeds, and how they got into the breed standards in the first place. My initial gut feeling is that they were done to protect the working dog; and if thats the case, perhaps we are really underestimating their value (I know they can be important, and certainly for cattle), but perhaps they are more important then we think?

 

[that redhead]

With that in mind, it's really not a logical statement to make that you'd only approve of tail docking on working or show dogs. I'd rather see them docked at 3 days than at 2 months or 2 years of age.

The only reason I'd prefer a dog docked later is because so many people think that young animals don't feel pain and/or won't remember the pain, so it's okay to just hack of their tail with a knife or whatever. I think any type of surgery (especially an amputation!?) should come with anesthesia and pain relief of some sort. I think people are far more likely to have their dog in for a "proper" surgery at two months or two years compared to their newborn puppy.

 

[that redhead]

Does anyone know the history of tail docking (or I can guess that one) or cropping in specific breeds, and how they got into the breed standards in the first place. My initial gut feeling is that they were done to protect the working dog; and if thats the case, perhaps we are really underestimating their value (I know they can be important, and certainly for cattle), but perhaps they are more important then we think?

My problem with perpetuating a "breed look" is that only a small portion of those dogs actually ever do the job that the docking was done to protect against. Not to say that its wrong to have a dog as a companion and not a working animal, but there are so few people that really use their dog/the breed's characteristics to do their job from their breed history. That's why I find it annoying that croppings/dockings are done just because it's a (insert breed here); if Fluffy sits at home on your couch all day, his tail isn't at risk for injury from cows or hunting or whatever, and it doesn't NEED to be docked.

 

[No Imagination]

The only reason I'd prefer a dog docked later is because so many people think that young animals don't feel pain and/or won't remember the pain, so it's okay to just hack of their tail with a knife or whatever. I think any type of surgery (especially an amputation!?) should come with anesthesia and pain relief of some sort. I think people are far more likely to have their dog in for a "proper" surgery at two months or two years compared to their newborn puppy.

A tail amputation on an older dog is a much bigger deal then docking. A) More nerves B) I am pretty sure the vertebrae is more cartilaginous in pups (although I may be wrong), adult dogs require more disarticulation C) While pain is a subjective notion, the after care and 'rehab' for an adult dog amputation is a lot longer and probably more dramatic then a 4 day old pup. D) Now the dog has to learn to adjust to not having a tail, where has it would have otherwise never had one.

I would never (ok, there is probably some situation out there that I am not thinking of) amputate an adult dogs tail for cosmetics or even for a working dog unless it was already seriously injured.

My problem with perpetuating a "breed look" is that only a small portion of those dogs actually ever do the job that the docking was done to protect against... That's why I find it annoying that croppings/dockings are done just because it's a (insert breed here); if Fluffy sits at home on your couch all day, his tail isn't at risk for injury from cows or hunting or whatever, and it doesn't NEED to be docked.

I understand what you are saying here, but if breed standards changed, would they still allow docked ears and cropped tails? If not, then I can't show my working dog. While that may not be a bit deal for people who show their dogs strictly based on appearance, many people do compete their dog based on appearance and ability to work. I think just changing breed standards is a bit more complicated then just 'flipping a switch'.

I do however agree that it would be nice if breed standards were altered, I just think that some serious considerations have to be made.

 

[Jamr0ckin]

I’ve tried not to comment on here because it is a very touchy subject. I’m sure some of you will jump down my throat for what I’m going to say, but I’m ok with that. I only ask that you do really think about the points I bring up and re-assess your own opinions. What’s the point of hearing from others if you aren’t willing to be open-minded? If you really do think about my points and stick to your original beliefs, that’s completely fine with me.

First off, I’m struck by how many of you are so adamant against some or all of these procedures but say that you would give in and go ahead with the procedure(s) if the alternative was euthanasia…… Why? If you believe these procedures are so vile and/or painful that you would do them under no other circumstance, why are they suddenly the better alternative to death? Why would you rather put them through what you believe is a brutality than let them die a relatively peaceful and painless death? I find this extremely interesting.

Secondly, I find it curious how many of you are adamant that you will sit down with the owners and try to educate them and/or get them to try alternatives, especially in the case of declawing. Maybe I’m cynical, but I really don’t think that most pet owners care as much as you think they do. And not for lack of morals, but due to a different value system, culture, or background. Or because (as someone previously mentioned), little old ladies have quite the hard time trimming Muffin’s paws, or using softpaws. Same goes for the stressed out single mother who got a kitten for her now-shredded child. And let’s say for arguments sake that they do try these alternatives. What do you think ultimately stresses out a cat more? Having one declaw procedure, or wrestling their owners every two weeks for trims or softpaws, etc.? I assure you, except in cases of poor declaw jobs, it is the latter. Not to mention the stress the owners must go through, which may lead to abuse or abandonment of the cat…

I think that as vet students, many of you forget what “regular” pet owners are like. They don’t have the time to train Fuffy to only scratch the post. Does that mean they should never have gotten Fluffy in the first place? Maybe, maybe not. But that’s not the point. Do they love Fluffy? I bet they do. That’s probably why they are asking the vet to declaw her, so they can keep her and love her, instead of throwing her away or hacking off her nails themselves.

Third. Many of you say you wouldn’t dock or crop unless it was a “real” working dog or a show dog. I don’t understand the logic here. You are either confessing that docking and cropping is not so horrible, because you will allow it on show dogs (show dogs are real dogs too you know!), or you are at least saying that it is a better alternative to ear or tail damage as an adult. Yes, tail damage for a cow dog is likely high, but where do you draw the line?? I could argue that tail damage is high for the Yorkshire Terrier that lives in a household with tail-pulling toddlers and where it is under people’s feet often. I think that it is very hard for you to make a case for offering such procedures to one section of the population and not another based on your personal opinions. It’s a matter of medical ethics.

I am confused by those of you who mention that you are here to save lives and/or alleviate suffering, not do cosmetic surgery. You don’t think that these procedures save lives and alleviate suffering? I know many cases where cats - had they not been declawed - would’ve been taken to the shelter or abandoned outside. I think being taken to a shelter involves a certain amount of suffering, and many times also death. As does outside life (there’s a reason outside cats don’t live as long). I bet getting your tail crushed by a cow involves some suffering.

Someone else mentioned that these procedures are for human convenience. Yeah, they are. In case you haven’t noticed, this world has been shaped pretty radically for human convenience and I don’t think it’s about to stop anytime soon, sadly. Companion animals are a human convenience. So are agricultural animals.

Sure, there are complications from these procedures, especially if those who perform them don’t know what they’re doing or decide to cut corners. But as someone else mentioned, we’ve never been better at doing these procedures successfully, efficiently, and with as little pain as possible. We have freakin’ LASER declaw surgery for crying out loud.

