Asymmetrical Information

While there are cases where the surgery is purely cosmetic, that's not always the case. Frequently, ears and/or tails were docked to prevent disease or to enable a dog to better perform his or her job. I can't cite specifics, but my wife (who was a veterinary assistant when we met and whose family raises and shows dogs) could. When we considered getting a Doberman puppy (her favorite breed), I told her I didn't want its ears docked. She told me I'd have to deal with the ear infections. All this to say it might not be as clear cut as the good mayor thinks.

Besides which, I understand your sympathy for the animals, but isn't this a strange position for a libertarian to be endorsing?

I think a lot of libertarians believe that government should still prevent individuals from using force against each other, and an animal-loving libertarian would probably consider this a use of force.

Force? Against animals? I eat animals for breakfast. Literally.

Look, your pet gets food, companionship, medical care, security, and shelter. All it has to do in return is look happy to see you. If you want to clip its ears or declaw the thing, go to it. Least the pet can do. We regularly snip their reproductive organs--- something I guarantee you the animal would not want, if it was capable of understanding what was going on. You can put them to sleep whenever you want to. They are chattels. Short of the sadistic infliction of pain on the animal, I think you should be able to do whatever you want.

Ah, to be a vet in a clinic just outside West Hollywoods jurisdiction... new porsche in their future!

Yeah, what about property rights, hmmm? Aren't pets property, hmmm? I should be able to chop up my pet any way I want provided I use my own money! Think Libertarian!

Yeah, what about property rights, hmmm? Aren't pets property, hmmm? I should be able to chop up my pet any way I want provided I use my own money! Think Libertarian!

Slaves were property once; children still sort of are. Should you be able to do anything you want to them? Of course not - they are sentient beings with their own interests. Obviously you can do a lot to them, even things that might not really be in their best interests, but there is no reason to think that cutting their bodies apart should be fair game. Hiding behind libertarianism here doesn't work -- you should have total freedom to cut your own damn ears off, sure, but when you're talking about cutting another sentient being's ears off, well, it's at least fair to begin balancing some interests.

Will circumcision be banned as well? Would be inconsistent if it wasn't...

http://www.cdb.org/case4dock.htm

Solyom - no, it wouldn't necessarily be inconsistent at all. Sure, it is the same sort of consideration, and one shouldn't be unflinchingly defended on libertarian grounds any more than the other, but they should both be treated to cost-benefit analysis. Tail-docking fails this test because there are really no (or extremely trivial) benefits. [The website you posted is more or less BS, though do you even wonder if the "council of docked breeds," which authored it, might be biased?] Circumcision, by contrast, is a deeply important religious and cultural act for many. Even if you disagree with it, you can recognize that there are very important psychic benefits to its practitioners. So it (arguably) does not fail a cost-benefit test, and banning one does not necessarily implicate the other.

Does this count as plastic surgery?

http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_brachycephalic.html

Jane Galt, while you may own a breed that does not have its tail or ears docked, you do own a breed that has many problems associated with being bigger than a dog should be - especially during puppyhood and old age.

Large breeds have problems, breeds known for certain types of coats have problems, and toy breeds have been, in the last century, bred so small that they can't whelp without help. These problems are not caused by inbreeding, or even tight line breeding, but by breeding for qualities that aren't the best traits for hardiness.

I'm not judging anyone, I'm just pointing out that what breeders have done to animals is not always obvious. If you have a purebred pet, you should probably do some serious reading before looking down on those who clip the dew claws and dock the tails of field dogs.

(If I was in a nasty mood, I'd suggest that the recent shortage of dog pictures make me suspect ill health! Someone call the ASPCA - she must be hiding something.)

When I run the circus, only someone who has taken a dog to Schutzhund, put a slide-stop on a quarter horse, and raised and banded at least three orphan baby birds who went on to hatch their own brood should be allowed to say a word about animals, domestic or otherwise. Maybe slaughter a hen and put down a cat, too.

Tito, you don't know how to use a semicolon and the phrase "sort of still are" is not a hallmark of argument.

Children are not slaves, even of a sort. The parents have power over them because they, like animals, lack the mental capacity to make wise decisions and to take care of themselves.
And no, I did not say that you should have the right to bar-b-que your cat or stick a kitten in a microwave or any other piece of barbarism. Conflating that with ear clipping is silly; there is a line (perhaps not a bright line, but a line) between abuse and managment. But Lil' Bow Wow has a very fine point: pretty much every purebred animal, from goldfish to those hairless cats, has had some serious "cosmetic breeding" done on them, often with serious side effects. What's the difference between a breeding for a dog that is prone to certain diseases, early death, and nice shiny coat--- and clipping a tail? Clipping might be kinder than the genetic ramifications of breeding for a tailess dog.

