Re Debarking
Darlene
having problems with complaints about it. How effective and safe is
this process?
John H. Wiley
The proceedure is a simple matter of reaching down the dogs throat and
snipping the edges of the vocal cords. The dog can still bark but the
volume is reduced dramaticly. The canine equivelent of having tonsils
removed. The dog comes out sounding like he has a very bad cold. The
snips may also grow back together allowing the dog to reach full
volume again.
The major problem you will encounter are the people who think that it
is an absolutly horrible thing to do to a dog. Having been to dog
shows and standing beside a sholder high double stack of debarked
Scotties I have not found that to be the case. The Scotties were
happly telling off the entire world and I was having a plesant
conversation at normal volume. A kennel full of Shelties the same.
The other problem is finding a Vet who is enlighned enough to do the
surgery.
You must also be aware of other ways to treat the problem, ie, no-bark
collars (shock or citronella), teaching the dog to bark on command so
that you can teach the dog to not bark on command, moving, getting rid
of the dog, etc. I am sure many will chime in with other soloutions.
John
Ruth M. Harvey
this "service" is that most of the Vets are enlightened enough to refuse
to perform this unnatural and cruel service to those who want a simple
and painless "for them" solution. Any pet problem takes time and
professional attention from a loving owner who cares enough not to
resort to the "simple" answer of surgery to the only way a dog can
express himself. I am appalled that there might still be Vets who do
this, they probably only do it for the money for those who insist on it.
Ruth M. Harvey
John H. Wiley
John
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
homes because a few vets are incapable of properly performing simple
debarking surgery.
Nancy
Ruth M. Harvey <har...@gatesco.com> wrote in article
<3665D5EA...@gatesco.com>...
>snip some nonsense about vets
Ruth M. Harvey
is inhumane and I haven't yet used a Vet who would do it. I have seen
animals who have had it done and have seen it botched. Barking can be
solved so many other ways, I know, I have a bluetick coonhound, known
for their vocal tendencies. Have sought and found many other solutions
that have worked pretty well, and would never have considered even the
slightest nick on her vocal cords as a solution.
John H. Wiley
"Ruth M. Harvey" <har...@gatesco.com> wrote:
>Yes, John, I did read the post.
Then you saw that I also gave suggestions on other methods.
>I have seen animals who have had it done and have seen it botched.
I don't doubt it. In any endevor experience counts. It is after all,
surgery. The more times a procedure is practiced the better the surgon
becomes.
>Barking can be solved so many other ways, I know, I have a bluetick coonhound, known
>for their vocal tendencies. Have sought and found many other solutions
>that have worked pretty well, and would never have considered even the
>slightest nick on her vocal cords as a solution.
>
I started off by answering the question that Darlene asked [You still
with us, Darlene??]. And, then gave some sugestions how to avoid the
surgery. You, on the other hand, chime in with your personal bias.
Now, I understand you are experienced in solving the problem.
TELL DARLENE!! Explain in detail how you did it. Training a dog out of
a problem is far preferable to surgery. I doubt that many of us like
the thought of our pets going under the knife unnessarily.
If you are going to respond to a question, do it completely. Don't
just say "I don't like it.". Tell the questioner also how to not do
what you object to!
Regards,
John
John
Walk'N'Sit Dogs
--
Darlene wrote in message
<2935-366...@newsd-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Looking for some advice. My tricolored collie barks all the time and am
having problems with complaints about it. How effective and safe is
this process?
I think before you consider this as an option.
What have u tried?
What type of complaints? are they valid? ( I have 2 collies.. one used to
bark alot, He doesn't anymore (vocal cords intact) I used the citronella
collar with him. It worked for him. (make sure though if you go this route
that the collar is made for collies.. it has to go through all that hair &
that long snout)
My other collie barks when the garbage men come and take away her
trash..lol)
Are u able to spend time to try other methods?
Is your collie left outside on his/her own alot?
I thought about debarking my for my male at one point. I decided that since
he was not an aggressive dog that I couldn't take away one of his defences.
So I chose the collar & it took awhile for it work .. He now only tells the
squirrels to get out of his backyard..lol
collies are barkers ( bred in them)
I find there isn't anything sweeter then hearing a collie bark ( not bias
here)
I hope that whatever you choose it works out for you.
Happy Wagging!!!
Colliepup
Elizabeth B. Naime
> The major problem you will encounter are the people who think that it
> is an absolutly horrible thing to do to a dog. Having been to dog
> shows and standing beside a sholder high double stack of debarked
> Scotties I have not found that to be the case. The Scotties were
> happly telling off the entire world and I was having a plesant
> conversation at normal volume. A kennel full of Shelties the same.
I must agree that the debarked Collies that I've met seemed perfectly
happy. There is another down side to debarking an adult and that is, the
vocal chords can grow back. I have heard this is more likely to happen
when the dog is debarked as an adult (and it may not happen at all when
the vocal chords are COMPLETELY removed, but that seems to be a more
drastic and riskier surgery which I wouldn't recommend).
> The other problem is finding a Vet who is enlighned enough to do the
> surgery.
Your best approach is to find local breeders of vocal breeds, e.g.
Shelties and Collies. It is not uncommon for breeders, who have several
dogs, to debark Collies in particular -- I do not believe that you can
humanely train a group of Collies NOT to bark when they are playing in
the yard together. Bark-intolerant neighbors or an owner who
simply wants the dogs to have more playtime than normal neighbor's
tolerance would allow lead to a higher than usual rate of debarks. If
you find several people with debarked dogs (and dog shows are a good
place to look), ask them who their vet is and, if a breeder, who they
recommend. The name that comes up most often is usually the best debark
vet in your area.
> You must also be aware of other ways to treat the problem, ie, no-bark
> collars (shock or citronella), teaching the dog to bark on command so
> that you can teach the dog to not bark on command, moving, getting rid
> of the dog, etc. I am sure many will chime in with other soloutions. --
In order to give training a fair go at the problem before resorting to
surgery, tell us more about the problem. Is she an only dog or part of a
multiple dog household? What seems to trigger her barking? Is she all
right when you are there, or does she get into "help I'm barking and I
can't shut up" mode? Is it a problem when you're gone? When she's out
in the yard? When people or dogs walk by? And how intolerant is your
neighbor -- would they be all right with one to three barks at reasonable
hours, and if you have multiple dogs, can you negotiate a "free bark"
play time of half an hour sometime during the day?
Darlene
Would I get a citronella collar from a vet and how does it work?
Thanks !
Darlene
Darlene
to stop barking great I`d love to hear it. My dog is about a year old
and barks at everything he sees.I`m home during the day so when he gets
going I bring him in . When I go out he either has to come with me or
stay in the house. One of my neighhbors has called the police
complaining that when we are out he barks all the time.My delema is
there are times when it is beautiful out and I`d love to keep him out
but either my neighbors are outside or I need to go somewhere . Any
ideas?? Thanks Darlene
RetroTrish
puppy mill) last year, and I can say very unequivocably that I would never
recommend that anyone debark a dog. My dachshund, Thelma Lou, is a beautiful,
loving little dog and a real joy to have as a companion. Unfortunately, she
has almost no vocalization power at all. This may sound great to some dog
owners concerned about neighbors. It is NOT great when she needs something and
cannot make a noise. When something is wrong and she cannot bark to let me
know. I work at home and am with my dogs throughout the day. Of course, we
are not always in the same room. Naturally, all dogs have times when they need
something (i.e. they have a sick tummy after eating too fast) and she has
absolutely no way to call out. It breaks my heart to hear her raspy little
noise. I would never do that to a dog.
Trish in Atlanta, with dachshunds Thelma Lou & Barney Fife
RETRO FUN: http://members.aol.com/RetroTrish/collect/
* Retrotown maillist * 1950's-'80's pop culture * vegetarian sites * dachshund
rescue * arts & crafts * kids' lit * creative web links *
RetroTrish
I just posted a note to the newsgroup on debarking that you may want to read.
I adopted a debarked dog last year. I would NOT recommend debarking under any
circumstances. Some recommendations I would make:
citronella collar (yes, you get this from your vet)
obedience training (via private trainer or in a class -- basic obedience
classes are available at most PetSmarts and Humane Societies)
some good dog training books (my favorite is THE ASPCA COMPLETE GUIDE TO DOG
TRAINING)
There are definitely solutions to barking. My youngest dachshund, Barney, is
quite a barker and I have done a lot of training work with him to resolve this.
We work with a "penny can" and clicker. Very effective! Will be glad to
email more if you like.
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
other removes the voice entirely - I would guess the dog you know had the
second kind of procedure.
Nancy
RetroTrish <retro...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981204102120...@ng-fb2.aol.com>...
> I adopted a debarked dog (a former puppy mill breeder who was debarked in
the
> puppy mill) last year, and I can say very unequivocably that I would
never
> recommend that anyone debark a dog. My dachshund, Thelma Lou, is a
beautiful,
> loving little dog and a real joy to have as a companion. Unfortunately,
she
> has almost no vocalization power at all. This may sound great to some
dog
> owners concerned about neighbors. It is NOT great when she needs
something and
> cannot make a noise. When something is wrong and she cannot bark to let
me
> know. I work at home and am with my dogs throughout the day. Of course,
we
> are not always in the same room. Naturally, all dogs have times when
they need
> something (i.e. they have a sick tummy after eating too fast) and she has
> absolutely no way to call out. It breaks my heart to hear her raspy
little
> noise. I would never do that to a dog.
>
>
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Debarking is an alternative for the latter or for situations where
neighbors call the police or animal control because your dog barks enough
to disturb them - for some neighbors that is a single bark :-(
Your debarked dog was a puppy mill rescue - it is quite likely they tried
to REMOVE the bark instead of quieting it as is done in most 'debarking'
Nancy
RetroTrish <retro...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981204102557...@ng-fb2.aol.com>...
> Darlene,
>
> I just posted a note to the newsgroup on debarking that you may want to
read.
> I adopted a debarked dog last year. I would NOT recommend debarking
under any
> circumstances. Some recommendations I would make:
>
> citronella collar (yes, you get this from your vet)
>
> obedience training (via private trainer or in a class -- basic obedience
> classes are available at most PetSmarts and Humane Societies)
>
> some good dog training books (my favorite is THE ASPCA COMPLETE GUIDE TO
DOG
> TRAINING)
>
> There are definitely solutions to barking. My youngest dachshund,
Barney, is
> quite a barker and I have done a lot of training work with him to resolve
this.
> We work with a "penny can" and clicker. Very effective! Will be glad
to
> email more if you like.
>
>
Darlene
this group.I am currently looking into all the suggestions and will get
back to you all.
Thanks for caring!
Darlene
Cacorder
>Debarking is an alternative for the latter or for situations where
>neighbors call the police or animal control because your dog barks enough
Debarking is flat out cruel. How would you like it if someone found your
endless typing on the net disturbing and chopped your fingers off. If you dont
like a dogs bark, get a friggin cat.
tibbi
caco...@aol.commommalu (Cacorder) wrote:
> Debarking is flat out cruel. How would you like it if someone found your
> endless typing on the net disturbing and chopped your fingers off. If
you >dont like a dogs bark, get a friggin cat.
it's not the owner that is the problem in case like this. it's the
neigbors that are threatening to have the dog put down.
for those cases, for some people, it's debarking or death for the dog.
of course, if we could figure out a way to legally debark the neigbors! :)
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
propaganda on the subject.
You might yourself opt to lose fingers if the alternative was death by
lethal injection. But the debarking is no where near that radical a
solution involving as it does surgery similar to tonsil removal and which
normally only 'quiets' the dog down and does not 'remove' the bark totally.
Nancy
who would rather be happy whispering than dead if you care to
anthropomorphise
Cacorder <caco...@aol.commommalu> wrote in article
<19981207100200...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> >Some dogs can be trained not to bark - some dogs cannot
> >Debarking is an alternative for the latter or for situations where
> >neighbors call the police or animal control because your dog barks
enough
>
Cacorder
>propaganda on the subject.
No, I have my OWN opinion on the subject. I have never, in 29 years of raising
many dogs, had to use debarking to quiet a dog. Of course, I trained them
right in the first place and did not create this problem that I had to fix
later.
Elizabeth
>>Some dogs can be trained not to bark - some dogs cannot
>>Debarking is an alternative for the latter or for situations where
>>neighbors call the police or animal control because your dog barks enough
>
>Debarking is flat out cruel. How would you like it if someone found your
>endless typing on the net disturbing and chopped your fingers off. If you dont
>like a dogs bark, get a friggin cat.
Dogs bark for many reasons. Being alone in a backyard all day, bored
to death, will often encourage barking for no reason - and many other
bad habits. Some breeds are prone to being barkey. Many times
associated with their original job for which they were bred. Shelties,
Collies, Beagles and many more. It's part of who they are. Some dogs
within normally quiet breeds will be very talkative. I have a dog here
who talked to me from the time he could stand on his own. He barked
for food, he barked for fun, he barked to be picked up etc. He was the
brightest one in the litter and is still probably the most intelligent
dog I have ever had. I love talkative dogs which is different from
dogs who bark out of boredom. The dog of which I speak would have been
certainly a dog to have attracted unwanted attention from neighbours
if he had not been debarked. He actually still has a fairly big bark,
but it is so low key - far from the ear piercing bark prior to
debarking, that he bothers nobody and we all still enjoy our
conversations. I have a breed which is fairly barkey but since they
are all housedogs and seldom outside alone, all is well.
Debarking is not "flat out cruel" as you suggest.
The operation takes about as long as it will take for me to tell you
about it here. Dog is placed on the table. Needle placed in front leg
of dog. Dog quietly falls asleep. Doc bends over and opens mouth.
(Dog's mouth) Snip.
Dog is wrapped in blanket and given to owner. Thats it!
Dogs usually wake up within about 20 mins or so and the vet I used has
a little room where the owners can sit on the floor with their dogs
until the dog is fully awake. He does about 20 a day I believe.
No food for the rest of that day. Soft food only the next day and
after that back to normal. In spite of the fact we humans like to
think that our dogs feel the same way about life as we do, the truth
is that they do not. The worse thing about debarking for any dog is
probably the fact he will miss dinner that first night. They do not
know that the sound they make is different from before. Sine debarking
does no render dogs mute but only tones down the bark considerabley -
and a little differently in each dog, they can still be heard by the
owner but not usually by neighbours. The real fact is that using
no-bark collars place much more stress on the dogs than a quick
debarking does, and with this the dog can happily spend the rest of
his life being vocal. I have only actually had the op done on one of
my dogs and the day I was there I sat with an elderly lady with a
poodle. She was going to live in an elder apartment complex and could
only bring her dog if it was debarked. How wonderful that she did not
have to give up her treasured friend when moving from her larger home.
She mentioned when we were waiting for the dogs to wake up, that she
wished she had known about debarking a few years before.
I have had several debarked dogs which came to me that way and after
living with them a while I am sure that they would have been put to
sleep or worse, poisoned by angry neighbours, were they to have spent
their lives with full vocal capabilities.
Obviously many dogs can be trained not to be vocal but for those for
whom a barking collar and other devices are just minor inconveniences,
debarking is a quick, easy and happy way to allow these kids to "do
their thing" without annoying others. Certainly has allowed many a
family to keep a dog who would have otherwise ended up at the pound or
worse.
Liz
ka...@delphi.com
Now, now - some people adopt problem barkers from the pound
and STILL can't overcome the problem. A friend of mine
has put multiple CDs on dogs, and adopted an already debarked
sheltie from a shelter. This dog will not shut up. She has
tried everything imaginable from a training standpoint -- in
this case it is a behavioral problem that is completely
ingrained, or else possibly an obsessive compulsive disorder.
Mind you, the dog is already debarked, but still an incessant
barker who cannot be trained out of it.
.
It's muffled, she can live with it... but she nnow realizes
that there ARE cases of intractable barking that cannot
be controlled with training.
.
Personally, if I had the choice of a surgical procedure
under anesthesia versus being soaked with foul smelling
liquids every time I opened my mouth, I'd opt for the
debarking :)
.
kassa (not downplaying the risks of anesthesia, etc., but
I think surgical debarking in a TRULY intractable
problem barker is more humane than shock and citronella)
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Are you aware that there are dogs who are CHEMICALLY addicted to the
seratonin and other brain chemicals produced from non stop barking?
Are you aware there are dogs who are INCAPABLE of NOT barking?
Are you aware that there are many dogs who DIE because THEIR OWNER was
incapable of doing the needed training?
So you a) are lucky in your choice of pets and b) have time and the skills
needed to train those dogs - do you really believe the dogs not owned by
you should die because of it?
Nancy
who has no debarked dogs - all are in full voice when you drive up :-) but
would do it again with an obsessive dog who annoyed the neighbors (and us)
beyond all reason and training.
Cacorder <caco...@aol.commommalu> wrote in article
<19981208095518...@ng-bw1.aol.com>...
Walk'N'Sit Dogs
--
Cacorder wrote in message <19981207100200...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>Debarking is flat out cruel. How would you like it if someone found your
>endless typing on the net disturbing and chopped your fingers off. If you
dont
>like a dogs bark, get a friggin cat.
Oh man then we get into the subject of Declawing.... only cause the
neighbours can hear the clawing at the furniture..lol
Happy Wagging!!!
Colliepup
Chris Kosmakos
:
: I have never, in 29 years of raising
: many dogs, had to use debarking to quiet a dog. Of course, I trained them
: right in the first place and did not create this problem that I had to fix
: later.
How very nice for you. I've never had to debark a dog, either. But I
have known dogs that definately had to be debarked and training didn't
have a damn thing to do with their cases. There's a big difference
between alerting or boredom barking that can be remedied with training
or good management, and the dog who offers only the choices of debarking
or death.
Lynn K.
--
chri...@netcom.com
cristine
matter) I have to ask: is the owner prepared to lose their pet during
surgery? This is an especially pertinent question when the surgery is
not totally effective, and when it probably has to be repeated, often.
Not all vets are skilled at all surgical procedures, especially
debarking. If you absolutely must debark, call the breed club and ask
to be put in touch with people in your area who have had this surgery
done on their dogs, and get vet referrals. Then, question the vet about
how many procedures she's done and how the dogs did after the surgery.
If she hasn't done the procedure within the past month, find another vet
with more experience.
Just remember that every surgery is risky. If you were asking this
about a Maltese or other Toy Group dog I would urge you to learn how to
curb the barking and learn to live with your dog rather than subject a 5
pound dog to additional surgery.
cristine pellicano
Maltese Animal Rescue Society (MARS)
Cacorder
changed my tune. She made me understand that debarking is no more cruel than
the e-collar that I use for training. As a matter of fact, she thinks it is
less cruel because they use drugs to put them to sleep. Thanks for the debate
everybody.
M.L.
about debarking (and I admit I used to think debarking was extremely cruel),
it's not any worse than spaying or neutering your dog. I mean, you could
try to train your dog not to wander and get a dog pregnant or try other
methods of avoiding a spay/neuter surgery, but what's the point? We don't
spay/neuter just because we're too lazy to train our dogs not to want to
"hook up", right? In terms of a dog "expressing himself", well barking only
applies to that in two ways: excitement and warning. Everything else is
handled through body language. In any case, a debarking surgery doesn't
take away the dog's ability to express himself, it just tones down the level
to a non-annoying state. How is debarking a dog depriving a dog of
expressing himself any more than telling it "no" every time it barks in an
inappropriate situation?
Ruth M. Harvey wrote in message <3665D5EA...@gatesco.com>...