For those of you who think that owners will give up on cropping Fido’s ears, I ask you to go to breed rescue sites for Dobermans, Pits, etc. and look at all the terrible crop jobs they find on a regular basis. And tail docking? Please, anyone can do that. Can they do it humanely is the question. Believe me, if all the vets agreed not to do these ‘optional’ procedures, people will not just suddenly accept floppy-eared Dobermans and long-tailed Aussies. It’s a capitalist society where supply and demand reigns, and where there is demand for a service…. Someone’s gonna do it.

Would I do these procedures? Yes, yes I would. That came out of left field, I know. 😉 ((In the case of debarking I’m undecided, as I think the lasting psychological trauma may not be worth it, but I need to do more research.)) And you know what? I’d make sure I was darn good at all these procedures. And I’d make sure that everyone in my community knew I was darn good too, so that they wouldn’t go to some shady back alley hack, who wouldn’t use proper pain management, etc.

👍 VERY well said. I am right there with you in the line of thought. Thank you.

 

[sumstorm]

It's all very simple here, they are all illegal to perform (by anyone), in a cosmetic sense, not therapeutic. So we can't ear crop, tail dock, declaw or debark anything. And taildocking a working dog just because it is a working dog is not considered therapeutic, thus illegal. I agree with the stance we have, I don't see many reasons to do any of the above. Although I do kind of agree that if re-homing vs euthenasia meant declawing I would probably do it if it wasn't illegal.

And yet, while I was in the outback, I met many a home docked animal. Illegal =/= prevented.

 

[that redhead]

A tail amputation on an older dog is a much bigger deal then docking. A) More nerves B) I am pretty sure the vertebrae is more cartilaginous in pups (although I may be wrong), adult dogs require more disarticulation C) While pain is a subjective notion, the after care and 'rehab' for an adult dog amputation is a lot longer and probably more dramatic then a 4 day old pup. D) Now the dog has to learn to adjust to not having a tail, where has it would have otherwise never had one.

I would never (ok, there is probably some situation out there that I am not thinking of) amputate an adult dogs tail for cosmetics or even for a working dog unless it was already seriously injured.

I agree that its definitely a more difficult surgery as the dog ages. I would prefer the tails not to be docked at all, if I had my way, but I think that recovery time/adjusting to no tail/more difficult surgery all done with sound surgical practices and appropriate pain relief are overall more favorable than just lopping off a puppy's tail in the backyard because he won't feel it or remember it. I think that's a bit of a leap to be making without consistent scientific evidence behind it (and from what I've seen, there still seems to be controversy over remembrance of pain and inability of neonates to feel pain, so I can't say for sure myself. If they didn't feel pain and forgot the experience, have at it! But I tend to think that they do at least feel the pain and probably do remember something of it, myself.)

I understand what you are saying here, but if breed standards changed, would they still allow docked ears and cropped tails? If not, then I can't show my working dog. While that may not be a bit deal for people who show their dogs strictly based on appearance, many people do compete their dog based on appearance and ability to work. I think just changing breed standards is a bit more complicated then just 'flipping a switch'.

I do however agree that it would be nice if breed standards were altered, I just think that some serious considerations have to be made.

I think that easing out docked tails and cropped ears would be the best method, were anyone to actually undertake changing breed standards. For example, don't crop/dock your new litters but if you older dogs are already cropped/docked, they may compete. I admit that I don't know enough about dog showing to form an opinion on dogs that compete based on appearance AND working ability, so not sure on that one.

 

[NStarz]

Just wanted to clarify a few of my points and back up my opinions.

The reason I said that I would allow it for show dogs and not family pets (at least morally) is because the people who show their dogs would definitely have it done, whether or not the vet was willing to perform it. They desire their dog to be a show dog and would probably go a lot further to keep it to breed standards than Mr. and Mrs. Smith down the street. I feel like the lay public would not declaw their cats if they could help it and they knew the procedure involved amputation of a digit. Someone here mentioned that we are putting too much faith in the public and their love for animals. I beg to differ, based on the growing number of pets in people's homes and the vast amounts of money people are willing to spend for their pets every year (which is increasing, btw).

I feel like I would, personally, have a better chance of convincing Mr. and Mrs. Smith not to crop their dobie's ears than a would a person who shows their dobie. Does that negate the pain of the procedure for the shown dog? Absolutely not, but I will pick my battles. Until the breed standards change, I will do what I can to alleviate unnecessary pain and risk for animals.

Also, someone mentioned that if we (people who don't necessarily support these procedures) don't support declawing, why do we support it if euthanasia is the other answer? Here's my $.02 about that:

Not all shelters are havens for animals. Some shelters abuse their animals, some animals live in their filth, some dogs are never walked. Some animals are put down even when there are empty cages, or kittens are put down because they have a cold/URI. Shelters are, on the whole, NOT good, safe, happy places for animals. Animals get sick, they are stressed, and they are largely euthanized. Animals, in some shelters, are forced to watch as other dogs and cats are put down. I think the psychological trauma of THAT would be far worse than a declaw, if the only other option was the shelter. Cats don't make it out of shelters. Neither do pit bulls. I would definitely try to work with the owners first to see if they are willing to try alternatives, but I will probably do a declaw if it that meant the animal could keep his/her home (and not be successfully rehomed outside of the shelter system).
​

 

[nyanko]

My problem with perpetuating a "breed look" is that only a small portion of those dogs actually ever do the job that the docking was done to protect against. Not to say that its wrong to have a dog as a companion and not a working animal, but there are so few people that really use their dog/the breed's characteristics to do their job from their breed history. That's why I find it annoying that croppings/dockings are done just because it's a (insert breed here); if Fluffy sits at home on your couch all day, his tail isn't at risk for injury from cows or hunting or whatever, and it doesn't NEED to be docked.

True as this may be (and sad, to be honest, that more dogs aren't used for their original purpose), since the ancestors of these dogs did have docked tails at an early age, there's likely been absolutely no sort of breeding for normal tail conformation. So with no selection (natural or artificial) against or for certain types of tails, would it not be possible that the tails of the traditionally docked breeds could be generally "weaker" or more prone to mutation or breakage than breeds where any sort of attention is paid to the tail?

edit: in these threads I always like to point out this little experiment for funsies.

 

[that redhead]

True as this may be (and sad, to be honest, that more dogs aren't used for their original purpose), since the ancestors of these dogs did have docked tails at an early age, there's likely been absolutely no sort of breeding for normal tail conformation. So with no selection (natural or artificial) against or for certain types of tails, would it not be possible that the tails of the traditionally docked breeds could be generally "weaker" or more prone to mutation or breakage than breeds where any sort of attention is paid to the tail?

edit: in these threads I always like to point out this little experiment for funsies.

