Debarking? - Page 2

[rhubarbarin]

I feel fine about debarking too, and am considering it for one of my dogs.

Look at it this way - if you have a nuisance barker, and live somewhere it's not an option to just let him out in the yard to yap (in my book, anywhere other people can hear it) - what is the lesser evil? My dog is currently wearing a citronella bark collar when I'm not home (he is trained not to bark on command, but when he is bored and I'm gone goes nuts - and my apartment is above a business and has thin walls) and he really doesn't like it. I think he would rather be able to bark when he wants with reduced volume and force.

Unlike declawing cats, debarking has no health effects.

[SevenVeils]

I agree. I don't see debarking as anywhere in the same universe as declawing. I would see it as more similar to applying Softpaws to a cat. It's a somewhat uncomfortable process for the dog, but there is no real recovery time, it is a very noninvasive process (as far as medical procedures go, of course), and it makes a dog more family-friendly.

I've only had to use it once, but the dog was much happier without my constant prohibiting of his barking. He was getting extremely stressed and showing symptoms of such, and it all disappeared as soon as he was debarked, and able to bark his foolish head off as much as he wanted to.

[Frogmorest]

My rough collie breeder who breeds champion after champion and has for 25 years, debarks almost every dog. Now I probably won't debark Bella as she's not a huge barker and I really do like the sound of it, but if/when we decide to have more collies in our home I probably will.

Almost ALL shelties I have ever met were debarked as well.

[North_Of_60]

An older thread, I know, but I just have to add that in regards to debarking being similar to declawing a cat (which I don't agree with at all), declawing is actually the surgical removal (amputation) of the cat's last digit in their paw. It is a PAINFUL procedure and has a long recovery process. It is actually very invasive and quite a major operation when you consider that they are actually amputating EIGHT - SIXTEEN toes!

And cats who have been declawed almost always end up suffering some sort of degenerative condition in their foot/leg, which can also lead to difficulties urinating in a litter box (the displacement of their paws in the litter is painful, so they associate pain with litter and stop using the box all together).

If I were ever forced to consider declawing to keep one of my cats, I would probably choose humane euthanasia over declawing. And I would never take a cat who has been declawed because vet bills in the future are probably inevitable.

Debarking does not carry the same long term health and pain risks. The initial procedure is much less painful, as is the recovery period. The dog can still function 100% the same after the procedure as before. In other words, it's not debilitating in any way.

[Piglet68]

I guess I don't understand why someone would want to have a dog that is known to be a barker if they live in an area where that would be a problem. And debarking seems a crazy way to deal with what is apparently an unwanted breed trait. Wouldn't it be better to just breed it out of them?

Any surgery is a risk, and pain is a factor whether it's temporary or not (kind of like the circumcision argument that the babies forget).

I realize the OP is not getting a dog debarked, but why then search for a Sheltie when they are known barkers and you don't want a barker?

[North_Of_60]

In the context of "why get a dog that is a known barker if you can't/won't tolerate it, or if you live where barking is a nuisance", I agree. I don't really care if it's the norm among breeders. If you live in a town house, don't pick a dog that is a KNOWN barker. Duh.

HOWEVER, sometimes circumstances change, dogs change, or problems arise where dealing with a nuisance barker suddenly becomes an issue. Or not necessarily suddenly, but where it wasn't a problem before it is now. The options are training, 100% supervision, a citronella collar, a bark collar, debarking, rehoming, and euthanasia. When owners find themselves in a situation where barking becomes a deal breaker, debarking is a very realistic and humane option compared to some of the other choices. Especially with the economy such as it is where homeless dogs are at an all time high making the option to rehome, especially a dog with a known vice (the barking), next to impossible.

So that leaves humane euthanasia, or bark collars. Citronella collars are a great option if they work, but many dogs figure out quickly that they can bark, bark, bark, BARK and empty the can really quick, and then carry on barking without any repercussions. It took my jack russell (who, by the way, is not debarked) all of 10 minutes to figure that out. And electronic bark collars are, in my opinion, much worse than a one time procedure, and far more risky. They carry the possibility of shorting out or malfunctioning (most come equipped with a safety option where they shut off after so many barks and reset so they don't hurt the dog). My recommendation would be to never leave it on the dog unsupervised, which pretty much negates the point of using it on a nuisance barker. And, they cause sensations (I wouldn't say painful, because I've tried them and they don't hurt, per se, but when compared to debarking it is a sensation every time as a correction, versus no sensation) everytime they go off. So when weighed against a one time, day-surgery with a short recovery, or depending on an electronic bark collar for the the rest of the dogs life, I'd absolutely suggest debarking.

