All right pet?

[Gob]

Animal rights activists are calling for people to stop using the word “pet” when referring to animals they own.

Appearing on Good Morning Britain on Tuesday, Jennifer White of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), argued that saying the term “pet” is derogatory and patronises the animal.

Instead, PETA is calling on people to use words like “companion” to refer to their animals.

“A lot of people at home who have dogs or cats will call them pets and refer to themselves as owners and this implies that the animals are a possession, like a car for example,” White said.

“When you refer to animals not as the living beings as they are but as an inanimate object, it can reflect our treatment on these animals.”

White added that animals are “their own individual beings”.

The comments come after PETA’s founder, Ingrid Newkirk, made a similar remark when she compared calling animals “pets” to calling women “sweetie” or “honey”.

“Animals are not pets,” Newkirk added. “They are not your cheap burglar alarm, or something which allows you to go out for a walk. They are not ours as decorations or toys, they are living beings.

“A dog is a feeling, whole individual, with emotions and interests, not something you ‘have’.”

[Guinevere]

In related news, I saw something floating around on the faceplace, trying to get people to use "companion" because "pets" are personal property, making (allegedly) vets and others (pet sitters, groomers, etc) not liable for damages from malpractice, malfeasance, or other allegedly bad behavior. I'm not commenting on the legal validity of their claims, but it looks like the "companion" idea is also part of a larger strategy trying to support wrongful-death/impairment type claims.

[Big RR]

Interesting, and perhaps animal companions would also have a right to sue for wrongful death of their human companions?

[MajGenl.Meade]

PETA is calling on people to use words like “companion” to refer to their animals.

And some people still wonder why other people voted for Trump

[Big RR]

If you use PETA as your lexicographer, you get what you deserve.

FWIW, I don't mind calling my pets companions (because that's what they are in a very real way), but I don't relish going to the companion store to buy companion food--pet is just so much neater.

[RayThom]

Does this mean I will have to stop flushing my companion tropical fish down the toilet when they go belly up?

Burial, cremation? This is surely going to present an Ichthyological end-of-life conundrum.

[BoSoxGal]

The other day I participated in a discussion on Facebook concerning the medically unnecessary (and painful) mutilation of a dog’s ears for the sole purpose of serving the vanity of the owner. So many of the participants weighed in with ‘she paid for that dog, she can do what she wants’ - a wholeheartedly property-oriented perspective on pet ownership. Here is the USA we are still pretty backward about allowing people to mutilate their animals for vanity - some states let you mutilate them at home without the attendance or assistance of a veterinarian.

In more enlightened countries such mutilation of animals is against the law - because animals are recognized to have some value beyond their property value to an owner, some rights apart from the desires of the owner. Such laws recognize animals as being owned but with an expectation of stewardship greater than ‘you own it, so do as you please’. I see nothing wrong in shifts in language that begin to shape thinking about animals in this way - a great many veterinarians and other providers of services to companion animals are already using this language.

And the law in the USA is beginning to shift in some jurisdictions to recognize a value to companion animals beyond the minimal cost to ‘replace’ them if negligently/wrongfully killed - some jurisdictions are beginning to recognize pain & suffering for such losses. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

Our societal attitudes about cruelty to animals, even animals raised for slaughter, have changed a great deal in my lifetime and these are not bad changes. If our species survives another few hundred years, I think things will be so different that many of the practices we consider today to be the norm will be considered by our progeny to be a sign of our depravity.

[Econoline]

Just for clarification...it appears that ***A is saying that the word "pee, ee, tee" should be removed from the English language (by Royal Decree or Executive Order or summat), right? Because that's not the way language works—or at least not the English language. Most languages change by evolution, not eugenics.




ETA: I wonder...what is their position on this?

[Bicycle Bill]

The other day I participated in a discussion on Facebook concerning the medically unnecessary (and painful) mutilation of a dog’s ears for the sole purpose of serving the vanity of the owner.

I wonder how many of the participants of that discussion (yourself included) have willingly undergone "...the medically unnecessary (and painful) mutilation..." of their own ears — piercing one's ears in order to stick bits of metal and crystals into them — for the sole purpose of serving their own vanity?
Not to mention other self-adornment/mutilation in the form of 'body art' (a/k/a tattoos) and piercings of other parts of the body such as the nose, tongue, navel, and nipples — again, for no other reason than vanity.