Thanks for the article - so interesting! I had to LOL when I read this, though: "But everyone wants bitches and I don't exactly have many to spare."

Anyway, you know far more about genetics that I will ever pretend to know. My thought is that although maybe weaker tails would crop up, it wouldn't be to a devasting, all-encompassing degree necessarily. Not to be flippant, but I'm sure breeders could then re-focus their breeding efforts to produce dogs with more normal tails? (I see the inherent problem at that point, though: the weaker tails are more prone to damage, which would raise the desire to dock them, which doesn't allow one to select properly for better tails 🙄)

 

[ambulocetus]

I think it is worth mentioning three things:

1. As vets we need to assume a driving role in issues such as this, and that may mean taking a stand as a collective, while being mindful that it isn't the only way forward according to all vets, but according to the majority - for example; these procedures are illegal for vets to do in England at risk of being suspended from practicing. Do i think all vets think all of these procedures are complete abominations? no - but is it worth those that feel strongly trying to argue to reinstate them..not really.

2. I think you are misinformed if you think that the people walking into a vet's office to pay for a tail dock, are going to go out to some back alley and have it done. Saying they will go elsewhere just indicates the acceptance by veterinarians that they are ok with legislation that allows people to do things of a medical or surgical nature to there animals with impunity. Also the fight dogs in inner cities are going to have their ears cropped by the local "Dog Man" as long as the penalties for owning a docked ear dog are worth the risk.

3. We are used to treating these animals as complete property, and so we seemingly are ok allowing owners to dictate our actions. This is not in accordance with how much of the developed world views animals. And ignoring the fact that animals are gaining some level of 'rights' will only serve to leave the american vet community behind (i.e. what has happened in every state that had animal rights push through poor legislation, unbacked by the AVMA). There are groups/countries/vet associations that feel the animal has a legitimate right to be in an unadulterated state, as long as it is in the animals longterm interest.

I think it is great that we have the future vets of the US debating and thinking about these issues, as they will only come more and more under scrutiny in the coming years, and we need to make sure that the public turns to vets for the answers to anything animal related, rather than various propaganda groups (both pro and con the various procedures)

 

[No Imagination]

2. I think you are misinformed if you think that the people walking into a vet's office to pay for a tail dock, are going to go out to some back alley and have it done.

Someone correct me if I am wrong on this, but here in the states, I would guess about +90% of breeders already dock their own dogs tails (and dews). So I think your #2 is already null.

3. We are used to treating these animals as complete property, and so we seemingly are ok allowing owners to dictate our actions. This is not in accordance with how much of the developed world views animals.

Do most European countries feel this way about livestock as well?

 

[dier930]

I would prefer the tails not to be docked at all, if I had my way, but I think that recovery time/adjusting to no tail/more difficult surgery all done with sound surgical practices and appropriate pain relief are overall more favorable than just lopping off a puppy's tail in the backyard because he won't feel it or remember it. I think that's a bit of a leap to be making without consistent scientific evidence behind it (and from what I've seen, there still seems to be controversy over remembrance of pain and inability of neonates to feel pain, so I can't say for sure myself. If they didn't feel pain and forgot the experience, have at it! But I tend to think that they do at least feel the pain and probably do remember something of it, myself.)

Why do you think the pain of an adult dog - including a more complicated procedure, longer recovery time, and psychological adjustment to no tail - is a better alternative to pain as a puppy, knowing that they likely won't remember ever having a tail and the more cartilaginous skeleton heals faster and with less pain? I find this very... strange. Why does it matter when the dog feels pain? Yes, I believe that neonates feel pain, but I am sure that older dogs do also. The level of pain and risks of complication are likely far lower in day-old puppies, so why would you wait until the dog was older? Your argument resembles one of medical consent, but unfortunately in this profession you will rarely ever get consent from a patient!

I didn't really want to open up this can of worms, but I feel like it's the elephant in the room (at least for me). *drumroll*..... Male circumcision. We in America do this to male infants all the time and think nothing of it. It is quite uncommon in most parts of the world, and any perceived health benefits (for the male) have very little supporting scientific data. (I had to do lots of research on this for a Medical Anthropology class.) It is a religious (Judaism) and cultural tradition. It should be controversial due to age of consent - infants are subjected to a medical procedure that has no legitimate health backing - but it is accepted as a societal norm and rarely questioned. Now I understand that this can be used to argue AGAINST docking puppies' tails.... But what I'm saying is this: In a culture where many unquestioningly snip off the foreskin of their baby boys due to cultural norms and without much scientific evidence that it is at all beneficial, how do you expect to get pet owners to stop docking the tails of day-old puppies??? Especially when at least in many of these dogs' cases, there may actually be a legitimate health benefit (crushing of the tail later in life, etc.). Some make the argument that they would rather snip as a baby than have the boy grow older and have to get a circumcision later in life due to some medical problem... and I don't think I have to explain what this means in terms of physical and emotional pain. So it could also be used to argue FOR puppy tail docking (neither the baby boy nor the puppy remember the pain or ever having had a tail or foreskin, respectively)... Just some more food for thought. 🙂

(DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that those who circumcise their baby boys are evil or wrong! Don't kill me!)

2. I think you are misinformed if you think that the people walking into a vet's office to pay for a tail dock, are going to go out to some back alley and have it done. Saying they will go elsewhere just indicates the acceptance by veterinarians that they are ok with legislation that allows people to do things of a medical or surgical nature to there animals with impunity. Also the fight dogs in inner cities are going to have their ears cropped by the local "Dog Man" as long as the penalties for owning a docked ear dog are worth the risk.

....I don't think I am misinformed, but of course we may live in very different areas of the country and have had very different experiences. Tail docking is relatively simple to do (not necessarily the 'right' way) and many breeders do it themselves. Someone on this thread mentioned that they did it themselves also. I have no idea what percentage of those with newborn puppies go to a vet to get their tails docked, but I bet if vets band together and decide not to do it, you will see relatively similar numbers of dogs with docked tails as you do now, especially Dobermans, Rotts, Bull breeds, etc. I already mentioned this, but you can easily find many many terrible crop jobs if you invest any amount of time on breed specific rescue websites. (same breeds as I stated before) Hell, I typed "how to crop dog ears" into Google and found many websites devoted to home crop jobs and even some YouTube tutorials. I believe you underestimate the resourcefulness of these breeders/owners. Yes, those who would go to a hack to save money already do, and that is so sad, but those who are willing to pay a vet to have their dog's ears cropped will probably find someone to do it if it is no longer offered in the veterinary community. I'm not saying people will literally go to some back alley or dirty, sketchy place. Think about cosmetic dermatology and how many "day spas" have decided to do many 'cosmetic' procedures that the FDA has not approved and therefore are not offered by dermatologists, etc. I could see "doggy day spas" popping up with 'puppy packages' where the puppy gets a shampoo and a crop job. Unless it is actually illegal, I don't know if veterinarians turning people away is in the best interest of the dogs/cats. Maybe I'm going with the worse-case scenario here, I don't know...

What kind of "lasting psychological trauma" do you attribute to debarking? The dog can still make sounds - the Pyr in my avatar is debarked and I'm pretty sure he still thinks his "whuff" is the loudest, bad-assest bark in the entire neighborhood with how often he decides to let loose with it...

Nyanko, I hope I didn't offend. Like I said, I need to do more research into debarking before I decide my opinion - I have yet had the need to do so. All I can go off of is some anecdotal evidence of dogs who became... upset? that they could not recognize their bark or some such other reason for distress. But debarking is a procedure I can say I know almost nothing about (other than that), so... I obviously need to read up. 🙂

Sorry if this post is not as well written as my first... I have finals to study for 🙂

 

[sumstorm]

i know people use the excuse 'if i don't do it, the owner will do it themselves...' but i really don't know how many owners actually would. sure, there are some really ****ty people out there who will treat their animals like crap no matter what (ie, michael vick and others who fight pit bulls). but for the most part, owners aren't going to take fluffy to some back alley to get her claws taken off. if the vet refuses and explains, rationally, why he doesn't perform the procedure, there's a decent chance the owner will listen.

The vast majority of dewclaw removals and tail docks are done before the pup is in the hands of the permenant owner. IE we aren't talking about the average owner heading to a back alley, we are talking about a breeder. Possibly the same breeder who gives thier own vaccines (without appropriate training), advises smashing the dogs nose in feces and urine for housetraining, and warns the owner not to let their dog be vaccinated with rabies until over 6 months, and that all females have to go through at least one heat cycle. There are excellent breeders who wouldn't do any of that, but there are a fair number who wouldn't hesitate (remember, the majority of breeders don't take pets back, many sell to pet stores, or out of vehicles, and many hardly evaluate the purchasers, few pay for all the tests that would provide well for improving the breed standard.)

I do think, expecially with declaws, we need to educate owners that claws are also used as tools; to keep the harrassing dog, child, or other cat from harming them. The fact that I have a shepherd that harrasses my cats has prevented me from declawing the cat that has issues with her claws. I'm not willing to trade her self-defence. And that means emphasizing thinking about the future (will you ever have kids, dogs, put the cat outside?)

 

[168135]

I kind of brought it up, but it didn't really catch on.

I'm actually quite interested in hearing what people have to say about convenience euthanasias. To my knowledge... well, at least what I've saw... that vets generally don't do it or only do it for people that have been clients for x number of years.

So... go?

 

[sumstorm]

Never mind. Dier said it better

A couple of inaccuracies: currently the AKC does NOT require alterations for any breed, and recently (in the last couple of years) a natural dog (I don't remember the details) won a major show. From the AKC: "Ear cropping is a decision made by a dog's breeder or owner. While it is true that some breeds are shown with their ears cropped, there is nothing in AKC rules and in fact nothing in any breed standard that compels an owner to have this procedure performed as a prerequisite to entry at a dog show." I bring this up because folks are using this as part of their argueing point. I don't understand, if it is part of the argument, folks are being inaccurate. If we can't be accurate and we are going to be the professionals, why on earth should our clients trust our accuracy elsewhere?

Secondly, Ambulocetus has another inaccuracy: "Saying they will go elsewhere just indicates the acceptance by veterinarians that they are ok with legislation that allows people to do things of a medical or surgical nature to there animals with impunity." It is LEGAL for individuals to perform many procedures on their own dogs in most places. It isn't legal for a non-owner to perform those same services without licencing. We are not saying we are putting legislation in place....it already exists. However, tell me, what are you, as a vet, going to do about the local cutter? Your board can't do much. Trying to get law enforcement to do anything will be difficult, and what complaint do you have, legally? I personally would fight against bans of these procedures, hands down. I believe there is no way we can know the circumstances for every animal anywhere; I believe that is why we allow professional judgement. I do not want to be a part of a profession where what judgements I make are completly guided by a legal type who has not, and will never, practice actual veterinary medicine.

Finally, this is also inaccurate "We are used to treating these animals as complete property, and so we seemingly are ok allowing owners to dictate our actions." I do believe animals are property. I also don't think that means I have to do anything I don't want to do. I can opt not to accept a client and I can fire a client.

"And ignoring the fact that animals are gaining some level of 'rights' will only serve to leave the american vet community behind (i.e. what has happened in every state that had animal rights push through poor legislation, unbacked by the AVMA)." I disagree with this. While we may not have legislated as much as you desire, our companion animals as a whole recieve some of the best care in the world, including far superior to the care many of our fellow humans recieve.

"There are groups/countries/vet associations that feel the animal has a legitimate right to be in an unadulterated state, as long as it is in the animals longterm interest." So, once again, you must be opposed to altering (castration or spay) a dog or cat? Remember, that also isn't nearly as common in other countries. That is a drastic, optional procedure that has lifetime consequences, some helpful, some harmful. We can't know in a given dog whether the consequences are going to be, on a whole, harmful or beneficial.

 

[sumstorm]

What kind of "lasting psychological trauma" do you attribute to debarking? The dog can still make sounds - the Pyr in my avatar is debarked and I'm pretty sure he still thinks his "whuff" is the loudest, bad-assest bark in the entire neighborhood with how often he decides to let loose with it...

One of my neighbors in NYC had a debarked beagle. I wanted to shoot myself everytime we walked past their window (walk ups) because it sounded like a 2 yo human being murdered. I dislike barking (excessive barking is a pet peeve of mine, even my JRT only barks a handful of barks a day) but I would take non-stop barking over 5 minutes of that horredous screeching. I know most dogs don't learn how to screech when debarked, but some do, and it can be horrible.

 

[sumstorm]

I kind of brought it up, but it didn't really catch on.

I'm actually quite interested in hearing what people have to say about convenience euthanasias. To my knowledge... well, at least what I've saw... that vets generally don't do it or only do it for people that have been clients for x number of years.

So... go?

I think that part of the opposition to euthanasia for new clients without a solid medical reason is that ownership may be called into question. It would be horrible to euthanize a dog because someone said they owned it and then discover they just took it from the neighbor's yard becaues it wanders into their yard all the time. This could be a huge lawsuit.

