Tried Carmen the Spanish Water Dog at my mum and dad's and not a single reaction to it and actually none to me bringing my finger closer.  She does have a sight issue so you would in reality expect her to be more sensitive but nope nothing.

The DW poll is flawed as is all of this in my eyes. I don't trim my SHOW DOGS I clip the whole of my dogs coats including whiskers, legs, feet, tail everything to the same length.

Just tried it with the nearest one on the sofa..yes she blinks when her whisker is tapped. But she now thinks Im nuts!

Tried it on the pup and she does blink if I tap her whiskers, every time. If her eyes are shut she still kind of squeezes her eye more shut....If I just bring my finger up to her face but do not tap she does not blink. she now thinks I am even more nuts that she thought before...
and has gone back to sleep.
Aileen

Just a general reply to the whole thread as there were several bits to reply to.  I have heavily bearded terriers that are stripped for show coat, clipped for most pet coats but in both cases are left with rather impressive beards, in fact thats the only part of them not stripped, scissored or clipped.  One dog I clip, the other strip.  For both dogs the beard is such that it completely covers the whiskers so you can't see them and you'd have to dig around a bit to find them.  They've never displayed any obvious sensory problems.  I couldn't find the whiskers to do the tap test I'm afraid.

I had to cut a whisker once, it grew in curls around the hair in the bottom of the beard and despite daily brushing caused severe knots and matts.  I was going to keep that whisker short for comfort so she didnt have to keep having her beard brushed for matts but it seemed unnecessary as it grew back straight.  It would appear that the curling whisker caused matts that then caused the whisker to curl, a vicious circle.  Oh and that was in the clipped girl that has never been in a show (unless you're including prettiest bitch and most appealing eyes at the local fair?).  So sometimes I think it is necessary but for most of the time I never notice whiskers on dogs so wonder if the judges do to?  If a dog has its muzzle clipped I see no issue with the whiskers being done too.

Also to the poster that questioned stripping, my girl falls asleep during her strips and has never shown any issues with having the hair removed that way, in fact, due to the sleep I think she finds it relaxing.  They also need ear plucking regularly and both accept having it done. (I usethe word accept as I don't believe they enjoy it but will lay still for it).  The little finger covers that look like condoms are called finger cots and havetwo purposes, to provide grip of the hair and protect the ends of my fingers as pulling out wiry dog hair for an hour causes painful finger tips.  The dog thats stripped needs less baths as any mud and dirt just brushes out when dry but clings to the clipped girl, her fur tangles less as its thicker, harsher and straighter and provides her with better wind and rain protection as clipping alters the texture of the coat, causing the loss of the protective outer coat leaving just the soft undercoat. I hope that doesn't sound too aggressive, thats not my intention, I just wanted to dispel some myths and improve knoledge.

So, what does everyone think of the article now its out?

For my part - well the article goes into great depth about how whiskers are a sensory tool and useful and for some dogs, crucial - but then I don't think anyone ever argued differently on here. Though the tapping the whiskers test I think demonstrated (anecdotal of course) that not ALL dogs react the same way and likely some rely on them less and cope better without than others (and I would think most dogs rely on them less than a blind dog, which is the articles main example!).

I thought the thread here demonstrated that the vast majority did not remove whiskers, recognised whiskers as important and where dogs had to be stripped/clipped etc, did try their best to retain whiskers.

That isnt the image given in the article of course, so I would LOVE to know where the actual evidence is for a growing practice of whisker removal, and widespread 'abuse' ... or did she just make that up in her head?

I haven't read the article yet but I asked some friends of mine in America (where whisker removal is more common) whether they felt it made a difference to the dogs. No one said it seemed to make a jot of difference whether the whiskers were there or not ( some of these are pet/agility dogs as well as show). The dogs could function just as well without and trimming them didn't seem to upset them at all.

Just because something is present dosn't acatually mean it still serves a major purpose. I don't think dogs' whiskers generally speaking are as important as cats, or seals (which they use to detect fish movements in a murky underwater world.) Horses have whiskers too yet I believe these are often trimmed?

Just a further thought - I would bet there are FAR FAR more pet dogs, crossbred dogs, that have NEVER seen the inside of a show ring, that routinely have everything shaved off every six weeks by the sheep shearing type of groomers, including whiskers. Not only that but I bet it has never crossed either the owners or the groomers minds that they are shaving off potentially important sensory tools.

Ahhh but what pet dog owners do without thinking, in ignorance, because theres no reason for them to learn anything about dogs... thats not news.

LOL tried it with one of mine, no blinking, he just tried to lick my finger every time. Must tell his breeder he is not up to standard.

"I would LOVE to know where the actual evidence is for a growing practice of whisker removal, and widespread 'abuse' ... or did she just make that up in her head?"