Ruth M. Harvey
compare debarking surgery to spay/neuter surgery as an equal necessity
seems to really stretch the point. I have seen dogs that have had the
debarking surgery and it was pathetic. It did much more than "tone it
down". I also don't know how you can compare debarking surgery to
telling a dog no. You really lost me there, as if there were no
difference. As for spay/neuter, enough has been done and published in
this country for you to know that it is in the best interest of the
species, in order to prevent unwanted and uncared for animals, and
accidents do happen, dogs get loose, there are other dogs running loose
even if yours is leashed, I could go on. It has long been considered
highly ethical to have animals that are not going to be used for
breeding spayed or neutered. Part of the problem as I see it, is that
people take on dogs for many reasons without considering what the
consequences will be and without taking into consideration how they will
deal with any potential problems. I have always taken in strays or
gotten animals from the pound to rescue what I could. I also do
volunteer work at the local shelter. The irresponsibility and cruelty
of people is astounding.
M.L.
perspective? I don't feel that debarking is a necessity, or should be for
anyone. I look at debarking as I do towards human abortion. I would never
even consider debarking any of my own dogs, because I know that I am able to
find methods of controlling the dogs' barking and I hate the whole surgery
drama thing and the costs involved; BUT I'm not going to scream and holler
at anyone else who does decide to do the surgery for his or her dog.
Debarking is painless, and the dog doesn't feel any sense of loss at not
being loud when it barks. The effect is more on the humans than it is on
the dogs. The humans would think "oh my god, what did they do to you, you
poor soul". Just as humans initially reacted when spay/neuter surgeries
weren't so common.
There are alot of things people do to our dogs that aren't exactly
necessary, or even ethical. The thread about the dyeing of dogs different
colors comes to mind. Or the cropping of ears. Or giving your poodle a
ridiculous haircut. I'm sure the dogs would prefer _not_ to have things
things done to them, but in the end everyone gets used to it.
It's obvious that people get dogs for all the wrong reasons and end up
having to do one thing or another that we don't agree upon, even end up
having to give up the animal because the person gave up on it. I know, I
work at a shelter as well, and I wish more people would educate themselves a
bit before they decide to take a new pet home (not from the shelter--
because we're pretty good about screening and educating potential adopters--
but from whatever source they got the pet from that they're about to give
up). But I have to accept that some people don't know how to handle things
as well as the majority of us in this newsgroup, so I have to excuse them
for doing things like giving their dog up, or debarking it, or whatever. At
least they're not physically abusing the dog or neglecting it. It'd be nice
for everyone to see the value in training their dogs themselves in the way
they should, but that probably won't become a reality anytime in the near
future.
Ruth M. Harvey wrote in message <36737A85...@gatesco.com>...
Leslie Parsons
I cannot justify debarking any dog. It's not natural and surgery always
has some risks. Just my opinion.
Lelsie Parsons
M.L.
Leslie Parsons wrote in message <3673AE...@no.spam.com>...
>
>I cannot justify debarking any dog. It's not natural and surgery always
>has some risks. Just my opinion.
>
> Lelsie Parsons
Spay/neuter isn't natural either. It involves surgery just as well
(although it is necessary surgery in all cases, whereas debarking may be
necessary in only a few rare cases). I'm not trying to justify debarking,
but dogs aren't wild animals and so we shouldn't feel inclined to make them
live "naturally".
auntcristine™
When/if you have a chance would you kindly join the discussion there, Maltese Planet Message Board for the benefit of the Maltoids who aren't participating in the news group? I tried to add the information, but I don't understand the mechanics of the chemical addition, nor how to explain ways to disuade a dog (especially small, male) from barking inappropriately.
We would appreciate help with regard to barking behavior in small dogs, esp. Maltese.
cristine pellicano
MARS (Maltese Animal Rescue Society)
Maltese
Planet Message Board
Pussido Domingo
> You seem to imply that debarking is, in fact, cruel. What gives you this
> perspective?
This is another subject along the same lines as the declawing issue. In
the UK debarking is looked upon as horrifying abuse. To remove the
vocal ability of a dog simply because it is inconvenient to the owner is
abhorrent and unacceptable to us. Yet again an animal is being taken
into someone's home, when that person has full knowledge of the dog's
characteristics, and when those characteristics become inconvenient this
living creature is "modified" to fit as if it's a piece of furniture.
It's immoral and unethical. And before you say debarking "tones it
down" I would say that a) that would still be immoral and unethical and
b) I have personally seen many debarked dogs in American shelters who
have been reduced to little more than a squeak.
The veterinary profession in the UK will only practise debarking in
cases of medical necessity. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
told me "Debarking of dogs is unacceptable, unethical, unnecessary
mutilation. Other than cases of medical necessity it is only allowable
in time of war, in dogs working behind enemy lines".
> Debarking is painless,
This may or may not be so, but as you're not a dog who's been debarked
you're not in a position to vouch for that. And the fact that it might
be painless is no moral or ethical justification for doing it.
> and the dog doesn't feel any sense of loss at not
> being loud when it barks.
And you're most definitely not in a position to vouch for that. You
have absolutely no idea what the dog does and doesn't feel when it loses
its bark - and many dogs do lose it almost completely. The bark is an
integral part of the dog's character, and to believe that the dog feels
no loss is extremely naive.
> There are alot of things people do to our dogs that aren't exactly
> necessary, or even ethical.... but in the end everyone gets used to it.
Not in the UK we don't.
> But I have to accept that some people don't know how to handle things
> as well as the majority of us in this newsgroup, so I have to excuse them
> for doing things like giving their dog up, or debarking it, or whatever.
As the law says, "ignorance is no defence".
> At least they're not physically abusing the dog or neglecting it.
50-odd million people over here would disagree with you. We believe
that surgically altering a dog's ability to bark for no other reason
than that the bark is annoying, disturbing or inconvenient - with no
medical benefit to the dog whatsoever - is most certainly physical
abuse.
> It'd be nice for everyone to see the value in training
> their dogs themselves in the way they should, but that
> probably won't become a reality anytime in the near
> future.
Sadly it probably won't become a reality ever.
PD
M.L.
Pussido Domingo wrote in message <367450EA...@catlover.com>...
>This is another subject along the same lines as the declawing issue. In
>the UK debarking is looked upon as horrifying abuse. To remove the
>vocal ability of a dog simply because it is inconvenient to the owner is
>abhorrent and unacceptable to us. Yet again an animal is being taken
>into someone's home, when that person has full knowledge of the dog's
>characteristics, and when those characteristics become inconvenient this
>living creature is "modified" to fit as if it's a piece of furniture.
>It's immoral and unethical. And before you say debarking "tones it
>down" I would say that a) that would still be immoral and unethical and
>b) I have personally seen many debarked dogs in American shelters who
>have been reduced to little more than a squeak.
We train dogs because bad behavior is inconvenient to the owner. That is
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION. There are so many things about dogs in their
natural, untrained state that are inconvenient to us, that is why we bother
to train them. It is just that when someone says "surgery" a red flag comes
up. How is lessening or removing the dogs ability to make noise via surgery
any more inhumane than doing so by training it that barking is wrong? A dog
that doesn't bark is a dog that doesn't bark.
>The veterinary profession in the UK will only practise debarking in
>cases of medical necessity. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
>told me "Debarking of dogs is unacceptable, unethical, unnecessary
>mutilation. Other than cases of medical necessity it is only allowable
>in time of war, in dogs working behind enemy lines".
Ethics in the UK is a big thing. One probably knows that there are a great
deal of us that laugh at all the funny things that the UK does to ensure
"properness" (note that whole mess about the quarantine issue, etc.). I'm
sure lots of people in the UK have ideas on the ethics of abortion, that
might differ than the views found in some parts of the united states.
Debarking might be mutilation, but it is no more so than spay/neuter
surgery. You remove one thing, you remove another. You're right in saying
that it's unneccesary in most cases, but for those cases where it comes down
to "get rid of the dog, get it to stop barking RIGHT NOW or get out", some
people (those that have not been educated about the values of training their
dog) don't really have much of an alternative in such last-minute
ultimatum's. Of course I feel that it's always the better alternative NOT
to do it if at all possible, and if I could stop a person from going through
the surgery and tell them the better options, well, it would definitely be a
good thing. But I'm not going to say that anyone who debarks their dog is a
lazy animal abuser.
>> Debarking is painless,
>
>This may or may not be so, but as you're not a dog who's been debarked
>you're not in a position to vouch for that. And the fact that it might
>be painless is no moral or ethical justification for doing it.
Well are you in the position to vouch for the opposite? And I'm seeing
you're really into morals/ethics. You have to remember that dogs aren't
people, and have no sense of what morals and ethics are. I'm not going to
do anything or avoid doing anything to the dog because of what morals or
society demands, unless I personally see it as it being justifiable or
unjustified. I like to hear my dog bark, it makes me happy, so I know that
I would never want to debark him. And I've long ago trained him to stop on
command, so it's never been a problem. I respect my neighbors because I
like them, which was motivation for me to train my dog not to be a bother.
>> and the dog doesn't feel any sense of loss at not
>> being loud when it barks.
>
>And you're most definitely not in a position to vouch for that. You
>have absolutely no idea what the dog does and doesn't feel when it loses
>its bark - and many dogs do lose it almost completely. The bark is an
>integral part of the dog's character, and to believe that the dog feels
>no loss is extremely naive.
You also have no idea what the dog does and doesn't feel. I agree the dog's
bark is a part of its character, and I like it. However, a dog will not
depress itself over its bark being lowered to a squeak or removed any more
than it will depress itself on not being able to reproduce. Do you think
basenji's go nuts all their lives? I don't think so.
>> There are alot of things people do to our dogs that aren't exactly
>> necessary, or even ethical.... but in the end everyone gets used to it.
>
>Not in the UK we don't.
I think most of the world could see why. You're probably still trying to
figure out why we americans like to eat pizza with our hands instead of a
knife and fork? (And I'm only being stereotypical because you are as well).
>> But I have to accept that some people don't know how to handle things
>> as well as the majority of us in this newsgroup, so I have to excuse them
>> for doing things like giving their dog up, or debarking it, or whatever.
>
>As the law says, "ignorance is no defence".
Your laws, your ethics, your problem. How can you punish the
unintentionally ignorant? They didn't know any better, they didn't do these
things to the dog with malicious intent. There are alot of things I could
say about the typical Pom that is ignorant, and you could complain that it
wasn't ignorance because your culture is different than ours so it's
justifiable.
>> At least they're not physically abusing the dog or neglecting it.
>
>50-odd million people over here would disagree with you. We believe
>that surgically altering a dog's ability to bark for no other reason
>than that the bark is annoying, disturbing or inconvenient - with no
>medical benefit to the dog whatsoever - is most certainly physical
>abuse.
I don't care about numbers, I care about personal belief, not the general
outlook. There are worse things you could do to the dog that are already
widely accepted in certain parts of the world.. for example, never letting
the dog inside of the house to be a part of the family, or attempting to
train a dog without any positive reinforcement techniques. Both of those
are far more emotionally detrimental to a dog than to take away its ability
to bark.
>> It'd be nice for everyone to see the value in training
>> their dogs themselves in the way they should, but that
>> probably won't become a reality anytime in the near
>> future.
>
>Sadly it probably won't become a reality ever.
No ideal will ever become a reality unless your ideal is that which already
exists.
Danae
Pussido Domingo wrote in message <367450EA...@catlover.com>...
<snip>
>50-odd million people over here would disagree with you. We believe
>that surgically altering a dog's ability to bark for no other reason
>than that the bark is annoying, disturbing or inconvenient - with no
>medical benefit to the dog whatsoever - is most certainly physical
>abuse.
What about the medical benefit to the owners? There is some evidence that
isolated old people receive health benefits from keeping pets.
Unfortunately, many elderly people do not have the choice of owning their
own house where they can keep pets due to finincial difficulties, and
instead must live in seniors complexes and the like. Many of these places
do not let you own dogs unless they are debarked, or so that is the case
where my grandmother is currently living. One of her friends (who just
celebrated his 82nd birthday) has a charming mutt (maltese cross?) who is
debarked, and by no means would I ever classify what was done to this dog as
cruel. Walking down the hall you could still hear this little guy barking
from inside his apartment, but instead of it sounded like a high violin
piercing through your skull, it sounded as if this dog was behind 3 walls
not one. He is the happiest little guy too, and the owner can't stop beaming
when he talks about his dog and his crazy antics. If he could not have
gotten his dog debarked when he moved in, he would have had to give up his
dog most likely to a shelter which would have been terrible for both of
them. While I agree that debarking should not be a easy solution for those
who are unwilling to train their dogs, but in certain situations it is
indeed the best solution for both parties (the owner who doesn't have to
lose his best friend, and the dog who didn't have to be abandoned and
possibly euthanized).
>> It'd be nice for everyone to see the value in training
>> their dogs themselves in the way they should, but that
>> probably won't become a reality anytime in the near
>> future.
>
>Sadly it probably won't become a reality ever.
I also agree :(
>PD
>
-- Danae
AVRAMA GINGOLD
PD> cases of medical necessity. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
PD> told me "Debarking of dogs is unacceptable, unethical, unnecessary
PD> mutilation. Other than cases of medical necessity it is only allowable
PD> in time of war, in dogs working behind enemy lines".
Unfortunately, when it is a matter of having the dog silent or
no dog--as when eviction is a very real threat--debarking is
the kindest option. (Of course you may not feel that way, not
in a country where breed specific bans mandate putting down dogs
who are of the wrong breed.)
It is sad when people buy the wrong kind of dog for them, but
that happens.
avrama & shomer
PD>
PD> > Debarking is painless,
PD>
PD> This may or may not be so, but as you're not a dog who's been debarked
PD> you're not in a position to vouch for that. And the fact that it might
PD> be painless is no moral or ethical justification for doing it.
PD>
PD> > and the dog doesn't feel any sense of loss at not
PD> > being loud when it barks.
PD>
PD> And you're most definitely not in a position to vouch for that. You
PD> have absolutely no idea what the dog does and doesn't feel when it loses
PD> its bark - and many dogs do lose it almost completely. The bark is an
PD> integral part of the dog's character, and to believe that the dog feels
PD> no loss is extremely naive.
PD>
PD> > There are alot of things people do to our dogs that aren't exactly
PD> > necessary, or even ethical.... but in the end everyone gets used to it.
PD>
PD> Not in the UK we don't.
PD>
PD> > But I have to accept that some people don't know how to handle things
PD> > as well as the majority of us in this newsgroup, so I have to excuse them
PD> > for doing things like giving their dog up, or debarking it, or whatever.
PD>
PD> As the law says, "ignorance is no defence".
PD>
PD> > At least they're not physically abusing the dog or neglecting it.
PD>
PD> 50-odd million people over here would disagree with you. We believe
PD> that surgically altering a dog's ability to bark for no other reason
PD> than that the bark is annoying, disturbing or inconvenient - with no
PD> medical benefit to the dog whatsoever - is most certainly physical
PD> abuse.
PD>
PD> > It'd be nice for everyone to see the value in training
PD> > their dogs themselves in the way they should, but that
PD> > probably won't become a reality anytime in the near
PD> > future.
PD>
PD> Sadly it probably won't become a reality ever.
PD>
PD> PD
PD>
PD>
PD>
.. nfx v2.7 [C0000] A responsible owner selects responsibly.
Linda Weisser
Pussido Domingo wrote in message <367450EA...@catlover.com>...
>
>And you're most definitely not in a position to vouch for that. You
>have absolutely no idea what the dog does and doesn't feel when it loses
>its bark - and many dogs do lose it almost completely. The bark is an
>integral part of the dog's character, and to believe that the dog feels
>no loss is extremely naive.
>
If the bark is an integral part of a dog's character, then we need to
explain why dogs who are born deaf or become deaf continue to bark although
they cannot hear it. And being unable to hear it, continue to lead happy,
well adjusted lives. It's not the sound that the dog cares about, it's the
ability to run and posture and "bark". Debarked dogs react in the same way
that deaf dogs do.
Linda
Pussido Domingo
> What about the medical benefit to the owners?
The ethics of the situation remain unchanged. It is still mutilating an
animal because its physical characteristics are inconvenient to the
owner - whether the inconvenience be medical or otherwise.
PD
Pussido Domingo
> If the bark is an integral part of a dog's character, then we need to
> explain why dogs who are born deaf or become deaf continue to bark although
> they cannot hear it. And being unable to hear it, continue to lead happy,
> well adjusted lives.
For the same reason that Beethoven could "hear" his music. The deaf are
acutely aware of the different vibrations and resonances made by all the
different sounds they make.
> It's not the sound that the dog cares about, it's the
> ability to run and posture and "bark". Debarked dogs react in the same way
> that deaf dogs do.
Not according to a person on a mailing list I belong to who specialises
in training deaf dogs they don't.
But none of this answers the ethical argument.
PD
Pussido Domingo
> We train dogs because bad behavior is inconvenient to the owner. That is
> BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION.
Behaviour modification causes no physical discomfort and is of no risk
to the life of the dog. You are not physically removing the dog's
ability to do something, you are not removing any physical
characteristic, you are simply teaching the dog when it is and isn't
appropriate to exercise that characteristic.
> How is lessening or removing the dogs ability to make noise via surgery
> any more inhumane than doing so by training it that barking is wrong? A dog
> that doesn't bark is a dog that doesn't bark.
To prevent a dog from barking permanently is extremely inhumane, whether
by training or surgery. Barking is an integral part of a dog's
personality and anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand dogs. No
dog owner or trainer that I know would wish to stop a dog barking
completely, which is why debarking is considered to be so unacceptable
in other parts of the world. Training allows a dog to learn when it is
and isn't appropriate to bark.
My dog knows that it is not appropriate to bark non-stop if I leave the
house. She knows that it is not appropriate to bark when driving in the
car. She also knows that if she wants to bark when someone knocks on
the front door, that is permissible. She can bark a few times with
excitement when I come back into the house having been out somewhere.
She can bark a few times to greet visitors - but she knows that when
they come in and sit down she then stops.
Training is not just teaching a dog *not* to do something, it is
teaching a dog when it is permissible to *do* something as well. And
there is absolutely no need to stop a dog from barking altogether.
> Ethics in the UK is a big thing.
And I thank God that it is.
> One probably knows that there are a great
> deal of us that laugh at all the funny things that the UK does to ensure
> "properness"
I'd probably laugh too, but "properness" has little to do with ethics.
> (note that whole mess about the quarantine issue, etc.).
What do you mean by "mess" exactly? And what is the "etc"?
> Debarking might be mutilation, but it is no more so than spay/neuter
> surgery. You remove one thing, you remove another.
Debarking is totally different from spaying and neutering because
spaying and neutering have medical and social benefits for the dog.
Debarking benefits the owner.
> some people (those that have not been educated
> about the values of training their dog) don't
> really have much of an alternative in such last-minute
> ultimatum's.
People *always* have a choice. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe such
an ultimatum would be last-minute or without warning. People in such a
situation would have known for some time that they had a problem, and
would have had time to do something about it.
> Of course I feel that it's always the better alternative NOT
> to do it if at all possible, and if I could stop a person from going through
> the surgery and tell them the better options, well, it would definitely be a
> good thing. But I'm not going to say that anyone who debarks their dog is a
> lazy animal abuser.
I am.
> >> Debarking is painless,
> >
> >This may or may not be so, but as you're not a dog who's been debarked
> >you're not in a position to vouch for that. And the fact that it might
> >be painless is no moral or ethical justification for doing it.
>
> Well are you in the position to vouch for the opposite?