I am torn on convenience euthanasia. My parents just put down thier 16 yo blind, deaf, arthriticly painful, incontinent min pin. It probably could have lived another year or two, but they were worried it was going to be hurt interacting with the other dogs, walking into the creek, etc. They were also worried that the stress over the holidays (visiting family, etc) and having to take the dog to an unfamiliar vet, etc. Also, they have a coyote problem, and didn't want that to be his death (or drowning.) So, some of their decision was dictated by convenience, but I don't know of many vets who wouldn't have supported their decision.

I know I would not do convenience euth for a new client. I might fire a client if I felt cornered into doing a euth that I didn't agree with. But I think if I felt the risk to the animal was a worse death (including a local, high kill shelter) I might do it. That is very case by case. However, I would try to talk owners into finding appropriate rescues and hope to have resources to refer clients to. Here is the thing; I do NOT want to take every dog or cat in myself. If I can't provide a suitable alternative, how can I say euth (vs going to our local shelter for a terrifying afternoon and a gas chamber death or something worse) is better for the dog than my handling the situation? I am fortunate that I do have a lot of contacts in the rescue world, so for a well-behaved, healthy dog, I probably have some great alternatives. What I would have a hard time with is someone who decides no one else should have thier healthy, well-behaved pet.

 

[EllieGirl89]

Never mind. Dier said it better

A couple of inaccuracies: currently the AKC does NOT require alterations for any breed, and recently (in the last couple of years) a natural dog (I don't remember the details) won a major show. From the AKC: "Ear cropping is a decision made by a dog's breeder or owner. While it is true that some breeds are shown with their ears cropped, there is nothing in AKC rules and in fact nothing in any breed standard that compels an owner to have this procedure performed as a prerequisite to entry at a dog show." I bring this up because folks are using this as part of their argueing point. I don't understand, if it is part of the argument, folks are being inaccurate. If we can't be accurate and we are going to be the professionals, why on earth should our clients trust our accuracy elsewhere?

Look again. Check out the Boxer's breed standards, for example. While it mentions that both cropped and uncropped ears are acceptable, it says that an undocked tail should be "severely penalized." While they don't say a docked tail is "required," to say that an undocked tail should be severely penalized at best encourages tail docking, at worst says they require it without saying they require it.

 

[nyanko]

^^This might be nitpicky but it's the breed club that determines the standards, not the AKC. So the breed club is who "requires" the dogs to be cropped/docked.

One of my neighbors in NYC had a debarked beagle. I wanted to shoot myself everytime we walked past their window (walk ups) because it sounded like a 2 yo human being murdered. I dislike barking (excessive barking is a pet peeve of mine, even my JRT only barks a handful of barks a day) but I would take non-stop barking over 5 minutes of that horredous screeching. I know most dogs don't learn how to screech when debarked, but some do, and it can be horrible.

Oh I totally agree that the sound they make when debarked can be like, 100x more annoying than actual barking. The reason it was still the right decision for Sam is because unaltered the bark would carry for half the block, and with the debark surgery it could only be heard by us. He also has more of the "smoker's bark" thing going on than any kind of screech.

I wrote in PM the story behind his debarking. Long story short, he was in purebred rescue for a very long time (years) and had been returned twice. Not a suitable farm or "country" dog because of his male dog aggression and really bad hips and back, but all Pyr in temperament (protective, etc). The rescue actually debarked him long before I adopted him. Barking is more of an intrinsic reward for him than food, treats, praise, walks, playing or anything else that I could find. So I think it was the right decision in his case. He couldn't really go to a suburban home without it.

 

[bunnity]

We had a whole discussion about convenience euth in an "ethical cases" exercise at orientation.

My choice would be to push other options if they exist... make sure the owners have access to resources like training, financial aid, contacts with rescue groups, the option of signing over the animal (if whoever I'm working for allows that). I definitely want to give the animal a chance if there are better options out there.

But if the owner is dead set on euthanizing the animal, I would do it. Why? Because there are many fates worse than death, and I have gotten to personally observe most of them working in the shelter that does cruelty work for my whole state. I would much rather euthanize the animal myself, because I know I will do a good job and the animal will not suffer - rather than letting them go home and shoot it themselves, or throw it out on the street, or just stop feeding it, or take it to animal control where it will live a week in complete terror and then be euthanized +/- sedation in a room filled with barking dogs... I have seen enough shot, starved, abandoned, and mass-euthanized animals to last me a lifetime. A lot of people say they don't want the animal's death on their conscience, but I would prefer to have a peaceful death on mine than the knowledge that they probably suffered before or while they died because of my refusal.

 

[sumstorm]

^^This might be nitpicky but it's the breed club that determines the standards, not the AKC. So the breed club is who "requires" the dogs to be cropped/docked.

LOL. nitpicky, but I understand. My point was that there have ALREADY been changes made (I will have to call my mom and ask what dog took all show championship without cropped ears, it was televised, I just don't remember) and yet there are still going to be folks that prefer it the other way. AKC does actually have to accept the standards (and they can reject them as well.) I was part of the breeder group that did NOT want aussies in AKC, so I went through those iterations. If I had a drop eared dog with a breed standard that allowed for cropping, I might crop because I hate dealing with repeated ear infections. Ear infections can be as damaging as cropping (and as painful). If I thought there was a high probability of ear issues, and a short window to decide on cropping, I might err on the side of avoiding ear infections and the results of those (which in one of my dogs included seizures) just as I prefer to spay my females rather than deal with the risk of pyometra, heat cycles, and mammary tumors. The AKC or the breed clubs can have the impact.

 

[DVMDream]

I agree that its definitely a more difficult surgery as the dog ages. I would prefer the tails not to be docked at all, if I had my way, but I think that recovery time/adjusting to no tail/more difficult surgery all done with sound surgical practices and appropriate pain relief are overall more favorable than just lopping off a puppy's tail in the backyard because he won't feel it or remember it. I think that's a bit of a leap to be making without consistent scientific evidence behind it (and from what I've seen, there still seems to be controversy over remembrance of pain and inability of neonates to feel pain, so I can't say for sure myself. If they didn't feel pain and forgot the experience, have at it! But I tend to think that they do at least feel the pain and probably do remember something of it, myself.)

I would much rather do tail docking on puppies when they are only 3 days old than to wait until they are older. The surgery is MUCH, MUCH more complicated and has a MUCH greater recovery time and a MUCH greater chance of having complications than a tail dock on a puppy does. I have seen upwards of 100 puppy tails/dew removals and I have never heard back from the owners about problems/complications. I do believe that a puppy feels what happens but I do not believe they remember it...they are 3 days old...do you remember anything that happened to you at 3 DAYS old, 3 months old, hell I can't even remember things that happened to me when I was 3 YEARS old, so I really doubt that puppies remember having their tails docked off at 3 days old.

