Reply to article: "Cut and Orchids"

- Point of view.

The underlying problem is to make it clear that the animal to which you cut the ears and/or the tail does not suffer.. When I read this sentence I had confirmation that what I was reading was not a fictional story but the usual crushed and condensed retrition of commonplaces concerning the alleged   usefulness of certain practices suffered by many dogs.

I really believe that science does not deny its past but tries to improve it and in this it is certainly helped by the moral and ethical evolution of man. It is truly an anacronism that man today wants to continue to imitate what the ancient Romans did to their fighting dogs, unless he wants to get his dog to fight.

In ten years of veterinary practice I believe I have cured a dozen or so of the liche lesions on the tail of hunting dogs, a number certainly less than the injuries caused, for example, by wild boar to dogs of the wet suit or injuries caused by the ears or lungs by the ears of Graminaceae. Then we should put braches on wild boar dogs or earplugs or dove masks on hunting dogs or rather not send them out hunting because of these dangers? I would like to ask the supporters of the amputation of the tail, as for the English setter and the pointer, two among the most widespread hunting breeds, do not amputate the tail; perhaps that they are more furbi than the Breton or the spinone and do not hurt when hunting?

Otohemomas are secondary, in most cases, to ear shaking due to ear problems; it is very rare that an otohemoma is formed simply for having banged an ear, otherwise we should cut off all the ears. The historical reason for ear amputation is known to all, or almost, and it is that the dog that fights must offer as few weak points as possible to the opponent and a fluttering ear, easy target of a bite, torn easily and bleeds abundantly.

Unfortunately, the reasons put forward in favour of the amputations are only excuses to justify an act that is the result of the exploitation of the animal by man. Whenever, to stimulate the discussion, I ask the owners of a puppy because they want to amputate tail and ears, I feel to answer "because if we leave it intact, I do not similar more to a dobermann" or "because with long ears not Looks like "To look, to look, to appear, these are the real reasons for the charges suffered by our dogs. The owners' answers testify that the main reason is exclusively aesthetic and not functional.

There is no reason other than the medical one to amputate a tail or ear. If a man cuts a piece of ear to another man against his will is called criminal, but if he does it to a dog, surely never consenting, then he is passed as a benefactor of the race.

Returning to analyze the problem from the point of view of the dog and not of the man I wonder how it is possible to say that the dog does not suffer!!! Yes, maybe who says this has never seen these practices; what is meant with suffering? Piangere? Well the puppies who suffer the amputation of the tail weep indeed; ah already, little cry, then they suffer little, okay however a little suffer and it is always worse that not suffer for nothing; who has the power to determine how much a dog must suffer?

Too bad that the ears are amputated to already large puppies, normally from 2 to 3 months. Apart from the fact that they must undergo a general anesthesia that needs careful preoperative controls, apart from that some subject, despite these controls, dies from an unnecessary anesthesia (the statistics speak clearly), how can we say that it does not suffer a puppy subjected to continuous medications for long periods, often forced to carry protections because it does not damage the impalcature, often kept away from its fellows just at the most important moment for socialization!! This is not called suffering? It would be the time to stop talking about vertebrae fractures

The characteristic pace of the boxer or the gallop of the dobermann are absolutely in naturali, the tail is not only used to slop, indispensable function to communicate with the other dogs, but is a rudder and a barbell fundamental for the correct gaits of the dog, who owns a German shepherd, another working breed, knows it well.

I respect much more those who admit the aesthetic aims of amputations, at the time of the fact that it is right or wrong, it is not up to me to judge, but I cannot tolerate those who mask their actions behind the veil of a false love for the animal and its well-being. It should be universally accepted that the only surgeries on the animal, if we want to speak in terms of well-being, are those justified by pathologies that threaten the health of the animal itself, the rest is invention.

Ask a boxer.