Thought this might be of interest to some on this board:
Tail Docking and Ear Cropping Dogs: Public Awareness and Perceptions
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0158131
Thought this might be of interest to some on this board:
Tail Docking and Ear Cropping Dogs: Public Awareness and Perceptions
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0158131
Junk science.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
Perception of personalities of altered dogs' owners and of altered dogs would likely differ if toy breeds were used for the study in place of Doberman, Boxer, etc. By selecting the sample images the authors have engineered the outcome.
PlosOne is not a peer-reviewed journal.
I'm still waiting on a single good study on whether docking is medically necessary in qorking dog breeds....
For what it's worth this a literature review done by the AVMA on the subject:
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Li...cking_bgnd.pdf
It references 18 sources on the subject and states on the first page that the summary has been peer reviewed (what they consider as peer reviewed - who knows). I did not check any of the sources so make your own judgements on how accurate they are.
I agree it is junk science. Look at the sponsor of the study-UBC Animal Welfare Dept. Having said that, it will be used to advance the anti-docking/cropping agenda in North America. Interestingly if you go to petfinder.com and check out breeds available for adoption, the undocked/uncropped dogs by far outnumber those that have their tails docked and ears-cropped.
Thanks for that one. See the takeaway in the conclusion:Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472
"Empirical studies of docking on the welfare of puppies and on the long-term consequences of docking, including effects on behavior, that encompass a suitable population of control dogs would be helpful in developing a consensus regarding the welfare implications of this procedure. However as acceptance of the procedure by the veterinary community and general public appears to be low, and arguably declining, there is little impetus for further research."
A lot of the research is missing the point: that docking in working dogs of specific breeds is not necessarily cosmetic. To assess that you need to look at the rate of injury of those dogs used in the specific working roles where the risk exists. But most people seem to consider this a settled matter, and the gundog world is too small to make itself heard.
The best study seems to be this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536849
Interesting comments and I can see where there is a lot of bias and pressure from various groups with certain conflicts of interest in the matter of ear and tail docking. My favorite dog for hunting and as a family member has been the Springer Spaniel. I favor watching the tail movements of a whole spaniel although there could be hours of deburring after a day in the field, and on several occasions with both the docked and whole Spaniel, I had to rescue them from thick clusters of wild rose bushes in southern Saskatchewan. They had become trapped as if a perfect match of Velcro. So, while there is certainly more post hunting work grooming to clean up a whole Spaniel and I would think a slightly greater chance of them getting snarled up in rose and berry thickets the extra work does not offset the enjoyment of watching them work with tails and ears waving. However, the full tail and ears are certainly a deterrent on cold late season days if your dogs are used in water.......they simply ice up and the tail and ears can become icy clubs. I don't like the idea of amputating anything from animals when there i no essential need to do so and I prefer watching the graceful waving full tail and ears of a Spaniel working the field ahead of me......beauty in motion.
We went down this road two years ago...nothing has changed, except more provinces have come on board to ban the practice.
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...king-petition/
The other side of the issue..the real side.
Quote:
Dear Editor,
In Bernard Rollin’s May 2013 Veterinary Medical Ethics column in (CVJ 2013;54:430) he commented on breed or industry standards as not being an ethical excuse for tail docking and ear cropping.
To date, the only defense veterinarians had against cruelty to animal charges being recommended against them for ear cropping and tail docking was that it was considered to be a generally accepted practice of veterinarians. However, position statements of the CVMA and College of Veterinarians of BC (CVBC) state that cosmetic surgery is no longer an acceptable practice and has no benefits to the animal.
The Chief Prevention and Enforcement Officer for the BCSPCA and a senior crown counsel reviewed the cosmetic issue recently, including the CVBC position statement, and agreed with the proposition that a good argument could be made that a veterinarian who performed these types of surgeries was in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) and that the “generally accepted” exception was no longer valid. As such, charges could be recommended against veterinarians performing cosmetic surgery in this province even though it is not yet banned by the CVBC.
Recent changes have also occurred in British Columbia based on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, which requires that veterinarians must report to a BC SPCA constable if they suspect any distress of an animal.
Given the above, not only could veterinarians who perform cosmetic surgery be placing themselves at risk of potential animal cruelty charges, but there is a duty on the part of veterinarians to report their colleagues if they suspect they have done it.
The CVBC is making inroads into drafting of bylaws banning ear cropping and hopefully tail docking, but veterinarians who continue to perform cosmetic surgery should be aware that they may already be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. I am confident that cosmetic surgery will soon be a thing of the past in Canada for the reasons stated in Bernard Rollin’s column of “our ability to transcend historically sanctified absurdities.”
Sincerely,
I was interesting, thanks for posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
Can't say I fully understand the point of the efforts; If I understood, they're saying that by having less cosmetic surgery on our dogs we will alter our perception of the certain breeds of dogs ? Is that a bad thing ?
We live in a society that has increasingly used cosmetic/enhanced surgery to alter our own appearances and have changed, for example, what is now perceived to be 'beauty' in a women. Should we continue to accept that 'normal' can only be achieved thru surgery?
The article provided by the OP tells me a bit about the PLOS One organization but virtually nothing about tail docking and ear cropping.
When I was a young man, I had a bit of a chip on my shoulder that got me into quite a few situations. Back then, I had a Brittany whose name was "Brutus" which fit him because he would rather fight dogs than hunt birds.
I had no idea that my obstreperous behaviour and my dog's aggressiveness all stemmed from the fact that his tail was docked! Wish I had known.
PLOS One just publishes stuff. It's a response to the difficulty of publishing in journals. It publishes research from all the sciences. Some of the papers published there are junk and some are not.
This one happens to be junk.
It's an unfortunate reality that people tend to accept things uncritically if they bolster their beliefs, and reject things out of hand if they do not. Ear cropping is on its way out, as it's really not defensible on any utilitarian grounds. All kinds of people who ought to know better have jumped to publicize this study in spite of its clear methodological problems and weakly supported conclusion, because they oppose ear cropping.
If I was in that field and had some research money available, I'd happily nuke that study by repeating it with different breeds of dogs. I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum of money that the correlations would disappear.