Tail clipping or ear snipping or whatever the hell it is--- why not, really? You don't like it? So what. Something you do pisses someone else of. It doesn't give them the right to manage your life for you, so long as it doesn't involve doing it to involuntary PEOPLE. Animals are not people. The fact that pets are sentient does not give them rights. As warm and fuzzy as it might be to treat Fido as a member of the family, he is not and cannot become a member of society. He is a domestic animal, a chattel. Which means that you can make decisions about medical procedures that hurt the animal but bring you pleasure or make your life easier. Why do people spay and neuter? The animal certainly doesn't want to be sterilized--- we do it because it is neccesary to manage their lives for them, otherwise they spray all over the house (not smelling urine: my pleasure, not theirs) and stray cats and dogs will roam everywhere. We put them to sleep, not because they want to die, but because we hold that power and decide for them when life has become too painful or expensive to continue. Most people use that power well and with kindness. Messing with it because of a personal problem with how some people exercise that power is dangerous.

Strange capitalist and strange libertarian. Whenever you disagree with someone you are ready willing and anxious to call in government force to make them do as you see fit.

I'm glad I'm circumcised. FWIW.

tito dismisses the reasons for docking given as "trivial" without any backing logic. As an avid bird hunter, I can vouch for the "Council of Docked Breeds" reasoning. A tail in the field would get mauled. Yes, the standard is human-authored, but it's not arbitrary. I find it rather interesting that the proposed law doesn't ban removing dewclaws, which are removed for the same general reason as tail docking - prevention of future injuries.

Have to agree with many above who've posted. This has got to be the liberal in you, Jane.

"Circumcision, by contrast, is a deeply important religious and cultural act for many. Even if you disagree with it, you can recognize that there are very important psychic benefits to its practitioners."

Does this include female circumcision, too?

On a lighter note... A friend at my husband's office anxiously awaits the arrival, from Australia, of her miniature Labradoodle. Not just a Labradoodle, mind you, but a MINIature Labradoodle. My husband speculates that rock-climbing equipment was involved in the breeding of this litter.

Animal breeding for appearance only kind of bothers me... Irish setters, case in point. I hear (though I don't own one) that a purebred Irish is about the dumbest dog around, yet they used to be fantastic bird dogs. I read a couple of years ago that there's an organization, NOT affiliated with the AKC for obvious reasons, that was crossbreeding Irish with a GOOD hunter - I want to say English or Labs or something - to try to maintain their beautiful looks but get some smarts back into them and regain some of their hunting prowess.

We used to have a couple of poodles - animal shelter rescues. Their tails were docked by the time we got them; otherwise I don't think we would've had the heart, since any benefit of tail-docking in the field wouldn't apply to these housedogs. While I agree that pets are chattels in a way that children aren't, and while I'm not vegetarian, I do try to treat our pets with a reasonable respect for their sensibilities because, unlike lab animals, they're raised to think they belong with people (almost that they ARE people). A distinction that matters much more to me than to them, I'm sure.

I don't really have that much of a problem with docking, but I do wish that people who sell prue-bread puppies would not do the docking until the puppy was slightly older. Many people who want a bread want it because of the characteristics of the bread, but are not planning on showing the dog. For example, I love Corgi's. They are a well tempered dog very well suited to apartment living. But they have no tail. They dock the poor things when they are first born. You can't find a corgi with a waggy tail. I think a corgi would be a perfect dog if it just had the tail, but because of bread standards you can't even convince a breader that you'll buy the puppy if they DON'T dock the tail.

Sigh...I want a dog.

The argument in favor of permitting circumcision doesn't hold. It would be one thing if it were performed on adults who had requested it - that's an exercise of their autonomy, and forbidding the procedure would be a violation of their rights to decide what should be done with their own bodies.
Unfortunately, that's not how it's usually done.

You can't justify violating someone's rights by saying it's very important to you that you do so. One way or another, that argument would justify any and every violation of rights if it were to be considered valid.

Wait for the coming genectic designer revolution. You think docking or circumcision is bad, you can imagine what will happen when we start the modifications in utero. China is already doing this by selecting male vs females babies. Sorry if this was a little off topic, but I think we haven't even started looking into the problems that are coming.

I just got a great border terrier that the kids love. Highly recommend the breed.

All I want is my wifes cats to sleep on her side of the bed.(and for them to learn to take out the trash, clean the bathroom, and work on the car. All for cat food)

First, get used to it. Since the EU banned tail-docking and ear-cropping and only dogs whose tails have not been cropped nor their ears docked may be shown in European shows, it's becoming more and more common over here to see dogs we expect to see docked tails or cropped ears on with natural ears and tails. Especially in breeds that show internationally like Dobies and Rottweilers natural ears and tails are becoming more and more common. Natural ears and tails are becoming fashionable and, of course, in the more authoritarian Blue states, fashion becomes compulsory.