I have also seen around quite a few tail amputations and I would have to say about 50-60% of them had complications...including getting severly infected and needing to be on anitibiotics for months, needing multiple bandage changes every few days for months, and needing to have the surgery done again to amputate the tail higher because the infection was too bad to save the tail at the length it was (these are surgeries done WELL, with proper pain management, proper surgical technique, using laser and putting on antibiotics to hopefully keep the tail from getting infected). Tail amputations, IMO, are AWFUL I have seen very few that have gone well with no post-surgical complications and most complications are because the dog was wagging its tail post-surgery and has re-opened the incision multiple times leading to those infections and bandages. IMO, it is much better to dock a puppies tail than to amputate a tail.

 

[that redhead]

I'm not sure my point about docking puppies vs. adult dogs was taken correctly. If anything, I would prefer the tail not to be docked. If we're arguing puppy versus adult dog, I agree 100% that a puppy will have less complications than an adult and it will be an easier procedure overall. The control has to be a proper surgery by a knowledgable veterinarian with appropriate pain relief. What I do not like about puppies being docked is that frequently its the owners/backyard breeders doing the docking in a variety of unsavaory ways, which I believe to be wrong. Just wanted to clarify, as it seems what I was trying to say got "telephoned" 😉

Although some breed clubs do not require dockings and croppings, the dogs are heavily penalized for not conforming to this "breed standard" in the show ring (as Elliegirl mentioned). So while they aren't actually saying, "You MUST dock/crop to enter!" they're essentially telling you that that's what will win. And as we all know across the spectrum of animal competition, be it horse shows or dog shows or whatever, there are far too many people who will do whatever they need to do to win, ethical or not.

I'm not entirely convinced on the "more prone to tail trauma" argument. While I agree that perhaps certain traditionally docked breeds may have poorer tails (see Nyanko's argument above), I haven't really decided for myself if I think its grounds for docking. Food for thought for myself 🙂

 

[dier930]

My choice would be to push other options if they exist... make sure the owners have access to resources like training, financial aid, contacts with rescue groups, the option of signing over the animal (if whoever I'm working for allows that). I definitely want to give the animal a chance if there are better options out there.

But if the owner is dead set on euthanizing the animal, I would do it. Why? Because there are many fates worse than death, and I have gotten to personally observe most of them working in the shelter that does cruelty work for my whole state. I would much rather euthanize the animal myself, because I know I will do a good job and the animal will not suffer - rather than letting them go home and shoot it themselves, or throw it out on the street, or just stop feeding it, or take it to animal control where it will live a week in complete terror and then be euthanized +/- sedation in a room filled with barking dogs... I have seen enough shot, starved, abandoned, and mass-euthanized animals to last me a lifetime. A lot of people say they don't want the animal's death on their conscience, but I would prefer to have a peaceful death on mine than the knowledge that they probably suffered before or while they died because of my refusal.

Agreed 100%.

I wouldn't consider how long I had known the client as a factor in my decision.

Begin Long Personal Story:

My family has quite a few animals that are all getting to that elderly stage that sunstorm talked about. We didn't get them all at the same time, but it just happened that they all are around the same age (adopted some strays, etc.), so we've been having to put down a dog or cat almost every year for the past four years or so. They get so old that they're blind and/or arthritic, and they just can't keep any weight on. 🙁

Our first dog to go - the dog that I'd had since I was 3 and that I don't remember life before - was taken to her regular vet. It was obvious that she needed to be put down (she had also become a bit demented and violent with our other dogs), but the vet practice had recently merged with other practices and no corporate policy had been established for euthanasia, so they weren't doing ANY euthanasias other than emergency cases (I assume). This kinda pi**ed me off... Anyway, we had to find another (good) vet that would agree to put down a dog that had not been a patient before. We found a wonderful vet about 40 minutes away (if they weren't so far, they'd probably be our regular vet) that agreed, and they were absolutely wonderful about it - I don't think it could've gone any better.

So as strange as it sounds, we took another dog and a cat there to be put down (that's all we've had to put down so far, but our poodle mix is getting there), because it is so important to us that it be painless, peaceful, etc. and they had shown us that they could provide that.

It's awful but we laugh because if they looked at our client record, all they would see is 3 euthanasias and nothing else! But the vet is a sweet older man who understands and has seen it all.

End Long Personal Story 🙂

Also, sunstorm mentioned that a neighbor could take in a dog pretending it was their own, but an easy way to fix this (in most cases at least) is to ask them to provide the animal's previous vet records. Or maybe even pictures of them with the animal from the past?? Granted, some people may not have ever taken the animal to the vet or taken pics with it, but I think this would be a good way to avoid most 'neighbor' cases. I don't know...

 

[168135]

If a client... even a new client... came in with an elderly animal that was having health issues provided proof of ownership and were compassionate about their pet's situation, I would not hesitate putting the animal to sleep. It's kind of awesome that you found a vet willing to do that for you.

It's the people that want their animal put to sleep because they're moving, or they won't train it, it shed too much, it bit a kid who was teasing it, or they think it's better for their healthy animal to be put asleep than to be put in a shelter, etc, that I wouldn't know how to deal with.

 

[cowgirla]

they think it's better for their healthy animal to be put asleep than to be put in a shelter, etc, that I wouldn't know how to deal with.

What makes you think the animal would be better off in a shelter? Not all shelters are nice, pretty places for the cute little animals to go. There are shelters out there where the dogs don't get walked and sit in feces and urine, where they get crammed in tiny little cages because there isn't enough "space," where animals get killed by the dozens (whether its for lack of space, illness or "they were there too long."). Most shelters are not happy, healthy places for a dog to be. (I'm not saying they are all bad, there are definitely some wonderful shelters with wonderful staff/volunteers.). There are thousands of perfectly healthy animals that never get adopted through shelters, whether its a good shelter or a bad.

Personally, if for some reason I could not keep my dogs, and could not find a good home for them with someone I trusted (IE, not somebody I found on craigslist), and I had exhausted all other options for ensuring their safety and happiness, I would rather euthanize them myself than send them to a shelter.

 

[AuRevoirFinance]

We had a whole discussion about convenience euth in an "ethical cases" exercise at orientation.

@Bunnity: was there a consensus view on this that emerged from your class orientation exercise? Did the school itself have a view as far as you could tell?

I'm interested in hearing what the "right" answer to this is from the perspective of vet school leadership.

 

[168135]

What makes you think the animal would be better off in a shelter? Not all shelters are nice, pretty places for the cute little animals to go. There are shelters out there where the dogs don't get walked and sit in feces and urine, where they get crammed in tiny little cages because there isn't enough "space," where animals get killed by the dozens (whether its for lack of space, illness or "they were there too long."). Most shelters are not happy, healthy places for a dog to be. (I'm not saying they are all bad, there are definitely some wonderful shelters with wonderful staff/volunteers.). There are thousands of perfectly healthy animals that never get adopted through shelters, whether its a good shelter or a bad.