Plus, bark collars are known to contribute to behavioral issues because they prohibit the dog from barking at all, where as debarking does not. Barking is a form of communication and is essential for maintaining a healthy temperament.

Over all, if a person finds themselves with a dog that is a nuisance barker, I don't think they should rule out debarking as a humane alternative. But, I DON'T think debarking should be an option simply so people can get breeds that are not well suited to their living conditions. Does that make sense?

[cyncyn]

I would check that the breeder is using a vet to do their debarking. At a recent rescue dog orientation (where several of the dogs were debarked) we were told that to save money some breeder debark their dogs by shoving a metal pipe down the throat and damaging the vocal cords that way. That seems way too cruel to me. I would not personally debark a dog, declaw a cat or dock a tail or ears, but that wouldn't keep me from taking a pet that had been through it if it was a good pet for us and had received vet care.

Our last dog was a bit of a barker, but we minimized the situations that caused her to bark and that worked for us okay.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by cyncyn

I would not personally debark a dog, declaw a cat or dock a tail or ears, but that wouldn't keep me from taking a pet that had been through it if it was a good pet for us and had received vet care.

I actually CHOOSE to have both my JRT pups tails docked. Docking and cropping ears, in SOME instances, goes beyond cosmetic reasons. Docking my dog's tails greatly reduces the chances of them being broken, or causing them to get stuck down a hole.

I do (or did until I had my daughter ) go-to-ground stuff with my dogs, and backing out a hole is where dogs with full tails run into problems. I've actually had to dig out dogs who couldn't back out of a hole because of their tail.

And in some breeds, ear cropping was a way to reduce infection and reduce the chance that they could be bitten. This is less of a problem now a days where ear drying remedies are more prevalent, but I don't like to perpetuate the notion that docking/cropping is STRICTLY cosmetic, because it's not.

[cyncyn]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

I actually CHOOSE to have both my JRT pups tails docked. Docking and cropping ears, in SOME instances, goes beyond cosmetic reasons. Docking my dog's tails greatly reduces the chances of them being broken, or causing them to get stuck down a hole.

I do (or did until I had my daughter ) go-to-ground stuff with my dogs, and backing out a hole is where dogs with full tails run into problems. I've actually had to dig out dogs who couldn't back out of a hole because of their tail.

And in some breeds, ear cropping was a way to reduce infection and reduce the chance that they could be bitten. This is less of a problem now a days where ear drying remedies are more prevalent, but I don't like to perpetuate the notion that docking/cropping is STRICTLY cosmetic, because it's not.

I have heard that some dog's tails will get banged up and bloody if they are left long and I agree, sometimes it isn't cosmetic. I think I have more of a problem with people docking or debarking without a vet and just for the "look" or "trend" aspect of it.

[KimL]

debarking is awful. It's a cruel surgery! Please don't consider this as an option. Don't get a dog if you cannot handle the barking (and I should know!!).

[KimL]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

I actually CHOOSE to have both my JRT pups tails docked. Docking and cropping ears, in SOME instances, goes beyond cosmetic reasons. Docking my dog's tails greatly reduces the chances of them being broken, or causing them to get stuck down a hole.

I do (or did until I had my daughter ) go-to-ground stuff with my dogs, and backing out a hole is where dogs with full tails run into problems. I've actually had to dig out dogs who couldn't back out of a hole because of their tail.

And in some breeds, ear cropping was a way to reduce infection and reduce the chance that they could be bitten. This is less of a problem now a days where ear drying remedies are more prevalent, but I don't like to perpetuate the notion that docking/cropping is STRICTLY cosmetic, because it's not.

a dog's ears are not cropped to prevent infection. That's a crazy statement. Honestly, maybe it has happend once or twice for some bizarre medical reason... but it's a cosmetic surgery to please a human! And docking... it's cosmetic too. Why would the jack russel be in a hole to begin with if a person didn't instruct it to do so. And if it's tail gets in the way of getting in a hole then the dog probably shouldn't be in the hole! I'm sorry and I don't want to sound on the attack... but for a place that refuses to see any reason other then cosmetic to circ a human boy I am having issue with your defending these routine animal practices?!

[beanma]

Originally Posted by KimL

debarking is awful. It's a cruel surgery! Please don't consider this as an option. Don't get a dog if you cannot handle the barking (and I should know!!).

Can I just say Boooo-wooooo-woooooo-woooooooooooo to you, KimL? How's that Bassett?