Taken from the Kennel Club's own position statement on the issue, as follows:

Issue Statement - Removal of dogs' whiskers (Vibrissae)

The Kennel Club is aware that the removal of dogs' whiskers (vibrissae) is carried out by owners of some specific breeds of dog. Whilst there appears to be no clear scientific evidence that this causes harm or discomfort to the dog in the same way that it has been shown to affect some rodents, there are those who believe that it may be detrimental to dogs.

The practice of removing coat - and thereby whiskers - from the muzzles of Poodles and some other breeds has long been carried out in the interests of hygiene and is now commonly performed by groomers of such breeds as Shih Tzu, Bichon Frise and Lhasa Apso for the same reason.

The Kennel Club is concerned however that the practice seems to be becoming more common in 'clean faced' breeds. The Kennel Club does not believe that any breed should have its whiskers shaved for purely cosmetic reasons and urges owners not to carry out this practice on dogs for any purpose other than cleanliness.

And as it appeared in the piece itself:

"... last December the Kennel Club did issue a statement  saying that it did not believe any dog should have its whiskers removed for purely cosmetic reasons, and also expressing  concern that whisker removal was becoming more commonplace in clean-faced breeds." 


Jemima

Why has this subject been dug up again?

> Why has this subject been dug up again?

Because the article is now available to read.

I show but it's never occurred to me to trim whiskers but then my breed isn't smooth coated.  I do think it's been blown out of proportion, are we talking about whisker removal or whisker trimming here? as they are very different things and as somebody said, many, many dog groomers shave the face and muzzle of hairy pet dogs on a daily basis which the dog wouldn't even notice... whisker removal i.e. plucking them out is a different ball game of course.  I don't do it so can't comment.

just tried the blink test with my sleeping 6 month old and I have to say even the tiniest touch whilst she's asleep has made her blink each time.  She is clearly a very sensitive girl (I'm sure she can smell liver cake from the next county, hear the opening of a tin of sardines from at least 6 miles but yet she still regularly runs into the patio doors). 

For the record i don't trim her whiskers - she's perfect to me as she is.  If they poked her in the eyes or got in the way of her enjoyment i'd have to look at the arguments for and against in more detail but they don't. 

I haven't read the article in Dogs Today but did read the Sunday Time's take on the subject, and failed to understand why this appears to be made out to be a show dog issue.  The number of pet dogs who routinely go to the groomers for an "everything off" must far out weigh the number of  show dogs with clipped faces or trimmed whiskers?  Interesting to see the RSPCA quote used the word "mutilation" - talk about emotive language.  Yesterday I clipped the face on  2 year old american cocker without holding on to his head at all as I was having to work 1 handed - surely if is vibrassae/whiskers were as sensitive  as is being insisted upon he would at least have attempted to turn his head or evade the clippers when no supporting hand was keeping his head in place?    Perhaps they are one of those things that centuries ago were vital but with lack of need/use have reduced in importance and sensitivity in many dogs?

I would think dogs who have had them clipped off in the course of a full face clip, since being quite small puppies, will have learned how to manage without them!

I disagree that the KC's press statements regarding the issue are actual evidence of this being a growing problem - that just shows that the KC are trying to ensure they are seen to be doing something just in case - and one can hardly blame them!

Whilst I agree those dogs who have their faces shaved will have the whiskers removed, the whiskers on dogs who have heavily coated faces (as a poodle for example would have if not clipped out) don't appear to be nearly so sensitive anyway, and as I say above, since thats done from mere weeks old the dog will have learned to cope without quite easily.

There IS a growing trend in owners having dogs with coats they either have no interest in managing themselves or DONT know how to manage themselves, and groomers who do not know how to groom in any other way than clipping all off - but this was not touched upon at all which to my mind demonstrates that Jemimas goal with the article was to beat the showing world with yet another stick, and naf all to do with animal welfare!

> But not in the dark. It's thought dogs will, though, because of the vibrissae.

Dogs can see in the dark... or have I missed the meaning?

why does anyone pander to this OP? The attention just fluffs up her ego!

> why does anyone pander to this OP? The attention just fluffs up her ego!

I have wondered for a long time why anyone replies to her . She takes the replies, twists what has been said and uses it against pedigree dog owners/breeders.

>> why does anyone pander to this OP? The attention just fluffs up her ego!

> I have wondered for a long time why anyone replies to her . She takes the replies, twists what has been said and uses it against pedigree dog owners/breeders.

Absolutely  right.

Please keep this civil, you ALL have the option of using the IGNORE button if you find one persons posts particularly irk you

Some of us think the OP has done a lot of damage and she uses this board in her pedigree dog-breeder bashing columns.

Besides, I can't see anyone abusing her in any post here so I would say we are being civil.

I repeat, please just use the ignore button

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL: - MISLEADING JEMIMA HARRISON ARTICLE COST SUNDAY TIMES IN SUBSTANTIAL DEFAMATION DAMAGES PAY OUT!!

'Dog World' and 'Our Dogs' plus other press have this week published paid ads from the Sunday Times apologizing to Anita Bax, whom they've had to pay substantial damages to after they mistakenly attributed Jemima Harrisons accusation that an increasing number of show dogs have their vibrissae 'PLUCKED' out for cosmetic purposes to win competitions, to well respected professional groomer & judge, Mrs. Anita Bax.

Jemima had admitted that the Sunday Times used her article in Dogs Today [July] as their source to the 'plucking' practise on the pedigreedatabase.com forum [http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/bulletins.read?mnr=496967 ]

It is also a fact that Jemima has tampered with the headline & wording or the originating article in Dogs Today for use on her own forum, to alter the slant and tone down the 'plucking' accusation and show dog reference. Please read her ORIGINAL article in Dogs Today [July 2011] and see for yourself the blatant and malicious swipe at doge exhibitors, groomers & breeders, using imagery of a show dog and a rosette, which she is trying to deny in here. Jemima also tries to [not very] cleverly mix in the entirely different practice terms of 'trimming' and 'shaving'. NOT the same thing at all. A very misleading and mixed up article. Jemima is currently refusing to answer increasing calls to ANSWER WHICH SHOW DOG PERSON YOU KNOW WHO PLUCKS THEIR DOGS VIBRISSAE FOR COSMETIC PURPOSES? Will you answer this question please?  

ha! she wont come out of the wood work yet, she will need time to think of an excuse

Tina - you know her so well.

What I and an increasing number of people want to know is what are the Kennel Club are going to do about it? She keeps quoting their statement over vibrissae in a misleading attempt to qualify her accusation over the practice of 'plucking' - when this is an entirely different issue to 'clipping', 'trimming' or 'shaving' - not to mention UNHEARD OF by the most long serving veterans of the world of show dogs!

The Kennel Club do NOT mean 'PLUCKED' in their statement and she knows this[ the Kennel Club need to amend and clarify their statement, as Ms. Harrison continues to thank herself publicly for having got them *cringe* to issue such a statement. She is running circles around their lame press department & Caroline Kisko - and quite frankly it is embarrassing! We pay our membership for their services after all!

I would also be interested to know how other professional dog breeders, exhibitors & groomers think of one of Jemima Harrison's published 'tongue in cheek 'reverse' comparison of dog exhibitors to "a bunch of fruits" and even more insultingly as "a bunch of fiddling paedophiles who have to indulge their guilty pleasure behind closed doors" [J.H.Blog. Monday 16th May 2011].

Come on Kennel Club, where are your teeth? You should tackle these disgraceful slurs & libelous remarks immediately.

I can't believe she made those remarks on her blog disgusting.

It's about time the KC did do something about this woman, we pay enough money to them.

I have never ever once met anyone in the show world who plucks whiskers.  Am I the only one and I've shown for 30 years now?

Not to mention that she likened us to a bunch of racist the type that disapprove of mixed race marriages- which is on today's blog.
She's a awful woman who masquerades as a dog welfare expert but in reality she's a vile tongued fruitbat.

Now, now, don't forget we have to be 'civil' to this particular OP. Otherwise our very own mods will be rushing to her defence!!

Good point esme lol

Esme,
What a pointless comment.
Perhaps you could point out when I did that? Ideally civility should not be one of things mods need to moderate.
Jeff.

By Melodysk (Moderator) Date 02.07.11 18:50 GMT  Please keep this civil, you ALL have the option of using the IGNORE button if you find one persons posts particularly irk you .

I never said it was you personally Jeff. If you look back through this thread you will see for yourself.

You seem to be missing my point.

> You seem to be missing my point.

This is what I replied to:

Perhaps you could point out when I did that?

Sorry but I did not see you name a specific moderator just use the term mods so who could tell who you were referring to?
My point is the ALL the mods endeavour to keep the board civil regardless of who is posting and to whom.
Jeff.

> who could tell who you were referring to?

I guess anyone who read back the previous few posts would be able to tell. And I try not to name people if I can help it, instead I might say 'the OP' or similar.

And yes, I do see your point about all mods trying to keep the board civil. I think the originator of this thread is very capable of defending herself though. It's more the dog-breeders she is having a go at that I feel sorry for ;-)

I would, and do, agree with you but whoever is defending themselves and whether they are capable or not is a separate matter.
Jeff.

i would just like to add that fair reporting is not her cup of tea all night tonight shes moaned on her blog how the FB page was defamotry yet when i asked if that applied to her and her slander of the shar pei owners ofc the comment does not get printed but i think karma will get her and people are begining to see her for wehat she is.

Could I suggest the last few posts re moderating on this forum by members and moderators alike be removed before they appear in the magazine or on her blog? They do make us sound like a bunch odd bods who cannot agree over anything.