Is where I'm from an exception? All SPCAs in my province became no kill and transport their unadoptables to other parts of the province where they might have a better chance at being adopted. Since the local SPCA became no-kill, they've seen higher adoption rates and less over crowding, although I don't know the reasoning behind it. Also, the local shelter in my hometown is a no-kill and manages to adopt their dogs out within a certain period of time. Cats are another story.... just a few months ago, they had 90 cats in the shelter, which was only built for 60, and people were still throwing them over the gate. Volunteers took the excess to foster until there was room. Some of their cats have been there for a little over a year. I know in that situation, I'd be hesitant to place a cat that's been living in my house for x amount of time in the shelter. I know that they tend to do a lot worse than strays.

I know that even in the best of shelters, it can be very stressful for a lot of dogs. Don't some of them get used to it after a certain period of time? I'm just thinking back to the days when I'd go out to the local shelter. They'd let dogs that get along with each other outside to play and they were always OMG SO EXCITED to have me to play with and take them for walks. Also, employees would take some of the shelter dogs out for car rides and swims during the summer. It was rare for them to get a nervous, aggressive dog into the shelter. With a little work, majority of them come around. They have an employee though that's responsible for that kind of work.

I know this shelter is better than 90% of them out there and other parts of the continent, but seriously, if you HAVE the opportunity to take them to a shelter like this or find a rescue that is willing to give the animal a little work, why wouldn't you advantage of it?

 

[168135]

@Bunnity: was there a consensus view on this that emerged from your class orientation exercise? Did the school itself have a view as far as you could tell?

I'm interested in hearing what the "right" answer to this is from the perspective of vet school leadership.

Ditto. Interested in hearing this as well!

 

[dier930]

Personally, if for some reason I could not keep my dogs, and could not find a good home for them with someone I trusted (IE, not somebody I found on craigslist), and I had exhausted all other options for ensuring their safety and happiness, I would rather euthanize them myself than send them to a shelter.

Agreed. :/ It's a tough situation, but if you are really only concerned with the well-being of these animals..... I don't know, I guess I'm of the belief that a peaceful death is better than an uncertain, possibly awful life.

Some of you had brought up people who would put their dogs down because "they won't train it, it shed too much"... I think these people would probably just take it to a shelter instead, because it's less expensive and more socially accepted. Or they would abandon it... I just don't think this situation is seen very often (but I could be wrong). Because if you are using the argument that they care too much about the dog to take it to a shelter, then they wouldn't be getting rid of it due to training/shedding in the first place...

 

[bunnity]

The orientation exercise was done in groups of about 8 people. It was actually about convenience euthanasia for a horse in the scenario. In my group 7 out of the 8 said pretty much what I said. It was all a discussion and they didn't give us a "right" answer at the end - they just wanted us to think about it and discuss with each other.

As far as shelters.
The city of Philadelphia animal shelter euthanizes 16,000 animals a year. There are several other large shelters in the city so total for the city would be probably 20,000 a year. The vast majority of these animals are young, healthy, and relatively adoptable.

We recently had a lecture in vet school about shelter stress. It turns out that it takes cats weeks to months to "adjust" to shelter life.

I have witnessed the deterioration of more shelter dogs than I care to think about. In fact there are very few dogs that can stay at a typical shelter more than a few months and not go kennel crazy. A lot of them absolutely will not put on weight even though they are being fed more than enough. Dogs that are sick with something simple like kennel cough or mange just won't get better. Others will exhibit behaviors like smearing their feces on the walls or circling obsessively or leaping 3 feet in the air for hours at a time. Most of them start out with good temperaments but they just can't take being in a room full of noise and barking for 24 hours a day. I have seen so many amazing dogs sit on the adoption floor for weeks, months, years and eventually they end up biting someone because they are so incredibly frustrated and have no control over their lives and no physical or mental stimulation. Some of those dogs were my favorites and they were just absolutely stellar dogs. There is nothing like holding a shelter dog while it dies knowing full well that the dog should have lived a full life with a family. And knowing that it suffered for months in a cage.

Shelter euthanasias are not like euthanasias at the vet. They will normally happen with multiple animals in the same room. I remember vividly one time we had gotten in about 50 cats as a cruelty case and they were on hold for evidence. We didn't have 50 cages so 50 of cats waiting for space on the adoption floor were euthanized. This was done in the middle of the cat holding room, and just one cat after another, all laid out on the same table, in front of other cats. They were piled up on a cart as they died so there was more room on the table. I have also been there for dog euthanasias when the shelter is so full that there are dogs crated in the euthanasia area. They have to watch the other dogs and they KNOW.

Animals in the shelter get so, so sick. So many cats die of URI complications. Dogs will pick up crazy things that they would never get outside a shelter because of the stress and the crowding. I've seen dogs that go from normal to death by pulmonary hemorrhage in 24 hours. If they got something like parvo they were either immediately euthanized or isolated in the necropsy room - where they were least likely to spread the virus to anything alive.

Everything I just described was something that I saw personally and something that happened in what would be considered good shelters. There are shelters where it is far, far worse (google Tiger Ranch if you need an example). So when I said fates worse than death, I meant it, and I would never want the responsibility of putting an animal through that.

 

[168135]

Thanks for that post bunnity. I've been fortunate enough to volunteer in
"good" shelters and never got a chance to experience the other side of the fence, other than the occasional video or article. I know I'd rather euth than put an animal in that situation.

I think if I were to work as a vet in certain areas of my province, I'd encourage the owner to look into shelters and rescues before euthanizing.

 

[deleted266066]

.

 

[168135]

My local SPCA has some huge plans... from what I can remember... a kitten play area, a pupply play area and grooming equipement. I can't see them raising the funds for it though anytime soon. They're currently trying to remain open longer to encourage more people to come in and walk the dogs.

 

[bunnity]

Sounds like a cool behavior program! Have the published anything yet? I would be interested to read it if they have. Shelter behavior is one of my favorite subjects and I am glad someone is researching it.

I know there are great shelters and rescues out there. The problem is that most of them do not accept owner surrenders or have a really long waiting list. Meaning that most people surrendering go through the city shelter / animal control and have no control over whether their pets get pulled out by rescues or the nice shelters.

The other thing is, the shelter I am talking about is not a bad shelter. And they have a behavior department and lots of volunteers and decent medical care. They are way better off than most shelters.

 

[that redhead]

but seriously, if you HAVE the opportunity to take them to a shelter like this or find a rescue that is willing to give the animal a little work, why wouldn't you advantage of it?