[number572]

My opinion? I'd get a different breed of dog. Mostly b'c I think that supporting this is not good. Just my opinion, plus, I've had a purebred and after giving added life to my rescue/shelter puppy... I'll always get rescue/shelter puppies from now on. LOVED my purebred completely... but there is just something extra special about a rescue/shelter dog that is hard to explain... its an added bonus of love in their heart for life & loyalty for you - or something. There are SO many especially now due to the economy & people feeling like they have to give up their pets, heartbreaking really. Do sheltie mixes always have the barking gene that you speak of? Maybe that'd be another way out of the annoying barking problem??

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by KimL

a dog's ears are not cropped to prevent infection. That's a crazy statement. Honestly, maybe it has happened once or twice for some bizarre medical reason... but it's a cosmetic surgery to please a human! And docking... it's cosmetic too.

The origination of a great percentage of cropping was not cosmetic. Tails were removed where they could become damaged. Ears were removed where they could be latched onto, or to prevent infection. Today a great percentage of cropping is done as "tradition" because the need to crop no longer exists (like Boxers getting their ears cropped).

However, when done humanely by a vet and not with a turnicate and a rusty pair of scissors on the dryer in the basement, then for dogs where there is a justifiable reason, I'm fine with it.

I don't agree with cosmetic cropping/docking.

Why would the jack russel be in a hole to begin with if a person didn't instruct it to do so. And if it's tail gets in the way of getting in a hole then the dog probably shouldn't be in the hole!

Go to ground and ratting.

I'm sorry and I don't want to sound on the attack... but for a place that refuses to see any reason other then cosmetic to circ a human boy I am having issue with your defending these routine animal practices?!

I don't compare humans to animals, so I really have no comment on this. A human foreskin isn't' even in the same realm as a working dog's tail. And I don't feel attacked, I'm used to people having a knee jerk reaction to some of the things that are different about working dogs versus pet dogs.

[Ola_]

There's a difference between a working dog and a pet dog participating in sports. I don't support 99% of the cropping/docking. One of my dogs (greyhound) has the long, thin tail with very little hair that is prone to "happy tail" (what a terrible name!). Of all the dogs that get this, very very few need their tail amputated because it is unable to heal. To cut the tail of preemptively to save the humans the trouble of dealing with it seems cruel. Especially when dogs use their tails so much for communicating and balance.

To me it doesn't matter what the original purpose of cropping was. If it's not necessary today, it's cosmetic.

[number572]

This has gotten a little OT, but I witnessed a tail docking on 8 boxer puppies and it was done by a pro vet who had all of the "right tools" and it was the most horrid experience I've ever had. They were about a week old and they all screamed the whole time and were clearly in shock for a while afterward. Simply nauseating.

I quit that job about an hour after holding the cauterizing instrument. Its just not a life or death, necessary surgery. It is for humans, and the "tradition" is barbaric. Making excuses for it is even more barbaric. Thats just crazy. Ears can be cleaned and dogs can be taught to avoid holes. And people who don't need or want a dog that barks could have many many alternative breeds for their pet.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by number572

and dogs can be taught to avoid holes.

For many breeds this will cross over into whether or not we should work to preserve breeds and their original purposes. For me, the answer is yes. I work my dogs because they were bred to go under ground and catch things, I would never train that out of them. In fact, we have a dig box in our yard specifically so they can dig and "go to ground". For SOME breeds, it is functional to dock tails (not so much ears), and I'm fine with that if it's being done so dogs can maintain a certain level of authenticity (for practical and functional purposes, not cosmetic reasons). I'm not, nor will I ever be, 100% for the pet dog. If that happens, many breeds as we know them will no longer exist.

The Jack Russell is one of a handful of dogs that I can think of off the top of my head (I'm thinking like 4 or 5, maybe) that still have a functional reason for tail docking, and I know many people who opt out it of because there won't be the need for it (ie, they won't be working their dog). And I think that's great.

[Raene]

It makes me sad like declawing a cat or circumcising a kid...it just doesn't seem like the way we were meant to be, you know?

[KimL]

Originally Posted by beanma

Can I just say Boooo-wooooo-woooooo-woooooooooooo to you, KimL? How's that Bassett?

it's more of an aaaaarororooroororooooooooooooooooooooo followed by controlled squeeking.

She's loud. VERY LOUD. BUt so's my 6 year old and I'm not going to splice his vocal chords either.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by KimL

She's loud. VERY LOUD. BUt so's my 6 year old and I'm not going to splice his vocal chords either.

Yeah, much of what I do with my dogs I wouldn't do with my child, and visa versa, hence the reason I don't compare children to dogs. They aren't even remotely similar. Though I suspect you were being sarcastic and facetious in implying that those who resort to it don't love their dogs like you love your children. I guess that draws this mature and intellectual conversation to a close!

I'm out.