CollectA 2013 - American Staffordshire Terrier: Do you want cut ears or natural ears?

I asked in another poll about the colour for the new model being made by CollectA and have learned that some want natural and some want cut ears.

So please take a moment to finalyl decide whether the CollectA 2013 American Staffordshire Terrier should have cut or natural ears.

Here are two sample pics showign the different ear types:

NATURAL EARS:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

CUT EARS:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Numaan, is it only an exercise of curiosity or will CollectA follow our choice? :)

It will be banned in Denmark if it has cut ears..
I think that CollectA should show they are animal friendly and not even consider cut ears.

They should also take out the Doberman with cut ears, and the ones where stupid people cut off the tail !

SUSANNE wrote:

I think that CollectA should show they are animal friendly and not even consider cut ears.

Exactly.

Natural ears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roger wrote:

Numaan, is it only an exercise of curiosity or will CollectA follow our choice? :)

CollectA will follow our choice

xfoxx wrote:

SUSANNE wrote:

I think that CollectA should show they are animal friendly and not even consider cut ears.

Exactly.

This.

But of course it's better to have a toy with cut ears than a real dog... But anyways, the whole idea of cut ears / docked tails is just wrong.

Numaan wrote:

Roger wrote:

Numaan, is it only an exercise of curiosity or will CollectA follow our choice? :)

CollectA will follow our choice

Great!!! So I'll think like a dog and make my choice.

Go for natural ears!!!

Cutting a large part of the ear is no small damage to do to the dog.
The ear is not only skin and cartilage, it is full of blood vessels, muschle and nerves

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Imagine that people do this to dogs, because of some old, mad fashion ( in the case of the "muscel dogs" probably started with cruel dog fights)

Let us leave cutting ears off to Van Gogh, - and that was because he was stark, staring mad
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Definitely cropped. Cropped gives dogs a more regal, noble and alert look for breeds that are cropped(Am Staffs, American Pit Bulls, Dobermans, Manchester Terriers, Great Danes, Boxers, Briards, Beaucerons, Brussels Griffons, Affenpinchers, Boston Terriers, German Pinschers, Miniature/Standard/Giant Schnauzers, Bouviers, Dogo Argentinos, Cane Corsos, Neopolitan Mastiffs, and Min Pinschers. Putting all "emotions" aside, can you really say aesthetically uncropped looks better than cropped? Sorry, sincerely don't want to offend anyone, but I'll never be a fan of uncropped(Plus, probably better air flow to ear canals and probably better for hearing(Not having floppy ears) and I can't think of one wild animal with floppy ears like a Labrador).

As I said, I'm always for cropped ears but I haven't started breeding these dogs because of their ears. A good dog is a good dog, no matter if it's cropped or not. Of course, there are certain styles of uncropped ears, and not all are excepted...

If it's uncropped, the best looking ear is definitely rose-ear


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Oooooh ! I LOVE the rose-ears

That is the most beautyful of them all

I VOTE FOR ROSE-EARS !!!!!

It is like in your avatar ! Why did I not think of that

Damn it, not another voting

skysthelimit wrote:

Damn it, not another voting

Yes ! Of course

That is why it is so hard to make market research, - to find the right questions to ask is darned difficult

For me it's hard to put emotion aside, I'm sorry Balti, I also don't want to offend You!
However I do have different opinion in this topic. It's shame to hurt the animals! I would never cut ears or tail of my own dog or cat or horse, I would cry seeing how he/she suffer And this remind me that in the past also some people also cut tails in some horse's breeds, that's really sad.

Imagine that someone wants to cut people fingers cause this looks better Actually we people also don't need the smallest finger in feet, this wouldn't change much if someone cut it, it doesn't help in walking. And in some cultures indeed people hurt themselves or their daughters and sons to look "more attractive" but isn't sick?

In case of dogs, if so many people find them nicer looking with short ears why not to breed another version of the breed, with natural standing, shorter ears I suppose it would be several dogs' generations and effect would be reached...

About esthetic, it is just a matter of taste. For me for example the most beautiful from all dogs are wolves. Nature made them successful and intelligent predators and they are very beautiful animals.

Just because something "looks good" doesn't give humans the right to cut pieces off of another living creature. Cropping ears is illegal in many countries, and there's a reason for that.

Certain shape of ears may please one's eye if one's used to them looking like that, so I'm not saying it would be wrong to find the cut version pretty and normal-looking. But just because something has been that way for a long time or there's a habit of doing things in a certain way it doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't cut pieces off of a puppy's ear no more than I would of a human baby's.

Breeding dogs to have floppy ears or some other unhealthy feature might have been wrong in the first place. (I'm very skeptical about breeding in total, not just because of health issues, but that's a totally different and long story. This goes also for dachshunds, even though I'm used to them and I find them cute and have even helped in taking care of my mom's puppies.) I think nature has a way of correcting things, but in many cases people are making it very difficult by making choices that nature never would.