-"BB"-

[Guinevere]

Not even a close comparison. For starters, what humans do to themselves is voluntary. Pets/animals have no choice.

Further, ears have several biological functions that requires the entire ear. Ear piercing doesn’t impact how the ear functions. Its more akin to cutting off your outer ear to make yourself look like an elf. It would be incredibly painful, and diminish the functionality of your ear.

Similarly, declawing cats for convenience of the owners is like cutting off your fingers and toes at your knuckles and then making you walk on them. Forever. Its crippling and horrible.

Many vets will not do either of these procedures, but for dogs, some breed standards still require ear trimming. It really should end. I’ve seen plenty of dobermans with their full ears and much prefer them that way.

[Bicycle Bill]

Not even a close comparison. For starters, what humans do to themselves is voluntary. Pets/animals have no choice.

I figured someone would raise that point.  I only draw your attention to pictures such as these:
   

Yes, I'm sure both of these young ladies (and countless others, if the images on the interwebs are any indication), after carefully considering all the facts, made informed and educated decisions for themselves before having those earrings installed.

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

Ear cropping for owner vanity? For me that is a stretch, and strange use of vanity. I thought cut down ears on 'bully' dogs and dobermans was to remove an easy target for heavy bleeding in a dog fight. I suppose there is owner vanity it those events, but I would use stronger and nastier terms for such an owner.

How do you feel about removing the dew claws on puppies?

snailgate.

[BoSoxGal]

The vast majority of breeds being mutilated - tail docking and ear cropping - are no longer doing any job whatsoever other than serving as a status symbol and emotional crutch for the owner. The wrongheaded notion that ear cropping prevents injury is belied by the reality of pitties and other ear cropped breeds with torn and damaged ears from fighting - what’s left of the ear will still get damaged.

Common sense tells us that the primary reason for ear cropping is aesthetics - and thus, owner vanity. Because the practice is becoming more and more reviled by wider society, one can only hope that it will soon fall out of favor entirely here in the USA. I’m in favor of laws prohibiting it.

I had a Great Dane for a while that I fostered - she was gorgeous with her natural ears, and I can’t imagine I would’ve wanted to foster her if she’d had those ugly pointy mutilated ears that cruel people favor.

As to tail docking - one of my favorite breeds, Australian Shepherd, is typically tail docked. Some are born naturally stump tailed but many more are docked. The theory is it makes it easier for them to do their job (which most no longer do) because they won’t have their tails stepped on by livestock or filled with burrs, etc. out in the field. I find that argument laughable since the best shepherd dogs on the planet - border collies - have always done their work just fine with tails. As do shelties, and collies, and Australian cattle dogs, etc. Stump-tailed dogs make me sad - they’ve lost one of the primary tools of communications between dogs for the vanity of their human owners - not to mention the increased agility a tail provides a dog. Yes sometimes an injury makes amputation medically necessary, but the vast majority of dogs thrive with tails.

And amputating cat claws is just despicable, no other justification than owner convenience.

Why Do Dog Ears Get Cropped?

Adrienne Farricelli
by
Adrienne Farricelli
May 21, 2019

Dog ears get cropped mostly because it's a tradition that has been passed down for centuries. Many breed standards for specific breeds require dog ears to be cropped. In some dog breeds having cropped ears is so important that uncropped ears are strongly frowned upon and even means for disqualification in the show ring.

In order to understand why dog ears get cropped, it's helpful to take a look back and learn more about the history surrounding this practice. The practice dates back in time when certain dogs breeds were used for hunting or for the bloody sport of fighting. With the ban of fighting, the practice of ear cropping though still prevails despite much controversy.

What is Ear Cropping in Dogs?
Ear cropping, also known as cosmetic otoplasty, is the practice of removing parts of the dog's pinnae (the floppy portion of the ear). This procedure is generally performed in puppies between 9 and 12 weeks of age after receiving their vaccinations. The surgical procedure requires general anesthesia.

Following the removal of the pinnae, the ears are stitched up. Depending on the type of ear crop, the puppy's ears may be taped for the purpose of maintaining the desired ear shape. During this recovery time, pain relievers may or may not be given.

Ear cropping is an ancient practice that was once carried out for a variety of reasons including health, practicality and aesthetic reasons.

Nowadays, the practice of ear cropping has been banned in several countries, but it is still in practice in certain countries and applied to specific dog breeds.

The procedure is for a great extent done for cosmetic purposes so to provide an alert expression in guard dogs and to attain the distinctive appearance associated with certain purebred dogs.

doberman
A Doberman with cropped ears and a Doberman with uncropped ears
Dog Breeds With Cropped Ears
Currently, ear cropping is performed in more than 20 dog breeds. Examples of dog breeds with cropped ears include the following:

Doberman pinschers
Miniature pinschers
Boxers
Boston terriers
Brussels griffon
Great danes
Schnauzers
Beauceron
American Pitbull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Cane corso
Caucasian shepherd dog
A Look Back in History
The practice of ear cropping dates back several centuries (dating back to ancient Rome), when dogs were used for work and were performing various tasks that may have predisposed them to ear injuries.

For instance, livestock guardians dogs such as the Caucasian shepherd dog and Maremma sheepdog, traditionally had their ears cropped to protect their ears from wolves and other aggressors. Dogs used in pit fighting sports had their ears cropped to prevent animals from fighting back and grabbing onto the ears.

In dog breeds bred as guardians, ear cropping was often carried out due to the belief that an erect ear was better capable of detecting sounds compared to a floppy ear. There was also belief in the past that cropped ears were less prone to medical complications such as ear infections.

Nowadays, with pit fighting outlawed and most dogs being kept as companions rather than working dogs, the practice of ear cropping is still popular and mostly carried out for cosmetic purposes and to adhere to the breed standard for people showing their dogs in the conformation ring.

Did you know? Victorian era painter Sir Edwin Henry Landseer refused to paint any animal with cropped ears. He considered them as "injured in point of health and beauty." (Source: Leonardo’s Choice: Genetic Technologies and Animals)

cane corso
A Cane Corso with a "battle crop." The ear cropping stems from the olden days when this dog breed was used for hunting and animals could have injured its ears. Today, ears are often cropped short to make the dog look more powerful
Now That You Know...
If you are debating on whether getting your dog's ears cropped, you will quickly find out that this practice is subject to great controversy.

The American Kennel Club (AKC) has released a statement on the subject of ear cropping and tail docking. The organization's statement claims that "ear cropping, tail docking, and dewclaw removal, as described in certain breed standards are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character and/or enhancing good health."

The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), on the other hand, opposes the practice of ear cropping. In a position statement, the organization requests that veterinarians counsel and educate pet owners that this procedure should only be performed when medically necessary. AAHA also advocated for eliminating ear cropping from breed standards.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) as well in a statement opposed ear cropping performed for cosmetic reasons and encourages removal of erect ear requirements in certain breeds from breed standards.

The AVMA also goes on to explain that most dogs with hanging ears will not suffer from infections and that ear conformation is not considered to be a primary cause for the onset of ear infections. Instead, the incidence of ear infections in dogs appears to be mostly associated with certain dog breeds (as often seen in Cocker Spaniels, Poodles, and even German Shepherd Dogs- which have erect ears).

This means that it would be wrong to assume that ear cropping has a medical purpose as there is no evidence to suggest that.

Currently, there are several countries that have introduced legislations that restrict, or even ban ear cropping in dogs. In the United States, the practice remains unrestricted, although in some states, including New York and Vermont, bills to make the practice illegal are being considered.

Whether you should crop your dog's ears or not, therefore, ultimately remains a personal decision (albeit requiring deep thinking about the pros and cons) if the country in which you reside allows it.

Did you know? According to a recent study, dogs with cropped ears and docked tails appear to be negatively perceived by the public. Not only that, this same negative perception appearently carries over to the dog's owners.

Go here to see the photos: https://petmaven.io/whydodogs/breeds/wh ... 5DPwXQaUuQ

I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone would see the mutilated pointy ear as more aesthetically pleasing - clearly the motivation is that it makes the dogs look meaner. A cane corso with cropped ears looks like Satan’s own pet dog - which is probably how Diane Whipple perceived the two that tore her to pieces and took her life.

[Joe Guy]

Years ago San Francisco enacted a city ordinance changing the term "pet owners" to "pet guardians". I think it was to give them legal standing. The ordinance also gave animals the right to vote at age 18 which explains why all of the politicians in SF aren't concerned about poop on the street as much as they are about having as many dog parks as possible.

[rubato]

My dog "poppy" was always my bitch.

yrs,
rubato