This was once posted to someone considering having a dog debarked:
"If you do have him debarked, you'll need to consider the following:
Dogs who are debarked need to be kept sedated for up to a few weeks
after the surgery. They absolutely need to be kept from barking. If
they bark after the surgery, they will form scar tissue on their severed
vocal cords which will then allow them to create sound. Your dog may
bark just as loud as before if this is allowed to happen, or he may bark
somewhat quieter. You will then have wasted your money. Your vet will
probably also want you to stay home with him for a while to help him
remain calm and feel safe. You won't be able to leave him in the
backyard. He might get confused if his sedative wears off and hurt
himself, or start barking. This is a big committment, and it is easier
just to crate-train him so that he won't bark as much during the day and
so your neighbors can't hear him if he does bark."
Nobody with any morals or ethics could possibly believe that putting a
dog through that for no other reason than that you are too lazy or
inadequate to train it is justified.
> You have to remember that dogs aren't
> people, and have no sense of what morals and ethics are.
Which has nothing to do with what *we* know to be right or wrong.
> I like to hear my dog bark, it makes me happy, so I know that
> I would never want to debark him.
I'm very pleased to hear it.
> You also have no idea what the dog does and doesn't feel. I agree the dog's
> bark is a part of its character, and I like it. However, a dog will not
> depress itself over its bark being lowered to a squeak or removed any more
> than it will depress itself on not being able to reproduce.
You don't know that. When I was working in the US I read a report by
animal behaviourists which suggested that some dogs do indeed suffer a
kind of depression after debarking.
> Do you think basenji's go nuts all their lives?
> I don't think so.
That's entirely different and I'm sure you know that. The bark is not
part of the Basenji's physical characteristics in the first place so it
is not being deprived of something essential to its nature.
> I think most of the world could see why. You're probably still trying to
> figure out why we americans like to eat pizza with our hands instead of a
> knife and fork? (And I'm only being stereotypical because you are as well).
I'm not being stereotypical at all, I'm saying that you're completely
wrong to suggest that in other parts of the world we "get used to"
unethical practices. We don't. We ban them.
We also eat pizza with our hands, by the way.
> Your laws, your ethics, your problem.
Does US law allow ignorance as a defence? If a kid from a criminal
family mugs someone in the street, because that's what they've been
brought up to do, does US law say that's allowable because the kid
didn't know it was wrong? Would the kid walk away scot free?
> How can you punish the unintentionally ignorant?
> They didn't know any better, they didn't do these
> things to the dog with malicious intent.
I'm not talking about punishing, I'm talking about preventing. They're
not the same thing.
> There are alot of things I could say about the typical
> Pom that is ignorant, and you could complain that it
> wasn't ignorance because your culture is different than ours so it's
> justifiable.
I might well not. What did you have in mind?
> I don't care about numbers, I care about personal belief, not the general
> outlook. There are worse things you could do to the dog that are already
> widely accepted in certain parts of the world..
I agree there are certainly other things you could do as well, but that
doesn't make them worse. Debarking is an appallingly abusive thing to
do to a dog.
> for example, never letting the dog inside of the
> house to be a part of the family, or attempting to
> train a dog without any positive reinforcement techniques.
>From the debates I've seen on these newsgroups, these are things that
are pretty widely accepted in the US too. I've seen countless people
arguing in defence of both these things on these groups.
> Both of those are far more emotionally detrimental
> to a dog than to take away its ability
> to bark.
They are equally abusive.
> No ideal will ever become a reality unless your ideal is that which already
> exists.
That's not true at all. Many people have ideals which don't already
exist, but their persistence brings these ideals into existence.
PD
M.L.
Pussido Domingo wrote in message <3676D9CF...@catlover.com>...
>To prevent a dog from barking permanently is extremely inhumane, whether
>by training or surgery. Barking is an integral part of a dog's
>personality and anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand dogs. No
>dog owner or trainer that I know would wish to stop a dog barking
>completely, which is why debarking is considered to be so unacceptable
>in other parts of the world. Training allows a dog to learn when it is
>and isn't appropriate to bark.
Debarking a dog isn't what the word implies. You are not preventing a dog
from barking, you are merely lessening the volume and pitch of the bark.
>Training is not just teaching a dog *not* to do something, it is
>teaching a dog when it is permissible to *do* something as well. And
>there is absolutely no need to stop a dog from barking altogether.
Again, debarking is not stopping a dog from barking. A dog is able to bark,
he is just unable to bark loud enough to be bother.
>> Ethics in the UK is a big thing.
>
>And I thank God that it is.
Well that use of "thank God" just goes to show it doesn't it.
>> (note that whole mess about the quarantine issue, etc.).
>
>What do you mean by "mess" exactly? And what is the "etc"?
You might've missed the thread on this ng weeks ago about how people were
talking about how ridiculous it was to have to keep their dog quarantined so
long when they were going to live or visit the UK.
>> Debarking might be mutilation, but it is no more so than spay/neuter
>> surgery. You remove one thing, you remove another.
>
>Debarking is totally different from spaying and neutering because
>spaying and neutering have medical and social benefits for the dog.
>Debarking benefits the owner.
Like it was mentioned before, debarking benefits the dog when the only other
option would be euthanasia. (Not only that, but I'm sure that if an owner
didn't have enough patience to train the dog not to bark and decided that
debarking should be the dog's only option if it didn't want to end up at the
shelter, then that implies the owner would have little patience for its
bark. So, in the long run the dog will benefit in that it wouldn't be ).
>> some people (those that have not been educated
>> about the values of training their dog) don't
>> really have much of an alternative in such last-minute
>> ultimatum's.
>
>People *always* have a choice. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe such
>an ultimatum would be last-minute or without warning. People in such a
>situation would have known for some time that they had a problem, and
>would have had time to do something about it.
Some people aren't that intelligent, or that motivated.
>This was once posted to someone considering having a dog debarked:
>
>"If you do have him debarked, you'll need to consider the following:
>
>Dogs who are debarked need to be kept sedated for up to a few weeks
>after the surgery. They absolutely need to be kept from barking. If
>they bark after the surgery, they will form scar tissue on their severed
>vocal cords which will then allow them to create sound. Your dog may
>bark just as loud as before if this is allowed to happen, or he may bark
>somewhat quieter. You will then have wasted your money. Your vet will
>probably also want you to stay home with him for a while to help him
>remain calm and feel safe. You won't be able to leave him in the
>backyard. He might get confused if his sedative wears off and hurt
>himself, or start barking. This is a big committment, and it is easier
>just to crate-train him so that he won't bark as much during the day and
>so your neighbors can't hear him if he does bark."
>Nobody with any morals or ethics could possibly believe that putting a
>dog through that for no other reason than that you are too lazy or
>inadequate to train it is justified.
That is stretching it. You know that when you have your dog go through any
surgery, you have to be extremely careful to observe and control its actions
in order to avoid complication. That is a given. There is nothing cruel
about it.
>> You have to remember that dogs aren't
>> people, and have no sense of what morals and ethics are.
>
>Which has nothing to do with what *we* know to be right or wrong.
Right and wrong has nothing to do with what *we* know. It has to do with
what *we* believe. That will differ from culture to culture.
>When I was working in the US I read a report by
>animal behaviourists which suggested that some dogs do indeed suffer a
>kind of depression after debarking.
For what extent of time? I'd understand if the depression was related with
having gone through surgery. But after a dog is back into its normal mode
of things, I've never seen a dog behave any differently than it did before
the surgery. Tell me, have you ever personally come into contact with a
debarked dog? What did YOU observe? (Facts, not feelings)
>> Do you think basenji's go nuts all their lives?
>> I don't think so.
>
>That's entirely different and I'm sure you know that. The bark is not
>part of the Basenji's physical characteristics in the first place so it
>is not being deprived of something essential to its nature.
But you just said that barking is an integral part of a dog's personality.
By that you were implying that this extended to all kinds of dogs (which
obviously is far from the case). I do admit, however, that it's stupid for
a dog owner to choose a breed known for its barking (eg norwegian elkhound,
pomeranian, etc.) and then get upset over it and try to "fix" it. But
again, some people aren't that intelligent and don't know any better.
Barking is more essential to the nature of some dogs than others, but again
debarking doesn't take away the bark. It makes it softer and quieter.
>> I think most of the world could see why. You're probably still trying to
>> figure out why we americans like to eat pizza with our hands instead of a
>> knife and fork? (And I'm only being stereotypical because you are as
well).
>
>I'm not being stereotypical at all, I'm saying that you're completely
>wrong to suggest that in other parts of the world we "get used to"
>unethical practices. We don't. We ban them.
Ethics are relative, so you get used to things without realizing it because
you don't believe them to be unethical anymore. Eg divorce, etc.
>We also eat pizza with our hands, by the way.
Not all of you. Heheh... I know.. I've been there.
>> Your laws, your ethics, your problem.
>
>Does US law allow ignorance as a defence? If a kid from a criminal
>family mugs someone in the street, because that's what they've been
>brought up to do, does US law say that's allowable because the kid
>didn't know it was wrong? Would the kid walk away scot free?
You really don't know how the American system works, do you? We're probably
at the other extreme. Americans can get away with practically everything
it's so hilarious (our lives are based on crafty lawyers), and on the other
hand people in the UK get punished for the most absurd things (well at least
it's not singapore).
>> How can you punish the unintentionally ignorant?
>> They didn't know any better, they didn't do these
>> things to the dog with malicious intent.
>
>I'm not talking about punishing, I'm talking about preventing. They're
>not the same thing.
You can't prevent the inevitable. As long as people aren't educated about
dog ownership, there will be people that are unintentionally ignorant.
>> There are alot of things I could say about the typical
>> Pom that is ignorant, and you could complain that it
>> wasn't ignorance because your culture is different than ours so it's
>> justifiable.
>
>I might well not. What did you have in mind?
Open-mindedness, for example??? I'm not applying that to all english of
course, but the impression I've gotten from the ones I've met so far do have
problems with the traditions of some cultures, not because they are
unethical but because they are different and in some cases, "revolting".
Not to say we americans are too different, and I do have quite alot of bad
things to say about some americans too.
>> I don't care about numbers, I care about personal belief, not the general
>> outlook. There are worse things you could do to the dog that are already
>> widely accepted in certain parts of the world..
>
>I agree there are certainly other things you could do as well, but that
>doesn't make them worse. Debarking is an appallingly abusive thing to
>do to a dog.
You have your views and morals, I have mine.
>> for example, never letting the dog inside of the
>> house to be a part of the family, or attempting to
>> train a dog without any positive reinforcement techniques.
>
>From the debates I've seen on these newsgroups, these are things that
>are pretty widely accepted in the US too. I've seen countless people
>arguing in defence of both these things on these groups.
So have I. If you've been reading them, you would probably see my position
in these arguments.
>> Both of those are far more emotionally detrimental
>> to a dog than to take away its ability
>> to bark.
>
>They are equally abusive.
Not even close. But I did make an error in my wording up there... I should
have said "Both of those are far more emotionally detrimental than softening
a dog's bark"
In any case, I'm not going to try to change your morality, for I accept who
you are and what your standing is. I hope that you will see that ethics are
never concrete, and shouldn't be viewed as such.
Danae
I'll snip most of your post and just reply to a few small selection portions
as I don't have all day to express my thoughts and bore people to death ^_^
Pussido Domingo wrote in message <3676D9CF...@catlover.com>...
>To prevent a dog from barking permanently is extremely inhumane, whether
>by training or surgery. Barking is an integral part of a dog's
>personality and anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand dogs. No
>dog owner or trainer that I know would wish to stop a dog barking
>completely, which is why debarking is considered to be so unacceptable
>in other parts of the world. Training allows a dog to learn when it is
>and isn't appropriate to bark.
Point #1:
The point of debarking is *NOT* to remove a bark permenantly. It is to turn
the volume down a bit. I would be opposed to a debarking too if it meant
permenant loss of bark. However, as I know several debarked dogs at my
grandmothers seniors complex, I know that is defiantely NOT the case.
>My dog knows that it is not appropriate to bark non-stop if I leave the
>house. She knows that it is not appropriate to bark when driving in the
>car. She also knows that if she wants to bark when someone knocks on
>the front door, that is permissible. She can bark a few times with
>excitement when I come back into the house having been out somewhere.
>She can bark a few times to greet visitors - but she knows that when
>they come in and sit down she then stops.
Point #2:
Training is defiantely the perferable option. However, there are some dogs
addicted to the neurotransmitter serotonin (I'm pretty sure that's the right
chemical) therefore making them constant barkers that NO amount of training
can correct. I would think debarking is a much more preferable means of
quieting this unwanted barker rather then harsh methods such as shock
collars and citronella collars which wouldn't stop the barking but would
perhaps turn the dog into a fearful animal.
>Training is not just teaching a dog *not* to do something, it is
>teaching a dog when it is permissible to *do* something as well. And
>there is absolutely no need to stop a dog from barking altogether.
I agree. But once again, debarking dosesn't stop the dog from barking
altogether.
>Debarking is totally different from spaying and neutering because
>spaying and neutering have medical and social benefits for the dog.
>Debarking benefits the owner.
Debarking benefits the dog if the other option is death.
>This was once posted to someone considering having a dog debarked:
>
>"If you do have him debarked, you'll need to consider the following:
>
>Dogs who are debarked need to be kept sedated for up to a few weeks
>after the surgery. They absolutely need to be kept from barking. If
>they bark after the surgery, they will form scar tissue on their severed
>vocal cords which will then allow them to create sound. Your dog may
>bark just as loud as before if this is allowed to happen, or he may bark
>somewhat quieter. You will then have wasted your money. Your vet will
>probably also want you to stay home with him for a while to help him
>remain calm and feel safe. You won't be able to leave him in the
>backyard. He might get confused if his sedative wears off and hurt
>himself, or start barking. This is a big committment, and it is easier
>just to crate-train him so that he won't bark as much during the day and
>so your neighbors can't hear him if he does bark."
From what I've been told of the debarking process, this is *NOT* true. Dog
goes in to vet, is put under anesthisia (which I admit is not a great thing,
for dogs OR for humans), vet makes a little snip, dog wakes up, goes home,
back to normal self but with a quieter bark. Of course, if you were TRYING
to have a dog with absolutely no bark then maybe the above is true, but
since that isn't the point of debarking it is silly.
And your point about not being able to leave your dog in the backyard? I
think most people in this newsgroup would find leaving your dog outside all
day is a lot more cruel then debarking it!
>Nobody with any morals or ethics could possibly believe that putting a
>dog through that for no other reason than that you are too lazy or
>inadequate to train it is justified.
But what is the other option after the owner was too lazy to train their
dog? Would you suggest that these dogs are put to sleep instead of
debarked??
>> You have to remember that dogs aren't
>> people, and have no sense of what morals and ethics are.
>
>Which has nothing to do with what *we* know to be right or wrong.
>
What *we* know differs from culture to culture, and you are having a
completely ethnocentric reaction.
>You don't know that. When I was working in the US I read a report by
>animal behaviourists which suggested that some dogs do indeed suffer a
>kind of depression after debarking.
I've also read a report over how cruel it was to keep dogs in crates (ie.
crate training them). Of course, this "report" was from an AR group...
What was the source of this report? I'm not saying that it isn't legitmate,
but I would like a little more info before accepting it as 100% true.
>I'm not being stereotypical at all, I'm saying that you're completely
>wrong to suggest that in other parts of the world we "get used to"
>unethical practices. We don't. We ban them.
Who said it is unethical? It is by no means a universal decision that
debarking is inhumane. Just because you may feel it's inhumane there
doesn't mean the rest of the world has to follow suit. I'm sure there are
many interest groups out there who would find many events in your daily
behaviour completely unethical. God forbid if you've ever eaten meat, or
bought anything leather, or had a child circumcized, or...
>Does US law allow ignorance as a defence? If a kid from a criminal
>family mugs someone in the street, because that's what they've been
>brought up to do, does US law say that's allowable because the kid
>didn't know it was wrong? Would the kid walk away scot free?
Oh boy... this is a very piss-poor analogy.
First of all... it is NOT illegal to debark in Canada/USA, and it is to
steal. Hmm... is that a big enough fallacy of false analogy for you? :)
> >for example, never letting the dog inside of the
>> house to be a part of the family, or attempting to
>> train a dog without any positive reinforcement techniques.
>> Both of those are far more emotionally detrimental
>> to a dog than to take away its ability
>> to bark.
>
>They are equally abusive.
Equally?? Ever met a debarked dog?
Obviously not if you made that statement.
The debarked dogs that I've met constantly have their wagging ^_^
Of course, a debarked dog who has lazy owners who don't care about them
won't be happy, but that is not due to the debarking.. but to the lack of
socialization.
I'm sorry if I sound like I'm flaming you, I really don't mean to. I just
thought that you were passing along some false information to which I had to
respond to. As well, your completly enthocentric attitude really riled me
up to :)
Of course, I am a little bit guilty of that myself in many none dog related
topics, but sometimes it's nice to have a reality check that your culture's
opinions are not necesarily "right" in the eyes of the rest of the world.
-- Danae
>PD
>
>
Danae
Pussido Domingo wrote in message <3676A800...@catlover.com>...
>The ethics of the situation remain unchanged. It is still mutilating an
>animal because its physical characteristics are inconvenient to the
>owner - whether the inconvenience be medical or otherwise.
But to fail to debark often means that the dog has to be put to sleep. What
do your ethics tell you about that? To me, debarking is the better option.
While I will say that a lot of people who do debark will be those who were
unable to train their dog, I don't think that a dog should have to die
because his owners didn't train him. And as mentioned before, there are
some cases where it was NOT due to a lazy owner but do to a lifestyle change
due to fate where a *good* owner would either have to debark or surrender to
the pound.
-- Danae
>PD
>
>
hillary gorman
*
*Point #2:
*
*Training is defiantely the perferable option. However, there are some dogs
*addicted to the neurotransmitter serotonin (I'm pretty sure that's the right
*chemical) therefore making them constant barkers that NO amount of training
*can correct. I would think debarking is a much more preferable means of
*quieting this unwanted barker rather then harsh methods such as shock
*collars and citronella collars which wouldn't stop the barking but would
*perhaps turn the dog into a fearful animal.
All else aside for the moment...if you have information suggesting -dare I
say proving - that barking is in some way linked to serotonin addiction,
I'd like to hear about it!!!
If you're talking about dogs with separation anxiety, who bark excessively
when left alone, there are medical treatments which, when combined with
behavioral modification, generally obviate the "need" for debarking as a
solution to this serotonin-mediated disorder.
h.
--
hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com
"So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?"
hil...@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet
Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock.
hillary gorman
*
*hillary gorman wrote in message ...
*
*>All else aside for the moment...if you have information suggesting -dare I
*>say proving - that barking is in some way linked to serotonin addiction,
*>I'd like to hear about it!!!
*
*
*Oh boy! :) The big proof question. hehehe
*I read this in a dog book months ago, but I can't remember which one *sighs*
*I've also heard this mentioned elsewhere in this newsgroup... does anyone
*else know which book it is?
This just sounds bizarre to me. I've never heard of "serotonin addiction,"
whereas I have heard that separation anxiety, which causes excessive
barking when the animal is left alone (among other things) is a condition
due to a derangement of serotonin metabolism. Are you 100% sure you're not
confusing these things (I'm not flaming you, I'm honestly curious about
this).
Danae
hillary gorman wrote in message ...
>This just sounds bizarre to me. I've never heard of "serotonin addiction,"
>whereas I have heard that separation anxiety, which causes excessive
>barking when the animal is left alone (among other things) is a condition
>due to a derangement of serotonin metabolism. Are you 100% sure you're not
>confusing these things (I'm not flaming you, I'm honestly curious about
>this).
Nope, I'm not 100% sure ^_^
That was my intrepretation of what I've read, and I think a couple other
people have mentioned something similar to this in the past which problably
just reaffirmed my beliefs. But honestly, I really can't be positive. I
could be completly wrong. I'm definately going to look into this when I
have a bit more free time. If anyone else has any more info on this please
feel free to post!