This was my opinion and not meant to offend anyone

ana wrote:

Imagine that someone wants to cut people fingers cause this looks better Actually we people also don't need the smallest finger in feet, this wouldn't change much if someone cut it, it doesn't help in walking.

That's not a good example, humans' fingers are at the same level but dogs' claws aren't. Indeed, dew claw is loose in the air, with no contact with the ground, and gets hurt sometimes very bad...

skysthelimit wrote:

ana wrote:

Imagine that someone wants to cut people fingers cause this looks better Actually we people also don't need the smallest finger in feet, this wouldn't change much if someone cut it, it doesn't help in walking.

That's not a good example, humans' fingers are at the same level but dogs' claws aren't. Indeed, dew claw is loose in the air, with no contact with the ground, and gets hurt sometimes very bad...

I was thinking more about cutting ears and tails not dew claw. If cutting dew claws has purpose to help the animal and save from suffering, then I agree :)

Cutting dew claws is prohibited in Denmark, too.

There was a lot of discussion, - sometimes it sounded like all dogs would hang themselves and tear the claws off.
But asking the vets, it turned out that almost nobody had ever seen a case of damaged dew claws. Why should they? Wild canines do not get damaged from the dew claws

The same with the discussion about cutting the tails off the poor critters.
Everybody pro-cutting howled that the dogs would smash their tails when they wagged.
What they could not explain was, why Spaniels would, and not setters..for instance
( A spaniel with long, graceful tail is BEAUTYFUL, btw.)

Now cutting of ears, tails and dew claws has been banned for several years here, and no dogs get harmed from neither dew claws nor long tails. And their hearing is excellent even with long ears

So, I guess Amstaffs are banned in some countries so their ears wouldn't be cropped...

If dogs could talk what do you think they'd say to having parts of their ears cut off?

skysthelimit wrote:

So, I guess Amstaffs are banned in some countries so their ears wouldn't be cropped...

Yes, these dogs are banned [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ...in theory.
But people get cheap Amstafs and pitbulls from Poland etc., and claim they are crossbred, so all the nasty guys can get one, - giving the dogs a seriously bad reputation

But lots of other dogs, doberman, boxer etc are here with their ears and tails and claws intact.

I think it took a couple of years for some to get used to it, - and now most Danes ( even the breeders) are horrified when they see pictures a poor dog, where humans have cut parts of him off, only because of some ancient, cruel fashion

Yes, Harriet, and we who love them, should listen to them, even if they can not talk !!!!

SUSANNE wrote:

skysthelimit wrote:

So, I guess Amstaffs are banned in some countries so their ears wouldn't be cropped...

Yes, these dogs are banned [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ...in theory.
But people get cheap Amstafs and pitbulls from Poland etc., and claim they are crossbred, so all the nasty guys can get one, - giving the dogs a seriously bad reputation

In Poland there are some breeds for which one needs a special permission to get such dog (no breed is banned here) - but it concerns only purebred dogs with papers documenting their descent. But the true problem are in fact those "cheap" dogs with no documented origin - they often come from so called pseudobreeders who care only about money from pups, and don't care whether those dogs will have a good psyche or they will be somehow psychically unbalanced.
And cutting/docking is forbidden since 1997 but people still do this, apparently no one really controls it.

HKHollinstone wrote:

If dogs could talk what do you think they'd say to having parts of their ears cut off?

This remembers me of a quote from Black Beauty by Anna Sewell:

Quote :

Why don't they cut their own children's ears into points to make them look sharp? Why don't they cut the end off their noses to make them look plucky? One would be just as sensible as the other. What right have they to torment and disfigure God's creatures?

I'm against cutting ears and docking tails (of dogs, horses or whichever other animal) only for "good" look. Especially dog breeds - humans have interfered in their looks enough (just look at e.g. the Pekinese, they are totally dependant on humans), they don't need further "modifying".
The only cases of cutting ears/docking tails are health reasons (accidents, serious parasitic illnesses).

Cutting off dew claws is almost like cutting off a finger - there's a bone inside!
My dog has an additional, the fifth, claw on one of his hind legs - it is connected with the leg only by skin and some connective tissue, there's no bone inside. A vet wanted to cut it off but when she saw he has it only on one leg, she didn't do it - if there was such claw on other hind leg, these claws could catch one another while walking or running, and it could even end up with lacerations.
He's been living with this claw for over 11 years now and he's never been injured because of this.

He does have a docked tail - but that's how we got him, my parents chose the pup. I remember how much trouble he had with the scar - it was itching him really bad (even though it was completely healed), maybe even causing him some minor pain, sometimes I thought he would bite it off!

Funny thing is that the Great Pyrenees have double dew claws on both hindlegs
It does not seem to bother them

I just checked my dogs...the two gazehounds do not have dew claws on the hindlegs at all