Second, I don't have any problem with banning cosmetic tail-docking and ear-cropping. But not all such procedures are cosmetic and any law should be written with enough leeway to allow prudent tail-docking particularly for working dogs.

Third, concern about the arbitrariness of “human-authored breed standards” is belated if not misplaced—canis familiaris and homo sapiens have been interfering with each others' breeding possibly for as much as 100,000 years. It's an intrinsic part of what both of us are now. But I agree that cosmetic surgical alteration is difficult to justify.

My own breed, too, is a natural breed (IMO the most beautiful of the natural breeds).

I don't understand the "clip ears to prevent infection" reasoning. There are many dog breeds with floppy ears that don't get clipped for show. My mom's cocker spaniel gets ear infections (and has to endure looking silly with her ears tied over her head until they heal.) My sister has a boxer and opted out of having its ears clipped. It has horrible allergy problems, but has never had an ear infection. As for claws, a set of clippers from your local pet store takes care of the problem nicely, for both cats and dogs.

(I own a mutt. Hybrid vitality is a happy thing.)

Just how painful are these procedures to animals? Is it really cruel, or is it just a matter of some people thinking, "I wouldn't want it done to me, so ..."?

Personally, I can't see myself ever cropping the ears or tail of one of my dogs, but for some cats declawing can be the last option before euthenasia. I suspect it's rarely done for cosmetic reasons.

For some reason I'm picturing a West Hollywood/East Hollywood split akin to Old and New Springfield on the Simpsons. East Hollywood being the one that didn't end up with Homer as mayor.

Although it seems barbaric to mutilate one's pet or one's child (I myself was genitally mutilated as an infant when it was routinely done in hospitals as the default, or so my parents would have me believe), I think the issue for the libertarian should be whether and to what extent such practices should be regulated by the state and handled via coercion. While I might prefer that my neighbor eschew tail docking for his dog or cranial elongation for his child, I would be reluctant to use force to prevent it. I am also leary of establishing or strengtheneing enforcement agencies. Libertarians might want to consider whether it is better for freedom overall to endure some mutilation practices. Moral and social pressure could be applied, and you need not associate with mutilaters if you feel strongly about the issue.

I agree with Toxic that this issue involves a fuzzy line between crude or distasteful behavior and behavior which should be outlawed. I share Dennis's caution about empowering the state to punish behavior--including counterproductive behavior--one disapproves of.

Jane's post strikes me as impulsive though the impulse does her credit: libertarian arguments become more palatable when blended with the milk of human kindness. It was noted that this kind of issue will become prevalent as biotechnology advances; much starker and far-reaching tradeoffs are arising than those involved in cropping a dog's tail. I hope Jane will update her views should they evolve.

I don't know about ear-cropping since it's not performed in my breed (standard poodles), but I do know that tail docking and dewclaw removal are generally performed at three days of age. It's hard to judge, of course, but my personal impression is that it's not terribly painful. I bred a litter last year, and the puppy didn't seem to be agitated for more than a couple hours after docking. The puppy's dam, on the other hand, was much slower to recover from her emergency C-section and spay.

I agree that the state shouldn't have the power to stop people from doing stupid, unnecessary, and harmful things to themselves, even if that means other people experience certain kinds of harm as a result.

But doesn't it have the responsibility to stop people from doing stupid and harmful things to other people (or in the case of ear- and tail-docking, beings that can suffer) without their consent? There is an unsubtle moral difference between stopping a suicide and stopping a murder.

Does this include female circumcision, too?

No, and you shouldn't wave that red herring around like that, you'll get fish juice all over yourself.

Female circumcision (FGM), in its minimal form (removal of the clitoris), permanently impairs a normal sexual function in the recipient; in more advanced forms, it can be a persistent source of infections, painful urination, and painful menstruation. Whereas male circumcision, in its normal and only recognized form -- though it may be unnecessary for most recipients and perhaps reduces sensitivity marginally -- does not impair normal function, sexual or urinary.

Those who feel they have an imperative to promote the elimination of male circumcision would do well not to conflate the two in that manner, since even a youth is capable of seeing through the (missing) logical connection. The likely result is to either discredit the very cause, or worse, provide actual grounds for corrolary justification of FGM.

Does this include female circumcision, too?

Damn, someone else got to it first. But my answer is this: if either of my daughters had a foreskin, I'd seriously have considered having it removed, or maybe that I actually had a son, instead.

Personally, I can't see myself ever cropping the ears or tail of one of my dogs, but for some cats declawing can be the last option before euthenasia. I suspect it's rarely done for cosmetic reasons.