-- Danae
>h.
>
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Dogs living and staying in their homes is good
Dogs being killed because their owner is brainwashed by AR folks is not
Nancy
Pussido Domingo <pussido...@catlover.com> wrote in article
snip>
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
hillary gorman <hil...@hillary.net> wrote in article snip
> All else aside for the moment...if you have information suggesting -dare
I
> say proving - that barking is in some way linked to serotonin addiction,
> I'd like to hear about it!!!
Well you have heard about it a number of times - go investigate the
research done by John Fisher to name one person on the topic.
>
> If you're talking about dogs with separation anxiety, who bark
excessively
> when left alone, there are medical treatments which, when combined with
> behavioral modification, generally obviate the "need" for debarking as a
> solution to this serotonin-mediated disorder.
No there is not any widely accepted or available working treatment.
Nancy
hillary gorman
*
*
*hillary gorman <hil...@hillary.net> wrote in article snip
*> All else aside for the moment...if you have information suggesting -dare
*I
*> say proving - that barking is in some way linked to serotonin addiction,
*> I'd like to hear about it!!!
*
*Well you have heard about it a number of times - go investigate the
*research done by John Fisher to name one person on the topic.
In what journal was that published? A CAB/Medline search found nothing on
serotonin addiction.
*> If you're talking about dogs with separation anxiety, who bark
*excessively
*> when left alone, there are medical treatments which, when combined with
*> behavioral modification, generally obviate the "need" for debarking as a
*> solution to this serotonin-mediated disorder.
*
*No there is not any widely accepted or available working treatment.
Pardon me?
So you're saying SSRIs and behavior modification don't work? Come to Penn.
I'll show you the before and after videos of the successfully treated
cases from the behavior clinic. Pretty awe inspiring.
Pussido Domingo
>
> the 'ethical' argument
> Dogs living and staying in their homes is good
> Dogs being killed because their owner is brainwashed by AR folks is not
I've already answered this common attempt to justify abuse in my
response to Danae.
PD
Pussido Domingo
> The point of debarking is *NOT* to remove a bark permenantly. It is to turn
> the volume down a bit. I would be opposed to a debarking too if it meant
> permenant loss of bark. However, as I know several debarked dogs at my
> grandmothers seniors complex, I know that is defiantely NOT the case.
And a lot of other people will tell you that very often that CAN be the
case. I have personally seen more than a few dogs in US shelters who
can do little more than squeak after being debarked. The shelter
workers told me that this is common.
Note that the dogs had still been dumped even after debarking, which
shows that debarking a dog is merely the first sign that the owner is
incapable of controlling it. They reach for the "quick fix" and when
another problem which can't be fixed so easily arises, they dump the
dog.
> I would think debarking is a much more preferable means of
> quieting this unwanted barker rather then harsh methods such as shock
> collars and citronella collars which wouldn't stop the barking but would
> perhaps turn the dog into a fearful animal.
A much more preferable means is not to use any of these abusive
methods. Now just why is it we can do that in the UK but you can't do
it in the US?
> I agree. But once again, debarking dosesn't stop the dog from barking
> altogether.
And once again, it often does.
> Debarking benefits the dog if the other option is death.
And yet again the same hackneyed excuse to abuse animals. "If I don't
do this to them they will die, so I can do anything I like to them using
this as justification". This is possibly the most obnoxious and
perverted part of all these issues. That people who claim to love their
animals would threaten to kill them if not allowed to mutilate them.
Americans on these newsgroups use this excuse over and over again
because it's oh, so convenient isn't it? You use it to do anything you
like to the poor creatures.
Now just how do you think millions of other people around the world
manage to care for their animals without mutilating them OR killing
them? Again I ask you, how come we're capable of doing it and you're
not?
> From what I've been told of the debarking process, this is *NOT* true.
Well I find it very strange that when everything else anyone says on a
newsgroup is leapt upon, dissected and immediately contradicted, nobody
posted a single message in response to that post to contradict it. No
dog owner and no vet. Maybe methods vary?
> Of course, if you were TRYING to have a dog with
> absolutely no bark then maybe the above is true, but
> since that isn't the point of debarking it is silly.
I think you're vastly underestimating what a lot of dog owners want.
I've spoken with vets who tell me that a lot of dog owners most
definitely want a dog with absolutely no bark. The bark is inconvenient
and they want rid of it completely. You may not see debarking as that,
but I'm assured by many people that a lot of dog owners do.
> And your point about not being able to leave your dog in the backyard? I
> think most people in this newsgroup would find leaving your dog outside all
> day is a lot more cruel then debarking it!
The only thing I said about leaving a dog in the backyard was when I
responded to ML - and I said that it was abusive, so where did you get
that from?
> But what is the other option after the owner was too lazy to train their
> dog? Would you suggest that these dogs are put to sleep instead of
> debarked??
I've answered that already. The emotional blackmail conspiracy between
owners and vets is quite disgusting, and the vets are largely
responsible for it. No British vet I have ever known would succumb to
such threats, which is why our vets won't debark, they won't declaw, and
they don't put down people's cats and dogs because they won't do these
procedures either. In the UK people know that if they get a dog it will
have a bark all its life, and that if they get a cat it will have claws
all its life. They don't get the animal and then threaten to put it to
sleep because they can't "modify" it, because the modification is not an
option and the British people know that. Your vets should be educating
America's animal owners into responsible ownership. Instead they
contribute to it.
> What *we* know differs from culture to culture, and you are having a
> completely ethnocentric reaction.
I am having a humane reaction, which is not the same thing. The
implication of your statement is that the British are culturally humane
and the Americans are culturally inhumane. I'm not sure that this is
true of all Americans, although many of the posts on the animal
newsgroups give cause to wonder.
> I've also read a report over how cruel it was to keep dogs in crates (ie.
> crate training them). Of course, this "report" was from an AR group...
> What was the source of this report?
Well, again, most Brits consider crating a dog to be extremely abusive.
I read the report in an animal shelter in the US about eight years
ago, so I can't say what it was now. Had I realised then that I would
be involved in discussions such as this at a later date I would have
photocopied it and kept it. At the time it was simply something I was
reading while I waited for somebody, but I've since often wished I'd
kept a copy.
As an aside, why is it that so many Americans who claim to be animal
lovers dismiss anything produced by those working for animal rights?
Here, save for a few extremists, animal rights workers get enormous
support from the public, yet all I see on these groups is people like
yourself using the term "animal rights" almost as a term of abuse,
certainly as a put-down. The public so supports animal rights issues
here that the AR campaign against vivisection has just won an enormous
battle. As of about a month ago, no cosmetics or the ingredients used
in them will ever again be tested on animals in the UK. This continual
castigation by Americans of those involved in animal welfare issues can
only draw one to conclude that when most Americans talk about "loving
animals", what they actually mean is that they love *having* animals
around, not that they love the animals themselves. If they truly loved
the animals they would be supporting animal rights issues.
> I'm not saying that it isn't legitmate,
> but I would like a little more info before accepting it as 100% true.
Fair comment.
> Who said it is unethical? It is by no means a universal decision that
> debarking is inhumane.
Well, as I understand it most of the western world considers it to be
wrong, as with declawing. Nobody has ever posted to say that the UK
stands alone in considering debarking to be abuse and, likewise, nobody
has ever posted to say that debarking is routinely practised in their
country.
> Just because you may feel it's inhumane there
> doesn't mean the rest of the world has to follow
> suit.
As I say, I'd be interested to hear from other nations as to whether
they consider debarking to be an acceptable and humane procedure. On
present evidence I believe this to be on a par with declawing, where
many other countries in the civilised world consider it to be abusive.
> I'm sure there are many interest groups out there who
> would find many events in your daily behaviour completely
> unethical. God forbid if you've ever eaten meat,
Not for 30 years, since I was old enough to realise that it's morally
unjustifiable.
> or bought anything leather
Not for 30 years.
> or had a child circumcized, or...
Nope.
> >Does US law allow ignorance as a defence? If a kid from a criminal
> >family mugs someone in the street, because that's what they've been
> >brought up to do, does US law say that's allowable because the kid
> >didn't know it was wrong? Would the kid walk away scot free?
>
> Oh boy... this is a very piss-poor analogy.
>
> First of all... it is NOT illegal to debark in Canada/USA, and it is to
> steal. Hmm... is that a big enough fallacy of false analogy for you? :)
You're completely missing the point of what I was saying. The previous
poster said that people who debark could be excused on the grounds of
ignorance. I responded that ignorance is no defence of action - as the
law in both our countries stupulates. I wasn't claiming that debarking
is illegal (although it should be), but was using the law as a
demonstration of the principle.
> >They are equally abusive.
>
> Equally?? Ever met a debarked dog?
> Obviously not if you made that statement.
And you obviously don't read the posts you respond to because in my
previous post - which you did respond to - I said clearly that I have
seen debarked dogs in US shelters I've been involved with.
> The debarked dogs that I've met constantly have their wagging ^_^
> Of course, a debarked dog who has lazy owners who don't care about them
> won't be happy, but that is not due to the debarking.. but to the lack of
> socialization.
The fact that a dog has adapted to being surgically modified doesn't
make the modification ethically justifiable. Hitler subjected Jews to
sterilisation and castration procedures. Both sterilisation and
castration are ethical medical procedures to which people adapt, but to
practice those procedures under those circumstances was not ethical.
The same principle applies to debarking.
> I'm sorry if I sound like I'm flaming you, I really don't mean to. I just
> thought that you were passing along some false information to which I had to
> respond to.
Far too many people on Usenet scream "flamer" the minute someone posts
disagreeing with them. That isn't flaming and I am not one of those
people. Your post was in no way flaming.
> As well, your completly enthocentric attitude really riled me
> up to :)
Well if you can point me to all the other nations in the world that
routinely debark dogs I'll be more than happy to speak to them too. At
the moment the only people here who are defending it are Americans.
> Of course, I am a little bit guilty of that myself in many none dog related
> topics, but sometimes it's nice to have a reality check that your culture's
> opinions are not necesarily "right" in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The fact that they're not seen as being right doesn't mean that they are
not right.
PD
Danae
assignment are due, I'm in a much happier mood :)
So here I am procrastinating more....
Pussido Domingo wrote in message <36793FC0...@catlover.com>...
>And a lot of other people will tell you that very often that CAN be the
>case. I have personally seen more than a few dogs in US shelters who
>can do little more than squeak after being debarked. The shelter
>workers told me that this is common.
I must say that I did not know that. I definately do not support the full
removal of a dog's bark. As I said, all of the debarked dogs that I've met
(all living in this one particular seniors complex) all are fully capable of
barking -- it's just quieter. Is complete debarking common? I would hope
that it was only the result of unscroupulous vets as opposed to common
agreement.
>Note that the dogs had still been dumped even after debarking, which
>shows that debarking a dog is merely the first sign that the owner is
>incapable of controlling it. They reach for the "quick fix" and when
>another problem which can't be fixed so easily arises, they dump the
>dog.
There are also many debarked dogs I'm sure living happily at home too :)
Though I do agree, those who just debarked for convience are more likely to
drop of their dogs. But those who, due to a financial crisis perhaps, have
no choice but to move into an apartment where only debarked dogs are allowed
are not likely going to just dump their dogs after debarking them.
>A much more preferable means is not to use any of these abusive
>methods. Now just why is it we can do that in the UK but you can't do
>it in the US?
I agree completely. Opposed to what you may think (and the impression I'm
probably giving) I'm not a big advocate of debarking. I would never have
one of my dogs debarked, and I would never suggest it to someone as a means
to make their dog "less annoying" to them. I just believe that there are a
few cases where it should be tolerated.
>> I agree. But once again, debarking dosesn't stop the dog from barking
>> altogether.
>
>And once again, it often does.
And once again, I was not aware that some vets actually did that. :(
>And yet again the same hackneyed excuse to abuse animals. "If I don't
>do this to them they will die, so I can do anything I like to them using
>this as justification". This is possibly the most obnoxious and
>perverted part of all these issues. That people who claim to love their
>animals would threaten to kill them if not allowed to mutilate them.
>Americans on these newsgroups use this excuse over and over again
>because it's oh, so convenient isn't it? You use it to do anything you
>like to the poor creatures.
Point well taken. Perhaps I should have rephrased the choice between having
a dog debarked who would then go on to be worhsipped as the little doG he
is, or abandoned at a shelter where he could be put to sleep. Once again, I
am refering to people who only have no real choice BUT to debark or else
surrender their dog... not the people who want that cute little doggie but
only if he doesn't bark.
>Now just how do you think millions of other people around the world
>manage to care for their animals without mutilating them OR killing
>them? Again I ask you, how come we're capable of doing it and you're
>not?
Well, for one things these apartments that only allow debarked dogs here
would instead have a no dog policy. And considering in my city there is
about a .02% vacancy rate a lot of family dogs would have to be surrendered
to the shelter. Perhaps some dogs that have to be surrendered in the UK
could have continued to live happily with their family if debarking was
allowed. Then again I'm totally speculating
>> From what I've been told of the debarking process, this is *NOT* true.
>
>Well I find it very strange that when everything else anyone says on a
>newsgroup is leapt upon, dissected and immediately contradicted, nobody
>posted a single message in response to that post to contradict it. No
>dog owner and no vet. Maybe methods vary?
That is definately a possiblity. We both seem to have very different
experience in the debarking issue.
>I think you're vastly underestimating what a lot of dog owners want.
>I've spoken with vets who tell me that a lot of dog owners most
>definitely want a dog with absolutely no bark. The bark is inconvenient
>and they want rid of it completely. You may not see debarking as that,
>but I'm assured by many people that a lot of dog owners do.
And I would hope that vets would refuse to perform a surgery that would
competely leave a dog with no voice. As far as owners are concerned, I'm
sure that there are those who do wish that... hopefully their wish will not
come true.
>> And your point about not being able to leave your dog in the backyard? I
>> think most people in this newsgroup would find leaving your dog outside
all
>> day is a lot more cruel then debarking it!
>
>The only thing I said about leaving a dog in the backyard was when I
>responded to ML - and I said that it was abusive, so where did you get
>that from?
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but in your list of things that one has to do to
keep your dog completely without a voice after surgery, I thought you stated
that you can not leave your dog outside. Hence my response was that of
COURSE you can't leave your dog outside, doing so would be far more abusive
then the surgery. IMHO of course :)
>I've answered that already. The emotional blackmail conspiracy between
>owners and vets is quite disgusting, and the vets are largely
>responsible for it. No British vet I have ever known would succumb to
>such threats, which is why our vets won't debark, they won't declaw, and
>they don't put down people's cats and dogs because they won't do these
>procedures either. In the UK people know that if they get a dog it will
>have a bark all its life, and that if they get a cat it will have claws
>all its life. They don't get the animal and then threaten to put it to
>sleep because they can't "modify" it, because the modification is not an
>option and the British people know that. Your vets should be educating
>America's animal owners into responsible ownership. Instead they
>contribute to it.
First of all, I'm not American :)
I'm Canadian.. and yes there really is a difference *LOL* Also, my
grandparents were all from the UK and I have relatives there whom I keep in
close contact with so I consider myself far more in tune with the British
then the Americans. And I really do agree with you in principle about your
modification bit (aside from tail docking/ear cropping but I won't get into
that!!). But once again, I'm just saying that there are some very few cases
where a debarking really is the only option to keep a dog in a wonderful
family.
>I am having a humane reaction, which is not the same thing. The
>implication of your statement is that the British are culturally humane
>and the Americans are culturally inhumane. I'm not sure that this is
>true of all Americans, although many of the posts on the animal
>newsgroups give cause to wonder.
That wasn't what I was stating. I was just saying that different cultures
have different ideas of what is humane. And that to assume that your culture
has the RIGHT version of what is humane is entnocentric (to assume that your
cultural views or culture is superior than anothers) Like for instance...
>> I've also read a report over how cruel it was to keep dogs in crates (ie.
>> crate training them). Of course, this "report" was from an AR group...
>> What was the source of this report?
>
>Well, again, most Brits consider crating a dog to be extremely abusive.
This is the perfect example. I too thought that crating a dog was cruel and
"locking it in a cage" when I was younger. Then I researched dogs and
completely changed my mind. As I'm sure you know, dogs are den animals. As
long as a crate is never used for punishment, a dog will think of his crate
as him home and will LOVE to go in it :) A close friend of mine's dog is
completely trustworthy in the house so she never crates her dog anymore.
However she still has her crate and leaves the door open, and every night
about 10pm her dogs goes up to his crate and falls asleep. During the day
whenever the dog isn't with her, he's in his crate playing with one of his
toys or sleeping. What is the reasoning behind crates being cruel aside
from the fact that HUMANS wouldn't like to be in a crate? Anthopromorphism
is never a sound arguement when discussing dogs.
>As an aside, why is it that so many Americans who claim to be animal
>lovers dismiss anything produced by those working for animal rights?
>Here, save for a few extremists, animal rights workers get enormous
>support from the public, yet all I see on these groups is people like
>yourself using the term "animal rights" almost as a term of abuse,
>certainly as a put-down. The public so supports animal rights issues
>here that the AR campaign against vivisection has just won an enormous
>battle. As of about a month ago, no cosmetics or the ingredients used
>in them will ever again be tested on animals in the UK. This continual
>castigation by Americans of those involved in animal welfare issues can
>only draw one to conclude that when most Americans talk about "loving
>animals", what they actually mean is that they love *having* animals
>around, not that they love the animals themselves. If they truly loved
>the animals they would be supporting animal rights issues.
Perhaps it is the groups that are involved in North America. The large AR
groups here seem to think that keeping dogs as pets are cruel, and that
eating animals is horrific, and that all animals should be "liberated", etc
etc and they often use vandalism, "free" animals and often cause them more
damage, etc etc to get their agenda across. I *do not* believe that animals
have "rights". The concept of rights is purely a human one, and the only
rights that we really do have are the ones that are written in our laws. So
to join a social movement with as many questional practices as the AR one
does, for a cause I don't even believe in is just silly! ;) However, I do
believe in animal welfare. Yes, animals suffer and their suffering should
be minimized. Why shouldn't people eat animals? We are omiovores.. our
bodies were made to eat meat. But we should insure that the animals being
slaughtered are done so as painlessly as possible. Medical research on
animals? It is a nececity if we want to make many advances to benefit
humans AND animals in the future. Though animals should be treated with the
most care and try to be made the most comfortable as they can be during such
research.
>Well, as I understand it most of the western world considers it to be
>wrong, as with declawing. Nobody has ever posted to say that the UK
>stands alone in considering debarking to be abuse and, likewise, nobody
>has ever posted to say that debarking is routinely practised in their
>country.
Most of the western world also thinks that pit bulls are vicious animals
Majority doesn't necessarily know best. But I will admit there is a large
controversy in the dog world, as you can tell by this newsgroup. Debarking
is really not common here at all. The only people I've ever known to have
debarked dogs are sweet old men and woman and my Grandmother's seniors
complex and all of these dogs DO have a bark... just a quite one (and they
all are extremely happy dogs!).
>As I say, I'd be interested to hear from other nations as to whether
>they consider debarking to be an acceptable and humane procedure. On
>present evidence I believe this to be on a par with declawing, where
>many other countries in the civilised world consider it to be abusive.
I know next to nothing about declawing, so I really have no opinion on that
:) These topics are not big over here in the general public aside from the
dog/cat worlds. From the sounds of it, these sorts of topics are really big
in the UK (my relatives in england don't have pets so I don't hear about
these sorts of things). Of course, there are always those who know next to
nothing about dogs or cats who will jump is screaming abuse with no
information.
