I started this thread to allow people the forum to politely express their views on the topic of ear cropping. I thought it wise since the first thread for ear cropping has been consumed with this issue, even though the initial thread started out requesting post care guidance.

Roger...you thoughts and opinions are encouraged.

Cheers.

Has anyone come across any hard numbers for ear infections in cropped vs. un-cropped dogs?

Thank you, Mauricio, for appropriately starting a new thread for this subject. You and I see I to eye on this issue.
For Connie and Simon; let's be truthful here: the main reason for cropping is personal preference. The breed-standard used to specify cropped ears. It now reads "Ears normally cropped and carried erect..." which leaves room for uncropped ears. But cropped ears are still highly preferred and the majority of Dobermans involved in competitive sports have them. Because of my years of involvement with Dobes, and therefor being highly aware of the strong bias against floppy ears, my preference is cropped. That being said; if I felt it was abusive in any way, I still wouldn't have it done. I guess MY hackles get raised when it's referred to as abuse. I am a HUGE advocate for animals, have done a lot with animal rescue (dogs and horses) and do not feel that it's correct to put people who get their dog's ears cropped in the same category as those sickos who rightfully get their animals taken from them.
Re: stats on ear infections; it would be hard to find any reliable stats I would think. I think groomers, breeders and vets would be the best source of info on this subject.

 Quote:

.......the majority of Dobermans involved in competitive sports have them. Because of my years of involvement with Dobes, and therefor being highly aware of the strong bias against floppy ears, my preference is cropped......

Then it's strictly cosmetic? I do NOT mean this in a snotty way; I'm trying to learn. Is there a reason for the Dobes in competitive sports (which has come up at least twice now) to have them and not so much for Dobes who are not?

It is my belief that in this day in age it IS primarily cosmetic. I know that it is certainly traditional; and in the beginning, the cropping/docking/dew-claw removal were to prevent injury and vulnerability. This is still applicable to protection dogs. As an aside, there DO seem to be fewer problems with infections/yeast in dogs with upright ears. This would not be the primary reason for cropping though.

I don't think the cropping or docking started out to prevent injury and vulnerability. The Romans thought that cropping and docking prevented rabies. There was also something called Larmarck's theory. That theory said that if an animal was cropped and docked, that the progeny would be born with those characteristics eventually. People believed this into the 18th century.

During the middle ages peasants were only allowed to keep small dogs to kill vermin. Keepers, shepherds and herdsman could have their type of dogs, but they were required to be mutilated in some way to prevent poaching of the royal game. These were called the Forest Laws, and "lawing" was enforced, which meant some toes of the dog had to be chopped off. The lower classes also had to have their dogs tails docked to indicate they were working dogs and to differentiate them from the nobilities dogs. It seems like the lower classes didn't want their dogs tails cropped, because when they were found to have no tail dock, the royal crown levied a massive tax against them that they couldn't afford, just to get them to comply. That lead to them conforming to the tail docking law because they needed their dogs to work, and they couldn't afford the tax. An exemption was provided for dogs used for a purpose, but only if the tail was docked. The wealthy people of the time used their dogs to hunt, and they had long intact tails, indicating a higher class dog. That's just stuff I've read. I guess at this point it's hard to pick fact from fiction.

As for cropping, the blood sports seemed to be the purpose for that. Although I've heard people with livestock guardians say it's necessary for their dogs when running thru the woods because ear tears are common, and they get snagged on wire fences. If you look at hog hunting AB's, their ears aren't cropped, but if you look at Dogo Argentino's their's are...

The dobe was probably cropped to give an intimidating appearance, and that really seems to be the modern day purpose.

I don't like my dogs to have cropped ears, but I do like the way they look on other people's dogs... I think everyone should have the right to choose whatever they want.

I don't know if I believe the ear infection factor though. Both of my floppy eared dogs have never had an ear infection, but my pointy standing up eared dog has had many. I had a Presa I watched for a while that had cropped ears, and he didn't like them touched. In the winter when the wind was cold and howling, he would cringe. It seemed very uncomfortable for him to have the cold air blowing directly into his ears.

I like ears on, tails off. Did you ever get wacked in the eye with a tail? Or see your crystal smash into a million pieces on the floor <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> I've had bruises and welts from tails. This is America, and people should be able to do what they want. They just tried to ban ear cropping in NY but it was defeated. For now...

Cool history lesson! Yet scary at the same time <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> I wouldn't have wanted to be a PERSON living during those times; much less an animal <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> I've heard the "Forest laws" refered to in my dealings with Greyhounds. I guess they were pretty popular (Greyhounds, I mean) with royalty, not allowed to be owned by "commoners". Now THERE'S a dog with a tail. I always wondered what the ORIGINAL origin of these practices were. Dobes are a fairly new breed and wouldn't be subject to the original purpose, but of course tradition remains. The texts all seem to say something a little different regarding Dobes specificly; but the majority that I've read do say it was done to prevent injury. In any case; I agree with you, People should do what they want where this is concerned. They tried to ban cropping here in VT without any luck, too. Too many REAL problems they would have to solve first; like the stray dogs that rule every town, the neglected dogs that spend their day tied to a tree,...etc. I don't feel like there will ever be agreement on this issue; nor do I feel their needs to be. I've seen enough to not feel that it's cruel; but there are always going to be folks that think it is. C'est la vie. About the wind: Doberman crops leave quite a bit of the dog's ear. so when it's windy they just fold them back. The thing they're REALLY wimpy about is rain <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> They HATE to get wet! <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> They're so silly <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

I like ears on, tails off. Did you ever get wacked in the eye with a tail? Or see your crystal smash into a million pieces on the floor <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> I've had bruises and welts from tails. This is America, and people should be able to do what they want.

I'm sorry, I thought you had an interesting article up to this point.
You are correct about our freedom here in America, but since I like dogs better than people I think perhaps it should be a decision best made by a dog. After all, they are the ones affected by your "freedom of choice". <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I think if dogs could choose, they would always have the couch, could go to the bathroom wherever they liked, would never be told what to do or trained, would eat at the table, etc. So....maybe not. I agree with you on this: I like dogs MUCH better than people <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

I think if dogs could choose, they would always have the couch, could go to the bathroom wherever they liked, would never be told what to do or trained, would eat at the table, etc......

<img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> This is funny, but stepping back to see a larger picture, I think maybe dogs want and need a pack leader who makes those decisions more than they want to eat at the table. The pack leader, as is being explored on another thread on this board, has the role of leading and protecting, of making the decisions about the dogs' behavior, safety, and care. I believe that dogs' security in life is their knowledge of their place in the pack and their leader's ability and determination to lead and protect.

I believe too that dogs derive satisfaction and confidence from good training.

Still, the immediate gratification my dogs might experience with a tray served to them while they lounged on the couch is a pretty funny thought...... <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />