I guess that’s just they way they prefered to do it. We used the elastrator on the testes and like a cauterizing/cutting thing (the name of which I’m not familiar with) for the tail. Maybe so they had all the tails together at once, and we got experience cutting things, as placing rubber bands isn’t very interesting? Just a guess.
And as to why do it at all: its a lot cleaner. Have you ever seen a lamb with a full tail? It just gets caked in dirt and (literal) crap. I think they can grow long enough to get stepped on, or other sheep can bite and injure it, inviting infection. Same with pigs. Its a lot more sanitary and healthy to remove them. Also if its a ewe and you want to milk it or have a lamb suckle, you’re just asking for mastitis.
I heard this on the news last night, and there was some speculation made that may shed light on the motive: This was a pit bull, and there may have been the intent to raise it for dog fights. If so, removing the ears gives the opposing dog less to hold onto during a fight. They may be withholding this from news stories because it would be speculating on criminal activities without substantial proof. It would, however, be consistent with removing the whole ear rather than cropping.
One thing not mentioned in the article - the police were called when neighbors heard the puppy’s cries. Considering the normal barking that is typical in most urban settings, that crying must have been upsetting indeed for several neighbors to call the police.
And for heaven’s sakes - what kind of idiot would attempt this himself rather than bring the puppy to a vet?
Because so often the predominantly urban group of folks on the Dope do make too big a deal out of it. And FTR I do like all kinds of animals. I am all for providing domestic animals with food, water, and shelter. And in some cases, doing the same for wild animals.
It appears after getting the whole story instead of the minor snippet origninally provided, that what this guy did was pretty wrong. From the OP, there was no way to know if it was a botched job. And we still don’t know how uncommon a practice this is.
I’m curious about the moral underpinnings of your argument here. You seem to have taken a position that the morality or immorality of such an act is somehow directly tied to its prevalence. Is it your belief that this act is somehow more morally acceptable if more people do it?
After all, thousands of animals are dumped by roadsides each year. Does the frequency of this practice make it right, in your opinion?
I think that it is a serious problem and a significant threat to cultural and economic freedom in the US. One can look at recent legislation at the Federal level and see how it’s treating the horse slaughter issue. Or the end of farrowing crate use in Florida which hurt economic raising of hogs (and probably results in a lot piglets* being smothered and crushed by mom) there. Rodeo has been affected, especially Mexican rodeos known as Charreadas. Calf roping is now known by the silly term tie-down roping so as to not offend those with an animal rights mindset. They don’t even hold steer roping on TV. Chicago recently banned goose liver from gourmet restraunts. The freedom of religions such as Santería is severely curtailed because of animal rights laws. I’m also sure that Halal and Kosher butchering are in the sights of the more hardcore animal rightists such as HSUS, PETA, and ALF.
Cropping ears is a normal and acceptable procedure for some breeds. What is unknown is how it is typically universally performed.
Abandoning animals is not a normal, acceptable procedure. I don’t find it particularly immoral though. It’s on par with irresponsibility like that posessed by people who have “outdoor” cats.
I don’t believe that frequency necessarily has anything to do with morality. I do believe that the animal rights midset is often manifested in a type of cultural bigotry that once legislation is pushed calling for the end of cultural practices that don’t harm other humans, rises to the level of immorality.
In the process of looking for an image of a dog with his ears cut off I found this image http://www1.whdh.com/images/news_articles/archive/060813_injured_pitbull.jpg which seems to be a vid cap from the link wolf_meister posted for us. Almost certainly this was done for the intent of dog fighting in my mind, given the location, method of removal, and the type of dog it was done to. Looking at the picture, I also believe that it would in fact look more intimidating fully grown with his ears cut off that way, and opposing fight breeders would most likely assume they had been torn off in a different fight. Plynck mentioned that it would give another dog less to bite into, and that makes sense (in a twisted sort of way) to me. Another option is he was three sheets to the wind and thought it would be fun/funny to do this to a puppy, or even more troubling he was sober and thought the same thing (ie sociopathic/psychotic behavior).
I am not fond of animals myself (some would say even a strong dislike), and I still find a procedure done in a manner such as this inexecusable.
Oh and Unregistered Bull providing them food AND water? And I thought Mother Teresa was a model of caring behavior.
Thanks Hawksgirl for the info.
My sheep are hair sheep (no wool, they shed it out) and the main reasons I do it is for ease of butchering- its a pain to get around the tail. I used to leave my ewes tails since they are clean anyways, but found that it makes it easier to gauge lambing time when I can get a clear view of their udder.
I wonder if you would provide a yes or no answer to the question: Do you believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans adhere to the “animal rights mindset”? I’ve read your beliefs on these tangential issues over and over, but they’re not the question I’m asking.
Oh absolutely !! Just think if America no longer had activities such as rodeos, greyhound racing, etc. People might actually have to find prodcutive things to do with their spare time. And in terms of the economy, I think the British pound sterling was irrevocably damaged when the practice of bear-baiting was outlawed. :rolleyes:
Okay, on a more serious note, I sometimes see that animal protection goes overboard. Remember the snail darter ?
Also, pets are now to be referred to as companions?
Remember the Ford Explorer fatal Firestone tire blowouts a few years ago? Animal rights activists wanted the animal fatalities (dogs, cats, etc) to be reported as well as the human fatalaties.
I think those examples are a bit much.
However, if this shithead dog-ear amputater mutilated that dog and later planned on entering him into dog-fights well forgive me if those actions make me feel a little bit steamed at that bastard. :mad:
We have gelded many horses on our farm, and while it is not done in a sterile room, there is a lot of effort put into making it sterile:
we carefully washed the surgical area beforehand with soap & water.
the vet washed the entire area with an antibiotic solution just before operating.
the vets’ instruments were kept in a sterile solution until they were used.
the vet washed his hands in antiseptic, or used surgical gloves, or both, before operating.
Most of the after care for the horse was directed at keeping the area clean, and draining properly. We generally washed it with antiseptic twice daily for the first few days after the surgery. Infection is the most common complication of such surgery, but careful attention to sterilization during & after the surgery can prevent it entirely. In a half-century of breeding horses, we have gelded dozens of colts, with almost no resulting infections. Even without a sterile room, proper care will make the surgery quite safe.
The level of care given by professional animal breeders is a far cray from that the man in the OP did!
t-bonham@scc.net
Good posting because it shows that people that perform the preparation and the actual surgery really care for the animals and know what the Hell they are doing. Unregistered Bull made it sound as if any animal surgery done on a farm was almost medieval.
If you are referring to circumcision as an infant, use of appropriate anesthesia is routine for circumcision these days. Back a few decades, many doctors did not do this routinely, being worried about the possible complications of anesthesia.
But even back quite a few decades, “a shot of whiskey” was not the common anesthetic used!