>> I'm sure there are many interest groups out there who
>> would find many events in your daily behaviour completely
>> unethical. God forbid if you've ever eaten meat,
>
>Not for 30 years, since I was old enough to realise that it's morally
>unjustifiable.
Morally unjustifiable? I'm a vegetarian but not for that reason. I just
don't like the taste of meat :) Are you suggesting that everyone in the
last 10s of thousands of years who have eaten meat where immoral? And that
this new movement in the last 100yrs is far more correct? Of course morals
change, but the fact that they are variable should say that there are no
real universal truths to these issues. So while it is fine that you don't
eat meat, you shouldn't expect others to follow suit (not saying that you
were trying to convert anyone... )
>> or bought anything leather
>
>Not for 30 years.
I own leather shoes... can't find another material that makes shoes that are
reasonably dressy but can survive the harsh weather of -40 prairie winters
:)
>> >They are equally abusive.
>>
>> Equally?? Ever met a debarked dog?
>> Obviously not if you made that statement.
>
>And you obviously don't read the posts you respond to because in my
>previous post - which you did respond to - I said clearly that I have
>seen debarked dogs in US shelters I've been involved with.
All of the debarked dogs you seem to have met were in shelters. Obviously if
they were given up it was most likely due to thier owners not giving two
figs about their dog. Perhaps that explains the dogs behaviour?
>> The debarked dogs that I've met constantly have their wagging ^_^
>> Of course, a debarked dog who has lazy owners who don't care about them
>> won't be happy, but that is not due to the debarking.. but to the lack of
>> socialization.
>
>The fact that a dog has adapted to being surgically modified doesn't
>make the modification ethically justifiable. Hitler subjected Jews to
>sterilisation and castration procedures. Both sterilisation and
>castration are ethical medical procedures to which people adapt, but to
>practice those procedures under those circumstances was not ethical.
>The same principle applies to debarking.
Eep! Not another Hitler reference!! *ducks and runs*
This is the second time this week that a AR person from the UK has compared
Hitler to <insert some sort of animal issue>. One can not
anothropromorphize dogs simply because they are NOT humans.
>Far too many people on Usenet scream "flamer" the minute someone posts
>disagreeing with them. That isn't flaming and I am not one of those
>people. Your post was in no way flaming.
Most definately. Glad to see you aren't one of those people :)
>Well if you can point me to all the other nations in the world that
>routinely debark dogs I'll be more than happy to speak to them too. At
>the moment the only people here who are defending it are Americans.
Just a quick question... why did you assume that everyone was an AMerican?
As you know I'm Canadian, but really from their posts I don't recall any
reference to where they lived.
>The fact that they're not seen as being right doesn't mean that they are
>not right.
And the fact that YOU think it's right doesn't make it right either :)
-- Danae
>PD
>
>
M.L.
Pussido Domingo wrote in message <36793FC0...@catlover.com>...
>And a lot of other people will tell you that very often that CAN be the
>case. I have personally seen more than a few dogs in US shelters who
>can do little more than squeak after being debarked. The shelter
>workers told me that this is common.
Well if that ever is the case, the vet should be at fault for performing the
surgery improperly.
>Note that the dogs had still been dumped even after debarking, which
>shows that debarking a dog is merely the first sign that the owner is
>incapable of controlling it. They reach for the "quick fix" and when
>another problem which can't be fixed so easily arises, they dump the
>dog.
I'd say that the average owner doesn't have the first clue how to stop an
incessantly barking dog from abandoning the behavior, and is unwilling to
devote their time to figure out how to go about solving the problem.. It's
really a matter of luck for that kind of owner what kind of dog they end up
with. It doesn't make them a bad owner.. it just tells you how little the
general population knows about dogs in general. So you can't really avoid
the situation you're describing, unless you force a system in the United
States that make all humans go through a written exam before they could
adopt a pet (which actually isn't a bad idea, but I'd know to expect
opposition).
>A much more preferable means is not to use any of these abusive
>methods. Now just why is it we can do that in the UK but you can't do
>it in the US?
For one, the UK generally is better about controlling dog breeding, so
you're less likely to come up with as many behavior problems as found here
in the United States. For two, you can't expect everyone to be well
educated about raising a dog. It's a little more obvious in the UK. I
couldn't quite figure out why. But I'd appreciate you stopping your culture
bashing.
Since when is citronella a bad thing? I've heard of it as ineffective in
stopping barking, but I've never heard of it being abusive.
By the way... what methods in the UK do people generally resort to when
training their dogs not to bark, and to get over bad behaviors?
>> I agree. But once again, debarking dosesn't stop the dog from barking
>> altogether.
>
>And once again, it often does.
But it shouldn't. If it does, that's the vet's fault.
>> Debarking benefits the dog if the other option is death.
>
>And yet again the same hackneyed excuse to abuse animals. "If I don't
>do this to them they will die, so I can do anything I like to them using
>this as justification". This is possibly the most obnoxious and
>perverted part of all these issues. That people who claim to love their
>animals would threaten to kill them if not allowed to mutilate them.
>Americans on these newsgroups use this excuse over and over again
>because it's oh, so convenient isn't it? You use it to do anything you
>like to the poor creatures.
>
>Now just how do you think millions of other people around the world
>manage to care for their animals without mutilating them OR killing
>them? Again I ask you, how come we're capable of doing it and you're
>not?
Well when you think about the American pet overpopulation problem, I don't
think you could really compare us to the "rest" of the world. Euthanasia is
inevitable here. It's our own fault, I admit, but it's a problem that we
need to handle in ways that we see best for the animals. It's not the same
in the UK. I'm sure you don't handle in your shelters nearly as many
animals as we do, and so you don't see why we should have a need to
euthanize homeless animals, and spay and neuter them not only for health,
but to prevent more puppies that are likely to become homeless dogs. You
probably don't have dogs with so many health and behavior related problems
due to poor genetics that would lead to such things as debarking. It would
be nice if we were "perfect" like you... but unfortunately we have to work
out the problems we have right now before we could start making changes to
how the average american raises and treats a dog or cat.
However, when you think of the average treatment of any pet in the united
states, it's much better than what you'll see in any non-western countries
that don't always appreciate the value of these great animals. Not to say
that their culture is bad or horrible or anything, but it's a matter of what
you hold to be valuable in your own life.
If you think AMERICANS are bad about mutilating dogs, I'll assume you
haven't read into that whole china thread.
>> From what I've been told of the debarking process, this is *NOT* true.
>
>Well I find it very strange that when everything else anyone says on a
>newsgroup is leapt upon, dissected and immediately contradicted, nobody
>posted a single message in response to that post to contradict it. No
>dog owner and no vet. Maybe methods vary?
Methods ALWAYS vary. Some vets will not debark. Some vets will reluctantly
debark, but make sure the dog is still capable of barking, only softer.
Some vets have no clue how to debark but figure it's good money so he'll do
it and you end up with a dog that can't do anything more than squeak.
>> Of course, if you were TRYING to have a dog with
>> absolutely no bark then maybe the above is true, but
>> since that isn't the point of debarking it is silly.
>
>I think you're vastly underestimating what a lot of dog owners want.
>I've spoken with vets who tell me that a lot of dog owners most
>definitely want a dog with absolutely no bark. The bark is inconvenient
>and they want rid of it completely. You may not see debarking as that,
>but I'm assured by many people that a lot of dog owners do.
If that's the case, then the vet should be allowed to refuse, and the
clients should go look somewhere else or attempt to do the surgery
themselves if they dare. Then at least they'll begin to see the seriousness
of what they're getting themselves into.
>I've answered that already. The emotional blackmail conspiracy between
>owners and vets is quite disgusting, and the vets are largely
>responsible for it. No British vet I have ever known would succumb to
>such threats, which is why our vets won't debark, they won't declaw, and
>they don't put down people's cats and dogs because they won't do these
>procedures either. In the UK people know that if they get a dog it will
>have a bark all its life, and that if they get a cat it will have claws
>all its life. They don't get the animal and then threaten to put it to
>sleep because they can't "modify" it, because the modification is not an
>option and the British people know that. Your vets should be educating
>America's animal owners into responsible ownership. Instead they
>contribute to it.
I really hate how people say that "all vets there are like this", and "all
vets here are like that", all americans are like this, everyone in the UK is
like that so the UK is better and America sucks, etc. etc. etc.. A vet
could only do so much to educate pet owners. And in any country, there will
be vets who work for profit, not for the welfare of the animals. The US
will have its share of misinformed pet owners, and so will the UK. Again,
culture bashing isn't going to help anyone.
>> What *we* know differs from culture to culture, and you are having a
>> completely ethnocentric reaction.
>
>I am having a humane reaction, which is not the same thing. The
>implication of your statement is that the British are culturally humane
>and the Americans are culturally inhumane. I'm not sure that this is
>true of all Americans, although many of the posts on the animal
>newsgroups give cause to wonder.
Again I am seeing parallels of what I'm seeing in the "china fur" thread.
Humane-ness is relative. There are some americans who would think that the
ownership of cats and dogs is the equivalent to slavery and is therefore
inhumane. Do you expect that statement to influence people to stop keeping
them as companions? Of course not.
>> I've also read a report over how cruel it was to keep dogs in crates (ie.
>> crate training them). Of course, this "report" was from an AR group...
>> What was the source of this report?
>
>Well, again, most Brits consider crating a dog to be extremely abusive.
How so? How is it any different than keeping a baby in a playpen or crib?
You're restricting the dog so it would hurt itself or cause any trouble.
>I read the report in an animal shelter in the US about eight years
>ago, so I can't say what it was now. Had I realised then that I would
>be involved in discussions such as this at a later date I would have
>photocopied it and kept it. At the time it was simply something I was
>reading while I waited for somebody, but I've since often wished I'd
>kept a copy.
What were they about?
>As an aside, why is it that so many Americans who claim to be animal
>lovers dismiss anything produced by those working for animal rights?
>Here, save for a few extremists, animal rights workers get enormous
>support from the public, yet all I see on these groups is people like
>yourself using the term "animal rights" almost as a term of abuse,
>certainly as a put-down. The public so supports animal rights issues
>here that the AR campaign against vivisection has just won an enormous
>battle. As of about a month ago, no cosmetics or the ingredients used
>in them will ever again be tested on animals in the UK. This continual
>castigation by Americans of those involved in animal welfare issues can
>only draw one to conclude that when most Americans talk about "loving
>animals", what they actually mean is that they love *having* animals
>around, not that they love the animals themselves. If they truly loved
>the animals they would be supporting animal rights issues.
Animal Rights organizations used to be something I supported. Now, I prefer
to leave animal rights to my own actions and decisions. Never again will I
trust an organization to make my decisions for me about what is in the best
interest of the animals, and what is not. If you've been reading the past
posts, you could see why. They aren't just "exceptions" to the animal
rights causes, but they are reflections on what animal rights has turned
itself into. It's absolutely insane. I hope that the animal rights
organizations in your country don't march into dog shows to poison the dogs
there with antifreeze.
>Well, as I understand it most of the western world considers it to be
>wrong, as with declawing. Nobody has ever posted to say that the UK
>stands alone in considering debarking to be abuse and, likewise, nobody
>has ever posted to say that debarking is routinely practised in their
>country.
Divorce used to be that way as well. That's different now. People's
opinions on things change. Spaying/neutering is still considered by many to
be abuse. You're inaccurate in saying that the "UK stands alone..." because
by that you're speaking on behalf of every single individual in your
country, and I doubt 100% of people living in the UK has the same views as
yourself.
There are worse things than debarking that are routinely practiced in many
countries.
>As I say, I'd be interested to hear from other nations as to whether
>they consider debarking to be an acceptable and humane procedure. On
>present evidence I believe this to be on a par with declawing, where
>many other countries in the civilised world consider it to be abusive.
If it's done right (meaning the dog is able to resume life as it had before
the surgery, the only difference being a bark that is not piercingly loud),
I don't see how it shouldn't be acceptable. Civilised schmivilized... I
take it civilised to you, means acting as close to the English as possible?
>Not for 30 years, since I was old enough to realise that it's morally
>unjustifiable.
I could argue that your eating anything living is morally unjustifiable, if
my ethics worked out that way. Morals depend on personal viewpoints, not
societal ones.
>> or bought anything leather
>
>Not for 30 years.
Are you positive? They manage to put a little bit of leather into
practically everything nowadays.
>> or had a child circumcized, or...
>
>Nope.
What's wrong with circumcision?? We circumcize for the same reason we dock
sheep's tails, don't we? Infection prevention?
>You're completely missing the point of what I was saying. The previous
>poster said that people who debark could be excused on the grounds of
>ignorance. I responded that ignorance is no defence of action - as the
>law in both our countries stupulates. I wasn't claiming that debarking
>is illegal (although it should be), but was using the law as a
>demonstration of the principle.
Let's say there's such thing as God. Let's say that nobody knew about God.
Let's say God says that anyone who doesn't worship him will go to hell.
Nobody worships God because nobody knows about him. God sends everyone to
hell. Is that the peoples' fault?
>And you obviously don't read the posts you respond to because in my
>previous post - which you did respond to - I said clearly that I have
>seen debarked dogs in US shelters I've been involved with.
I've seen debarked dogs too... perfectly happy, content dogs that were still
able to bark.
>The fact that a dog has adapted to being surgically modified doesn't
>make the modification ethically justifiable. Hitler subjected Jews to
>sterilisation and castration procedures. Both sterilisation and
>castration are ethical medical procedures to which people adapt, but to
>practice those procedures under those circumstances was not ethical.
>The same principle applies to debarking.
I'm really getting tired of this "I determine what is ethical" thing. Let's
leave ethics to people's personal judgements, OK?? Thank you.
>Well if you can point me to all the other nations in the world that
>routinely debark dogs I'll be more than happy to speak to them too. At
>the moment the only people here who are defending it are Americans.
Not necessarily true. I'm part American, part Japanese, part Kiwi, part
French and have spent a good portion of my life in the U.S., Japan, and New
Zealand (France is next year). All of those backgrounds have had
significant influences on my values.
>The fact that they're not seen as being right doesn't mean that they are
>not right.
What is ethically right or wrong is never a fact.
M.L.
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin wrote in message
<01be2a27$b5722380$eaf8...@fmkaffen.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>No its not - the shelters are constantly full over there - they have TONS
>and TONS of puppy mills and the behaviorists that I have met from the UK
>are citing the exact same problems (though with some wonderfully unique
>solutions) as are seen here. Only difference is it might be one breed here
>and a different one there. (thinking about the variation in UK dals vs US
>dals for an example)
Was unaware of that... I certainly didn't get that impression.
>>
>> Since when is citronella a bad thing? I've heard of it as ineffective in
>> stopping barking, but I've never heard of it being abusive.
>
>Think about how it feels to be hit with a light so bright it gives you a
>splitting headache or a sound so loud it makes you feel nauseous - then
>think about a dog's olfactory system and a spray of stinky stuff in the
>face :-( its not a pretty thought IMO. Just because WE don't find it that
>horrid does not mean the dog doesn't!
Learn something new every day. Why can't we just fill those citronella
things with water then?
AVRAMA GINGOLD
Let's put it this way: SHomer tends to bark more than other
Dobes I've had. If a strangr comes onto our floor, he lets
it be known that a DoberMAN is on duty. Fortunately, in
part because he is a Doberman, it has been fairly easy to
keep his barking within acceptable limits. (Introducing
him to every new person on the floor, and teaching him
that a few warning barks are good, and then it is good
to remain quiet.) According to my neighbors, they never
(I'd change that to seldom) hear him bark.
But, let us suppose he was one of those dogs who gets
great pleasure from barking. He has a bark that fills
the air, and can be heard throughout the building. In
such a case, I'd undoubtedly have received one of those
letters from my landlord, the kind that say either the
nuisance barking ceases, or my dog and I leave the
affordable apartment.
Guess what. In such a case, I'd have my dog debarked.
As I have been saying, the ideal thing is to train the
dog. But not everyone can train his/her dog to be
quiet, not every dog can be trained to be quiet. When
it is a choice between the dog and the operation, it
is time for surgery.
avrama & shomer
avr...@moondog.com
D> Point well taken. Perhaps I should have rephrased the choice between having
D> a dog debarked who would then go on to be worhsipped as the little doG he
D> is, or abandoned at a shelter where he could be put to sleep. Once again, I
D> am refering to people who only have no real choice BUT to debark or else
D> surrender their dog... not the people who want that cute little doggie but
D> only if he doesn't bark.
D>
D> >Now just how do you think millions of other people around the world
D> >manage to care for their animals without mutilating them OR killing
D> >them? Again I ask you, how come we're capable of doing it and you're
D> >not?
D>
D> Well, for one things these apartments that only allow debarked dogs here
D> would instead have a no dog policy. And considering in my city there is
D> about a .02% vacancy rate a lot of family dogs would have to be surrendered
D> to the shelter. Perhaps some dogs that have to be surrendered in the UK
D> could have continued to live happily with their family if debarking was
D> allowed. Then again I'm totally speculating
D>
D> >> From what I've been told of the debarking process, this is *NOT* true.
D> >
D> >Well I find it very strange that when everything else anyone says on a
D> >newsgroup is leapt upon, dissected and immediately contradicted, nobody
D> >posted a single message in response to that post to contradict it. No
D> >dog owner and no vet. Maybe methods vary?
D>
D> That is definately a possiblity. We both seem to have very different
D> experience in the debarking issue.
D>
D> >I think you're vastly underestimating what a lot of dog owners want.
D> >I've spoken with vets who tell me that a lot of dog owners most
D> >definitely want a dog with absolutely no bark. The bark is inconvenient
D> >and they want rid of it completely. You may not see debarking as that,
D> >but I'm assured by many people that a lot of dog owners do.
D>
D> And I would hope that vets would refuse to perform a surgery that would
D> competely leave a dog with no voice. As far as owners are concerned, I'm
D> sure that there are those who do wish that... hopefully their wish will not
D> come true.
D>
D> >> And your point about not being able to leave your dog in the backyard? I
D> >> think most people in this newsgroup would find leaving your dog outside
D> all
D> >> day is a lot more cruel then debarking it!
D> >
D> >The only thing I said about leaving a dog in the backyard was when I
D> >responded to ML - and I said that it was abusive, so where did you get
D> >that from?
D>
D>
D> Perhaps I misinterpreted, but in your list of things that one has to do to
D> keep your dog completely without a voice after surgery, I thought you stated
D> that you can not leave your dog outside. Hence my response was that of
D> COURSE you can't leave your dog outside, doing so would be far more abusive
D> then the surgery. IMHO of course :)
D>
D> >I've answered that already. The emotional blackmail conspiracy between
D> >owners and vets is quite disgusting, and the vets are largely
D> >responsible for it. No British vet I have ever known would succumb to
D> >such threats, which is why our vets won't debark, they won't declaw, and
D> >they don't put down people's cats and dogs because they won't do these
D> >procedures either. In the UK people know that if they get a dog it will
D> >have a bark all its life, and that if they get a cat it will have claws
D> >all its life. They don't get the animal and then threaten to put it to
D> >sleep because they can't "modify" it, because the modification is not an
D> >option and the British people know that. Your vets should be educating
D> >America's animal owners into responsible ownership. Instead they
D> >contribute to it.
He seems to forget that in GB breed bans that mean the death of dogs
of a particular breed exist. (And England once was the home of dog
lovers--sob!) Think, for example, Tosa Inu, APBT.
D> That wasn't what I was stating. I was just saying that different cultures
D> have different ideas of what is humane. And that to assume that your culture
D> has the RIGHT version of what is humane is entnocentric (to assume that your
D> cultural views or culture is superior than anothers) Like for instance...
D>
D> >> I've also read a report over how cruel it was to keep dogs in crates (ie.
D> >> crate training them). Of course, this "report" was from an AR group...
D> >> What was the source of this report?
D> >
D> >Well, again, most Brits consider crating a dog to be extremely abusive.
D>
D>
D> This is the perfect example. I too thought that crating a dog was cruel and
D> "locking it in a cage" when I was younger. Then I researched dogs and
D> completely changed my mind. As I'm sure you know, dogs are den animals. As
D> long as a crate is never used for punishment, a dog will think of his crate
D> as him home and will LOVE to go in it :) A close friend of mine's dog is
D> completely trustworthy in the house so she never crates her dog anymore.
D> However she still has her crate and leaves the door open, and every night
D> about 10pm her dogs goes up to his crate and falls asleep. During the day
D> whenever the dog isn't with her, he's in his crate playing with one of his
D> toys or sleeping. What is the reasoning behind crates being cruel aside
D> from the fact that HUMANS wouldn't like to be in a crate? Anthopromorphism
D> is never a sound arguement when discussing dogs.
D>
D> >As an aside, why is it that so many Americans who claim to be animal
D> >lovers dismiss anything produced by those working for animal rights?
D> >Here, save for a few extremists, animal rights workers get enormous
D> >support from the public, yet all I see on these groups is people like
D> >yourself using the term "animal rights" almost as a term of abuse,
D> >certainly as a put-down. The public so supports animal rights issues
D> >here that the AR campaign against vivisection has just won an enormous
D> >battle. As of about a month ago, no cosmetics or the ingredients used
D> >in them will ever again be tested on animals in the UK. This continual
D> >castigation by Americans of those involved in animal welfare issues can
D> >only draw one to conclude that when most Americans talk about "loving
D> >animals", what they actually mean is that they love *having* animals
D> >around, not that they love the animals themselves. If they truly loved
D> >the animals they would be supporting animal rights issues.
D>
D>
D> Perhaps it is the groups that are involved in North America. The large AR
D> groups here seem to think that keeping dogs as pets are cruel, and that
D> eating animals is horrific, and that all animals should be "liberated", etc
D> etc and they often use vandalism, "free" animals and often cause them more
D> damage, etc etc to get their agenda across. I *do not* believe that animals
D> have "rights". The concept of rights is purely a human one, and the only
D> rights that we really do have are the ones that are written in our laws. So
D> to join a social movement with as many questional practices as the AR one
D> does, for a cause I don't even believe in is just silly! ;) However, I do
D> believe in animal welfare. Yes, animals suffer and their suffering should
D> be minimized. Why shouldn't people eat animals? We are omiovores.. our
D> bodies were made to eat meat. But we should insure that the animals being
D> slaughtered are done so as painlessly as possible. Medical research on
D> animals? It is a nececity if we want to make many advances to benefit
D> humans AND animals in the future. Though animals should be treated with the
D> most care and try to be made the most comfortable as they can be during such
D> research.
D>
D> >Well, as I understand it most of the western world considers it to be
D> >wrong, as with declawing. Nobody has ever posted to say that the UK
D> >stands alone in considering debarking to be abuse and, likewise, nobody
D> >has ever posted to say that debarking is routinely practised in their
D> >country.
D>
D>
D> Most of the western world also thinks that pit bulls are vicious animals
D>
D> Majority doesn't necessarily know best. But I will admit there is a large
D> controversy in the dog world, as you can tell by this newsgroup. Debarking
D> is really not common here at all. The only people I've ever known to have
D> debarked dogs are sweet old men and woman and my Grandmother's seniors
D> complex and all of these dogs DO have a bark... just a quite one (and they
D> all are extremely happy dogs!).
D>
D> >As I say, I'd be interested to hear from other nations as to whether
D> >they consider debarking to be an acceptable and humane procedure. On
D> >present evidence I believe this to be on a par with declawing, where
D> >many other countries in the civilised world consider it to be abusive.
D>
D>
D> I know next to nothing about declawing, so I really have no opinion on that
D> :) These topics are not big over here in the general public aside from the
D> dog/cat worlds. From the sounds of it, these sorts of topics are really big
D> in the UK (my relatives in england don't have pets so I don't hear about
D> these sorts of things). Of course, there are always those who know next to
D> nothing about dogs or cats who will jump is screaming abuse with no
D> information.
D>
D> >> I'm sure there are many interest groups out there who
D> >> would find many events in your daily behaviour completely
D> >> unethical. God forbid if you've ever eaten meat,
D> >
D> >Not for 30 years, since I was old enough to realise that it's morally
D> >unjustifiable.
D>
D>
D> Morally unjustifiable? I'm a vegetarian but not for that reason. I just
D> don't like the taste of meat :) Are you suggesting that everyone in the
D> last 10s of thousands of years who have eaten meat where immoral? And that
D> this new movement in the last 100yrs is far more correct? Of course morals
D> change, but the fact that they are variable should say that there are no
D> real universal truths to these issues. So while it is fine that you don't
D> eat meat, you shouldn't expect others to follow suit (not saying that you
D> were trying to convert anyone... )
D>
D> >> or bought anything leather
D> >
D> >Not for 30 years.
D>
D>
D> I own leather shoes... can't find another material that makes shoes that are
D> reasonably dressy but can survive the harsh weather of -40 prairie winters
D> :)
D>
D> >> >They are equally abusive.
D> >>
D> >> Equally?? Ever met a debarked dog?
D> >> Obviously not if you made that statement.
D> >
D> >And you obviously don't read the posts you respond to because in my
D> >previous post - which you did respond to - I said clearly that I have
D> >seen debarked dogs in US shelters I've been involved with.
D>
D>
D> All of the debarked dogs you seem to have met were in shelters. Obviously if
D> they were given up it was most likely due to thier owners not giving two
D> figs about their dog. Perhaps that explains the dogs behaviour?
D>
D> >> The debarked dogs that I've met constantly have their wagging ^_^
D> >> Of course, a debarked dog who has lazy owners who don't care about them
D> >> won't be happy, but that is not due to the debarking.. but to the lack of
D> >> socialization.
D> >
D> >The fact that a dog has adapted to being surgically modified doesn't
D> >make the modification ethically justifiable. Hitler subjected Jews to
D> >sterilisation and castration procedures. Both sterilisation and
D> >castration are ethical medical procedures to which people adapt, but to
D> >practice those procedures under those circumstances was not ethical.
D> >The same principle applies to debarking.
D>
D>
D> Eep! Not another Hitler reference!! *ducks and runs*
D> This is the second time this week that a AR person from the UK has compared
D> Hitler to <insert some sort of animal issue>. One can not
D> anothropromorphize dogs simply because they are NOT humans.
D>
D> >Far too many people on Usenet scream "flamer" the minute someone posts
D> >disagreeing with them. That isn't flaming and I am not one of those
D> >people. Your post was in no way flaming.
D>
D>
D> Most definately. Glad to see you aren't one of those people :)
D>
D>
D> >Well if you can point me to all the other nations in the world that
D> >routinely debark dogs I'll be more than happy to speak to them too. At
D> >the moment the only people here who are defending it are Americans.
D>
D>
D> Just a quick question... why did you assume that everyone was an AMerican?
D> As you know I'm Canadian, but really from their posts I don't recall any
D> reference to where they lived.
D>
D> >The fact that they're not seen as being right doesn't mean that they are
D> >not right.
D>
D>
D> And the fact that YOU think it's right doesn't make it right either :)
D>
D> -- Danae
D>
D> >PD
D> >
D> >
D>
D>
D>
.. nfx v2.7 [C0000] Love creates hostages to fortune.
RB4LA
>
>>And a lot of other people will tell you that very often that CAN be the
>>case. I have personally seen more than a few dogs in US shelters who
>>can do little more than squeak after being debarked. The shelter
>>workers told me that this is common.
As I understand it there are two different techniques for debarking. One is to
completly remove the vocal cords through and incision in the throat. This
leaves the dog with no bark. I have only seen one dog that was debarked in this
way. It was a shepherd mix that came in for grooming at the shop I worked at.
The dog would bark (it would bark but no sound would come out) non-stop (and I
mean it would never stop) the whole time it was in the shop. The second
technique is to go through the mouth and take a couple of notches out of the
vocal cords. This leaves the dog with a bark that sounds like they have
laryngitis. I have three dogs two of which have been debarked by the second
technique. They are still able to bark but it is quieter. The recovery time is
minimal. All I had to do was keep them quiet for a few days, and they recovered
from the surgery quickly. I can respect the opinion of those that don't like
debarking, but where I live the proceedure is legal and I have no moral qualms
about having my dogs debarked.
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
either there is treatment that works or their isn't
you seem to list both statements as true in each case in the same post
so if you know of a treatment that is widely known and available that
resolves seratonin like addiction how often have lick sores been cured with
it?
Nancy
hillary gorman <hil...@hillary.net> wrote in article snip ignorance
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
real world where people love their pets and don't want to kill or abandon
them.
Nancy
Pussido Domingo <pussido...@catlover.com> wrote in article
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Pussido Domingo <pussido...@catlover.com> wrote in article
>
snip
> A much more preferable means is not to use any of these abusive
> methods. Now just why is it we can do that in the UK but you can't do
> it in the US?
snip
NOBODY in the UK has a leg to stand on when it comes to abusive treatment
of dogs - country wide banning and killing of dogs of certain breeds,
country wide torture of dogs with muzzles and death for the dog if the
owner takes a muzzle off in hot weather to give his dog a drink. Indeed the
citronella collar came from the UK as far as I know. Oh the kind to animals
UK has completely vanished and instead we have AR nutcases who think it
fine to do anything to an entire breed they fear and think excruciating
odor trauma is wonderful.
Nancy
who has met several serious behaviorists from the UK who are pretty good at
helping folks undo all the results of the 'kind' behaviors promoted by
folks such as yourself
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
M.L. <naka...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<75c80s$3...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
snip some truths
>
> For one, the UK generally is better about controlling dog breeding, so
> you're less likely to come up with as many behavior problems as found
here
> in the United States. For two, you can't expect everyone to be well
> educated about raising a dog. It's a little more obvious in the UK. I
> couldn't quite figure out why. But I'd appreciate you stopping your
culture
> bashing.
No its not - the shelters are constantly full over there - they have TONS
and TONS of puppy mills and the behaviorists that I have met from the UK
are citing the exact same problems (though with some wonderfully unique
solutions) as are seen here. Only difference is it might be one breed here
and a different one there. (thinking about the variation in UK dals vs US
dals for an example)
>
> Since when is citronella a bad thing? I've heard of it as ineffective in
> stopping barking, but I've never heard of it being abusive.
Think about how it feels to be hit with a light so bright it gives you a
splitting headache or a sound so loud it makes you feel nauseous - then
think about a dog's olfactory system and a spray of stinky stuff in the
face :-( its not a pretty thought IMO. Just because WE don't find it that
horrid does not mean the dog doesn't!
Nancy
Mike Graham
wrote:
>Well if that ever is the case, the vet should be at fault for performing the
>surgery improperly.
Could you folks leave this argument in the rec.pets.dogs.breeds
group and leave the vet group out of it? It's bad enough we have
local trolls without getting them imported in this thread, especially
when these messages are reaching hundreds of lines long.
Mike Graham, Caledon, Ontario Canada
"mike at headwaters dot com"
Not a vet.
Raiser of horses, goats, chickens, geese, peacocks,
ducks, turkeys and dogs. I also raise cats, and an
inversely proportional number of mice.
hillary gorman
*take your pick either there is no seratonin addiction or there is
*either there is treatment that works or their isn't
I still don't know what you're talking about with respect to this
"serotonin addiction."
*you seem to list both statements as true in each case in the same post
No, I don't. I said that serotonin reuptake inhibitors seem to work. These
drugs do not treat "serotonin addiction." Again, if you have a reference
for an article discussing serotonin addiction, please give me a cite.
*resolves seratonin like addiction how often have lick sores been cured with
Lick granulomas are treated not with SSRIs (like separation anxiety is)
but rather with clomipramine or similar types of drugs. Lick granulomas
are generally considered part of the OCD complex in dogs, not part of a
separation anxiety complex - we're talking about different neurochemical
mechanisms.
Pussido Domingo
> NOBODY in the UK has a leg to stand on when it comes
> to abusive treatment of dogs -
That is a perfectly ridiculous statement. So all those people who spend
their lives rescuing and caring for unwanted dogs are handing out
abusive treatment are they? And all those normal everyday dog owners
are abusing their pets? Do be serious.
And why do you find it necessary to shout? You really should get that
anger under control.
> country wide banning and killing of dogs of certain breeds,
Dear, oh dear, we *are* given to exaggeration to try and win a point
aren't we?
Well, now that you've indulged your fantasy, let me tell you the truth:
I assume that you are talking about The Dangerous Dogs Act? As far as
"country-wide" is concerned, yes, of course it is. We're not like the
US where different states have different laws - all our laws apply to
the entire UK so your attempt to make that sound bad fails miserably.
The Dangerous Dogs Act was brought in by politicians who have no idea
about dogs and was their attempt to stop pig ignorant and irresponsible
people from being able to own powerful dogs which they were not going to
attempt to control. It was brought in after consultation with some of
the behaviourists from the UK who you seem to so admire.
This Act was a kneejerk reaction by a government under pressure from an
anxious public after a spate of extremely nasty attacks by vicious dogs
which caused death and severe injury to a number of people, some of them
children. And I'm not talking about a dog nipping someone here, I'm
talking about people having had half their face ripped off and needing
reconstructive surgery. Our newspapers had a field day with these
incidents and the public became understandably concerned. The result
was The Dangerous Dogs Act which is unjust and unfair, and from the
moment it was brought in people from all walks of life across the UK
have been fighting to have it removed. It is a bad Act, the British
public knows it and the police who have to enforce it are opposed to
it.
If you go to http://fido.k9.co.uk/ncdl/reform.htm you will see that all
the major dog control and welfare organisations from across the UK, the
veterinary bodies, the environmental health agencies, many MPs and a lot
of the British public are working extremely hard to get this Act
reformed. Your claim, therefore, that "NOBODY in the UK has a leg to
stand on when it comes to abusive treatment of dogs" is clearly without
foundation. But I'm sure you knew that when you made it.
http://fido.k9.co.uk/ncdl/index.htm is the National Canine Defence
League's campaign page and gives details of the requirements of the Act.
Country-wide killing of dogs? That is absolute rubbish. The
implication of your phrase "country-wide killing of dogs" is totally
inaccurate and suggests that there is a mass destruction programme going
on across the country, which there most certainly is not.
770 destruction orders have been made under the Act, and they have
caused a public outcry - from precisely the people you claim have "no
leg to stand on". 13 dogs are awaiting destruction having lost their
appeals and 7 are being held by the police without legal proceedings
being pursued against them. Hardly "country-wide killing of dogs"
considering the millions of dogs in the UK.
> torture of dogs with muzzles and death for the dog if the
> owner takes a muzzle off in hot weather to give his dog a drink.
Absolute rubbish again. If you are going to attempt to discuss such
issues you really should research your facts first. Yes, the Act
stipulates that owners of four breeds must keep their dogs muzzled and
kept on a lead in public places, but this does not constitute "torture",
and removal of the muzzle does not automatically sentence the dog to
death.
And I don't know what kind of muzzles you use in the US, but the muzzles
sold in our pet shops allow the dog to drink while wearing them.
> Indeed the citronella collar came from the UK as far as I know.
You may be right, perhaps you could provide some evidence for that?
Personally I have never seen one either for sale or in use by any dog
trainer. And I know quite a few dog trainers.
I've never suggested that we don't have some people who will exploit and
abuse animals, of course we do. Some people will do anything for money
so maybe one of those invented that collar.
> Oh the kind to animals UK has completely vanished
LOL! You really do talk the most unadulterated codswallop!
If the "kind to animals UK has completely vanished" please explain why,
when there are 187,000 registered charities in the UK, the RSPCA, the
PDSA (People's Dispensary for Sick Animals) and the RSPB (Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds) have the 39th, 49th and 53rd highest
incomes of all UK charities - ahead of charities like Christian Aid, The
Royal National Institute for the Deaf and the Multiple Sclerosis
Society, all of which are major UK charities? Please explain why those
three animal charities had a joint income last year of $224 million from
a population of around 50 million people - a per capita contribution
far, far ahead of most British charities? Please explain why they have
joint funds of around $469 million sitting in the bank? Please explain
how the majority of small, independent UK animal shelters have a no kill
policy if it isn't for the enormous support of the British public? How
does the shelter I work for keep every single healthy animal alive, and
how do we give those we can't rehome a home for life without the support
of the public in our area? How did we raise the money to buy the land
for a second shelter without the British people's overwhelming kindness
to animals coming into it? And how would we now be raising another
$250,000 to build purpose-designed premises on that land if the "kind to
animals" British public had vanished?
Actually one of the most common complaints made by many of the "people"
charities is that the British care more about animals than they do about
people. The fact that there are 38 charities ahead of the RSPCA in
terms of income decries this claim of course.
> and instead we have AR nutcases who think it fine
> to do anything to an entire breed they fear and
> think excruciating odor trauma is wonderful.
If you had the faintest idea what you're talking about you would know
that it is precisely those "AR nutcases" who are campaigning the
strongest against The Dangerous Dogs Act and who would probably burn to
the ground any shop that sold citronella collars.
> undo all the results of the 'kind' behaviors promoted by
> folks such as yourself
I feel deeply sorry for anyone who condemns the kind treatment of any
animal. What an unkind and inhumane person you are.
If it wasn't for the fact that some people might actually believe the
crap you spout, you really wouldn't be worth bothering with.
PD
Pussido Domingo
> Once again, I am refering to people who only have no
> real choice BUT to debark or else surrender their dog...
> not the people who want that cute little doggie but
> only if he doesn't bark.
This is a common excuse rolled out by people on the cat groups in
defence of declawing, and people don't accept it over there either. You
*always* have a choice. Many, many cat people have posted to say that
if a prospective landlord demanded they declaw their cat then they chose
not to live in that apartment, that if you care enough about your
cat/dog and look hard enough it is always possible to find somewhere to
live which does not require you to mutilate the animal you claim to
love. What this seems to depend upon is how hard you're prepared to
look, which in turn depends upon just how much you do really love your
pet.
> Well, for one things these apartments that only allow debarked dogs here
> would instead have a no dog policy.
Which is the case in the UK. Hardly any rented accommodation at all in
the UK will allow either cats or dogs - not because the dog might bark
but because landlords assume that animals equal dirt and destruction, so
they ban them entirely.
> And considering in my city there is about a .02% vacancy rate
> a lot of family dogs would have to be surrendered to the shelter.
> Perhaps some dogs that have to be surrendered in the UK
> could have continued to live happily with their family if debarking was
> allowed. Then again I'm totally speculating
No, debarking doesn't come into the equation at all here, in the UK it's
simply a fact that if you live in rented accommodation you don't have a
dog or a cat. There are, of course, occasional exceptions to this.
Many years ago when I rented rather than owned my home I was lucky
enough to find a cat-loving landlord who was perfectly happy for me to
have my cats. Until I found that flat I slept on a friend's living room
floor for five months because I wasn't prepared to give up my cats in
order to find a rented home. I've know many people do that here, but
I've never known anyone give up their pet in order to rent somewhere
that doesn't allow them.
> And I would hope that vets would refuse to perform a surgery that would
> competely leave a dog with no voice.
Well, I've upset the vets here before by saying this, but on all the
evidence I have ever seen most US vets will do anything which makes
money.
> Perhaps I misinterpreted, but in your list of things that one has to do to
> keep your dog completely without a voice after surgery, I thought you stated
> that you can not leave your dog outside. Hence my response was that of
> COURSE you can't leave your dog outside, doing so would be far more abusive
> then the surgery. IMHO of course :)
That wasn't *my* list, it was something posted by someone else. I
posted it as evidence of just how inhumane debarking is. I consider
leaving a dog outside all day to be totally unacceptable.
> What is the reasoning behind crates being cruel aside
> from the fact that HUMANS wouldn't like to be in a crate?
The reasoning behind it is that, much as the behaviourists would like to
claim otherwise and as the dog newsgroups have proved over and over
again, vast numbers of people do not use crates in the way that you
think they do. They lock their dogs in the crates for 8-10 hours each
day while they're at work, let the dog out for a couple of hours in the
evening, and then lock it up again all night. They tell you, almost
with pride, that their crate gives their dog enough room to stand up and
turn round, so what's wrong with that? It's absolutely disgusting, and
if they did that in the UK they'd be prosecuted for animal abuse.
Nobody is denying that a dog is a den animal, but here our dogs are
allowed to choose when they do and do not go into the den (whatever form
it takes), they are never locked into it. Repeatedly and habitually
locking any animal into a confined space is considered to be abusive
here. We housetrain without the use of crates and we leave our dogs in
the house without the use of crates. And we don't have a nation of dogs
that pee all over the house and we don't live in houses which have been
destroyed by untrained dogs. Crates are totally unnecessary. They are,
yet again, an easy fix.
> Anthopromorphism is never a sound arguement
> when discussing dogs.
It's nothing to do with anthropomorphism. It's to do with treating an
animal with decency and humanity.
> Perhaps it is the groups that are involved in North America.
We have extremists too. The Animal Liberation Front would be quite
prepared to kill people. But that doesn't mean that our population tars
all animal rights activists with the same brush. In the main they're
sensible enough to realise that those people are only a tiny minority.
What I find offensive about the way AR is spoken of in the US is that it
is actually most often people who claim to love animals who are the most
condemning of those working for animal rights and who continually use
that condemnation to try to batter down anyone who speaks up for animal
welfare. It's not people who don't like animals, it's those who claim to
care, which makes a complete mockery of their claims. It's hypocritical
and extremely distasteful.
> I *do not* believe that animals have "rights".
> The concept of rights is purely a human one, and the only
> rights that we really do have are the ones that are written
> in our laws.
Well here we part company completely because I think you are totally and
utterly wrong. I believe that every living creature (human and
non-human) has the right to live its life free from fear and free from
pain. I also believe with every ounce of my soul that non-human animals
have the right to live free from exploitation and humiliation by the
human race.
> to join a social movement with as many questional practices as the AR one
> does, for a cause I don't even believe in is just silly! ;)
There are many, many different animal rights organisations, with very
differing policies and viewpoints. They do not, by any means, all
follow the same agenda. There are some I would not support at all, but
there are many I support wholeheartedly. It's a great mistake to
dismiss all AR organisations as being one "social movement".
> However, I do believe in animal welfare.
I think the two are synonymous.
> Why shouldn't people eat animals? We are omiovores.. our
> bodies were made to eat meat.
That doesn't mean that we should or that nowadays we need to.
> But we should insure that the animals being
> slaughtered are done so as painlessly as possible.
But they're not. And every time you buy a piece of meat you are
condoning that fact and are saying that you don't care and that it
doesn't matter.
> Medical research on animals? It is a nececity
> if we want to make many advances to benefit
> humans AND animals in the future.
In the past, but not any more, which is why so many doctors and
scientists are now speaking out against vivisection. In the UK we have
an organisation called "Doctors and Nurses Against Vivisection" and
eminent scientists are now speaking out against the use of animals.
There are now many alternatives to researching on animals, but by using
animals the pharmaceutical companies can make larger profits - and money
is what this comes down to. We use animals because they're cheap, and
because they can't stop us - not because we need to. One of our
scientists was on the radio recently speaking about this, and he said
that in the past he used animals because he needed to, there was no
alternative and he believed it was morally justifiable. He also said
that now there are perfectly viable alternatives to using animals and
the only reason so many animals are still used in research is that they
are cheaper than the alternatives. It's all down to human greed.
> Though animals should be treated with the
> most care and try to be made the most comfortable
> as they can be during such research.
But they're not, and they never have been. In the UK 85% of all
experiments involving animals are conducted without any anaesthetic or
pain relieve whatsoever. I don't know what the figure is for the US,
but I doubt it differs very much.
> I know next to nothing about declawing, so I really have no opinion on that
> :)
It's another appallingly abusive and unnecessary procedure carried out
purely for the convenience of the owner. It's not just removing the
claw, it's cutting through tendons etc. and amputating part of the bones
of the toe. Think of amputating all your fingers up to the first joint
and you've pretty well got it. And it's done because the cat's owner
considers inanimate objects to be more important than a living creature.
British vets consider declawing to be totally unacceptable unless in
cases of medical necessity for the cat. The Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons told me they consider declawing to be "unacceptable, unethical,
unnecessary mutilation". The British Veterinary Association said it is
"not within our ethics. It is unnecessary mutilation and should only be
carried out in cases of medical necessity". Ask a British vet to declaw
and you'd be shown the door. Tell a British cat shelter that you wish
you could declaw your cat and you won't be allowed to adopt.
> These topics are not big over here in the general public aside from the
> dog/cat worlds. From the sounds of it, these sorts of topics are really big
> in the UK (my relatives in england don't have pets so I don't hear about
> these sorts of things).
On the contrary, debarking and declawing aren't an issue at all in the
UK, they're unheard of. We don't do either of them and we never have
because they're both so obviously inhumane that Brits are absolutely
appalled by even the thought of them. If you doubt what I say a search
on Dejanews will provide ample evidence of that. A recent article in
one of our newspapers about declawing caused an enormous reaction
because people were so horrified by it. It finished up on national
television because the British population just couldn't believe that
someone could possibly do that to a cat if they weren't deliberately
trying to abuse it. Even people who aren't cat lovers couldn't believe
it.
> Morally unjustifiable? I'm a vegetarian but not for that reason. I just
> don't like the taste of meat :) Are you suggesting that everyone in the
> last 10s of thousands of years who have eaten meat where immoral?
No, but I'm saying that in the world we live in now it is neither
necessary nor justifiable from either an animal welfare or humanitarian
point of view.
> And that this new movement in the last 100yrs
> is far more correct?
Absolutely.
> So while it is fine that you don't eat meat,
> you shouldn't expect others to follow suit
> (not saying that you were trying to convert anyone... )
I never try to get others to convert, but it's very interesting that
whenever I eat with anyone new I am always expected to explain my
choice. I don't question their eating habits, but as soon as they
realise I'm not eating meat they *always" semi-attack me for mine and
demand that I justify myself. Now why would they need to do that if
they didn't think deep down somewhere that I might be right? Why do
they have this need to challenge my choice if it doesn't threaten them?
No doubt in my mind.
> All of the debarked dogs you seem to have met were in shelters. Obviously if
> they were given up it was most likely due to thier owners not giving two
> figs about their dog. Perhaps that explains the dogs behaviour?
I wasn't talking about the dogs behaviour, I was saying that they'd been
debarked and that they could barely make a squeak. That was the point
at issue, not that they'd been dumped. Though the shelter owners tell
me that vast numbers of debarked dogs *are* dumped, so the debarking in
no way guarantees them keeping their home.
> >The fact that a dog has adapted to being surgically modified doesn't
> >make the modification ethically justifiable. Hitler subjected Jews to
> >sterilisation and castration procedures. Both sterilisation and
> >castration are ethical medical procedures to which people adapt, but to
> >practice those procedures under those circumstances was not ethical.
> >The same principle applies to debarking.
>
> Eep! Not another Hitler reference!! *ducks and runs*
> This is the second time this week that a AR person from the UK has compared
> Hitler to <insert some sort of animal issue>. One can not
> anothropromorphize dogs simply because they are NOT humans.
This has absolutely nothing to do with anthropomorphising, I was
referring to the ethical argument against debarking. My reference
clearly demonstrates that while a certain medical procedure may not, in
itself, be an unethical procedure, the circumstances in which it is
conducted very often can be unethical. Hitler's treatment of the Jews
is a graphic and clear demonstration of that principle.
> Just a quick question... why did you assume that everyone was an AMerican?
> As you know I'm Canadian, but really from their posts I don't recall any
> reference to where they lived.
You can almost always tell from their email addresses. If in doubt I
usually check their ISP's site. When an ISP's home page says "Serving
the people of Texas" or the payments are all specified in dollars,
there's little doubt.
Also, previous experience on these newsgroups has shown that in all the
time I've been reading these groups nobody outside North America has
ever posted to say that debarking is done in their country for anything
other than medical necessity on the part of the dog. People have posted
to say that it isn't, but not that it is. I've searched Dejanews and
I've scoured the internet, but I haven't been able to find evidence of
debarking being done anywhere else.
PD
Pussido Domingo
> No its not - the shelters are constantly full over there -
I don't think anyone has ever suggested otherwise, but the number of
dogs in shelters in proportion to the population is far less than yours,
and the majority of our shelters are No Kill so the number that are
euthanised is even smaller in proportion to the population. Though far
too many *are* euthanised nevertheless.
The only major animal rescue in the UK that euthanises healthy animals
is the RSPCA, which considering they have around $250 million dollars
sitting in the bank is a national disgrace, and I have yet to meet
anyone who works in animal rescue in the UK who doesn't consider the
RSPCA to be a disgrace. I mentioned their name to the manager of our
local wildlife hospital recently and his reaction was to say "Don't you
swear at me!" Our local RSPCA shelter turns people with unwanted cats
away and sends them to our shelter when the RSPCA has space. We know
that for a fact. The police call us out in the night because the RSPCA
refuse to come. Their public relations machine is brilliant, and the
British population believes it, but the reality is very different.
So yes, we have shelters, but the vast majority of those dogs will not
be euthanised simply because they are homeless. The country's two
biggest dog shelters, Battersea Dogs Home and the National Canine
Defence League (which has shelters all around the country) pride
themselves on never putting a healthy dog to sleep. We have three
small, independent dog shelters in the area where I live and they never
put a healthy animal to sleep either. So to imply that our problem is
anywhere near the scale of yours is an outright lie.
> they have TONS and TONS of puppy mills
Yes we have puppy farms, but to use the phrase "tons and tons" is
deliberately misleading. You seem given to vast overexaggeration.
Please clarify what you mean by TONS in numbers.
I would, of course, agree 100% that one puppy farm is one too many,
which is why the entire animal welfare community is working extremely
hard to close them down and several *have* been closed down. The puppy
farms in the UK tend to be mainly in Wales, and they are getting so much
adverse publicity that most people are now aware of them. The
television coverage of this issue is such that the average man in the
street is now aware of what goes on in puppy farms and a large
proportion are extremely careful not to buy puppies from them. That
people have bought from them at all is down to ignorance of their
existence. Those of us working to close these puppy farms are finding
enormous support from the British public.
> and the behaviorists that I have met from the UK
> are citing the exact same problems (though with some wonderfully unique
> solutions) as are seen here. Only difference is it might be one breed here
> and a different one there. (thinking about the variation in UK dals vs US
> dals for an example)
We certainly have problems with breeding tactics and techniques, but
that has nothing at all to do with what we were discussing, i.e. the
ethics of mutilating an animal for the convenience of the owner. You
seem to be deliberately going off at a tangent to divert attention away
from that issue. What some British breeders get up to is appalling and
I would never suggest otherwise, but then some people will do anything
for money, and the fact that some breeders are unscrupulous is no
justification for debarking.
PD
Pussido Domingo
>
> Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin wrote in message
> <01be2a27$b5722380$eaf8...@fmkaffen.ix.netcom.com>...
> >
> >No its not - the shelters are constantly full over there - they have TONS
> >and TONS of puppy mills ...
> Was unaware of that... I certainly didn't get that impression.
Probably because the impression this person is deliberately creating is
inaccurate. I've answered these points in my response to her if you're
interested.
PD
Deborah
rest of the message.
Pussido Domingo wrote in message
> Crates are totally unnecessary. They are,
>yet again, an easy fix.
>
I used to think that it wasn't necessary to crate train dogs, but I've
changed my mind. Two reasons: my parent's had a dog which had to have knee
surgery. It was critical that after surgery she be confined for 6-8 weeks,
cage rest only, in order that she not severly injure her knee post
operatively. She was 4 years old and had never been confined. I bought
her a very large kennel. We started out putting her in it for 5-10 minutes
at a time, she objected strongly each time. The one time I decided to leave
her alone for 15 min to see how she'd do (thinking of course that once we
were all gone she'd settle), I came back to find that she had a bloody nose
and had ripped two nails out trying to claw her way out of the kennel. And
she was only alone for 15 minutes! We had to give up trying to confine her.
Her post-operative recovery was really threatened by our inability to keep
her in a crate. We were lucky enough, or I should say she was lucky enough,
that despite minimal confinement her knee repair stayed intact. But if we
had crate trained her as a puppy she would have seen the kennel as a safe
place, not a prison.
So I don't think you can say crates aren't necessary.
The second thing also has to do with dogs self-mutilating rather than
tolerate confinement. I live in Hawaii. Guess what, lots of people bring
their dogs on and off this island. Guess what, it's an island. Travel
requires a crate/kennel. I've had to dope up several dogs with high levels
of tranquilizers so that they could travel to California without doing
themselves bodily harm. Something that most of the time could have been
avoided if those same dogs had been crate trained.
I agree that it is cruel to force a dog to live the majority of its life in
a crate, but to say that crates are "totally unnecessary" is really pushing
it.
Now re: animals in research, PD wrote:
>But they're not, and they never have been. In the UK 85% of all
>experiments involving animals are conducted without any anaesthetic or
>pain relieve whatsoever. I don't know what the figure is for the US,
>but I doubt it differs very much.
>
That's absolutely horrifying if your statistic for the UK is true. It is
absolutely NOT true for the U.S. Most research is done at major hospitals
or universities. The vast majority of those are accredited, which means
they have to follow certain guidelines. There are committees at these
institutions which provide strict strict strict control over all animal
research. These committees (IACUC...institutional animal care and use
committees) have veterinarians, doctors, lawyers, and at a minimum one
layperson who is usually a clergymember as members. All animal research
protocols have to be reviewed and approved by the IACUC. I know several lab
animal vets, and I guarantee that no protocol which did not provide
adequately for anesthesia/analgesia would NEVER be approved.
I am sure that there is the odd person out there conducting unapproved
research on animals, and not using adequate pain management. But I am also
quite sure that the figure is nowhere near 85%. It's no wonder the UK
doesn't want to use animals in research if none of them get anesthetics or
analgesics!
Deborah
Pussido Domingo
> I agree that it is cruel to force a dog to live the majority of its life in
> a crate, but to say that crates are "totally unnecessary" is really pushing
> it.
Sorry, I wasn't including the need to confine dogs for medical reasons
or travel in that, and I thought that would be apparent, but obviously
it wasn't. I was referring to the routine crating of dogs that we see
discussed on these newsgroups with regularity.
However I still dispute that it's necessary to crate train a dog in
order to confine it for either of these reasons. Very few dogs in the
UK are crate trained, but they're not all ripping themselves apart after
surgery and they all go into travel crates if we need them to. We seem
to be able to keep them confined when necessary for either of these
reasons without the dog refusing the situation. A well trained dog will
go into a confined space and "Stay" when told to whether crate trained
or not. They do it all the time over here.
> That's absolutely horrifying if your statistic for the UK is true.
I agree.
> It is absolutely NOT true for the U.S.
I'm very pleased to hear it, but how do you really know that?
> Most research is done at major hospitals
> or universities....
And everything you say is exactly the same here. We have very strict
rules as to what you can and can't do, and all experimentation has to be
approved, but what most people don't realise is how many scientists
manage to use technical loopholes to get round the rules.
If you stopped the average man in the street here and asked him how many
experiments are done without anaesthetic he would say very few. The
propoganda is such that the public believes the law gives animals
protection. It doesn't.
I don't mean to be rude, but when we already know that the UK
legislation generally protects animals better than US legislation does,
I find it very hard to believe that the US differs in the case of animal
experimentation.
> I am sure that there is the odd person out there conducting unapproved
> research on animals, and not using adequate pain management. But I am also
> quite sure that the figure is nowhere near 85%.
Well could you please find out what the figure is in the US and post it
here, because I'd be very interested to know.
Tell me what happens in the US when the scientist claims that the animal
needs to be fully conscious and undrugged for the results of the
experiment to be valid? And tell me how many thousands of these
experiments are done each year? What percentage are they of the total
number of experiments conducted? Our scientists use this excuse all the
time and I seriously doubt that yours are any different. I'm not saying
that what the scientists say isn't true, maybe the experiment would be
invalid if the animal was drugged. What I'm saying is that I think
you'd probably be horrified if you knew how often this happens.
You see the figures are often massaged and scientists always say that
it's 85% here because only 15% of experiments need pain management. Yet
if you actually investigate the experiments that are being done without
anaesthetic you find that the scientists' definitions of what does and
doesn't count as pain is not at all what your or I would say. This is
how they get round the law. I may be completely wrong, but I doubt very
much that the US is different and I suspect your citizens are probably
as unaware as ours what the real truth is. Proctor and Gamble is one of
the biggest offenders here and I would put money on the fact that they
operate in the US exactly as they operate here.
The politicians and scientists tell us that the law protects the animals
and that they follow the law to the letter, and we believe them. Only
when you start digging do you discover it's completely untrue. Are you
saying what you've said here because people have told you this is true,
or because you have personally investigated it, read the research
studies, and analysed the experimentation and the anaesthetics/analgesic
prescribed and personally found them to be sufficient?
You must have some anti-vivisection organisations in the US, why don't
you ask them? They're the ones who'll have the facts and figures. Ours
have the printed research studies of thousands of experiments, along
with the research notes which normally don't get published but have been
passed to them by concerned lab workers. It is those lab notes which
usually tell the truth about what the animals actually went through.
The published studies conveniently omit a lot of the details, and
omission isn't lying and it doesn't change the results, so they can do
that.
> It's no wonder the UK doesn't want to use animals in
> research if none of them get anesthetics or
> analgesics!
Well actually the average British citizen is completely ignorant of
those figures. They don't want research done because they believe it's
morally wrong, not because they know what's really going on. This is
why all the anti-vivisection organisations are trying so hard to
publicise the truth, people just have no idea.
PD
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Pussido Domingo <pussido...@catlover.com> wrote in article
<367AC309...@catlover.com>...
snip a lot of support for the inhumane muzzling of dogs ignorance of what
is happening in the UK and other such bushwa
Dangerous dog act - AR supported and upheld in GB
Citronella Collars - from the UK and supported by many UK behaviorists =
massive nasal torture to dogs
Death of dogs for their mere existence - the UK's 'humanitarian' views on
animals.
Lists of lots of cash 'sitting in the bank' that has been donated to humane
organizations - uh huh and how much good exactly does it do in the bank?
List of the tons of humane associations needed to cope with production of
unwanted animals by BYB and puppy mills in the UK - uh huh and your point
is?
Nancy
who finds debarking an acceptable and ethical alternative to death and
abandonment and perhaps life imprisonment in one of the UK 'no kill'
shelters
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Pussido Domingo <pussido...@catlover.com> wrote in article
<367ACC0E...@catlover.com>...
snip foolishness
I think you have no clues at all about debarking. I think you are so
ignorant about the things going on in your own country that your business
in bashing other folks behavior is not rational.