Because you can never trust anyone 100%. Even if a contract were drawn up in regards to what would happen to the animal if something didn't work out for some reason, people still go around those. There's no guarantee that the shelter willl forever be no-kill or that your animal will not develop some problem that had not previously existed. Rescues are even more shady, since anyone can pop out of the woodwork and call themselves a rescue.

I had to sound so cynical because I know there are good people out there doing good things for all kinds of "problem animals", but I'd bet the number of animals that wind up dumped, abused, neglected or killed far exceed the numbers that have a happy ending. If it came down to it and I couldn't leave my dog with my boyfriend or parents or someone that I knew similarly, I would have her put down. I would much rather provide my dog with a humane, peaceful end than to throw her to fate and hope that it works out for the best.

 

[sumstorm]

Also, sunstorm mentioned that a neighbor could take in a dog pretending it was their own, but an easy way to fix this (in most cases at least) is to ask them to provide the animal's previous vet records. Or maybe even pictures of them with the animal from the past?? Granted, some people may not have ever taken the animal to the vet or taken pics with it, but I think this would be a good way to avoid most 'neighbor' cases. I don't know...

So, if I take my neighbors pit bull into a vet and ask to have it euth'd for anxiety (it is an anxiety wreck, and self mutilating to boot) and I produced a photo of myself with a tan pit bull (one of my surgery dogs) that looks similar enough that a photo wouldn't be obviously different, you would comply with my request? Have you read any of the legal cases in vet med on this yet? There are a fair number of them.

Now, if I contacted another vet, and they could provide me with a detailed history, that would be a different story. Still a risk, but at least then I have verified with a professional that has treated that dog (even better if the dog has a tatoo or microchip) and can provide documentation and evidence. In this case, the second would be CYA, but the first (photo) is questionable.

 

[sumstorm]

it bit a kid who was teasing it.

Seriously, would you advise leaving an animal with a bite history with the child it bit if the owners didn't want it in that home anymore? Maybe for the animals own safety (if a kid provoked it once, it could happen again?) Would you advise rehoming it? What would you say in court if there was another bite incident down the road?

I agree most bites are a conglomeration of issues, and the animals are rarely solely at fault, but unless I am willing to take that dog into my home, and take the liability personally as well as professionaly (because there is professional liability risk), I can't feel good about a potential bite incident (there are just way too many great pets out there without the risk.)

My personal feeling is that I can't care more than the client does most of the time, and if I do, I need to be willing to step up and take responsibility. I am likely to fire clients post euth if I don't feel like they have pursued the best options, but there are far worse things that can happen by refusing a euth because another person doesn't live up to my standards (particularly in a bite case.)

I'd like to throw in my experience with two high kill shelters in the South (LA, SC)
The LA one took in 80,000 animals/yr. less than 6,000 make it out, and that is due to the dedication of a very supportive volunteer organization and the willingness to flex within the government run shelter. They work very hard to move breeds to breed rescues, advertise online, and move dogs to other shelters, however, within a 3 hour drive, there is only one other shelter, so all these animals going out other than private adoption must be transported, often over 16 hours away. They use gas chambers because of the number. Last week they took in 92 animals in one day. They have storage capacity for 40 dogs (2 week hold) and 30 cats (2 week hold.) Even if they are doing thier very best, they can't meet that capacity for adoptions.

The SC one took in 36,000 last year. This is a rural area. The vast majority of the dogs coming in are beagles and hounds and currs used for hunting purposes, then abandoned, but no way to prove ownership/responsibility. These dogs are bred to form a hundred + pack, then at the end of the season, those that aren't kept for breeder are 'dumped' to fend for themselves. I know ACO's have taken cute small dogs (that are surrendered or found as strays) home and used them to support a puppy mill. A dog was shot by an officer in the head, and was left in the shelter from Friday afternoon till Monday with open wounds. It was a client's dog, it was shot through a fence while he was at work when the officers served a warrant at the neighbors house. He couldn't get the dog released when he got home because the shelter closes at 3pm on Friday and no one would open it before Monday. The dogs are euthed by gas chamber, mass killing. An untrained convict from the prison is responsible for that job, along with all the cleaning of cages and managing of animals. I would shoot my own dogs before surrendering them there.

 

[168135]

Seriously, would you advise leaving an animal with a bite history with the child it bit if the owners didn't want it in that home anymore? Maybe for the animals own safety (if a kid provoked it once, it could happen again?) Would you advise rehoming it? What would you say in court if there was another bite incident down the road?

I belong to a LJ community where people rant about stupid pet owners. There are a lot of parents who let their kids pick and prod and pull at animal and when the animal gets fed up and bites or scratches back, the parents are like "Omg, I must get rid of this vicious animal now before it kills my child!" instead of, you know, being a parent and teaching their kid how to properly interact with their pets. And there are a lot of people who want to rehome their animal or have it put down because they're having a child and are afraid that the pet is going to attack it or smother it or something before they've even given their pet a chance.

My 16 year old brother teased out cat to the point where she screamed and, claws out, climbed up over his chest and darted off into hiding. My mom said that the cat shouldn't have reacted that way 🙄

I was bit by a dog when I was a little girl. I got between the dog and her food. I guess I learned my lesson (I think was 2) and nobody deemed this dog a danger to society or got sued or anything like that.

I do know a family who rescued an Airedale Terrier from an abusive owner. She was nervous and snappy. They tried to turn her around and could not. The mother babysat and didn't feel comfortable having a snappy, nervous dog around her kids, so they put it to sleep. That I situation I agree with with.

 

[sumstorm]

There are a lot of parents who let their kids pick and prod and pull at animal and when the animal gets fed up and bites or scratches back, the parents are like "Omg, I must get rid of this vicious animal now before it kills my child!" instead of, you know, being a parent and teaching their kid how to properly interact with their pets. And there are a lot of people who want to rehome their animal or have it put down because they're having a child and are afraid that the pet is going to attack it or smother it or something before they've even given their pet a chance.

So, you would rather leave that animal in that home being tortured to the point of biting? Because of what people 'should' do? Even if I agree that they 'should' train their kids, if they won't, what is the point? You can't force people to be better people. You can fire them as clients, you might be able to avoid them, but you can't force them to change.

I agree that I despise when folks get rid of their pets when they have children, and I do agree an attempt should be made to educate, but once that is done, the decision on what to do in thier home is theirs, not the vets. Now, the vet can refuse to euth, that is their perogative, but to assume doing so forces the owners to become the type of owners you think they should be doesn't make sense. Even if you guilt them into keeping the animal, you have to be aware of what the consequences might be (lap dog turned into yard dog in a small kennel, dog that no longer gets any vet care because no one sees its issues, etc.) and in a case where a bite has occured, that kind of compulsion can have legal consequences to a vet.

 

[168135]

Thanks.

The situation is probably no where near as common as the stupid pet owners community makes it out to be, but eh.