My folks originally tried leaving our kitten au natural in the claw department, and the kitten rewarded us by climbing the inside of the living room drapes multiple times; scratching the living room furniture; slowly tearing apart a woven-wicker waste receptacle in the kitchen; and shredding the carpet at the foot of the basement stairs.

We initially tried clipping. Turns out (a) claws tend to splinter rather than cut cleanly, (b) claws grow back quickly, (c) cats don't like having their paws trapped for clipping or anything else, and (d) dull claws are still pretty effective against carpet and wicker, and do even worse things to drapes.

Oh, and cats like to do this massaging thing with their front paws and claws, which destroys stuffed animals, bed comfortors, and afghans, and can send an unsuspecting person right through the roof if the cat happens to be sitting in a lap at the time and discovers affinity to that party's preference in wardrobe fabric.

The kitten subsequently saw a front-only declawing and is presently living peacably with the family into her fifteenth year. Since cats mostly use their front paws for grappling and warning (the rear paws provide for climbing power and actual defense), she has been able to prowl outdoors and otherwise continue a normal life without destroying the accommodations of ours.

IMO, *NOT* docking some breeds' tails is the cruelty. Not docking an English Bulldogs curly tail can result in a VERY VERY painful condition when that tail grows into the poor dogs back.

Not docking a Weimaraner's tail can result in a very serious break or mauling whether or not you hunt with him.

Both my dog's tails are docked, and I consider that a very good thing. I seriously doubt either of them remember being docked, and it does not impare them in any way shape or form.

Ear clipping is a little different, IMO. My weimaraner has big old floppy ears. In general, weims are very prone to ear infections, but simply feeding them an APPROPRIATE diet, and adding a dollop of yogurt to his food each day prevents them. He hasn't had a single ear infection since he was 6 months old and my vet explained that to me.

I think Amy is right — at least, my understanding is that Weimeraners, Dobies, and similar breeds naturally have very long, fragile tails that are liable to break painfully just through ordinary tail-wagging. (I grew up with Dobies, and when they wag their tails, it's more as though they're wagging their entire butts; I can imagine a thin, whip-like tail getting damaged very easily.) Ear-cropping is another thing entirely, and really is purely "cosmetic," as far as I can tell.

As for cat declawing, I just don't see anything wrong with it, and when the people that denounce it are generally the same people who throw fits if people don't spay or neuter their pets, it does start to seem ridiculous.

But that reminds me: did the West Hollywood proposal say anything about Neuticles? You know, the little fake testicles you can buy to replace the real ones when you have your dog neutered? This is (supposedly, anyway) for the benefit of the dog, which will be under the impression that a familiar body part is still there. So is it "cosmetic"? It would be, um, amusing if the law allowed, nay, encouraged you to cut off your dog's genitalia, but sternly forbade putting anything in their place.

Declawing of cats apparently amounts to "an amputation of the last joint of your cat's 'toes'." Personally, I couldn't stomach doing that to my kitty. Then again, I would happily cut off his balls "for his own good", so maybe I'm not consistent.

From time to time, my girlfriend stares at me thoughtfully, and I can't help but imagine that some similar analysis is going through her head about me.

It's a difficult problem to determine whether circumcision affects "normal male sexuality", since the most basic aspects of male sexuality don't even require a penis. But I digress.

I'm not personally thrilled about the sterilization of pets. Unfortunately, unless we permit predation or cull their numbers ourselves, they will tend to reproduce without limit. Without a better way of preventing pet population booms, I'm going to have to reluctantly say that sterilization is necessary - whether neutering is justified is more complicated.

If some breeds have tails that would become damaged if they weren't surgically altered, isn't that our fault for creating such deformed strains? And isn't that a reasonable justification for absorbing those lines back into the wider gene pool?

Matt G.:

Spoken just like a man - "whether neutering is justified is more complicated." Tee-hee!

Seriously, though, if I had a spraying tomcat and neutering said cat would keep my house from smelling like a - like a cathouse, I guess, I'd neuter him. Plus, male critters can do a lot more damage, reproductively, than female ones, if they're able to roam free and NOT every female critter is spayed. (My cat is a foundling who was neutered already, and luckily has good claw manners, but if he hadn't been neutered I'm sure we would've done so because he spends half his time outdoors. Claws would have been a harder decision, for the same reason.)

That's the kind of point that makes me willing to accept neutering/spaying. There are other, contradictory points, perhaps the most important being that by deriving our pet populations from relatively small gene pools and sterilizing them indiscriminately, we're adding onto the genetic damage caused by short-sighted breeding methods. But overall I am reluctantly forced to conclude that surgical nullification should be tolerated.

Mutilating the pets because it's fashionable or traditional, though, should not be tolerated.

Comments are Closed.