As for your AR stances they are pitiful and I suspect that much of your
'morals' would go right down the tubes as soon as serious hunger hit or as
soon as your specific animal was going to be killed if it did not shut up.
Nancy
Elizabeth
>>Well I find it very strange that when everything else anyone says on a
>>newsgroup is leapt upon, dissected and immediately contradicted, nobody
>>posted a single message in response to that post to contradict it. No
>>dog owner and no vet. Maybe methods vary?
>
>
>That is definately a possiblity. We both seem to have very different
>experience in the debarking issue.
large snip
Our semi local Vet who is the most well known in the area for
debarking, and who by now I am sure has done many thousands,
apparently does them all the same way. I could ask him for particulars
maybe if anyone is interested. However, it takes as I have said before
only less than 30 seconds after the dog is asleep and 20 mins to wake
up, just water for the rest of that day, soft food the next day and
after that back to normal. This is every dog he does. Now about which
dogs end up with a bark and which do not. I have had several dogs
which had been debarked - one of my own and afew I took for elderly
friends, and some other I inherited. It "seems" to me that dogs which
are debarked later in life, retain less bark than those done earlier.
As I have said on other threads, my really talkative dog, who was the
one I personally took at about 9 mos. has quite a bark but very low
key compared to before and since I like talkative dogs we still have
our conversations but nothing that would annoy others. A Sheltie whom
I inherited as a debarked dog, also done very early, also had quite a
bark left but also low key and gruff sounding. All the dogs I have
owned or seen who were debarked later in life, have retained less of a
bark. I believe that they were all done by the Vet I mentioned earlier
since he is extremely well known and other vets send their customers
to him for the process. All the dogs I mention here were breeds well
known for their barking abilities <G> and I have never seen or even
heard of dogs who appeared to have any response at all to the
debarking procedure. I tend to think it is another of those tales that
one hears about when dogs are stripped at the groomers and hide under
the bed for a week after returning home. I believe it was not the
stripping of fur but the actual trip to the groomers, a long time on
the table etc. which unnerved the animal and had nothing to do with
looking different. And probably if the animal needed to be stripped in
the first place it had not been trained to stand nicely when groomed
and so grooming itself was the problem. Few dogs like a trip to the
vet even if nothing at all is done. Unless I see a dog before and
after debarking firsthand with a definite change in attitude I shall
never believe that it has any more effect on them than spaying or
neutering or nail clipping does. In fact much less I think. And I have
personally seen, known and owned, many debarked dogs. I also know of
kennels with almost all the dogs debarked and a happier bunch one
could not wish to see. And I repeat, the ONLY problem I have ever seen
with debarked dogs, was the fact that they missed dinner that first
night!
Liz
Pussido Domingo
<absolutely nothing of any truth or substance>
I now understand why so many people on these groups consider you to be a
fool.
PD
Pussido Domingo
Because you clearly wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the bum :-)
PD
Chris Kosmakos
: I have personally seen more than a few dogs in US shelters who
: can do little more than squeak after being debarked. The shelter
: workers told me that this is common.
I sincerely doubt that. I was involved with breed rescue with a
very barky breed for over a decade and have worked in 3 shelters in
3 different states, and currently visit 3-4 shelters a week. Over
30 years, I've seen probably less than a dozen debarked dogs in
shelters. I can easily find a dozen debarked dogs on any given day
at any good-sized dog show, OTOH.
The kind of owners who have a dog debarked as a last ditch effort
to avoid giving it up are not the kind of people who dump dogs at
shelters. Sorry, but I just don't believe you.
Lynn K.
Jen
>
> Pussido Domingo (pussido...@catlover.com) wrote:
>
> : I have personally seen more than a few dogs in US shelters who
> : can do little more than squeak after being debarked. The shelter
> : workers told me that this is common.
>
> very barky breed for over a decade and have worked in 3 shelters in
> 3 different states, and currently visit 3-4 shelters a week. Over
> 30 years, I've seen probably less than a dozen debarked dogs in
> shelters. I can easily find a dozen debarked dogs on any given day
> at any good-sized dog show, OTOH.
>
> The kind of owners who have a dog debarked as a last ditch effort
> to avoid giving it up are not the kind of people who dump dogs at
> shelters. Sorry, but I just don't believe you.
>
> Lynn K.
>
I'm not going to get into a flame war, but I adopted a Lhasa Apso from a
local shelter last February who was de-barked. All that comes out when
he barks now is an extremely faint air/hoarse sound. He is a gem of a
dog and I can't imagine how he ended up in a shelter.
Just pointing out a personal experience,
Jen :-)
CFIDS/ME Site
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/5762/
Walk on the Web
http://www.munn.com/~jmunn/
"The biggest thing, is that I can be in this situation and still love
life as much as I do. Life is great. Sometimes, though, you just have to
put up with a little more crap." -Michael J. Fox
Jen
>
> Danae wrote:
>
> > The point of debarking is *NOT* to remove a bark permenantly. It is to turn
> > the volume down a bit. I would be opposed to a debarking too if it meant
> > permenant loss of bark. However, as I know several debarked dogs at my
> > grandmothers seniors complex, I know that is defiantely NOT the case.
>
> And a lot of other people will tell you that very often that CAN be the
> case. I have personally seen more than a few dogs in US shelters who
> can do little more than squeak after being debarked. The shelter
> workers told me that this is common.
This is exactly the case with my dog. I adopted him back in February.
When he does do the RARE "bark" I usually hear a hoarse air sound and
nothing more. One time I heard a tiny squeak.
What's horrible is that I've accidently hurt him a couple of times and I
didn't know it except for the fact that he was trying to pull his tail
out from under my clumsy foot or made some other desperate movements. He
can't make a whimper. It breaks my heart and puts him at danger for
untreated health problems. He is able to communicate with me in
nonverbal ways to tell me he has to go out or that he wants food, etc,
but it took us a while to get a little system down. Maybe the fact that
he couldn't ask to go outside to poop put him in the shelter in the
first place. Wouldn't that be a sad irony.
> > I would think debarking is a much more preferable means of
> > quieting this unwanted barker rather then harsh methods such as shock
> > collars and citronella collars which wouldn't stop the barking but would
> > perhaps turn the dog into a fearful animal.
I don't think it is preferable. A dog is a living being whose life is as
changing as a human's. I now have a great lovable lush of a dog who
tries to bark to protect me when someone comes to the front door. His
former owners gave him up (or lost him maybe) for whatever reason, but
their decision to de-bark him has changed his life permanently...
forever. I would've had no problem with a barking dog. His quality of
life has been damaged as a result. The fact that he cannot bark to
protect an owner could have kept him from being adopted from the shelter
resulting in a possible death sentence!
>
> A much more preferable means is not to use any of these abusive
> methods. Now just why is it we can do that in the UK but you can't do
> it in the US?
Please don't group all Americans together as abusive pet owners.
> > Debarking benefits the dog if the other option is death.
Why does that even have to be one of the options? I would've taken my
dog from his former owner if they had offered him to me prior to
de-barking. Problem solved.
> Again I ask you, how come we're capable of doing it and you're not?
Please don't lump us all together. I'd say generally that we Americans
do love our pets just as much as those across the pond. :-)
> > Of course, a debarked dog who has lazy owners who don't care about them
> > won't be happy, but that is not due to the debarking.. but to the lack of
> > socialization.
My dog seems happy but how would I really know sometimes if he's unable
to 'tell' me if he ISN'T happy? That is what is upsetting for me. Most
people (all over the world) have an attitude that we rule the whole
animal kingdom and can do with it what we please. It's going to bite us
in the ass eventually.
Jen
> > I *do not* believe that animals have "rights".
> > The concept of rights is purely a human one, and the only
> > rights that we really do have are the ones that are written
> > in our laws.
This statement really makes no sense if you really read it. Does this
mean that a human living in a dictatorship doesn't have rights just
because they aren't written into law? If you just replaced a few words
you would be repeating what slaveowners said about slaves here in
America. They felt "rights" were a white concept. Just thought I'd add a
little side that you may not be seeing.
Twzl, Sligo and Roy Happy Together
>This is exactly the case with my dog. I adopted him back in February.
>When he does do the RARE "bark" I usually hear a hoarse air sound and
>nothing more. One time I heard a tiny squeak.
And he may or may not have been de-barked. Absent a thorough vet exam, who
knows!
>What's horrible is that I've accidently hurt him a couple of times and I
>didn't know it except for the fact that he was trying to pull his tail
>out from under my clumsy foot or made some other desperate movements. He
If he could bark, you would still step on him. Part of having a small dog
is learning to always, always watch your step. If you wait till he barks,
it's too late! :)
>forever. I would've had no problem with a barking dog. His quality of
>life has been damaged as a result. The fact that he cannot bark to
>protect an owner could have kept him from being adopted from the shelter
>resulting in a possible death sentence!
Umm....let me guess...you do not live in an apartment. people who do, and
who have noisy dogs, often wind up either de-barking them or finding them
new homes. It's pretty easy to sit there with a dog who can't bark, and
tell us how horrible it is, and how anyone who does this to a dog is evil.
I know people who have racked up hundreds of dollars in summonses and even
been threatened by their neighbors, all because their damned dog wouldn't
stop barking. And before you tell me "oh they can be trained not to bark",
one of these dogs has a UD. I think that if it would be possible to teach
this dog to NOT bark, his owner would have figured it out by now.
Some dogs, and some breeds live to bark. My dogs can go days with no more
than a woof. But I certainly know that some dogs are not like this!
>> > Debarking benefits the dog if the other option is death.
>Why does that even have to be one of the options? I would've taken my
>dog from his former owner if they had offered him to me prior to
>de-barking. Problem solved.
You know, if my dogs and I lived in a situation where they couldn't bark,
and they lived to bark, why would I want to give them to you??? Because
you'd let them bark to their heart's content? OK...so we know you don't
live in an apartment...but I also hope you don't live in a suburb close to
a neighbor with a night job!
>My dog seems happy but how would I really know sometimes if he's unable
>to 'tell' me if he ISN'T happy? That is what is upsetting for me. Most
If you have to rely on barking to tell you what's up in your dog's life,
you may want to spend a bit more time observing dogs and learning about
dog behavior! Some dogs just don't bark much. I can't tell you how many
times I have had friends come to my door, and laugh at my dogs...they
don't bark, they just wag their tails. They say that barking is for
simpletons...
Before you decide that all people who debark dogs are evil and should
never be allowed to own dogs, and that only you are the true savior of
dogdom, why not try owning say a Sheltie. In an apartment. Then report
back to us, ok? Thanks.
Ann, Twzl, Sligo and Roy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
" But I forget you are from New York, right. Not an area of Menses candidates."
Carole Ernst, talking about me...
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
caring for animals.
Nancy
Pussido Domingo <pussido...@catlover.com> wrote in article
snip typical troll talk
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Pussido Domingo <pussido...@catlover.com> wrote in article
<367BE7BC...@catlover.com>...
>snip more troll talk
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
suburban and urban mills of small dogs debark them so the neighbors cannot
tell how many are living there.
Enter any dog shelter and you will quickly see the vast majority are not
debarked!
Sounds like your dog was 'overdone' and if it is an ex mill dog its just as
likely that no vet did the procedure :-(
Nancy
Jen <j...@munn.com> wrote in article <367D9881...@munn.com>...
> Chris Kosmakos wrote:
> >
> > Pussido Domingo (pussido...@catlover.com) wrote:
> >
> > : I have personally seen more than a few dogs in US shelters who
> > : can do little more than squeak after being debarked. The shelter
> > : workers told me that this is common.
> >
> > I sincerely doubt that. I was involved with breed rescue with a
> > very barky breed for over a decade and have worked in 3 shelters in
> > 3 different states, and currently visit 3-4 shelters a week. Over
> > 30 years, I've seen probably less than a dozen debarked dogs in
> > shelters. I can easily find a dozen debarked dogs on any given day
> > at any good-sized dog show, OTOH.
> >
> > The kind of owners who have a dog debarked as a last ditch effort
> > to avoid giving it up are not the kind of people who dump dogs at
> > shelters. Sorry, but I just don't believe you.
> >
> > Lynn K.
> >
>
> I'm not going to get into a flame war, but I adopted a Lhasa Apso from a
> local shelter last February who was de-barked. All that comes out when
> he barks now is an extremely faint air/hoarse sound. He is a gem of a
> dog and I can't imagine how he ended up in a shelter.
>
> Just pointing out a personal experience,
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Twzl, Sligo and Roy Happy Together <alg...@panix.com> wrote in article
<75k0k1$8...@panix3.panix.com>...
> snip
> If he could bark, you would still step on him. Part of having a small dog
> is learning to always, always watch your step. If you wait till he barks,
> it's too late! :)
No No No Ann :-) you have that all backwards part of having a large dog is
tripping over or stepping on it or having to hip check it to move it aside
part of having a small dog is their speed in getting out of your way :-)
Nancy
known hazard to small dogs who all move quite quickly thanks :-)
Jennifer M. Coyer
favorable thing, not just for the owner, but also for the benefit of the
dog. It should not exceed too many hours of the day. And honestly, since
dogs are DEN animals, this is NOT torture to them. All of my dogs actually
feel more secure sleeping in their crates and happily go in when I'm leaving
the house. I wonder if Pussido even has a dog....
J.Coyer CVT
Deborah wrote in message <367b1...@news.hawaii.rr.com>...
>I had to respond to two things here, I'm just biting my tongue about all
the
>rest of the message.
>
>
>Pussido Domingo wrote in message
>> Crates are totally unnecessary. They are,
>>yet again, an easy fix.
>>
>
>I agree that it is cruel to force a dog to live the majority of its life in
>a crate, but to say that crates are "totally unnecessary" is really pushing
>it.
>
>
>
>Now re: animals in research, PD wrote:
>
>>But they're not, and they never have been. In the UK 85% of all
>>experiments involving animals are conducted without any anaesthetic or
>>pain relieve whatsoever. I don't know what the figure is for the US,
>>but I doubt it differs very much.
>>
>
>That's absolutely horrifying if your statistic for the UK is true. It is
>absolutely NOT true for the U.S. Most research is done at major hospitals
>or universities. The vast majority of those are accredited, which means
>they have to follow certain guidelines. There are committees at these
>institutions which provide strict strict strict control over all animal
>research. These committees (IACUC...institutional animal care and use
>committees) have veterinarians, doctors, lawyers, and at a minimum one
>layperson who is usually a clergymember as members. All animal research
>protocols have to be reviewed and approved by the IACUC. I know several
lab
>animal vets, and I guarantee that no protocol which did not provide
>adequately for anesthesia/analgesia would NEVER be approved.
>
>I am sure that there is the odd person out there conducting unapproved
>research on animals, and not using adequate pain management. But I am also
>quite sure that the figure is nowhere near 85%. It's no wonder the UK
>doesn't want to use animals in research if none of them get anesthetics or
>analgesics!
>
>Deborah
>
>
>
Pussido Domingo
> caring for animals.
Uh huh. Disagree with Nancy = Troll.
Whatever you say Nancy dear, whatever you say....
PD
Pussido Domingo
> : I have personally seen more than a few dogs in US shelters who
> : can do little more than squeak after being debarked. The shelter
> : workers told me that this is common.
>
I don't care whether you believe me or not, what I said is the truth.
But I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying anyway. I wasn't
saying that the shelter workers were saying debarked dogs are
particularly common in shelters (though there's been at least one in
every shelter I've ever visited), I was saying that they told me that
debarked dogs being reduced to a rasp or squeak was common, that a lot
of the debarked dogs who do go through the shelters are like this. I've
had a couple of vets tell me the same thing off the record.
Whether you believe them or not is up to you.
PD
elsbe...@my-dejanews.com
Liz
In article <01be2c8b$6f27ace0$43d8...@fmkaffen.ix.netcom.com>,
--
Please do not blame anyone else for the opinions expressed here.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
kennel cough in every shelter - that would be far more believable and would
produce the 'squeak' you comment on which does not exist in debarked dogs -
its always been at worst a hoarse 'whisper' .
Nancy
Pussido Domingo <pussido...@catlover.com> wrote in article
ka...@delphi.com
>> If he could bark, you would still step on him. Part of having a small dog
>> is learning to always, always watch your step. If you wait till he barks,
>> it's too late! :)
>No No No Ann :-) you have that all backwards part of having a large dog is
>tripping over or stepping on it or having to hip check it to move it aside
>part of having a small dog is their speed in getting out of your way :-)
I particularly like the "lie down directly behind the person's
ankles as they chop vegetables or wash dishes" technique.
Usually done stealthily -- step back at your peril!
.
I seldom have to worry about a dog in front of me
or behind me -- it's the one directly on my heels that
trips me up the most when I do a sudden u-turn!
.
akssa
Jen
>
> Jen - I would suspect your dog to be an 'ex' mill breeder - many of the
> suburban and urban mills of small dogs debark them so the neighbors cannot
> tell how many are living there.
> Enter any dog shelter and you will quickly see the vast majority are not
> debarked!
> Sounds like your dog was 'overdone' and if it is an ex mill dog its just as
> likely that no vet did the procedure :-(
> Nancy
>
Sounds horrible! :-( Thanks for the info though. I absolutely agree that
the vast majority of dogs in shelters are not debarked. It's usually
deafening in there! :-)
Happy Holidays,
Jen
Long Island NY
j...@munn.com
CFIDS/ME SITE http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/5762/
WALK ON THE WEB http://www.munn.com/~jmunn/
Jen
>
> In <367D9E76...@munn.com> Jen <j...@munn.com> writes:
>
> >This is exactly the case with my dog. I adopted him back in February.
> >When he does do the RARE "bark" I usually hear a hoarse air sound and
> >nothing more. One time I heard a tiny squeak.
>
> And he may or may not have been de-barked. Absent a thorough vet exam, who
> knows!
because we thought maybe he had some illness or something. It is
confirmed that he was de-barked.
> If he could bark, you would still step on him. Part of having a small dog
> is learning to always, always watch your step. If you wait till he barks,
> it's too late! :)
Yes, but if he could make a noise I would be less likely to continue
hurting him. I've had small dogs all my life. Of course, my example did
not cover every possible situation but whatever.
> Umm....let me guess...you do not live in an apartment. people who do, and
> who have noisy dogs, often wind up either de-barking them or finding them
> new homes. It's pretty easy to sit there with a dog who can't bark, and
> tell us how horrible it is, and how anyone who does this to a dog is evil.
Gimmie a break. I never even insinuated that people who de-bark dogs are
evil. Since it's not illegal (yet) I don't feel it's worth getting in a
dramatic argument over it... but you obviously feel it is.
> I know people who have racked up hundreds of dollars in summonses and even
> been threatened by their neighbors, all because their damned dog wouldn't
> stop barking. And before you tell me "oh they can be trained not to bark",
> one of these dogs has a UD.
If you cannot have a dog... don't get one! Anyway, why would I bother
telling you anything? You already know everything about me and exactly
what I would say. LOL!
> If you have to rely on barking to tell you what's up in your dog's life,
> you may want to spend a bit more time observing dogs and learning about
> dog behavior! Some dogs just don't bark much. I can't tell you how many
> times I have had friends come to my door, and laugh at my dogs...they
> don't bark, they just wag their tails. They say that barking is for
> simpletons...
LOL! That's right, I'M the simpleton. I have a feeling that anyone who
may not agree with you is a simpleton.
> Before you decide that all people who debark dogs are evil and should
> never be allowed to own dogs, and that only you are the true savior of
> dogdom, why not try owning say a Sheltie. In an apartment. Then report
> back to us, ok? Thanks.
LOL! You must be really confusing me with another poster here. I would
never say anything of the sort. If you must start blasting people, be
sure you have the right person, ok?